IR 05000272/1981010

IE Safety Insp Rept 50-272/81-10 on 810414-16.No Noncompliance Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Followup on Previously Identified Items & Cycle 3 Refueling Startup Testing of Control Rod Drive Operability

ML18086A675
Person / Time
Site:	Salem
Issue date:	05/04/1981
From:	Bettenhausen L, Caphton D, Chung J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML18086A674	List: IR 05000272/1981010
References
50-272-81-10, NUDOCS 8106160052
Download: ML18086A675 (9)

Text

...

U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Report N /81-10 Docket N REGION I License N DPR-70

---

Priority -----

Category -----

c Licensee:

Public Service Electric and Gas Company 80 Park Place Newark New Jersey 07101 Fae il i ty Name:

Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1 Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey Inspection At:

Inspection Conducted:

April 14-16, 1981

~~---~-----------

Inspectors: ;;:Lg:/~~

Approved by:

J. W. Chung, Ph.D., Reactor Inspector c4_.4~

L. H. Betterrhausen, Ph.D., Reactor Inspector D~ti::gram Section, Engineering Inspection Branch s/#8/

date

• S"/4/frl date date sf~/

Inspection Summary:

Inspection on April 14-16, 1981 (Report No. 50-272/81-10)

Areas Inspected:

Routine, unannounced inspection of follow-up on previous inspector-identified items; Cycle 3 Refueling Startup Testing of Control Rod Drive Operability, Position Indication and Reactor Coolant RTD Calibration; Post-Critical Startup Tests; SORC Consideration of Reload and Startup Testing; Cycle 3 Startup Test Report Review; and Control Room and facility tour The inspection involved 32 inspector-hours onsite by two region-based inspector Region I Form 12 (Rev. April 1977)

• DETAILS Persons Contacted Principal Licensee Employees

• • S. LaBruna, Maintenance Engineer J. D. Driscoll, Chief Engineer J. Jackson, Reactor Engineer

• M. F. Metcalf, Lead Engineer, QA T. R. Robbins, Supervisor, I&C

• J. P. Ronafalvy, Senior Supervisor

• W. Schell, Reactor Engineer R. J. Schmidt, Staff Engineer (General Physics)

USN RC

• W. Hill, Resident Inspector The inspector also contacted other licensee employees during the inspection, including Reactor Operato~s, performance and administrative personne **Acting Plant Manager at the Exit Intervie **Denotes those present at the Exit Intervie.

Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Inspector Follow Item (80-01-01):

The Cycle 2 Startup Report was being prepared and the original information and data/analyses be included in the master test sequence volum The inspector verified by review of the following documents that the Cycle 2 Startup Test Report had been issued and the master test sequence package contained all necessary data informatio Salem Generating Station, Unit 1, Cycle 2 Startup Test Report Cycle 2 Refueling Test Sequence, December 3, 1980 Minutes of SORC 80-07, January 30, 1980 Unit 1, Cycle II/III Refueling Procedure, October 1980 The inspector had no further questions and this item is close *

(Closed) Unresolved Item (80-08-02):

The Reactor Engineer's Manual, Part 12, contains Cycle I dat The inspector verified by review of the Master Copy that the Reactor Engineering Department Manual has been revised twice *since the last inspection. A licensee representative stated that Revision 4-to the manual was issued on April 23, 1980 to update the figures 2 through 12 of part 12 with Cycle II data and subsequently new Revision 5 was implemented on December 17, 1980 to eliminate the requirements of duplicating data, already documented in the S~quencing_ pack~ge. The Revision 5 of the manual has deleted figures 2 through 12 in the part 12 and added a new figure, Power Sharing Ratio, Cycle III. This item is close.

Cycle III Startup Testing - Precritical Tests The inspectors reviewed selected calibration and functional test programs to verify the following:

Procedures were provtded with detailed stepwise instructions; Instruments and calibration equipment used were traceable to the National Bureau of Standards; 11As Found 11 and "As Left 11 conditions were recorded; Acceptance and operability criteria were observed in accordance with the Technical Specifications; Technical content of procedures was sufficient to result in satisfactory component calibration and test; Work Order was issued and corrective actions were taken if the test was not acceptabl The following tests were reviewed:

(1)

Rod Position Indication Rod Position Indication Functional Test was performed on November 17, 1980 under Performance Procedure lPD-8.2.002, Revision 1, September 25, 198 The Rod Position Indication Cable Checks were also completed on November 25, 1980 using Procedure lPD-8.2.001, Revision 0, May 8, 1979, during which a defective cable was identifie Subsequently, Work Order #91633 was issued and the defective cable was replaced with a new on *

(2)

Reactor Coolant RTD Cross Calibration Reactor Coolant RTD was cross-calibrated against thermocouples on December 19, 1980 in accordance with the Channel Sensor Calibration Procedure lPD-2.5.001, Revision 2, November 28, 1977~

The inspector noted that the channel sensor calibration procedure used was overdu This problem of unreviewed procedures has been recognized previousl This area will be discussed further in item 4.c. (1).

The inspector determined that the calibration results were satisfactory and the use of an. unreviewed procedure did not affect the safety of the plant operatio No other unacceptable conditions were identifie.

Cycle 3 Startup Testing - Post-critical Tests The inspectors reviewed selected test programs to verify the follow-ing:

The test programs were implemented in accordance with Cycle 3 Refueling Sequencing Procedures; Step-wise instructions of test procedures were adequately provided including Precautions, Limitations and Acceptance Criteria in conformance with the requirements of the Technical Specifications; Provisions of recovering from anomalous conditions were provided; Methods and calculations were clearly specified and the tests were performed accordingly; Review, Approval, and Documentation of the results were in accordance with the requirements of the Technical Specifi-cations and the licensee's administrative controls; The following programs *were reviewed:

(1)

Core Thermal Power Evaluation The licensee's procedure, Reactor Engineering Manual, Part 2, Calorimetric Calculation, Revi*sion 12, approved January 14, 1981, was reviewed for technical adequacy, which includes:

Correct *nits and physical properties were used;

Initial conditions were met; Steam Generator blowdown is adequately accounted for; No special test instruments were used for this evaluatio Calculations for several determinations were reviewed and cross-checked with independent calculations by the inspecto Daily Calorimetrics for the period December 29, 1980 to January 28, 1981 were reviewe * No unacceptable conditions were identifie (2)

Isothermal Temperature Coefficient of Reactivity The temperature coefficient was determined by the test described below to be negative as required by T.S. 3.1.1.1. at hot, zero power, all rods out conditio The test was conducted in accordance with the procedure specified in Reactor Engineering Manual, P~rt 16, Isothermal Temperature Coefficient Determination, Revision 0, approved December 4, 1980, with appropriate precaution The plant conditions during testing were those specified in the reload analysi The inspector had no further question (3) Target Axial Flux Difference Target Axial Flux Difference Measurements were performed by the methods detailed in the Reactor Engineering Manual, Part 8, Revision 8, approved November 25, 198 The inspector reviewed the following procedure and calibration results completed by the Performance Department:

P. D. Recal. W.O. #920968, completed January 14, 1981 P. D. Recal. W~O. #920986, completed March 19, 1981 lPD-16.1.008, Axial Flux Difference Target Band Calibration, Revision 0, January 20, 1977 The results were:

., ~

'

'

/

e

Burnu~ 2 MWDLMTU Core Cycle III T.S. Due*

Com~leted\\

~ Date TAFD 100(% power)

500 1313 l/14/81

- /3/81-1. 6 4490 2225 1322 3/15/81

- The measurements and calibration results were satisfactory and were in conformance with the Technical Specifications 4.2. and 4. 2. 1. 4. *

• Technical Specifications specify 92 EFPD, which is equivalent to 3469 MWD/MT (4)

Incore/Excore Detector Calibration Cross-calibration of axial offsets between Excore and Incore detectors were obtained in accordance with the calibration procedure in Reactor Engineering Manual, Part 7, 11 Incore-Excore Flux Difference Calibration", Revision 5, November 5, 197 The initial flux map and the excore calibration data on December 31, 1980 and calibration results completed February 28, 1981 were reviewed, in which excellent linear correlations for all eight detectors were observe Axial Flux Differences were within the Technical Specifications during the Power Escalation Tests, and the inspector further determined the following: Findings The requirements specified Technical Specifications 3. and 3.10.2 were met; Worksheets to correlate Excore Detector Currents Versus Incore Axial Offsets were clear, and step-wise calcu-lational steps were included; Rod insertion limits were observed; Calibration results were reviewed, approved, and documented in accordance with the licensee 1s administrative control procedures; Stable power levels were maintained during the test period (1)

The inspector noted that procedures~lPD-2.5.001 and lPD-16.1.008, both used for the startup tests, were overdue for revie.... ~

.. "

A licensee representative stated that this problem had been recognized in conjunction with the previous inspection of 50-272/80-3 A computerized system had been implemented for systematic identification and timely review of the overdue procedure The inspector verified by review of a 11Work Order System 11 printout dated April 15, 1981 that 22 of 29 I&C pro-cedures in the lPD-2.5 series alone were not reviewed within the two year review period. These unreviewed procedures in lPD-2.5 series are:

Review Review Procedure Due Date Procedure Due Date lPD-2.5.001 12/ 1/79 lPD-2.5.015 2/1/80 lPD-2.5.002 12/1/79 lPD-2.5.016 2/1/80.

lPD-2.5.003 12/1/79 lPD-2.5.024 2/1/80 lPD-2.5.004 12/1/79 lPD-2.5.025 2/1/81 lPD-2.5.006 12/1/79 lPD-2.5.026 4/1/80 lPD-2.5.007 12/1/79 lPD-2.5.027 4/1/80 lPD-2.5.008 12/ 1/79 lPD-2.5.028 2/1/80 lPD-2.5.010 12/1/79 JPD-2.5.029 2/1/80 lPD-2.5.011 12/1/79 lPD-2.5.030 9/1/79 lPD-2.5.012 12/2/79 lPD-2.5.031 9/1/79 lPD-2.5.014 2/1/80 lPD-2.5.032 9/1/79 The licensee representative stated that all performance I&C procedures would be upgraded or reviewed by January 1, 1982, and the Operating Instructions would be reviewed by June 1, 1981 as per Appendix A, Notice of Violation, Inspection Report No. 50-272/80-31 and licensee's response letter dated March 9, 198 This is an item for subsequent inspector followup (272/81-10-01).

(2)

The inspector was informed that Incore-Excore calibration was normally performed using the Reactor Engineering Manual, Part 7 and instructions provided by the Reactor Enginee Upon further discussions with the licensee's operators and engineering staff, the inspector determined that the Engineering Manual was

• technically adequate to conduct the measurements and calculations of the necessary correlations. However, the operational steps for the test were inadequate and were not included in the test procedure, other than those for the normal power operation They are:

Initial conditions and precautions prior to the test, including makeup system operability, pressurizer spray and steam dump system's operability, and power range Nuclear Instrumentation operability checks;

~

"

"C,,\\

I

,.

Step-wise instructions to induce Xenon Oscillation and to stop the oscillation if necessary; LCO and other limitations specified in Technical Specifications; Recovery procedures if abnormal transient occurs during the test; The results of test, incl~ding transient Xenon oscillation curve or axial offset as a function of tim The licensee representative stated tha~ the above areas would be reviewed and the test procedures revised as require This is an.unresolved item pending a review of the procedure by the NRC:RI inspector (272/81-1~-02). Station Operations Review Committee (SORC) Consideration of Startup Testing The inspector reviewed minutes of SORC meetings where the Committee considered Cycle The following meetings were reviewed:

80-74; consideration of the Reload Safety Evaluation for Cycle 3 and the corporate analysis concluding that the reload did not involve an unreviewed safety question per 10 CFR 50.5 ; Presentation of results of zero power physics testing and fuel vendor recommendations not to exceed 10% Rated Thermal Power (RTP) until further evaluation of quadrant power til ; Results of the testing program up to 50% RTP and on-the-spot changes to the Reactor Engineering Manua ; On-the-spot change to Reactor Engineering Manua ; Presentation of full power test results; all required acceptance criteria me The inspector had no further questions regarding the SORC review of Cycle 3 reload and the restart testing progra.

Unit 1~ Cycle 3 Startup Test Report The inspector reviewed the PSE&G Salem Nuclear Generating Station Unit 1, Cycle 3 Startup Test Report transmitted by letter from Uderitz to Grier dated April 9, 198 The test results and.conclusions are consistent with the predicted values in WCAP-8927, ttThe Nuclear Design of Salem Unit 1 Power Plant, Cycle 3 11, October, 198 The report documents the stepwise approach to power and consultation with the fuel vendor regarding quadrant

power tilt. The report and inspector observations noted that Technical Specifications on peaking factors were met even though the core has a slight residual quadrant power tilt (maximum tilt ratio 1.017 in southwest quadrant for flux map* 1322 taken March 15, 1981).

The inspector had no further question.

Unresolved Items Unresolved items are those items for which further information is required to determine whether they are acceptable or items of noncomplianc An unresolved item is identified and detailed in Paragraph 4~.

Control Room Observations and Facility Tours The inspectors observed control room operations for control room manning, shift turnover and daily log sheets, and facility operation in accordance with the administrative procedures and Technical Specification requirement Inspection tours of the Turbine/Generator areas were conducte No unacceptable conditions were identifie.

Exit Interview Licensee mana'gement was informed of the purpose and scope of the inspection at the entrance interview, and the findings of the inspection were period-ically discussed and were summarized at the conclusion of the inspection on April 16, 1981. Attendees at the exit interview are denoted in paragraph l.