IR 05000272/1980008
| ML18082A520 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 04/15/1980 |
| From: | Bettenhausen L, Caphton D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18082A519 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-272-80-08, 50-272-80-8, NUDOCS 8006060109 | |
| Download: ML18082A520 (7) | |
Text
._.-*.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Report N /80-08 Docket N Region I License N DPR-7o Priority -------
Category ___ c ___ _
Licensee:
Public Service Electric ancL Gas Company 80 Park Place Newark, New Jersey 07101 Facility Name:
Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1 Inspection at:
Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey Inspection conducted: March 11--14, 1980 Inspectors:
Approved: by:*
'
L.. H.. Bettenhausen,. Ph.D..,. Reactor* Inspector D.. L. Caphton,. Chief,. Nuclear Support Section No. l,. RO&NS Branch.
Inspection Summary:
Inspection on March ll-14, 1980 (Report No. 50-272/80-08.)
4/§'Bo date signed date: signed*
date'. s.i gned 4-f f 1 S: l s 0° date, signed Areas_ Inspected:
Routine, unannounced. inspection of refueling startup testing including control rod drive operation and position indication, core power distribution, incore/excore detector calibration, reactor* shutdown margin, isothermal temperature coefficient*, power coeffi dent and control rod* worth measurement The inspection involved 33.hours by one NRC region-based inspecto.
Results:
Of the. seven areas inspected:, no items of noncompliance were identified..
Region I Form 12
. (Rev. April 77)
'*
- Persons Contacted J~ Jackson, Engineer
- W. Kittle, QA Staff Engineer
- J. Nichols, Nucl~ar Engineer DETAILS J. Ronafalvy, Senior Performance Supervisor G. Slaby, Engineer
- J. Stillman, Station QA Engineer
- J. Zupko, Chief Engineer
- L *. Norrholm,. USNRC Resident Reactor Inspector The* inspector also contacted other licensee employees in the course of the inspectio *
- denotes those present at the exit interview on March 14, 198..
Startup Testing Following Refueling The startup. test program was conducted according to Salem l Cycle 2. Refueling Test Sequence* CRTS)~ Part 200, Reactor Engineering Manual, Revision 0, dated 10/31 /79 and approved 11 /l /79 with changes. numbered l thru l 0 to the test sequenc The test sequence outlined the steps in the testing. program, set. initial conditions and prerequisites, specified calibration or* surveillance
. procedures at appropriate points in the test sequence, and referenced detailed. test.procedures and data collections in appendice Initial criticality of Cycle 2 was achieved on December* 1, 197 The power* ascension testing was, completed about January 30, 198 A draft startup report to the NRC was being prepared,. but this report. was not ready for review in the course of this. inspectio The inspector 'independently developed a table of predicted* physics test parameters and test result Predicted values were* obtained from 11The Nuclear Design of Salem Unit 1 Power Plant, Cycle IT, WCAP-9497 and an addendum dated September 7, 197 The fospec tor reviewed tests, checks and documents described in this report to verify that the startup testing was conducted in accordance with technically adequate procedures and as required by Technical Specification *
Parameter boron concentration, all rods out isothermal temperature coefficient rod*worth measurements:
- Contra l Bank. D Control B.ank C Control Bank B Control Bank A Sum of Control Banks power coefficient % rated thenna 1 power*
94%,rated thermal power Low Power Physics Tests-1.8
Predicted Value 1084 + so* [ppmB f-6.4 [pcm/F] *
ll.25 + 15% [pcm]
875 549 1098 3647' + 10%. [pcm]
+.30% [pcm/%]
-13. T [pcm/%].
-13. z.
Test Result 1140. [ppmB]
-6.05 [pcm/F].
1041 [pcm]
938 534 1163 3676 [pcm]
The initial criticality was performed and documented in Appendix: A to the RT Criticality was attained at Tavg = 54~. 6F, Control Bank D at 162 steps and an uncorrected boron concentration of 1065' pp The** reactivity computer was checked out with power doubling time measurements after criticalit Boron endpoint determinations for various contra l rod.. insertion com-
. b,inations were performed and documented in Appendix B to the RT These data were used in conjunction with reactivity measurements obtained and documented in Appendix D to evaluate control rod reactivity worths;. comparisons of measured and predicted control rod bank worths were made in the Table of paragraph.:.-
- Isothermal temperature coefficients were measured and documented in accordance with Appendix C to the RT This parameter wa*s measured with~a.ii rods out, with Control Bank D inserted and with Control Banks C and D inserted. Acceptance criteria were met (See Table,
- para 2).
Technical Specification 4. l.1.4.a was met..
An augmented surveillance program was described in.a letter from the licensee to the NRC dated August 3, 197 The purpose of th is augmented survei 11 ance program was to detect the presence* of dropped
- rodlets. The program was based upon.incore flux mapping and analysis for* flux. depression The results. of zero power flux map analysis (Flux maps 173 and 174) were uncertain with respect to presence or absence of dropped. rodl et Sh~tdown control rod bank reactivity worth measurements were made* to verify rod worth These measurements were* made on 12/22-23/79 and documented in Appendix F to the RT Acceptance criteria. were me In addition, this test experimentally verified the shutdown reactivity mar.gin requirements of TS 4. L l. l. The inspector had no further qu*estion No items of noncompliance were identified *. Power Ascension Tests The power ascension test program consisted of incore. flux mapping and analysis at* various power levels and measurements of power coefficient of reactivity at.40% and 94% rated thenna.l powe Power coefficient measurements were made by the methods. of Appendix E to the* RT Measurements were made.at*40% Rated Thermal Power (RTP) on January 3,. 1980 and at 94% RTP later in January,. 198 Results, as*, identified by the; inspector wer:e::
RTP Predicted Measured 40%-
-13~3 + 30% [pcm/%]
-*13. 6T [pcm/%]
94%
-13.8 + 30% [pcm/%]
--13.. 15 [pcm/%]
Results were* satisfactory; acceptance criteria were me *
The incore flux mapping and analysis was done beginning at zero power as previously stated~. Initial operation with Cycle II was outside the F-XY limits.of TS 4.2.2.2.e, but within the limits of F-XY at fractional ra.ted
. powers *as calculated from TS 4.2.2. In accordance with TS 4.2.2.2.d,
. power ascension was accomplished in 20% steps with power distribution maps evaluated at each step. Power ascension *continued in this fashion until power distribution map #185 was taken on January 19, 1980 at 93.6% RT F~
XY computed was top - 1. 6883, bottom - 1. 6849, com pa red to TS 4. 2. 2. 2. c
.values of top -1.671,: bottom l.69 F-Q(Z) was then evaluated in *accordance wtth TS 4.2*.2~2~9 and the fuel vendor was consulted (Letter, Westinghouse
- FP-PS-294~ to. 'Public Service dated January 23, 1980).
The vendor's *further evaluation (Letter, Westinghouse FP-PS-296 to Public Service dated February 8,,1980) provided a method for computing themargin to limits on F-Q(Z).
This method has been in use since* February The. most recent flux and power distribution map analyzed prior to thi inspection was map #187 taken on February 14,. 1980 at 96% RT A surmnary of parameters calculated for map #187 follows:
Parameter*
Calculated TS Limit Fq(Z)
T.814:
2.2944 FNdeTta H T.499T l.5624-Fxy( top)
l.695*
l.65*'
Fxy(bottom)
1.72:.
l.67*'
- TS. sati'sfied* by evaluation offq(Z) be 1 ow 1 imi ting values..
- The inspector* observed: the operation of' tlie incore flux mapping system and the data collection for* Map #188 on March. 14, 198 No items of noncompliance were identifie.
Control Rod* Checks and Tests Control rod drop tests were conducted November 26 and 27, 197 Test conditions were temperature 545 F, pressure 2230 psi, flow rate 100%~ The inspector randomly reviewed oscillographic records of rod. drops, drop time calculations and test dat The maximum drop time to dashpot entry was l ~35 seconds and to dashpot bottom was 1.85 seconds, compared to the seconds to dashpot entry of TS *.
Rod Position -Indication System Calibration was perfonned* under procedure lPD-8 *. 1.003", Rev.2, approved 6/20/7 The calibration was completed 11/30/7 Procedure. l PD-8. l.002, Rev. 3~ approved 6/20/79, Rod Position Indication *
- Signal Conditioning Module Calibration, was also completed ll/30/7 The inspector reviewed the completed. procedure No items of noncompliance were identifie.
Nuclear Instrumentation and Cali bra ti on. *
The*,. RTS included calibrations and checks; of nuclear-instrumentation at various;stages of the test progra The inspector reviewed data and complete procedures for: several of -these calibrations *.
The reactivity computer was setup and calibrated in accordance with PD-l6".4.0l9; Rev.4, approved 9/25/7 This calibration was done initially* on lT/8/7*9 and. repeated on 12/7/7 Comparisons of predicted and measured reactivities based upon doubling* time measurements during low power physics testing (LPPT) were.* good~
Upon comp*l eti on of LPPT,.. work orders were written for the: fo 11 owing tests and.checks:
Channel Functional Test Power-Range, PD-16.2.003, Rev. 4 approved. 8/77,. with Temporary Changes to set va.l ues for Refueling Test Sequence*,. Channel Functional Test, Intermediate Range, PD 16.2.002, Rev. 4, approved 9/77 with TCN T:.l dated. 11/7/79 and Axial Flux Difference. Target Band Calibration, Rev. O, approved 3/7 The channel functional tests were completed. and approved. on December* 3,_ 197 The Axial Flux Differenc Target Band Calibration,. lPD-16.1008, Rev.. O; approved 3/77 was performed as requested by Work Order* 915.510 on December* 7, 197 Incore/excore calibrations were performed at* 40% RTP and again at 94% RT Irr: each cas*e,. flux maps obta.ined: at each of three axial flux differences were ana*lyzed. and. compared to* responses of the excore detectors to develop a calibration curve for each power range detecto The detectors were calibrated according to PD-*16.4.018, Power Range* Detector Current, Rev. l, approved 5/7T, as requested in Work Order* 91552 The cal i bra ti on was completed. during the period. January 4-7,. 1980 on the basis of flux maps obtai.ned at 40%. RT?' on January 1 and 2 198 The procedure was done again January 15-16, 1980 following flux mapping at* 94% RTP on January 11-13, 1980, as. requested in Work Order 91556 The inspector had. no further question No i.tems of noncompliance were identifie..,.li*...
y
.*;
- , Refueling Test Sequence Admi ni strati on The RTS and its appendices and data sheets is a voluminous loose:..
leaf document. _Since the Cycle* II startup report was being prepared, Reactor Engineering staff members were maintaining various portions and data sheets at their work stations. AH necessary data was made available to the inspecto The -inspector-noted that the data and analyses were part of the overall test sequence and, as such,
_the original information should be contained in the master test sequence volum Licensee representatives-agreed to complete the test data, results and review package with completion of the startup
- report;~. this. is an item for-subsequent: i-nspector* fol lowup_ (272/80-08-0l}.,*
The RTS contained. specific. test sequence hold points for review of the, testing program and. results by the Station Operations Review Committee ( SORC). The i-ns pector reviewed the minutes of SORC Meeting* 02-80 held January 4, 1980, SORC Meeting 04-80 held January 18,. 1980, SORC Meeting 05:..30 held January 22, 1980 and SORC Meeting 07-80,_ held. January 30, 198 The purpose of* this revi'ew was. to assure_ that the minutes of the SORC accurately reflected the status of: the. startup testing* sequence *. The inspector* had no further question Examination of the-- Salem Reactor Engineers Manual as the reference for surveillance and evaluation procedures* not specifically covere in-the* RTS or* its Appendices showed-that one part, Part 12*, still contains Cycle I dat Discussions with the engineer who did core power distribution surveillances covered by this part revealed that he* was using the appropriate Cycle-II dat Updating the Reactor Engineer-1s Manual, Part 12, with Cycle-II data is-considered-an u.nresolved: item (272/80-08-02)..
--
8~
Unresolved Items Unreso 1 ved: i terns are those i terns for which -further i nfarma tion is
. required to detennine whether they are acceptable or items of noncomplianc An unresolved item is contained_ in Paragraph 6 abov.
Exit Interview The inspector met with 1 icensee. representatives (denoted in paragraph l) at the conclusion of the inspection on March* 14, 198 At this meeting, the inspector suminari zed the scope and findings of the inspection as they are detailed in this report.