IR 05000265/1978030
| ML19263B969 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Quad Cities  |
| Issue date: | 12/19/1978 |
| From: | Chow E, Creswell J, Streeter J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19263B966 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-265-78-30, NUDOCS 7901260134 | |
| Download: ML19263B969 (4) | |
Text
,
.
L'. S. NL'CI. EAR REGl'I.A'10RY COMMI SSI ON OFFICE OF INSPLCTION AND LNFORCEMENT RLGION III Report No. 50-265/78-30 Docket No. 50-265 I.icense No. DPR-30 1.icensee:
Commonwea1t h Ed ison Company Post office liox 767 Chicago, IL 60690 Facility Name: Quad-Cities Nuclear l'ower Statioti, 1:n i t 2 Inspection At Quad-Cities Site, Cordova, IL Inspection Conducted:
November 15-17, 1978 I t'.l y..-
-
.
I.-
's
Inspectors-E.
Chow iSh,::.~ y c
. M/ IT J.
S.
Creswell
. - -. -
.-
kJ Etii 7
-,
Approved By-J.'F.
Streeter, Chief
'^I'2.0//I
.
.
Nuclear Support Section ]
Inspection Surmary I n. spec t i on_ on Novembe_r _15,-l 7, _19 78_ ( Repo r t No. 50-265/78-30)
Areas _ Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of core power dis-tribution limits; calibration of local power rimge monitors (LPRM);
calibration of average pow.
range monitors (APRM); determination of
..
reactor shutdown margin; review of return of plant equipment to oper-ation following ref uelir.g.
The inspection involved 32 inspector-hours onsite by two NRC inspectors.
_Re_stt t_s_:
Of the five areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or l
deviations were identified in four areas; one iten of noncompliance was identified in one area - (Infraction - failure to follow proceJurt
- Paragraph 2).
7 9 012 6 014 3M
.
.
D.E.T.A_l_l_S 1.
Pe r_so n s _Co n_t a c t e d
- N.
Kalivianakis, Superintendent
- L.
Cerner, Technical Staff Supervisor
- B.
Palagi, Keactor Engineer
- J.
lleilman, QA Engineer R.
Bax, Operating Engineer
- Denotes those present during the exit interview.
2.
Core Power Distribution Limits Tho inspectors reviewed the results of the calculations perforetd by the CE process computer on-demand (OD) programs and the periodi<
core evaluation program (P1).
The inspectors verified that the transversing incore probe (TIP) machint normalization factors were properly obtained for all machines, and the TIP data for all LPM 1 locations were accepted by the process computer.
The inspectors observed a printout of t he program OD.6, opt ion 4, dated N rch 12, 1978, when the reactor was at 620 MWTh.
The core maximum peaking factor (CMPF) was determined to be 3.996 which was above the Technical Specification value of 3.03 for the liniting total peaking factor.
'Ihe APIO! setpoints were verified to have been adjusted as specified in the Technical Specifications.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
3.
Ca_1 I b ra t i o n o f___LP g]
The inspectors reviewed the data associated with the calibration of LPRMs during power ascension following the refueling outage.
A review of the calibration currents for the LPlots showed significant errors and abnormally high and low gain adjustment factors (GAF)
for certain LPleis.
The data indicating significant errors are shown below:
Error between the previous and the present calibration currents
.LP PJ:--
3./13/78- - - -
4/4/7_8 5/23/76
- - - -
--
4 0-2 5-A-66.51 22.7%
6.9E 5 6-2 5-C-63.32 3.21 12?
-2-
.
.
48-41-B-922 26.8%
-29; 8-33-A 472-7.97 22.7:
40-17-C-28.85 20.7%
5.7?
On April 18, 1978, the licensee noted that the process computer was indicating a minimum critical power ratio (MCPR) in excess of the Technical Specification limit.
A TIP trace was taken for the gffected string. The TIP trace showed a value of approximately 50,w/cm' for String 40-17 at Level C versus an LPRM reading of 73 w/ct'.
When the TIP trace adjusted value was used in the MCPR calculatien, a reduction in MCPR below the Technical Specification limits was noted.
Cali-bration records shown above indicated that 'arge corrections were required for Detector 40-17-C and that it appeared to be drifting.
A review of OD-1 results dated March 13, 1978, s'4 owed that for Detector 40-17-A, theJIPreadingwas44.47w/ce'andthedetector reading was 57.53 w/cm. Procedure QTS 1311-4, Rev. 2, " Bypassing LP RMs, " requires bypassing of an LPRM when the difference between the TIP and the LPRM readings are greater than (120 - TIP reading)/10.
Since the above calculation resulted in a difference of 13.06 which was greater than the bypassing value of 7.6, the LPRM should have been bypassed until it stabilized.
It should be noted that several LPRMs showed evidence of drifting most Itkely caused by seal failures.
In addition, the erroneous MCPR calculation indicated the effect that the drifting LPRMs could have on core thermal margin determination and the need for their being bypassed.
Technical Specification 6.2.A.7 requires surveillance procedures such as QTS 1311-4 be followed.
Not bypassing LPRM 40-17-C as required by Procedure QTS 1311-4 is considered to be an item of noncompliance of the Infraction level.
Calibration of APRM The inspectors reviewed printouts of Program CD-3 which dealt with the calibration of the APRMs and noted that the operating conditions of the reactor during the calibration were maintained at steady state conditions.
The inspectors verified that the Technical Specification surveil-lance requirements were met; however, some of the APRM gain adjustment factors (AGAF) were unconservatively high during the startup period.
The licensee agreed that the AGAFs should have been reduced for conservatism.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
-3-
.
5.
Determination of Reactor Shutdown Margin _
The inspectors examined the information relating to the face-adjacent S RM da t a, the face-adjacent control rod sequence, and the control rod maneuver review.
The inspectors verified that the shutdown ma gin was about 1.1% Ak for the final control rod pattern with Rod bl4 withdrawn to notch 6. Rod 1113 (the highest worth rod) fully withdrawn, and the remainder of the control rods fully inserted.
Since the shutdown margin of 1.1% Ak was much larger than the 0.3% Ak required for this cycle, the inspectors concluded that the reactor shutdown margin with the final control rod pattern was acceptable for this operating cycle.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
6.
Review of Plant Op_e ra t i on The inspectors examined the out of service sheets which contained the checkoff lists for the systens disturbed or tested during the refueling outage. The inspectors also examined the equipment outage sheets and the valve checklist work sheets and traced through the P and 1D to ensure the information relating to the valve checklist work sheets were valid.
The inspectors noted that the checkoff lists were in error in showing some valve positions.
The licensee stated that the checkoff lists would be modified by the next refueling outage.
No valves were noted to be out of position as evidenced by the second-level review performed by the licensee.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
7.
Exit Interview The inspectors et with licensee representatives (denoted in Para-graph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on November 17, 1978.
The inspectors summarized the purpose, scope, and findings of the inspection.
-4-