IR 05000293/1981032
| ML20039F598 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pilgrim |
| Issue date: | 12/23/1981 |
| From: | Bettenhausen L, Chung J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20039F593 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-293-81-32, NUDOCS 8201130134 | |
| Download: ML20039F598 (9) | |
Text
. __
_ _ _
_ _ _
. _.
_ _ _
_____ _ __________ _
. _ _
_ _ - _ _
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT-Region I Report No. 50-293/81-32
.
Docket No. 50-293 License No. DPR-35 Priority Category C
--
Licensee:
Boston Edison Company 800 Boylston Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02199 Facility Name:
Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 Inspection at:
Plymouth, Massachusetts Inspection cond eted: Novembe 2-6, 1981 Inspector:
_ b [() k M ~~ M Y Chung, Reacto n pector date signed /
.
/c
/2/22/6/
Approv ky:
_L. H. B'ettenhausen, Chief date signed Test Program Section, Engineering Inspection Branch Inspection Summary:
Inspection on November 2-6, 1981 (Report No. 50-293/81-32)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of licensee action on previous inspection findings; Cycle V post refueling startup testing, including review of test report; pre-critical tests; critical tests; post critical tests; Cycle VI post refueling startup test procedures; and 50.59 review of Reload V.
The inspection involved 32 inspector-hours on site by one region-based inspector.
Results:
Noncompliance - None.
ADOCK 050hhhk [
PDR'
- -
-
-
-
-
-
- -
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
- - -
-
. -
-
.
.
T
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- J. P. Aboltin, Senior Reactor Engineer G. T. James, Reactor Engineer
- R. D. Machon, Nuclear Operations Manager
- P. D. Smith, Chief Technical Engineer
- M.
E. Cashatt, Jr. Training
- H. Eichenholz, Resident Inspector The inspector also interviewed other licensee employees during the inspection, including reactor operators, technical support, administrative, and clerical personnel.
- denotes those present at the exit interview.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Noncompliance (293/81-01-02):. Failure to review procedures within two years. The inspector verified by review of procedure logs and minutes of ORC meetings that the procedures, 3.M.1-102, 3.M.4-19, 8.M.3-4, and OP 2.4.1, were reviewed during January - March,1981. This item is closed.
(Closed) Noncompliance (293/81-01-03):. Failures to document Maintenance Request (MR) packages properly and to review.the completed MR in accordance with the prescribed requirements.
The licensee issued a memorandum dated November 4, 1981, in which the importance of adhering to written procedures, OP 1.3.5 and AP 1.5.3, were emphasized, particularly the quality control and the MR review requirements. To assist Station management, a full time clerical assistant was assigned to the Operation's Group for the documentation of the completed MR's.
This item is closed.
3.
Cycle V Startup Testing - Precritical Tests a.
Functional & Calibration Test Review The inspector reviewed functional and calibration tests and their results to verify that:
'
--
Procedures were provided with detailed stepwise instructions;
--
Instruments and calibration equipment used were traceable to the National Bureau of Standards;
.~
_
-
.
"As Found" and "As Left" conditions were recorded;
--
--
Acceptar.ce and operability criteria were observed in accordance with the Technical Specifications; Technical content of procedures was sufficient to result _ in
--
satisfactory component calibration and test;
--
Work Order was issued and corrective actions were'taken if the
-
test was not' acceptable.
b.
Specific Test Review The following tests and controls were reviewed:
(1) Administrative Controls The inspector reviewed the administrative control documents to verify that the post-refueling sequences and tests were conducted in compliance with the station procedures and Technical Specifica-tions (TS), and that the test procedures was consistent with the requirements specified in ANSI N18.7.
The documents reviewed were:
--
Pilgrim Cycle 5 - Cycle Management Report, February 13,
-1980; Supplements 1 through 4'.
--
Procedure 9.25 Refueling Startup Program, Revision 4, May 14, 1980;- Refuel-Startup Program check list.
PNPS-1, Operations ' Manual, Volume IX, Nuclear Performance
--
Evaluation.
--
Results of Startup Physics Testing Program conducted for Cycle V Operation, August 6, 1980.
The details of the cycle V startup test results are discussed separately for each item. No unacceptable conditions were identified.
(2) Jet Pump Flow Baseline Data The inspector reviewed the test data and the on-demand program 0D-1 printouts performed May 21, June 1, and July 24, 1980, and verified that the core flow evaluation and Jet Pump calibration were completed in accordance with procedure 9.17, Revision 4, July 16, 198 T
.
.
The inspector had no'further questions.
(3) Core Fuel Loading Verification The inspector verified by review of the data form RE 168 performed '
April 4-14, 1980 that the core fuel serial numbers, bundle numbers, and their orientation were verified using an underwater.
television camera in accordance with procedure 4.5, Revision 3, March 25, 1980.
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
(4) Control Rod Drive (CRD)
The inspector reviewed oscilloscope photographs of the differential pressure transducer responses and CRD friction test results performed April 3-4, 1980. The inspector determined that_the tests were performed in accordance with procedure 3.M.2-8, Revision 2, March 13, 1978 and the strain gauges were adequately calibrated on February 25, 1980. The CR0 friction and settle pressures for the 48-to-00 notch insertion exercises were all less than 15 psid and 30 psid respectively as specified in the procedure.
The inspector had no further-questions.
(5) Control Rod (CR) Scram Time The inspector verified by review of the CR scram time test performed April 25, 1980 that the testing was performed in accordance with procedure 9.9, Revision 9, and the test results were all within the requirements specified in the TS.
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
(6) Core Fuel Loading The inspector verified by review of the fuel loading documents, graphs, and listings of the discharged bundles that cycle IV-V fuel loadings were performed March 26, 1980 through April 3, 1980 in accordance with the fuel loading maps, and that the
"1/M" plot was employed to monitor the loading.
The inspector had no further questions.
4.
Cycle V Post-Critical Tests a.
Test Program Review The inspector reviewed selected test programs to verify tne following:
--
..
..
~5
~
-- -The test' programs'were implemented in accordance with Cycle V-Refueling and Post refueling Sequencing Procedures;
--
Step wise instructions of' test procedures were adequately
.provided, including Precautions, Limitations and Acceptance Criteria.in conformance with the requirements of the Technical'
Specifications;
--
Provisions for recovering.from ancnm.lous conditions were provided;
--
Me'thods and calculations were clearly specified and.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 controls, b.
' Post-Critical Tests The inspector verified by review of the-Cycle Management Report, June 26, 1980, and the test sequencing check lists 9.25C-1 that the test sequences were specified and the tests were performed April
July 23,.1980 in accordance with the specified procedures.
(1) LPRM Calibration The inspector reviewed the Traversing Incore Probe (TIP) traces and the on-demand OD-1 printout'of May 23, 1981, and verified that the LPRM's were calibrated in accordance with procedure 9-5, Revision 9.
The inspector also reviewed the computer calibration results of 0D-21 performed May 22, May 23, and June 12,-1980.
The inspector had no further questions.
(2) APRM Calibration The inspector verified by review of the 00-3 printouts that the APRM's were calibrated against the Reactor Core Thermal Power.
The inspector also verified that the APRM scram setpoints were calibrated at 27%, 60%, and 100% power levels.
The inspector had no further questions.
(3) Core Thermal Power (CTP)
l Procedure 9.3, Core Thermal Power Evaluation, Revision 7, March 7, 1980, established several methods of evaluating the core thermal power. They were;
'
,
-
. _,
.
.
(a) NSSS heat balance by computer using 0D-3; (b) BOP heat balance by computer; (c) Long Form (RE 4) and short form manual heat balances; (d) Nomographs from the figure, core thermal power versus feed water flow.
The inspector was informed that method (c) was periodically performed to evaluate the computer results.
The inspector reviewed the CTP evaluations performed June 13, 1980 at 1536 MWt and determined that the CTP's by (a) and (c)
methods were practically identical.
This summarizes a comparison perforr.ed December 26, 1980:
METHOD
%.
hand (RE 4)
0D-3, Option 2 difference CTP, MWt 2038.91 1997.25 2.04 Feed Flow 2034 1991.77 2.08 alone, MWt Recirculation 4.34 4.06 6.45 pump alone, MWt No unacceptable conditions were identified.
(4) Shutdown Margin (SDM) Demonstration The reactor achieved criticality at 0634 hr, May 14, 1980 with control rod 22-23 at step 14.
The inspector verified by review of the data and OD-7 output for the control rod notch position that the B-1 sequence was employed and the reactor period was 185 seconds at criticality.
The SDM demonstration was performed May 14, 1980.
The inspector estimated the SDM to be 2.52% Ap.
The TS margin requirement was 1.74% Ap as minimum.
The SDM was reported as 2.66% in the Startup test summary report. The inspector found by review of the Operations Supervisor Log on May 14, 1980 at 0700 hr, procedure 9.16.1, Revision 0, April 26, 1980, and P&ID drawing M-252 that:
--
the moderator temperature was 192'F, instead of 184'F which was obtained from the Cleanup System Inlet Temperature,
.
.
---
The test procedure data form was pencil-changed to cleanup inlet temperature without issuing a temporary procedure change by Senior Reactor Operator as required by TS 6.8.'e.,
--
TE 261-A/B for the-recirculation inlet temperature were inoperable during the SDM demonstration. A redundant temperature indicator on_the control room 904 panel (TE 145A/B) was.available.
During a subsequent discussion with the licensee management, a licensee representative acknowledged.that the moderator temperature should have been obtained from the control room indicators rather than from the cleanup system inlet temperature, and the.
procedure should have been changed by the SRO if such changes were required. However, the inspector determined that this was an isolated case and did not alter the SDM results significantly.
The licensee management issued a memorandum to the Reactor Engineering Group, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the requirements in the station procedure 1.3.4 and TS 6.8.C.
This matter was resolved prior to the exit meeting and was considered closed.
The following is the summary of the SDM calculations, performed independently by the inspector:
Item Reactivity, Ap (a) Strongest Rod, 18-27 0.9633 (b) All rods in 0.9282 (c) (a)-(b)
0.0351 (d) Just critical worths, Group 1 and 2-0.061 (e) Group 3 worth-0.015 (f) Moderator contribution 0.000432 (g) Period contribution 0.00034 (h) R 0.0149 (1) SDM: (c)+(d)+(e)+(f)+(g)+(h)
-0.025168 (2.52% Ap)
The inspector had no further questions.
(5) Reactivity Anomaly The inspector verify by review of test data p+
3rmed June 13, 1980 at 7325 MWD /T and July 22, 1980 at 7973 mwd /T exposure that the rod insertion positions were within the 1% Ap requirements of TS 3.3.E.
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
.
__
..
.
(6) Core Thermal Limits The inspector reviewed the core thermal limits presented in tables II and III of the Cycle V startup that summary report to verify the MCPR, MPALHGR, and LHGR from the on-demand process.
_
computer results of.P-1 and 00-6, options 3 and 4.
Procedure 9.22 specified that the core thermal' limits would be obtained from the OD-6, option 4, in which the twelve highest ratios of a bundle MAPLHGR to its limiting LHGR and other-thermal information would be obtained.
The inspector identified that the OD-6 runs for the reported-test results performed May 23-24, 1980 were missing. Again, the inspector determined from the operations surveillance records that the thermal limits were within the TS limits, but the reported table values in the summary report'could not be verified.
The inspector further determined that'.the computer outputs-missing from the test results package were an isolated case due
to an oversight by the reactor engineer.
- ..
'
The reactor engineers were informed by the licensee management that the testing records should be retained as required =by the TS 6.10.A.5.
The inspector had no further questions.
(7) Backup Core Limit Evaluation
,
The inspector verified by review of the backup computer program runs of March 6, 1978 'ar.d May 29, 1980 that the backup core
,
"
limit program, BUCLE, was employed to monitor the core thermal-limits, MCPR, MAPRAT and MAPLHGR, during the outages of the
[
on-demand process computer.
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
(8) Core Symmetry Check The inspector reviewed the TIP calibration OD-2. data and the i
TIPREPRO runs for the TIP calibration performed June 25,.1980 that the total TIP uncertainty was less than 9.0*4 as specified
'
in the acceptance criteria.
The inspector had no further questions.
,
i-i
.
....
5.
50.59 Review of Reload V Plant Design Change Request The inspector reviewed the design modification package for the reload V against the Supplemental Reload V Licensing Subr.iittal.
The Plant Design Change Request (PDCR) No. 81-37, September 9, 1981, included;
--
Spent and fresh fuel shuffling,
--
Analysis of Design Adequacy,
--
Transient behavior and safety evaluation, and
--
the proposed TS changes in MCPR limits for the 8 x 8 and P8 x 8R fuel types.
)
The inspector had no further questions.
6.
Cycle VI Startup Test Program The inspector reviewed procedure 9.25, Revision 4, and the CR scram time tests performed June 7, 1981, and determined that the procedures and the scram time results were within the requirements specified in the station procedures and TS.
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
7.
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 November 5, 1981. Attendees at this exit interview are denoted in Paragraph 1.