IR 05000289/1977032
| ML19256D172 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 10/28/1977 |
| From: | Caphton D, Stetka T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19256D162 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-289-77-32, NUDOCS 7910170672 | |
| Download: ML19256D172 (7) | |
Text
.
.. _. _ _ _
..._
_
. _.. - _
_.
.
.
I U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 0FFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT m
/
.
!
Region I 77-32 Report No.
50-289 Docket No.
DM-50
~
License No.
Priority Category Licensee:
Metropolitan Edison Company
!
P. O. Box 542 l
Res.fing, Pennsylvania 19603
Facility Name.
Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1 Inspection at:
Middletown, Pennsylvania i
j Inspection conducted:
Oct ber 11-12, 1977
!
n s
j
-
.
Inspectors:
/# l//lM
/c.27 /77
~
T. F. Stetka, Reactor Inspector d/tes;'gned date signed
,
)
./
date signed Gd d //1
_
/d $$
Approved by:
A'/. A i Of L.' Caphton, Chief, Nuclear Support fatesAgned '
l Section No.1, RO&NS Branch
.
Inspection Summary:
Inspection on October 11-12, 1977 (Report No. 50-289/77-32)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of post refueling start-up testing including reactivity coefficients; reactor core heat talance determination; licensee action on previously identified unresolved items.
The inspection involved 19 inspector-hours on site ]y one NRC inspector.
Resulq,: Of the two areas inspected, no items of noncompliance were found in one area; one item of noncompliance was identified in the other area (infraction - exceeded 2 inch rod movement re-quirement of TS 4.2.7.1 - paragraph 3.b(2)).
1446 294 Region I Form 12 (Rev. April 77)
t 791017
-
,,
..
.
-
--
.-
,
.
r J
I
!
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Principal Licensee Employees
'
I D. Curry, Engineer II-Nuclear
- C. Hartman, Electrical Engineer
!
- J. Hilbish, Station Nuclear Engineer
- G. Kunder, Operations Supervisor
- J. O'Hanlon, Unit 1 Superintendent
!
V. Orlandi, I&C Engineer
- M. Shatto, Procedure Coordinator
'
'
H. Wilson, I&C Foreman
!
!
The inspector also interviewed eight other licensee employees
during the course of this inspection.
They included scheduling j
personnel, reactor and auxiliary operators, and general office personnel.
-
O denotes those present at the exit interview.
- 2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Unresolved Item (289/76-29-02): The licensee has written, approved, and issued procedure IC-56, Calibration of Heat Balance Instrumentation (Refueling Interval), Revision 0, on September 28, 1977. This proceoure will be used in subsequent refueling intervals to calibrate the heat balance instrumentation.
,
2.
Post Refueling Startuo 7estino a.
The inspector verified by review of the following completed facility procedures that startup testing was conducted in accord-ance with approved procedures.
1550-01, Controlling Procedure for Physics Testing, Revision 2,
--
was completed May 31, 1977.
1550-02, Zero Power Physics Testing, Revision 2, was com-
--
pleted May 15, 1977.
.
'1446 295
.-
-
- -.
.-
...
-
-.
-.. - - - -
...
-
. - -
t r,
's
1550-08, Core Po'ver Listribution VerG 1 cation, Revision 1,
--
was completed May 17, 1977.
As a result of -this review, no items of noncompliance were
,
identified.
b.
The inspector verified by review of completed facility procedures
in the following areas that startup testing was conducted in accordance with technically adequate procedures and that the facility is being operated within license limits.
,
(1)
Control Rod f op Times
-
!
Control rod drop times, testing, and position indication j
(PI) verification are conducted in accordance with procedure 1303-11.1, Control Rod Drop Time, Revision 5.
This test
!
was conducted on May 10, 1977. The inspector reviewed the
test procedure and the completed data to verify the test
!
was conducted in accordance with a technically adequate
'
procedure and that test results were within Technical
J-Specification (TS) requirements.
'
.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
.
(2)
Control Rod Program Verification Control rod cable checks and patch verification are conducted-in accordance with procedure 1301-9.2, Control Rod Program
'
Special Check, Revision 9.
This test was conducted on May 9, 1977.
The inspector reviewed the test procedure and completed data and, as a result of this review, identified the following item of noncompliance.
Procedure 1301-9.2 is used to meet the requirement of TS 4.7.2 to verify proper control rod programming.
As a part of the verification process, step 6.3.9 of procedure 1301-9.2 requires operators to " Move the rod at least 2% using the INSF,RT/ WITHDRAW switch."
In compliance with this instruction, the operators moved control rods from a minimum of 2.5% for rod 13-G in group 5 to a maximum of 10.7% for rod 10-H in group 3.
,
d46296~
'
.
_ _..
.- -
.
..
---
-
__ _ _ _ _ _
__
_
_ _ _ -
!
.
.f(
The inspector determined, by review of the licensee's
-
control rod drive system, that 1% rod movement corresponds to approximataly 1.39 inches of rod movement.
Therefore, the licensee had moved control rods from a minimum of 3.5 inches to a maximum of 14.9 inches.
These control rod movement.; were contrary to TS 4.7.2.1
which specifies that control rod movement be limited to 2 inches or less.
This is considered to be an item of
'
noncompliance (289/77-32-01) at the Infraction leve'.
.
l (3) Temperature Coefficients
!
!
The isothermal temperature coefficient is measured in
accordance with section 7.4 of procedure 1550-02.
The licensee performed two of these measurements at Hot Zero Power (HZP) for boron concentrations of 1255 ppm and
'
j 1005 ppm. The following results were obtained for the j
test conducted on May 14-15, 1977.
,
Calculated Value Measured Value 1255ppmB:
-1.3 pcm/*F 1 4 pcm/*F-0.3 pcm/*F 1005ppmB:
-6.7 pcm/ F 1 4 pcm/*F-6.8 pcm/*F
!
The calculated values were obtained from the TMI-l Cycle 3 Physics Test Manual, Figures 8 and 9 respectively.
As a result of the above measurements, the following HZP moderator coefficients were determined to assure TS compliance.
TS Limit Determined Value 1255ppmB: 1 + 5 pcm/ F
+1.6 pcm/*F 1005ppmB: 1 + 5 pcm/*F-4.8 pcm/ F
.
.
1446 297
.
-
__
.
.
-.. _
..___
--.
-_...
..
.
.
e
,
i
!
The moderator coefficient was also determined at power conditions of 75% and 100% full power by measurement of temperature coefficients in accordance with procedure 1550-05, Reactivity Coefficients at Power, Revision 1, to assure the coefficients were within TS requirements.
The following moderator coefficients were determined.
TS Limit Determined Values
>
75%:
< + 5.0 pcm/*F-9 pcm/ F
_
l 100%: must be negative-6.78 pcm/ F t
!
The inspector reviewed procedure 1550-05 and section 7.4 l
of procedure 1550-02 and discussed the results with i
cognizant licensee personnel.
No items of noncompliance
!
were identified.
,
(4)
Power Doppler Coefficient
The power doppler coefficient is determined in accordance
"
with section 7.3 of procedure 1550-05 by changing reactor
,
j_
power level and measuring reactivity change due to rod movement.
The test conducted on May 13, 1977, produced
j the following results.
Predicted Value Measured Value
-12 1 4 pcm/% Full Power (FP)
-9.09 pcm/%FP
!
The inspector reviewed section 7.3 of procedure 1550-05 and discussed the results with cognizant licensee personnel.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
(5) Control Rod Worths The control rod worths are measured in accordance with section 7.5 of procedure 1550-02 for rod groups 5 through 7 using a deboration-rod insertion method.
The test conducted on May 15, 1977, produced the following results.
1446 298
.
- -.
-
-.
.
_ _ - -
.
.
g
,,.
Calculated Value*
Measured Value Group 7:
0.7310.11% ak/k 0.76% ak/k Group 6:
0.9610.14% ak/k 1.01% ak/k Group 5:
1.0810.16% ak/k 1.13% ak/k
.
Groups 5-7:
2.77 1 0.28% ak/k 2.90% ak/k
- From TMI-1 Cycle 3 Physics Test Manual, Table 4.
'
The control rod worths for groups 1 through 4 were deter-mined by dropping the rods and measuring the reactivity change in accordance with section 7.6 of procedure 1550-02.
This test, conducted on May 15, 1977, produced the following results.
Calculated Value*
Measured Value O
arouPs 1-4:
5.82 1 0.87% ak/k 5.48% ik/k
.
l i.
The inspector reviewed sections 7.5 and 7.6 of procedure 1550-02 and discussed the results with cognizant licensee personnel.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
4.
Core Heat Balance Calculation Review
On May 27,1977, the licensee reported a reportable occurrence (LER
- 77-10) that concerned an incorrect calculation of core thermal
-
power.
The calculation error occurred as a result of a failed instrument channel (turbine header pressure transmitter SP10A-PT2)
,
that inputs the computer.
'
As a result of this occurrence, the licensee revisad their heat
.
balance procedures 1103-16, Heat Balance Calibration, Revision 6, dated July 7, 1977, and 1302-1.1, Power Range Calibration, Revision 8, dated August 15, 1977.
These revisions require that a printout of the computer input parameters that are used in the heat balance calculation be made and evaluated prior to nuclear instrument calibration.
1446 299
'
-
....
..
.
_
__
_
__
,
,
.
.
.i
..
,
The inspector reviewed procedures 1103-16 and 1302-1.1 and resultant data from these procedures for the period October 1 through 11, 1977, July 9,1977, and September 13., 1977. As a result of this review, the following unresolved item was identified.
The licensee performed nuclear power range calibrations on July 9 and September 13, 1977.
The inspector noted from review of the i
September 13 calibration data that the licensee did not nbtain a
!
printout of the computer input values.
As a result of the inspector's review of the heat balance data recorded during the period of October
,
1 through 10, the inspector stated that there were inconsistancies
>
!
between the time the input data printout is made and the time the I
heat balance calculation is performed by the computer (e.g., on October 4 this time difference was more than four hours) and that
'
on October 2 and 3 no input parameter printouts were made.
The licensee acknowledged the inspector's findings and stated that I
a memorandum would be sent to all shift foreman re-emphasizing that
input parameter checks shall be completed just prior to performing a i
heat balance calculation.
In addition, the licensee stated that m
'
(
procedure 1103-16 would be revised by t!ie end of November 1977, to j
clarify when the input parameter checks shall be run.
"
i This item (289/77-32-02) is unresolved pending completion of the I
licensee's actions.
5.
Unresolved Items
'
Items about which more infomation is required to detemine accept-ability are considered unresolved.
Paragraph 4 of this report contains an unresolved item.
6.
Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in para-
,
graph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on October 12, 1977.
The inspector sumarized the scope and the findings of the inspection as they are detailed in this report.
During the meeting, the unre-solved item and item of noncompliance were identified and discussed.
.
-.
-
-
._
-