IR 05000317/1979015
| ML19256E338 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Calvert Cliffs  |
| Issue date: | 09/19/1979 |
| From: | Bettenhausen L, Caphton D, Graham P NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19256E334 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-317-79-15, NUDOCS 7911020115 | |
| Download: ML19256E338 (8) | |
Text
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY C.0MMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Region I
'
Report No. 60-317/79-15 Docket No. 50-317 License No. DPR-53 Priority
--
Category C
Licensee:
Baltimore Gas and Electric Company Gas and Electric Building Galtimore, Maryland 21203 Facility Name:
Cle. vert Cliffs Unit 1 Inspectior. 3t-Lusby, Meryland Inspection conducted:
September 4-7, 1979 Inspectors:
- H i!/i
- >
s.-
P. D. Graham, Reactor Irispector d/tte s gned nd-l'f 7 7 L. H. Bettennausen, Reactor Inspector date signed da e signed Approved by b
f /9!7 /
tw'D. L. Caphton, Chief, Nuclear Supoort date signed l
Section No. 1, RO&NS Branch Insoection Summary:
Insoection en Seotember 4-7, 1979 (Recort No. 50-317/79-15)
Areas Inspectad: Routine unannounced inspection of post refueling plant opera-tions, sta: tup testing including determination of core power distribution, core thermal power, control rod worth measurements, shutdown margin, and reactivity coefficients. The inspection involved 51 inspector-hours on site by two NRC regional based inspectors.
Sesults: Of the seven areas inspected, no items of noncompliance were identified.
Regicn I Form 12 (Rev. April 77)
7911020 //
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted R. Denton, Nuclear Plant Engineer - Operations W. Gibson, Nuclear Plant Engineer - Performances J. Lippold, Nuclear Engineer
- J. Mihalcik, Fuel Management Engineer P. Rizzo, Assistant General Foreman - Maintenance
- L. Russell, Chief Engineer J. Steelman, Fuel Management Engineer K. Tietjen, Technical Specialist The inspector also talked with and interviewed several other 'icensee employees during the course of this inspection.
- denotes those present at the exit interview.
2.
Post Refueling Plant Ooerations The inspector reviewed operations and surveillance procedures to determine the following:
Systems disturbed during the refueling outage were returned to
--
service in accordance with approved procedures; and, Preparations for control rod withdrawal (e.g. estimated critical
--
rod position) and performance of control rod withdrawal were conducted in accordance with approved procedures.
The following procedures were reviewed:
OI-1C, Reactor Coolant System (RCS) Leak Test, Revision 3, approved
--
May 25, 1977, completed July 9, 1979; 0I-10, RCS Fill and Vent, Revision 12, approved June 13, 1979,
--
completed July 5,1979; TSP-22, RCS Pressure Test:
Class I,Section XI, Revision 1,
--
approved July 6, 1979, completed July 9, 1979; Metrascope Calibration / Calibration Check Data Sheet, completed
--
February 2, 1979; e
.
.
STP-M-211-1, Secondary Control Element Assembly (CEA) Alarm
--
Verification, Revision 0, approved December 16, 1976, completed July 8, 1979; OP-6, Pre-Startup Checkoff, Revision 11, approved June 28, 1979,
--
completed July 14, 1979; and, STP-0-6-1, Reactor Protection System (RPS) Startup Test, Revision
--
2, approved July 12, 1978, completed July 9, 1979.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
3.
Post Refueling Startuo Testing The inspector reviewed tests, checks and documents described below to verify that startup testing was conducted in accordance with technically adequate procedures and as required by Technical Specification (TS).
The predicted physics parameters for Calvert Cliffs Unit 1 fuel cycle 4 are contained in Calvert Cliffs Unit 1 Cycle 4 Startup Test Predictions Core Data, Combustion Engineering letter dated June 4, 1979.
The inspector also discussed with a licensee representative the submission of the Startup Report to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as required by TS.
The licensee representative commented that the Startup Report would be sent to the Commission within 45 days of Startup Test Completion (August 31,1979).
Review of the Startup Test Program indicated that both the Initial Criticality and Low Power Physics Testing Procedure and the Escalation to Power Test Procedure were incomplete at the time of inspection.
The inspector noted that all TS required tests and surveillances had been completed and that raw data verified compliance with TS.
Both procedures, however, lacked the final supervisory review and evaluaticn of the data.
The inspector discussed tM importance of proper documen-tation of test results and evaluations with licensee representatives, who agreed with the inspector's comments, and pointed out that this review and evaluation was in progress and would be completed by October 15, 1979.
The Startup Test Program is an Unresolved ! tem pending completion of the Low Power Physics Testing Procedure, Escalation to Power Test Procedure, submission of the Startup Report and further inspector review (317/79-15-01).
This is further discussed in the subparagraphs that follow.
4@
.
a.
Initial Criticality and Low Power Physics Tests The startup and low power testing for cycle 4 of Unit 1 was con-ducted according to PSTP 79-2, Initial Approach to Criticality and Lcw Power Physics Testing prepared July 6, 1979 and approved July 6, 1979.
The procedure includes Control Element Assembly symmetry checks, rod drop times, intitial criticality, zero power isothermal temperature coefficient determinations, control rod worth determinations, and response and range overlap of nuclear instrumentation.
The inspector determined the following summary of parameters, based upon raw test data or preliminary data evaluations:
Low Power Physics Tests Test Predicted Measured CEA Symmetry Check All CEA's latched Satisfactory All Rods Out Critical Baron 1346 + 100 ppm 1341 ppm Isothermal Temperature Coefficient +.492 +.3*
+.364*
-
(Group 5 @ 102", 1335 ppm, 532F)
CEA Group Worths:
.586+.088**
.550**
.1677.025
.176
.5897.088
.592
.4517.068
.460
.8557.128
.788 Total 2.6483265 2.567 Critical Baron, Control Groups In 1104+100 p 1102 ppm Rod drop times (90% insertion)
< 2.'6 sec.pm all < 2.5 sec.
-4
- Units on the above numbers are x10 delta k/k/F.
- Units on the above numbers are % delta k.
The tests were performed in accordance with the approved procedure.
The inspector reviewed the procedure, the appendices which define each test,and the data obtained. All parameters reviewed were within test acceptance criteria and TS limits.
}
.
-
.
The overall test p ocedure 79-2 was not completed at the time of this inspection.
Licensee representatives stated that the review and evaluation of the data collected in the period July 9-13, 1979 was not yet completed. This review is to be completed along with preparation of a Startup Report by October 15, 1979.
This incompleteness was identified above as an Unresolved Item (317/79-15-01).
b.
Escalation to Power (1) Escalation to power was conducted in accordance with PSTP 79-3, U-l 4/c Escalation to Power Test, Revision 0, approved July 13, 1979. This procedure required the measureinent of the Isothermal Temperature Coefficient of Reactivity (ITC),
the Power Coefficient of Reactivity (PC) and the Core Power Distribution measurement at the 50% and 100% power plateaus.
These measurements were conducted in accordance with the following:
PSTP 79-3, Appendix BBB, Variable Tavg Test;
--
PSTP 79-3, Appendix CCC, Special Procedure for Power
--
Increases During the Initital Power Eccalation; and, PSTP 79-3, Appendix DDD, INCA Library Qualification and
--
Power Distribution Measurement.
Based on review of the procedures listed above, the inspector developed the following table of ITC and PC values.
50% Power 100% Power Coefficient Predicted Measured Predicted Measured ITC
+.2571 3*
+.0895
.2721 3
.386 PC
.9141 2-1.246**
.7881 2
.787
~4
- Units on the above numbers are x10 delta k/k/F.
- This number falls outside the acceptance criteria.
The licensee's method of evaluation of this value was tu conduct the measurement at 100% power to see if that value was acceptable.
Since the 100% power value was within the acceptablo limits, the licensee decided that the 50% power PC was not a problem. The inspectors agreed with the licensee's evaluation.
q
.
.
In addition to Appendix 000 listea chove the inspector reviewed the following " INCA" on-line computer program tests and results to verify that the plant is operating within the core power distribution limits defined in TS section 3.2.
Computer Tests Cases and Computer Data Base changes,
--
completed prior to start of fuel cycle 4.
" INCA" on-line computer program, performed July 10, 1979
--
through September 1,1979.
All computed values were well within TS limits.
The Escalation to Power Test was suspended on July 31, 1979 by Change 9 to PSTP 79-3.
The suspension resulted from secondary plant conditions which prevented 100% power operation. The test program was restarted on August 24, 1979 and testing completed on August 31, 1979.
The inspector noted that procedure PSTP 79-3 was incomplete at the time of the inspection.
Several signatures signifying completion of steps in the procedure were missing, and review and evaluation of the measured data was not documented in the procedure as required.
Discussions with cognizant personnel indicated that the procedure was currently under review and evaluation. This item is Unresolved and is part of Unresolved Item (317/79-15-01)
discussed above.
During the review of PSTP 79-03, the inspector noted that the acceptance criteMa for ITC at 50% power is not in compliance with the TS limit for power less than 70% (TS Section 3.1.1.4).
TN inspector verified that the measured value of ITC at 50%
power was in compliance with the TS limit.
A licensee representative acknowledged the discrepancy and committed to a procedural change by October 15, 1979. This item is Unresolved (317/79-15-02).
(2) As part of the Escalation to Power Test, the licensee performs a surveillance test on the excore power range instrument to check
. heir performance.
This test is conducted in accordance with STP-M-213-1, Calibration of Power Range Nuclear Instruments with In-Core Nuclear Instrumentation, Revivion 1, approved September 9, 1977. The inspector reviewed the procedure performed on July 18, 1979, and August 20, 1979.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
s
.~.
c.
Other Tests and Surveillances The inspector reviewed other tests, surveillances and calibrations performed in the startup test period or related tests prior to startup. These tests are noted below.
(1) PSTP 79-4, Incore Thermocouple Evaluation Procedure, approved July 6,1979 compared temperature measurements from three incore thermocouples with T and T i
temperatures obtaineh0buring Ndbp.n detail over the range of The comparison was good and the results were accepted on July 11, 1979.
(2) Calibration of the reactivity computer is performed according to vendor instructions, using coefficients calculated in the Cycle 4 Core Data. The computer was set up and properly tested on July 9, 1979.
(3) The inspector reviewed a manual calorimetric calculation performed on August 14, 1979 under 01-30, Nuclear Instrumen-tation, Revision 4, approved. lune 21, 1978.
The manual calculation resulted in a core thermal power of 1941.84MW. The plant computer value at the end of the one-hour average was 1933.8MW for a difference of 0.41 The inspector independently computed the manual results. Supporting calibrations for core thermal power (calorimetric) determinations reviewed were STP-M-535-1, Feedwater Flow Calibration, Rev. 1, Approved January 24, 1978 and performed May 14, 1979 and records for feedwater resistance temperature detectors 1-TE-4516 and 1-TE-4517 for calibrations performed on February 6,1979.
(4) Reactivity Ancmaly Surveillance is conducted in accordance with NEP-1, In-Core Fuel Management (U-1), Revision 4, approved January 24, 1979.
The cycle 4 boron depletion versus burnup prediction was available.
Surveillance under TS 4.1.1.1.2 had not yet begur because normalization data had not yet been obtained. A licensee representative stated that the data would be obtained and the surveillance would begin prior to achieving 60 Effective Full Power Day burnup.
The procedure NEP-1 also provides methods for TS surveillance on linear heat rate, moderator temperature coefficient, total planar radial peaking factor, integrated radial peaking factor, azimuthal power tilt and 'incore detector functions. The associated data sheets were reviewed and randomly compared to process computer data for the review period July 10 - September 1,1979. No discrepancies were identified. The moderator temperature coefficent determination 1259 074
.
.
..
at s900 ppm boron concentration per TS 4.1.1.4.2.b was done as part of the 100% power testing on August 24-31, 1979.
(5) Reactivity Shutdown Margin adequacy prior to achieving reactor criticality during normal plant operations is monitored through cerformance of NEOG-6, Estimated Critical Condition Uetermination, Revision 5, approved November 11, 1976.
The inspector reviewed data from the performance of this procedure on July 25, August 10 and August 27, 1979. No discrepancies were noted.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
4.
Plant Tour The inspector conducted a tour of the Unit 1 and Unit 2 Turbine building, the intake screen area and the protected area.
Items monitored included general cleanliness and housekeeping conditions, fire extinguisher maintenance and potential fire hazards. Findings were acceptable, except as noted below.
The inspectors found two fire doors on the southeast stair well of the Turbine building (elevation 12' and 27') propped open. This discrepancy was brought to the attention of the licensee and action was taken to close the doors.
5.
Unresolved Items Items about which more information is required to determine acceptability are considered unresolved. Paragraph 3 of this report contains unresolved items.
6.
Exit Interview At the conclusion of the inspection, the inspectors held a meeting (see Detail 1 for attendees) to discuss the inspection scope and findings.
gh