IR 05000278/1981032
| ML20040C804 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 01/13/1982 |
| From: | Bettenhausen L, Chung J, Petrone C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20040C800 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-278-81-32, IEB-80-17, NUDOCS 8201290256 | |
| Download: ML20040C804 (8) | |
Text
r, -
.
..
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Region I Report No.
50-278/81-32 Docket No.
50-278 License No.
DPR-56 Priority Category C
-
Licensee:
Philadelphia Electric Company 2301 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19101 Facility Name:
Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Inspection at:
Delta, Pennsylvania Inspection conducted:
Dec.mber 14-18, 1981 Inspectors:
Y'
//~.
/ /3 N C.-Petrone Reaci.or Ins @itor d te sfigned
di.7,I.
L~
l /
PL J.TW. Chung, Reactor Insp(ctor c$dte sfigned Approved by:
M9MMA
///3/fG L. H. Bettenhausen,' Chief date signed Test Program Section Engineering Inspection Branch DE&TI-Inspection Summary:
Inspection on December 14-18, 1981 (Report No. 50-278/81-32)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of licensee a.: tion on previous inspection findings, followup of IEB 80-17; cycle 5 post refueling startup testing, including pre-critical tests of scram times and nuclect instrumentation, shutdown margin and critical rod configuration, and power escalation tests. The inspection involved 53 inspector-hours on site by two region-based inspectors.
Results: Noncompliances - None 8201290256 820115
"
gDRADOCK 05000278 PDR
..
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted E. Firth, Modification Coordinator
- R. Fleischmann, Assistant Superintendent A. Fulvio, Results Engineer K. J. Goetz, Surveillance Coordinator
- K. Hunt, Reactor Engineer F. Polaski, Reactor Engineer S. Spitko, Site QA Engineer J. H. Wheeler,- Training Coordinator The inspector also interviewed other licensee employees during the inspection, including Engineering support, performance and administrative personnel.
- denotes those present at the exit interview.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Unresolved Item (277/80-24-06; 278/80-18-05):
Solenoid installed in three way backup air scram solenoid valve had a 250 Volt DC rating. The circuitry supplies this component with 125 Volt DC.
The licensee subsequently replaced the 250 Volt DC solenoids with 125 Volt DC solenoids on July 25, 1980 and July 27 1980 for the Units 2 and 3 respectively.
The inspector reviewed piping and instrument drawings -(P&ID's), GE drawings.
and the minutes of PORC meetings 17-80-118-51-and 2-80-109-5, and discussed the original design deficiencies and licensee's corrective actions with a cognizant licensee representative and the resident inspector.
The inspector noted that the procurement documents, P& ids, and GE drawings of other solenoids were reviewed and the operational surveillances were-increased and accomplished to assure the intended functions of all solenoids.
Based on this review, the inspector-determined that this problem was confined to the four valves in each system and resulted from an inadequate procurement surveillance program and a mix-up of the original drawings. The licensee-corrected this by issuing a drawing modification RDC 80 AL and the replacement sentioned above.
The inspector had no further questions. This item is closed.
.
.
.
.
3.
Unit 3 Cycle 5 Startup Testing - Precritical Test a.
The inspector reviewed functional and calibration tests and results to verify the following:
--
Procedures were provided with detailed instructions; Technical content of procedures was sufficient to result in
--
satisfactory component calibration and test;
--
Instruments and calibration equipment used were traceable to the
_
National Bureau of Standards; Acceptance and operability criteria were observed in compliance
--
with Technical Specifications (TS); and Technicians who performed the tests were qualified,
--
b.
The following tests were reviewed:
(1) Control Rod Drive; Scram Insertion Time Scram insertion time had been measured on August 25, 1981 using ST 10.7, " Scram Insertion Times, Rod Coupling Integrity and RPIS for Full In and Full Out Tests."
The test results were all within the limits specified in acceptance criteria and TS.
The inspector had no further questions.
(2) Core Verification The inspector examined procedure ST 12.10, " Core Post-Alteration Verification," Revision 0, December 27, 1978, and video tapes of the core taken on August 4, 1981.
Approximately one third of the fuel assemblies in the core were
!
reviewed.
The inspector verified that the location and orientation of the fuel assemblies were in accordance with the core maps. No discrep-ancies were identified.
(3) Nuclear Instrumentation (NI)
The inspector verified by review of test procedures and data that the following NI functional and calibration tests were performed a
.
.
in accordance with their proce'ures and met the acceptance criteria:
d
--
ST 3.1.3, SRM Functional and Calibration Check, Revision 3, November 2, 1978, performed October 20, 1981;
--
ST 3.1.4, SRM Front Panel Meter Calibration, Revision 1, March 6, 1980, performed October 28, 1981;
--
ST 3.2.3, IRM Functional and Calibration Check, Revision 5, November 2, 1978, performed October 20, 1981;
--
ST 3.3.1, APRM Functional and Calibration Test (Scram and Rod Block), Revision 3, May 2, 1978, performed October 21, 1981;
'ST 3.3.6, APRM High Flux in the Refuel or Startup Mode
--
Functional Test and Calibration Check, Revision 2, February 14, 1974, performed October 20, 1981; ST 3.5.1-3, RBM Functional and Calibration Test, Revision 2,
--
October P1, 1980, performed October 29, 1981;
--
ST 10.6, Rod Sequence Control System Functional Test,. Revision 10, July 18, 1980, performed October 22 and 28, 1981.
.
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
4.
Unit 3 Cycle 5 Startup Testing - Post-critical Tests a.
The inspector reviewed selected test programs to verify the follewing:
The test programs were implemented in accordance with Cycle 5
--
Refueling Sequencing Procedures; Step-wise instructions for test procedures were adequately provided,
--
-
including Precautions, Limitations and Acceptance Criteria, in conformance with the requirements of the Technical Specifications';
--
Provisions to recover from anomalous conditions were provided; Methods and calculations were clearly specified ar.d the' tests
--
.
were performed accordingly;.
Review, Approval, and Documentation of the results were in accordance
--
with the requirements of the Technical Specifications and the licensee's administrative control j
..
.
b.
The following programs were reviewed:
(1) Administrative Controls The inspector reviewed the administrative control documents to verify that the post-refueling sequences and testing were conducted in conformance with the station procedures and TS requirements, and that the test procedures were consistent with ANSI N18.7-1972.
The documents reviewed were Peach Bottom 3 Cycle 5 Nuclear Design and Management Report, March 4, 1981, and Unit 3 surveillance test status sheets.
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
(2) Shutdown Margin' Demonstration (SDM)
The SDM was determined by the "in-sequence" method in the Xenon-free state and with the moderator temperature of 160 F.
The reactor achieved criticality at 0915 hours0.0106 days <br />0.254 hours <br />0.00151 weeks <br />3.481575e-4 months <br />, October 2, 1981.
The critical rod configuration was attained with the critical eigenvalue of 1.004, which was within 0.124%AK of the predicted value.
The inspector verified by review of test procedure ST 3.8.3 and the SDM value that the SDM with the strongest control rod fully withdrawn was 1.664%AK/K.
Technical Specification requires SDM value greater than 0.38%AK/K + R with R = 0.57% or SDM greater than 0.95%Al&W'.
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
(3) Reactivity Anomaly ST 3.7-2, Reactor Anomalies-Unit 3, Revision 15, dated September 11, 1981 was performed by the licensee to follow the predicted versus actual reactivity by comparing actual to predicted control rod insertion as a function of fuel burnup.
The results of these tests are tabulated below.
Rod Notches Inserted Date Cycle Exposure Predicted Actual
,
11/5/81 469 MWD /T 790+200 764
'
11/17/81 731 MWD /T 7803200 746
The inspector had no further question.
.
(4) Qualification and Training The inspector reviewed the qualification and training records of technicians who performed calibration and repair of instruments used for startup testing. The technicians' training included formal classroom training and on the job training.
The inspector had no further questions in this area.
(5) Fuel Thermal-Hydraulic Parameter Verification The inspector verified by review of the process computer outputs, P-1 and 00-6, Option 4, performed December 16, 1981, that the thermal parameters MAPLHGR, MCPR, and peaking factor, were all within the TS limits.
The inspector had no further questions in this area.
(6). Core Thermal Power and APRM Calibrations The inspector reviewed calibration procedure, ST 3.3.2, Revisions 5, 6, and 7, and twenty-one APRM calibration tests performed October 26, 1981 through December 14, 1981.
The inspector reviewed the process computer printouts of P-1, and determined that calibration tests were in conformance with the requirements specified in station procedures and TS.
The inspector noted that the station surveillance procedure ST-3.3.2, step 4, requires the six APRM readings to be adjusted to the calculated value of the Fraction of Rated Power (FRP).
However, the data sheet did not specify recording "As Found" and i
"As Left" APRM settings.
Instead, the data sheet only requires a checkoff indicating that the corresponding APRM had been set.
The inspector determined that the "As Found" and the adjusted
"As Left" APRM readings did not correspond to the FRP
.
calibration as shown in the following sample test performed
!
December 8, 1981, 0201 hour0.00233 days <br />0.0558 hours <br />3.323413e-4 weeks <br />7.64805e-5 months <br />s:
"AS FOUND"
"AS LEFT" A
98.9 98.5
>
i B
99.2
C 98.2 100
98.8 99.5 E
99.4 101 F
98.8 100 i
The FRP was 98.5%
--
-
--
_
,
__
r
.
.
A licensee representative acknowledged the inspector's finding and subsequently revised the procedure ST 3.3.2 to include the
"As Found" and "As Left" APRM settings. The revised procedure, ST 3.3.2, Revision 8, was issued on December 28, 1981.
The inspector had no further questions.
(7) Traversing Incore Probes (TIP)
The inspector verified by review of TIP traces and process program 00-1 edits that a TIP functional test was performed October 24, 1981 to ensure the TIP machine and the indicating lights were operable in accordance with the procedures RT 10.2, Revision 0, July 23, 1980, and RT 10.3, Revision 1, December 15, 1980.
The TIP alignment test was conducted on October 26, 1981 to verify the TIP position in the core versus the machine index.
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
(8)
LPRM calibration The inspector reviewed calibration procedure ST 3.4.1, Revision 13, February 13, 1980, and the calibration results of November 12, 1981, to verify the LPRM Gain Adjustment Factor (GAF) were correct.
The following process program outputs were reviewed:
0D-10, Option 1, uncalibrated LPRM readings;
--
--
--
00-13, LPRM Ion Chamber Sensitivity Data; 0D-10, Option 9, Calibrated LPRM.
--
'
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
l 5.
IE Bulletin 80-17, Failure of Control Rods to Insert During a Scram Based on the following, the inspector determined that the corrective actions taken by the licensee in response to IE Bulletin 80-17 and its supplements were satisfactory for Unit 3:
--
Verification of the Scram Discharge Volume (SDV) system modification by the resident inspector;
r
o
Discussions with cognizant licensee representatives and resident
--
inspector regarding the items listed in the licensee letter to the Region I Director dated September 30, 1981; Review of Peach Bottom P&ID M-356;
--
Review of Unit 3 E&R Modification Package 655(81-043);
--
Safety Evaluation of CRD Scram Discharge Piping Modification, Unit 3;
--
--
Q-listed Material Procurement, Procurement No. MS-22, March 22, 1981; Mechanical Engineering Work Letter for Modification 655, CRD SDV
--
Modification,.RES 15-3-2 (CRD), December 1,1981 (Unit 2);
The inspector further verified that the system modifications included; (1) Replacement of 2" piping between SDV and SDIV with 8" piping, (2)
Installation of redundant isolation valves on SDV vent and drain lines, (3) Removal of SDIV drainline relief valve (RV-34),
(4) Modification of SDIV alarm setpoint to 5 gallons from 3 gallons, (5) Direct connections of the Level switches to SDIV, eliminating transient flow disturbances,
,
(6) Cross connection piping between SDV ventlines, and (7) Provision of a vent path between tops of SDIV and SDV vent system.
The inspector was informed that the Unit 2 modification would be completed
,
during the upcoming outage, prior to July, 1982, and that a separate safety evaluation and modification package would be issued.-The modification would be basically the same as that for Unit 3, but the 2" piping between-SDV and SDIV for Unit 2 would be replaced with 6" piping, instead of the 8" piping used for Unit 3.
6.
Exit Interview Licensee management was informed of the purpose and scope of the inspection at the entrance interview. The findings of the inspection were periodically discussed and were summarized at the conclusion of the inspection on December-
,
17, 1981. Attendees at the exit interview are denoted in Paragraph 1.