IR 05000277/1978032
| ML19269D069 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 12/29/1978 |
| From: | Bettenhausen L, Caphton D, Vostlowell R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19269D060 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-277-78-32, NUDOCS 7902270114 | |
| Download: ML19269D069 (7) | |
Text
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATURY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Region I Report No. 75-32 Docket No. 50-277 License No.DPR-44 Priority Category C
--
Licensee:
Pjuladelohia Electric Comoany 2301 Market Street Philadelohia, Pennsylvania 19101 Facility Name:
Peach Bottom Atomic Pcwer Station, Unit 2 Inspection at:
Delta, Pennsylvania Inspection conducted: December 5-8, 1978 Inspectors:
W%' M[,,,-
/2 / 2 7/ 72 L. H. Bettenhausen, Reactor Inspector date signed A N A T
~G-
/2/2W78 R. Vogt-Lowell, Reactor Inspector datesiFed
/
date signed Approved by:
- f,, orgL O g,g,7 D. L. Caph' ton, Chief, Nuclear Support date/ signed Section No. 1, R0 & NS Branch Inspection Summan :
Inspection on December 5-8, 1978 (Report No. 50-277/78-32)
Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of post-refueling activities including startup testing, determination of reactivity anomaly and shutdown margin, core power distribution, APRM and LPRM calibrations.
The inspection involved 49 inspector-hours on site by two NRC reaional based inspectors.
Resul ts : Of the five areas inspected, one apparent item of noncompliance was identified.
(Deficiency - nonconformance to quality record-keeping and technical review in surveil-lance tests).
790227oI N Region I Form 12 (Rev. April 77)
.
.
DETAILS
'
1.
Persons Contacted Principal Licensee Employees
- J. Davent. ort, I&C Engineer
- R. Fleischmann, Assistant Plant Superintendent K. Hunt, Computer Engineer
- F. Polaski, Reactor Engineer
- W. Ullrich, Plant Superintendent J. Winzenreid, Technical Engineer Other licensee employees contacted during the inspection included reactor engineering and results engineering personnel, administrative personnel, and quality assurance personnel.
- denotes those present at the exit interview.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Insoection Findinas (Closed) Unresolved Item (277/76-41-02): Changes to Databook Values and Computer Methods.
The inspector reviewed A-14.1, Revision 1, September 26, 1978, Process Computer Modification Procedure and its implementation for Peach Bottom 2, Cycle 4.
The inspector had no further questions on this item.
3.
Post Refueling Startuo Testina The inspector reviewed the following tests and checks to verify that startup testing for Peach Bottom Unit 2, Beginning of Cycle 4, was conducted in accordance with approved procedures.
a.
Control Rod Sequence and Reactivity Checks Procedure ST 10.6 Rod Sequence Control System Functional Test, Revision 8, dated August 11, 1977, was performed on October 17-18, 1978. The test satisfied surveillance require-ments of Technical 3pecification 4.3.B.3.a.
Procedure ST 10.5, Rod Worth Minimizer Operability Check, Revision 8, dated April 8, 1977, was completed on October 17, 1978, and reviewed October 23, 1978.
The check was performed to meet requirements of Technical Specification 4.3.b.3.b.
Procedure RE-25.2, Peach Bottom Unit 2, BOC 4, Cold Critical Rod Pattern Prediction Comparison, Revision 2, dated October 12, 1978, incorporating data from the GE Cycle Management Supplement 1 (GE 22A6319) and rod reactivity worths from GE letter GRH: 78-269 dated December 7, 1978, was used to com-pare the pred1cted cold critical rod pattern achieved on Octo-ber 17, 1978. The difference between predicted and actual k-effective was -0.712%, a value within the t 1% acceptance criterion as specified by T.S. 3.3.D.
Procedure RE-128, Shutdown Margin (Unit 2 - Cycle 4), Revision 1, dated October 12, 1978 computed the shutdown margin to be 1.80% delta-k/k. This satisfies T.S. 4.3.A.1 requiring a shutdown margin of at least 0.38% delta-k/k. The inrpector verified the sources of data used in the procedure and inde-pendently verified the calculations.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
b.
Calibration of Local Power Range Monitors (LPRM)
LPRM's are calibrated by following procedure ST 3.4.1, LPRM Gain Calibration, Revision 9, dated March 28, 1977.
ST 3.4.1 was accomplished al 30% power on October 25, 1978, using an approved temporary change to the procedure relaxing requirements for gain adjustments at this lower power.
ST 3.4.1 was then performed on October 26, 1978 at 94% power.
This calibration was performed satisfactorily, except as noted below.
The Technical Specification of Table 4.1.2 requires periodic calibration of the LPRM's at a minimum frequency of once per six weeks.
Surveillance performance of ST 3.4.1 was completed December 4, 1978 and reviewed December 8, 1978.
Results met acceptance criteri.
The inspector noted that the 0D-13 computer printout for Octc5er 26, 1978, 1944, represented LPRM sensitivities following performance of ST 3.4.1.
There was no 00-13
-
printout attached which represented LPRM sensitivities prior to the LPRM calibration as required by Step 30 of ST 3.4.1.
This is an example of nonconformance to quality record-keeping and review for a surveillance test.
It, along with the three examples in paragraph 3.c below, were considered collectively as an item of noncompliance at the deficiency level of severity.
c.
Calibration of Average Power Ranae Monitors (APRM)
APRM calibrations were performed 36 times in the period
-
October 20 through November 25, 1978, following Procedure r 3.3.2, Calibration of the APRM System to Core Thermal Power, Revision 1, dated October 12, 1978.
The minimum frequency for heat balance calibration of APRM's is twice per week, according to Technical Specification Table 4.1.2.
Of the 36 surveillance tests reviewed in this area of inspection, 3 examples of nonconformance to quality record-keeping and review were found.
They were:
--
ST 3.3'.2 performed October 22, 1978, 1045, and reviewed did not contain a date for staff engineers' review.
--
ST 3.3.2 performed October 27, 1978, 0850, and reviewed November 7,1978, did not note Channels D, E, or F checked as adjusted for gain.
--
ST 3.3.2 performed November 15, 1978, and reviewed December 5,1978, did not contain an entry noting the P-1 date and time used in the procedure.
These examples, along with the example cited in 3.b. above, were considered collectively as an item of noncompliance at the deficiency level of severity.
(277/78-32-01)
d.
Axial Power, Core Power Symetry, and TIP Reproducibility Procedure RE 26-2, PB2 BOC4 Axial Power Distribution Comparison, Revision 1, dated October 12, 1978, compared a P-1 Periodic Core Evaluation for November 6, 1978, 0702, with the axial power distribution calculated by the non-process computer code PANACEA performed November 8,1978, for identical core conditions. Agreement between the predicted PANACEA compu-tation and the observed P-1 data edit was satisfactory.
Procedure RE-27, Core Power Symmetry and Transversing Incore Probe (TIP) Reproducibility analyzes series of 4 TIP traces for each of the 5 TIP machines to obtain a statistical uncertainty for TIP measurements.
The analysis resultea in a total (geometric plus random noise) uncertainty of 6.48%.
This was well within the test acceptance criterion of 12%.
4.
Core Power Distribution A sampling of computer printouts for the period October 20 to November 4,1978, was reviewed by the inspector to follow startup plant evolutions and to verify that the facility was being operated within its thernvsl power and power distribution limits.
Printouts reviewed included P-1 Periodic Core Evaluations, OD-6 Thermal Data in Specified Fuel Bundles, and OD-3, Core Thermal Power and APRM calibration.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in the course of this random sampling. However, difficulty in retrieving specific computer printouts was noted.
In one instance, the D-1 printout for November 2, 1978, 0809, was not available on-site ano had to be obtained by mail from the corporate headquarters for the inspector's review.
There had been previous inspector concern (277/76-41-04) for the retention /retrievability of process computer-generated printouts; this concern lead to a flow chart for computer printouts at Peach Bottom dated January 19, 1977.
A licensee representative also stated during the current inspection, that the plant record management system was being reviewed and revised by corporate staff.
It appears appropriate to again con-sider the matter of computer printout record management an unre-solved item until a workable plant data management system is devised and fully implemented (277/78-32-02).
During review of core power distribution limits, it was noted that the daily surveillance for peak heat flux and peaking factor required by T.S. 3.1.B is accomplished as part of ST 9.1, the Surveillance Log, by operator entry of appropriate values from process computer printouts, but there is no log entry for the specific printouts used to obtain the data.
ST 3.4.1, LPRM Gain Calibration, also omits traceability of P-1 edits, although it requires certain com-puter edits (00-13 prior to and following calibration and 0D-10 to aid in calibration) to be attached as pcrt of the completed procedure.
Other procedures (e.g. ST 3.3.2, Calibration of the APRM System to Core Thermal Power, Revision 1, October 12,1978) require a record of the date and time of the P-1 edit as well as data from the printout. The inspector expressed concern that surveillance procedures extracting data from process computer printouts consistently reference the particular printout from which data is taken.
The licensee acknowledged this concern and agreed to review and amend such procedures. This is an unresolved item (277/78-32-03).
5.
Reactivity Anomalies In addition to the Cold Critical Rod Pattern Prediction Comparison discussed in paragraph 3.a. above, the licensee utilizes ST 3.7-2, Reactivity Anomalies - Unit 2, Revision 4, dated October 12, 1978, to compare predicted control rod notches inserted to observed rod notch insertion as a function of core average exposure every full power month to meet the surveillance requirements of Technical Specification 4.3.D.
The initial performance of this procedure for Cycle 4 was accomplished on October 27, 1978.
The fuel vendor predicted 875 notches with an uncertainty range of 670 to 1070 notches, corresponding to + 1% delta-k/k. The actual rod notch positions inserted as determined by ST 3.7-2 was 1012 notches. This procedure also extracted data from a P-1 edit without noting the date and time of the edit.
A licensee representative, upon questioning by the inspector, was able to document predicted control rod inventory, but was not able to provide the origin of the equation used in Step 4 of the proce-dure. This item is unresolved pending derivation of the equation (277/78-32-04).
'
.
6.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is re-quired to determine whether they are acceptable or items of non-compliance.
Unresolved items are contained in Paragraphs 4 and 5 of this report.
7.
Exit Interview The inspector met with the licensee representatives identified in Paragraph I at the conclusion of the inspection.
The inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspection as thev are detailed in this report.
In the course of the interview, the stated unresolved and noncompliance items were delineated.