IR 05000277/1980034
| ML19345E703 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 12/23/1980 |
| From: | Bettenhausen L, Caphton D, Petrone C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19345E704 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-277-80-34, 50-278-80-27, NUDOCS 8102050633 | |
| Download: ML19345E703 (9) | |
Text
.
.
O-U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 0FFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Region I 50-277/80-34 Report No. 50-273/80-27 50-277 Docket No. 50-273 DPR-44 License No. DPR-56 Priority Category C
--
Licensee:,Philadelohia Electric Company 2301 Market Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101 Facility Name:
Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Inspection at:
Delta, Pennsylvania
'
Inspection conducted:
Deccmber 1-5, 1980 Inspectors:
M/
'A N
L. H. Bettenhausen, Ph.D., Reactor Inspector date signed (7/J p/Yw C. D. Petrone, Reactor Inspector
__nb Sba
/date signed date signed
,
Approved by:
I, f, G/, d M
/8 M
$
D. L. Caphhm,' Chief, Nuclear Support date signed Section No.1, RO&NS Branch Inspection Summary:
Inspection on December 1-5, 1980 (Combined Report 50-277/80-34 and 50-278/80-27)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection by two regionally based inspectors of general employee training, licensed operator requalification training, Unit 2 post-refueling startup tests including control rod checks, determination of reactivity anomaly and shutdown margin, Local Power Range Monitor and Average Power Range Monitor Calibrations, Unit 3 thermal power, and previous inspection findings. The inspection involved 56 inspector hours on site by two regional based inspectors.
Results:
No items of noncompliance were identified.
Region I Form 12 (Rev. April 77)
g
.
m
-
--
~-
y.
,-
-
y 7,-
y-
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted D. Ahmuty, Training Specialist C. Anderson, I&C Engineer
- W. Corse, Quality Assurance Engineer
- R. Fleischmann, Assistant Plant Superintendent
- S. Kovacs, Engineer Administration C. Nelson, Training Specialist
- F. Polaski, Reactor Engineer S. Roberts, Engineer-0perations
- W. Ullrich, Plant Superintendent USNRC Personnel
- C. J. Cowgill, Senior Resident Inspector The inspector also interviewed control operators, engineers, craftsmen, technicians, and administrative staff in the course of this inspection.
- denotes attendance at exit interview on December 5, 1980.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Insoection Findings (Closed) Deficiency 277/78-32-01:
Nonconformance to Quality Recordkeeping and Technical Review for completed test procedures.
All surveillance test procedures reviewed in the course of this inspection bore evidence of quality assurance and technical review.
(Closed) Unresolved Item 277/78-32-02:
Computer Printout Record Management.
A memo from the Reactor Engineer to plant staff sets down the rules for review and retention of process computer printouts.
No difficulty in identifying and retrieving computer printouts was noted during this inspec-tion.
(Closed) ' Unresolved Item 277/77-36-02:
Review CRD Friction Test Results.
The inspector reviewed a memorandum from J. R. Elms, GE NSSS Coordinator, to W. T. Ullrich, Plant Superintendent, which summarized Mr. Elms' review and evaluation of CRD friction testing on 54 CRD's in support of the Unit 2 Cycle 5 startup.
The inspector had no further questions.
(Closed) Unresolved Item 277/77-36-01:
Review of Data Sheets for RE-12C, Shutdown Margin (Unit 3 - Cycle 2).
The inspector reviewed these data sheets and noted that licensee review appeared complete.
.
e
-
m
-.-.
.. -. -
.
. - -.
-. - _.
-..- -
.
. __
.
.
t
.
.
,
!
1
i
'
(Closed) Unresolved Item 277/77-29-02:
Process Computer Reliability.
licensee staff members stated that new software and programming improvements
,
'
have greatly improved process computer reliability. While no data on reliability were readily available, staff members estimated that the primary process computer unavailabilit/ was less than 2% and that both primary and
backup computers had been unavailable only on one day in the past three years.
(0 pen) Infraction 277/79-28-01; 278/79-31-01:
Licensed Operators Failed to
Review Contents of All Abnormal and Emergency Procedures in the Period January 1977 - November 1979.
The corrective action initiated in January 1980 is partially completed.
However, documented review of these procedures by a few operators and several staff engineers is n6t yet complete; licensee
,
representatives committed tc completion of this documented review by 1/31/80,
<
consistent with the completion date for other requirements in the current licensed operator requalification cycle.
i 3.
Post Refueling Startup Testing The inspector reviewed the following tests and checks to verify that start-
-
!
up testing for Peach Bottom Unit 2, Beginning of Cycle 5, was conducted in
,
accordance with approved procedures.
i i
a.
Control Rod Sequence and Reactivity Checks
!
Procedure ST 10.6 Rod Sequence Control System Functiona Test, Revision 10, dated 7/18/80, was performed on 8/5, 8/13 and'8/14/80.
The test.
satisfied surveillance requirements of Technical Specification 4.3.8.3.a.
Procedure ST 10.5, Rod Worth Minimizer Operability Check, Revision 11, dated 7/18/80, was completed on'0ctober 8/8 and 8/13/80 (Startup) and 8/13 and 8/14/80 (Shutdown).
The check was performed to meet require-ments of Technical Specification 4.3.B.3.b.
Procedur7 ST 10.5-1, RWM Sequence Loading Verification, Revision 1,-
dated 7/18/80, was performed 8/6/80/2200 for Unit 2 startup in the "B" rod sequence and 8/7/80/2200 for Unit 2 startup in the "A" sequence.
The inspector compared the loading sequence verification against the actual rod withdrawal sequence of 8/14/80.
No. discrepancies,were noted.
This test satisfies surveillance requirements of T.S. 4.3.B.3.b.2.
b.
Calibration of Local Power Range Monitors (LPRM)
LPRM's are calibrated by following procedure ST 3.4.1, LPRM Gain Calibration, Revision 13, dated 2/13/80.
ST.3.4.1 was accomplishsd at-
"
25% power on 8/17-18/80.
ST 3.4.1 was-then performed on 9/4-5/80 at 95% power.
This calibration was performed satisfactorily.
.
,.. -,
m --, - -.,, - -
- -., - -,,. _ _...
- - -. -... -,,., _...
--... -.-,. -.
-
- - - -. - - - - - - - -
.
The Technical Specification of Table 4.1.2 requires periodic calibra-tion of the LPRM's at a minimum frequency of once per six weeks.
Surveillance performance of ST 3.4.1 was completed 10/16-17/80.
Results met acceptance criteria.
Another performance was in progress while this inspection was being conducted.
The inspector reviewed the procedure with the analyst and periodically checked performance through review of computer printouts, TIP flux traces and calculations.
c.
Calibration of Average Power Rarna Monitors (APRM)
.
APRM calibrations were performed 25 times in the period 8/18-10/2/80, following procedure ST 3.3.2, Calibration of the APRM System, Revision 4, dated 4/30/80, satisfying the twice per week frequence of TS Table 4.1.2.
The inspector reviewed the completed procedures and randomly checked the data against the referenced computer printouts. No discrep-ancies were noted, d.
Other Instrument Checks ST 3.1.3, SRM unctional and Calibration Check, Revision 3, dated 11/2/78 was reviewed for performance in the startup mode and in the run mode.
Performances on 8/5, 8/6 snd 8/8 were noted for the former mode and 8/13, 11/5, 11/14, 11/16 and other times for the lat' ar mode.
The test frequency satisfies TS Table 4.2.C.
The inspector had no further questions.
ST 3.2.3, IRM Functional and Calibration Check, Revision 3,! ated d
11/2/78 was reviewed for performance on 11/14 and 11/16/80.
ST 3.3.6, APRM Hi Flux in the Refuel or Startup Mode Functional Test and Calibra-tion Check, Revision 2, dated 2/14/74 was reviewed for performance on 11/16/80.
The inspector had no further questions.
e.
Control Rod Insertion and Withdrawal Tests ST 10.8, Control Rod Withdra'wal Tests, Revision 7, dated 10/18/79 were completed satisfactorily on 8/5/80.
ST 10.7, Scram Insertion Times, Rod Coupling Integrity and RPIs for Full In and Full Out Tests, were performed on 7/17/80 prior to Unit 2 startup and met acceptance criteria and Technical Specifications.
ST 10.7 was repeated on 808/80 for control rod 42-43 only.
This control rod was found to occam late during testing required by IE Bulletin 80-17.
The rod was successfully scram tested following repairs to scram pilot solenoid valves, as reported in the Philadelphia l
Electric Company response to IEB 80-17 dated August 21, 1980.
.
-
_,
.
_
_,.,
m,
,. _..
..
-
_
%
f.
Determination of Reactor Shutdown Margin The inspector reviewed ST 3.8.2, Shutdown Margin (Unit 2 - Cycle 5),
Revision 0 dated 7/24/80 and independently calculated the shutdown margin required by TS 4.3.A.1.
The shutdown margin was computed to be 1.94% delta k/k for Unit 2 Cycle 5 on 8/9/80.
In addition, the licensee performed ST 3.9, Critical Eigen Value Comparison, Revision 0, dated 1/4/80, whereby the predicted in-sequence critical rod pattern is compared with the actual critical rod pattern.
The difference between predicted and actual critical patterns, corrected for test conditions, was -0.4% delta k/k.
This satisfied the +1% acceptance criteria.
The inspector independently calculated comparable reactivity.
g.
Reactivity Anomalies In addition to the shutdown margin and critical rod pattern prediction tests discussed in paragraph 2.f., the licensee performs ST 3.7-2, Reactor Anomalies - Unit 2, Revision 9, dated 8/15/80, to follow the predicted versus actual reactivity as the nuclear fuel is burned up.
The inspector reviewed three performances of this test which compares actual to predicted control rod insertion as a function of fuel burnup. The results are tabulated below.
Rod Notches Inserted Date Cycle Exposure Predicted Actual 8/26/80 141 Mdw/t 615+200 506 9/15/80 534 Mwd /t 540-453 10/14/80 1133 Mwd /t 475 453 The inspector had no further questions.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
4.
Core Power Distribution ST 9.1-2, The Surveillance Log, Revision 16, dated 10/1/80, records the daily review of process computer data for Core Maximum Fraction of Linear Power Density, Core Maximum Fraction of Critical Power Ratio and Maximum Average Planar Linear Heat Generation Rate Ratio.
The inspector reviewed the Surveillance Logs for the perieds 9/12-9/13/80, 10/27-11/2/80 and 11/10-11/13/80.
These logs were randomly compared to the process computer printouts referenced as sources for the surveillance data.
No discrepancies were noted.
The inspector also discussed process computer reliability and availability with licensee representatives (paragraph 2 above).
It was ascertained that the order of preference for computational determination of operation within
.
.
.
Technical Specification Limits. was 1) primary process computer on-site, 2)
backup process compiter on-site, 3) core follow program at corporate offices, 4) core follow program ai GE and 5) BUCLE code available through GE time-chare services on a few days notice.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
5.
Unit 3 Core Thermal Power The inspector reviewed an event which resulted in an excursion in core thermal power of Unit 3 on 11/25/80.
The event was noticed at 10 am when an operator cbserved electrical generation about 20 Mw above normal.
Investigation found that the C -5 feedwater heater bleed trip valve had closed, slightly reducing feedwater heating with resultant cooler feedwater.
The C-5 bleed trip valve was reopenad at 10:08 am.
The inspector reviewed the operator's log book, and process computer printouts and interviewed personnel to determine the sequence of events and the core thennal power attained.
The table summarizes core thermal power history; note that the process computer was unavailable for 34 minutes.
,
Time Core Thermal Power, Mw 0821 3246 0830 3245 m
0916 3316 0926 3340 l
0936 3331
1007 3327 1010 3266
- C-5 heater level alarm at 0915.
- Process computer out of service 0935-1008.
The data indicates that Unit 3 was above steady state ifcenset power by approximately 1% for a period of 53 minutes.
Prompt corrective action was initiated upon discovery of the situation.
Since power levels before and after the event were 98.5 to 99% of licensed power limit of 3293 Mw, the average power level for the eight-hour shift appeared to be within the licensed power level.
The event was discussed with Itcensee management.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
l l
!
l l
l
-
t
.
..
-
_
~
-
6.
Unit 2, Cycle 5 Startup Report The inspector reviewed the " Report of Plant Start-up Following Fourth Refueling Outage, March, 1980", submitted to NRC.
The inspector also examined the Cycle Management Report, Peach Bottom 2 Cycle 5, GE 22A6830 dated March 18, 1980 and Supplement 1, GE 22A7350 dated October, 1980 to review the data basis and acceptance criteria for various startup tests.
Tests inspected in detail are described in preceding paragraphs.
The inspector had no further questions.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
7.
Requalification Training Reference:
10 CFR 55, Appendix A and Peach Bottom Units 2 & 3, Training Procedure A-50, Revision 6, dated 5/16/79 a.
Training Program The program was reviewed to verify that it includes the following items:
an established, preplanned lecture series on a regular and contin-
--
uing basis and documentation of lecture attendance; required reactivity control manipulation or supervision of these
--
activities; an annual written examination;
--
systemtic observation and evaluation of performance;
--
review of changes in facility design, procedures and license
--
conditions; I
lectures described by lesson plan or other document which describes
--
l scope and depth of lecture.
Licensee representatives stated that discussions had been held con-cerning revisions to i itial operator licensing and operator requalifi-I n
!
cation programs.
It was stated that revisions to Training Procedure l
A-50, Appendix A to A-50 describing the licensed NRC Operator Requali-I fication Progea., and Appendix B to A50 describing Replacement Training
'
for Licensed Operators and Licensed Senior Operators were being prepared to comply with TMI Action Plan requirements and submissions to NRC would be made in the near future.
,
i l
I
l
The 1980 program reviewed by the inspector included lectures on heat transfer, thermodynamics, fluid flow and mitigating core damage.
A simulator training program was also incorporated into the 1980 requali-fication cycle and was attended by all licensed operators, b.
Record Review and Interv,iews The inspector selected and reviewed the individual training records of six licensed operators to verify that each contained the following documentation:
annual written examination answers
--
attendance at required lectures
--
results of performance evaluations
--
required reading
--
reactivity change manipulations and records of simulator training
--
In addition, the inspector conducted interviews with three of the licensed operators whose records were reviewed to verify that the records reflect training actually received.
No discrepancies were identified.
In the review of the required reading by which the licensee documents operator review of changes to proctdures, plant design changes, opera-ting events and contents of abnormal and emergency procedures, the i
inspector noted that several individuals had not completed the required reading (see paragraph 2 above).
Since the licensee had recently requested and been granted an extension to the examination phase of requalification, licensee representatives committed to complete the required reading by the same data as the oral examinations, January 31, 1981 (277/79-28-01; 278/79-31-01).
The inspector had no further questions.
'
8.
General Employee Training
- 17
!
Reference:
ANSI 18.1-1971 and Peach Bottom Units 2 & 3 Training Procedure A-50, Revision 6, dated 5/16/79 a.
Program for Training Training Procedure A-50 outlines the training and refresher training in Appendix D.
The training includes radiological health and safety, use of protective clothing and equipment, security, emergency plan orientation and quality assurance.
Respiratory equipment training and
,
i qualification is provided for those whose job requires it.
Female l
employees are briefed on the contents of Regulatory Guide 8.13.
The lesson plans for the training were reviewed.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
.
.. _
y
-
. -..
- - - -
m
-.--
.
-
m--
-
-
b.
Program Participation The inspector reviewed selected training records and interviewed several individuals to verify that the training is being conducted in accordance with approved procedures, that training is meaningful to participants and that records reflect training actually being received.
These records and interviews involved the following:
one employee with less than one year service
--
one temporary employee
--
five employees with more than one year service
--
two female employees
--
one technician
--
two craftsmen
--
The instruction employs videotapes, slides, question-and-answer sessions with the instructor and is evaluated by satisfactory completion of a quiz.
Following the initial training, individuals may satisfy the requirement for annual refresher training solely by satisfactorily completing the ge'z.
The inspector observed administration and grading
of this test. Those who fail the quiz and those who so choose attend classroom training for the annual refresher.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
9.
Exit I.iterview The inspector met with Peach Bottom Station management representatives (identified in Paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on December 5, 1980.
The purpose, scope and findings of the inspection were discussed.
.
N
.
-
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _. _ _ _ _ - _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _. _. _.. _. _ _ _ _ _.. _. _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _