IR 05000254/1986007

Safety Insp Repts 50-254/86-07 & 50-265/86-07 on 860331- 0404.No Violation or Deviation Noted.Major Areas Inspected: Previous Insp Findings,Crd,Shutdown Margin Demonstration & Initial Criticality

ML20203N934
Person / Time
Site:	Quad Cities
Issue date:	05/01/1986
From:	Rescheske P, Ring M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20203N931	List: IR 05000254/1986007 ML20203N929
References
50-254-86-07, 50-265-86-07, NUDOCS 8605060229
Download: ML20203N934 (4)

Text

.

.

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION III

Reports No. 50-254/86007(DRS); 50-265/86007(DRS)

Docket Nos. 50-254; 50-265 Licenses No. DPR-29; DPR-30 Licensee: Comonwealth Edison Company P.O. Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 Facility Name: Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2 Inspection At: Cordova, IL Inspection Conducted: March 31 through April 4,1986 GAc] 8/l/ /} N Inspector: P. R. Rescheske

~Date N -(

Approved By: M. A. Ring, Chief 5/s /r Test Programs Section Date Inspection Summary Inspection on March 31 thr_ough Ap_r_tli 4 198_6JRepo_rt_s_

7 No. 50-44/8600_7(DRS)_and 50-265/86077(DRS))

Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced, safety inspection of previous inspection findings, control rod drive performance testing, shutdown margin demonstration, and initial criticalit Results: Of the four areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identifie PDR ADOCK 05000254 G PDR

- _-______ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _

L

.

.

DETAILS 1. Persons Contacted

• R. L. Bax, Station Manager

• D. Gibson, Quality Assurance Supervisor

• J. Hoeller, Lead Nuclear Engineer

• N. Kalivianakis, CECO Corporate Office

• M. Kooi, Compliance Coordinator

• J. Kopacz, Technical Staff Supervisor

• T. Tamlyn, Production Superintendent E. Weinfurter, Nuclear Engineer The inspector also interviewed other licensee personnel during the course of the inspectio * Denotes persons attending the exit meeting on April 4, 1986.

2. Action on Previous Inspec_ tion Findings (Closed) Violation (50-265/85023-01(DRS)): A number of procedures were inappropriate for performing the required test during the Unit 2 startup. The licensee has revised the following procedures and data sheets to correct the deficiencie Data Sheet QTS 1512-S1, Revision 3, " Low Power APRM Calibration" Procedure Q0S 700-6, Revision 7, "APRM High Flux (Heat Balance)

Calibration Test," and Data Sheets Q0S 700-S4 (deleted) and QOS 700-56 (deleted) Procedure QTS 130-1, Revision 8, " Control Rod Timing and Position Indication Check," and Data Sheet QTS 130-S1 (Revision 7) Procedure QTP 1106-2, Revision 2, " Initial In-Sequence Criticality Estimate Evaluation," and Data Sheet QTP 1106-53 (Revision 2) Checklist QTP 1600-S8, Revision 2, " Flow Control Line Determination" In addition, the following procedures and the associated data sheets were revised in response to concerns identified by the inspector or the licensee:

QTS 1311-1, Revision 9, " Full Core LPRM Calibration" QTS 1311-3, Revision 3, " Individual LPRM Detector Calibration" QTS 1311-4, Revision 4, " Bypassing LPRMs" QTS 1512-1, Revision 8, " Nuclear Engineer's Method for APRM Calibration"

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .

-

.

QTS 130-3, Revision 9, " Control Rod Friction and Settle Testing" QTS 1300-1, Revision 8, " Operating Rod Inventory Comparison for Reactivity Anomaly Surveillance" QTP 1110-1, Revision 3, "IRM Performance Check" The inspector noted that the majority of the procedural deficiencies had resulted from the licensee's failure to incorporate changes necessitated by a: process computer change out and inattention to detail during the procedure review process. The inspector reviewed the above mentioned procedures and data sheets, and found them satisfactory. Licensee corrective actions appeared to be both timely and effective. The inspector has no further concerns in this are No violations or deviations were identifie . Control Rod Drive Performance Testing The inspector reviewed the following procedures and test results for the testing of the control rod drives prior to Unit 1 startup and found them acceptabl Procedure QTS 130-1, " Control Rod Timing and Position Indication Check," and Data Sheet QTS 130-51, " Control Rod Timing Data Sheet,"

completed on April 2,198 Procedure QTS 130-3, " Control Rod Friction and Settle Testing," and Data Sheet QTS 130-S2, " Friction / Settle Test Data Sheet," completed on February 28, 198 Procedure QTS 130-4, " Control Rod Scram Timing," and Data Sheet QTS 130-S7," CRD Scram Timing Data Sheet at Zero Reactor Pressure,"

completed on April 2,198 Procedure Q0S 300-6, " Control Rod Coupling Integrity Overtravel Check," and Data Sheet QOS 300-S1, " Control Rod Surveillance Sheet,"

corrpleted on February 27, 198 No violations or deviations were identifie . Shutdown Margin Demonstration The inspector reviewed procedure QTS 1104-1, " Shutdown Margin Subcritical Demonstration," used by the licensee to satisfy the Technical Specification surveillance requirement 4.3.A.1 subsequent to the Unit 1, Cycle 9, core load. The inspector also reviewed information contained in the Cycle 9 Startup Package provided by the General Electric Company. The licensee performed a local shutdown margin (SDM) demonstration on April 3, 1986, using the 3 rod diagonally adjacent subcritical method. The inspector witnessed the test and verified that the prerequisites and initial conditions were satisfied. The results of the test indicated that the

.. .

reactor remained subcritical with the strongest worth control rod fully withdrawn, a diagonally adjacent rod fully withdrawn, and another diagonally adjacent rod at notch position 20. The inspector observed that with this rod pattern and the predictive data supplied by GE, the Technical Specification limit of 1.143% A k (at 68 F) was satisfied (NOTE: Technical Specification SDM = 0.25% A k + R + Settling Penalty, where R is 0.853%

A k and the Settling Penalty is 0.04% 6 k). The inspector reviewed the test approval sheet QTS 1104-S3, the data sheets QTS 1104-S1 and QTS 1104-S2, and the control rod maneuver sheets QTP 1600-S4, and verified that the data was properly recorded and reviewed. In addition, the inspector verified that the procedure and the methodology was technically adequate and in accordance with Technical Specification '

No violations or deviations were identifie . Initial Criticality The inspector reviewed procedure QTP 1106-2, " Initial In-Sequence Criticality Estimate Evaluation," used by the licensee to evaluate the acceptability of the analyzed critical control rod pattern for the initial Unit I startup subsequent to refueling outage number 8. The inspector witnessed the approach to critical on April 4,1986, and verified that Technical Specification requirement 4.3.E was satisfied. This requirement states that the reactivity difference between the actual critical rod configuration and the expected configuration (from GE data) shall not exceed 1.0% 6 k. The inspector reviewed the data sheets QTP 1106-S1 and QTP 1106-S3 used to document the test, and verified that the data was recorded properly, that the calculations were accurate, and that the methodology was technically adequat No violations or deviations were identifie . Exit Interview The inspector met with the licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1) on April 4, 1986. The inspector sumarized the scope and findings of the inspection. The licensee acknowledged the statements made by the inspector with respect to the noted concerns. The inspector also discussed the likely informational content of the inspection report with regard to documents or processes reviewed by the inspector during the inspectio The licensee did not identify any such documents / processes as proprietar