IR 05000282/1985023

Insp Repts 50-282/85-23 & 50-306/85-21 on 851118-22.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Unit 2 Cycle 10 Reload Safety Evaluation & Core Power Distribution Limits

ML20138H653
Person / Time
Site:	Prairie Island
Issue date:	12/09/1985
From:	Mccormickbarge, Ring M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20138H625	List: IR 05000282/1985023 ML20138H621
References
50-282-85-23, 50-306-85-21, NUDOCS 8512170272
Download: ML20138H653 (5)

Text

'

,

..

,.

U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION III

Reports No. 50-282/85023(DRS); 50-306/85021(DRS)

Docket Nos. 50-282; 50-306 Licenses No. DPR-42; DPR-60 Licensee: Northern States Power Company (NSP)

414 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, MN 55401

' Facility Name: Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plants, Units 1 and 2

.

Inspection At: Red Wing, MN Inspection. Conducted: November 18-22, 1985 Inspector:

MM 'h M. L. McCormick-Barger F O~ 3'~ D Date

Approved By: M. A. Rin Chief / A9'I Test Programs Section Date Inspection Summary Inspection on November 18-22, 1985 (Reports No. 50-282/85023(DRS);

50-306/85021(DRS))

Areas Inspected: Special, announced inspection.to review the Unit 2 Cycle 10 Reload Safety Evaluation ~ and Unit 2 Cycle 10 Core Power Distribution Limit The inspection also included a review of licensee actions on previous inspection findings. The inspection involved 26 inspector-hours onsite by one NRC inspecto Results: No violations or deviations were identifie g21%$ h p -

G

.

r

..

-.

DETAILS 1. .' Persons Contacted

'_*D.Mendele,"PladtSuperintendento'fEngineeringandRadiationProtection

"dM.Klee, Superintendent of. Nuclear Engineering H.-Nelson, Nuclear Engineer

• J. Walker,' Nuclear Engineer

• A.' Hunstad,. Staff Engineer D. Dugstad, Engineering Associate

~* Denotes personnel present.at the exit intervie . ~ Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Open Item (282/85008-01): Differences existed between procedural requirements and normal plant practices for boron sampling

,

during initial startup testing following a core reload. The inspector reviewed Procedure D30, Revision 11,." Post Refueling Startu andProcedureD34,_ Revision 2,"BoronEndpointMeasurement,gTesting,"and found

. that they had been revised so that requirements for boron sampling

agreed with normal plant practice (Closed) Open Item (282/85005-02): Procedure D30, Revision 10, " Post Refueling Startup Testing," lacked an acceptance criterion related to control rod swap measurements which was identified in an NRC letter to Prairie. Island', dated October 24',.1984. The inspector reviewed Procedure-D30, RevisionL11, " Post Refueling Startup Testing," and-found that the accep nce criterion had been added to Section " Acceptance Criteria (Closed) Violation (282/85008-03): Failure to follow' Procedure

'SP 1005, " Unit 1 Nuclear Power Range Daily Calibration," which led to the licensed power level limit being exceeded. -The failure to follow the procedure involved a simple arithmetic error. The-licensee's corrective actions included a revision of' Surveillance Procedure SP 1005 (and SP.2005, the corresponding procedure for LUnit 2) to reduce the chance of'similar arithmetic errors in the

~ futur The inspector reviewed the revised procedure and based on this review considers'the violation to be close ~

1 Reload Safety' Evaluation Review During core loading operations for Unit 2 Cycle 10, conditions arose-that may.have damaged two fuel assemblies. As a result, the licensee decided not to use the two fuel assemblies and, therefore, a new core loading pattern had to be developed.and analyzed. Modification 85L862 pertained to the original core loading pattern'and Addendums 1 and 2 to

. Modification 85L862 pertained to the revised core loading patter '*

,

~

.

.,

,.

'During this inspection, the inspector reviewed the following document'a tion against Technical Specification requirements and the licensee's procedures governing modification control. The inspector had no concerns as a result of this revie NSPNAD-8504P, Revision 1, " Prairie Island Unit 2 Cycle 10 Final Reload Design Report (Reload Safety Evaluation)," October 1985 NSPNAD-8507P, Revision 1, " Prairie. Island Unit 2 Cycle 10 Startup and.0perations. Report," October 1985 i- Letter No. JSH:048:85, J. S. Holm, Manager PWR Safety Analysis -

.

Exxon Nuclear Company Inc. to M. Klee, Northern States Power

'E Company, October 21, 1985 NSPNAD-8504P, " Prairie Island Unit 2 Cycle 10 Final Reload Design Report (Reload Safety Evaluation)," May 1985 NSPNAD-8507P, " Prairie Island Unit 2 Cycle 10 Startup and Operations Report," August 1985 Operations Committee' Meeting Minutes for meetings on the following dates:

August 29, 1985 October 7,-1985-October 8,'1985-October 17, 1985 October 23, 1985 November 1, 1985 Unit 2 Cycle 10 Reload Modification 85L862:

• Modification Review and Approval ~ Form

• Project' Description

• Modification Request Engineering Change Request #1 for Modification 85L862

' Unit 2 Cycle 10 Reload Modification, Addendum 1

• Review and Approval Form

,

. * Project Description

. * Safety Evaluation Unit 2 Cycle 10-Reload Modification, Addendum 2-

• Review and Approval Form

• Safety' Evaluation No violations or deviations were~ identifie _

(L

.. .

4. Core Power Distribution __Limi_t _

The-inspector reviewed lice'nsee procedures and results related to Unit 2 Cycle :10 core power distribution limits against technical ~ specificaticn

. limits and startup testing acceptance criteria. The inspector utilized the following procedures during the review:

Surveillance Procedure SP 2116, Revision 11, " Monthly Power Distribution Map," performed:

November 1, 1985 using Flux Map No. 210-01

. November 2, 1985 using Flux Map No. 210-02 November 2, 1985 using Flux Map No. 210-03 November 4,1985 using Flux Map No. 210-04 November 7, 1985 using Flux Map No. 210-05 November 8, 1985 using Flux Map No. 210-06 November 8, 1985 using Flux Map No. 210-07 Procedure D30, Revision 11. " Post Refueling Startup Testing," performed for Unit 2 Cycle 10 from October 20, 1985.to November 12, 1985 During Unit 2 Cycle 10 startup testing, the licensee identified and

evaluated two instances in which startup testing acceptance criteria

-

were not met. In one case the all-rods-out critical boron concentration was;55 parts per million (ppm) lower than the predicted value, whereas, the acceptance criterion was plus or minus 50 ppm of the predicted valu In the other case, the relative fuel assembly power acceptance criterion based on the 20% power flux ma t t During subsequent flux maps

.(at 47% power and .100% power) p was no - me .this acceptance criterion was met. At time of the . inspection, based on preliminary hand calculations, the licensee believed that failure to meet the two acceptance criteria was due to improper (plutonium modeling isotope-241 of-the amount to americium of~ decay)of isotope-241 in four Pu-241 to Am-241 type B fuel assemblies. These assemblies were not originally intended for use during Unit 2 Cycle 10, but were _added to the Unit 2 Cycle 10 core loading in place of four fuel assemblies that were removed as part of the revised core loading pattern discussed in. Paragraph 3. In discussions with the licensee, the licensee explained that the length

.

of decay time applied to the type B assemblies in the reload analysis calculations was simply the length of the outage between Cycles 9 and 10. ' However,- the type B fuel assemblies ~ had been in the spent fuel pool since they were removed from the core following Cycle 2. The licensee in~ tended to perform detailed calculations' to evaluate the effect of additiorial decay time on the amount of Pu-241 in the type 8 fuel .

assemblies. This was discussed with the resident inspectors for their information and they will continuc to follow the licensee's actions in this are No violations or deviations were' identifie . Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1)

on November 22, 1985 to discuss the scope and findings of the inspectio The inspector also discussed the likely informational content of the -

._ ..

(

-inspection report with regard to documents or processes reviewed by the

inspector during the inspection. The licensee stated that the Prairie Island Final Reload Design Reports and the Prairie Island Startup and Operations Reports, referenced in Paragraph ~3, were proprietary; however, references to these documents would not be considered proprietary. The licensee did not identify any other such documents / processes as proprietar ,

p

. - . , . . - . . - . , . . .