IR 05000382/1989040
| ML20042D336 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 12/26/1989 |
| From: | Bundy H, Murphy M, Seidle W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20042D335 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-382-89-40, NUDOCS 9001090008 | |
| Download: ML20042D336 (6) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:.xmw , 'l i- ' - m ,, r. l ' ; _ <0 - l? w -. .u' q :, K APPENDIX u k U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION.
y, REGION ~IV .NRC Inspection Report: 50-382/89_-40-Operating License:.NPF-38 v, . . Docket: 50-382 ' Licensee: Louisiana Power & Light Company (LP&L)- 317 Baronne Street: ' l New Orleans, Louisiana 70160 . .
< [ Facility Name: Waterford St'eam Electric Station, Unit 3 (W-3) ' . L-Inspection At: L - W-3, Taft, Louisiana
Inspection Conducted: December 4-8, 1989 , Inspectors:1 /2/27[ff
' M. E. Murphy, Reactor Inspector,-Test Programs Date Section, Division of Reactor Safety , ~ /z/1.2 /9 7 ,H. F. Bundy, Reactor InTpector, Test Programs Date ' Section, Division of Reactor Safety ,
I Ef ' Approved: m ' W. C. SMdle, Chief, Test Programs Section Date I Divisonof-ReactorSafety Inspection' Summary-Inspection Conducted December 4-8, 1989, (Report 50-382/89-40) < Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of postrefueling startup and core physics tests.
Results:. No violations or deviations were identified in the. areas inspected.
'I cTwo items of concern were identified. The first was a lack of clarity in the procedures'that left interpretations relying solely on the performers
experience. This ' led to the second concern, which was a. lack of literal-l compliance to1 acceptance criteria without adequate explanation, justification, ' 'or a. procedure change.
The licensee did have a procedure review and , enhancement program in process and agreed that these concerns would be
. considered during the~ procedure improvements.
. 9001090008 891229 '
PDR ADOCK 05000382 Q PDC > .
g, . < - t , ,
h , , . SNf- ' ,
,, ~ . . 1, , . j }
'
, I
" DETAILS n . j .1. - Persons Contacted , , LP&L ., > .; s.
'*P. Melancon, Reactor Engineering Supervisor ! , .
- T. Smith,. Plant Engineering Superintendent
.
- D. Packer, Assistant Plant Manager, Operations and Maintenance.
-
- W. Brian, Systems Engineering Supervisor-d.
' I
- P.'Prasankumar, Assistant Plant Manager, Technical Support
- G.' Davis, Manager, Event Analysis Report and Response-y
- D. Baker, Manager, Nuclear Operations Support and Assessments R.
- L. Laughlin, Site Li. censing Supervisor.-
a " NRC
.. 'W. Smith, Senior Resident Ins'pector , $. Butler, Resident' Inspector ' . . .
- Denotes those attending the exit. meeting on December 11, 1989.
'i ~ n q The inspectors also contacted other. licensee personnel during the j inspection.. l ', 2.-lStartupTesting-Refueling'-(72700) This inspection involved the review of data from' selected startup and core physics: tests associated with the Cycle'4' refueling at W-3.
This review-j was conducted by the inspectors to verify compliance with NRC requirements .; and licensee procedures. -No' violations or deviations were identified in
' the areas reviewed, however, the inspectors did identify concerns with l respect to the lack of clarity in the procedures and lack of literal l compliance to acceptance criteria without adequate explanition, justification, or procedure change.
' . The inspectors reviewed procedures and test data in.the following areas: l SurveillanceofCorePowerDistributionLimits(61702) '* ' [: ye Calibration 'of Nuclear -Instrumentation Sys'tems (61705) !
i ' Core Thermal Power Evaluation (61706) '* , l;, DeterminationofReactor.ShutdownMargin(61707) Isothermal and Moderator Temperature Coefficient Determinations
!' (61708) Total Power coefficient of Reactivity (61709)
l l!: 1;
l '
. - - -- .- , , .
,_,c .. s v , . a., -3. y
- ControlRodWorthMeasurements(61710) m - ' t
- -
Rod:DriveandRodPositionIndicationChecks'(72700) Results of_ the review in each area are discussed in the following paragraphs.
a.
' Rod Drive and Rod Position Indication Checks (72700) ' - To confirm that control element assembly (CEA) insertion times were - -measured and that cross-checks of the CEA position indication L
systems were made in accordance with Technical Specification (TS) requirements, the inspectors reviewed completed Startup Test , Procedure NE-002-020, Revision 2, "CEA Insertion Time Measurement."
l The test results. indicated satisfaction of all acceptance criteria.
L However, an anomaly in the position indication cross-checks for the a 'four finger CEAs in the fully. inserted position was not adequately ' explained in:the test results. The plant computer. indicated these . I four rods were at 0 inches, while all other systems correctly indicated they were'at approximately 9 inches withdrawn. This did i not meet the acceptance criterion of agreement within plus_or minus 5 l inches for all position indication systems.1The reactor engineering supervisor informed the inspectors that it had been determined that t , N the plant computer was not' properly initialized prior to taking these readings _and:that readings agreed after initialization.
Plant-- yA management' committed to developing better administrative controls'for t T dispositioning failures to literally comply with acceptance criteria.
a' a y b.
Surveillance of Core Power Distribution Limits (61702) The purpose of this part of the inspection was to ascertain that appropriate' data was gathered from the incore instruments and ' processed in accordance with approved procedures and programs to-assure operation within power distribution limits established by the
TS and approved vendor reload analysis report. Specifically, the inspector verified that a)propriate addressable constants were determined and input to tie core protection calculator (CPC).
j Pursuant to these objectives, the inspector reviewed the following a ! procedures and. appropriate completion records: ~i Administrative Procedure NE-6-001, Revision 3, " Addressable '
Constant Administrative Controls" i ' Startup Test Procedure (STP) NE-2-110, Revision 0, " Symmetry ' ! Verification" STP NE-2-100, Revision 1, " Fast Power Ascension Data Collection and Analysis" STP NE-2-140, Revision 0, " Core Power Distribution Measurement"
l .l b =
%y,, < m . - -
~ , i m .,. < , p ; #[. '.7 'l ;o , {,f j',. [ ip
{{. l,,'b- ' 'I , _ n,, , -, , ' QUgq[ ;
n - , t s Gl } 7_ - f -
, _ '
- f f
e STP NE-2-150, Revision 1, " Radial Peaking Factor and CEA , t Shadowing Factor Measurement"- . , m '
~ ~ The inspector determined from review of-the above dat'aithat the plant: . was being operated within. established power distribution limits.
, ' "; Also,~ new addressable constants were appropriately established and ,, , i-
installed:in the CPC. However, in reviewing addressable constant? , data input sheets dated November 23, 1989, the inspector noted that , o , , the new values for BERR2 and BERR4 did not match the4 values derived
in accordance with STP NE-2-100 in that they'were both listed as'6.5 - ; A ,4 while the computer program had output value:5 of 8.5.
The licensee produced Letter L-CE-R-232, Combustion Engineering to LP&L Reactor , Engineering Supervisor, dated Hovember 14, 1989, which. authorized %' < changing BERR2 and BERR4 to 6.5.
The inspector pointed out to licensee management that'it'was difficult to follow the' addressable- ,
(" . constant data input sheets in that the new values were derived from s ' several sources and no references were given on the' sheets. The , . licensee committed to improving the-addressable constant change ' E iforms.- g i's .In reviewing STP NE-2-140, the inspector noted that Step;5.6.2 - ' required the axial-shape index:(ASI) to be within 0.005 of-the - equilibriumshape_index(ESI). The ESI was established ast-0.1 in
' & . y Step l 4 '.1.
In Attachment 9.1, the-ASI for-CPC Channel C was recorded as.1182, which _does not meet -the above criterion. 1The reactor- ' ' ' engineering supervisor stated that the acceptable method for , establishing compliance was to_ average the ASI for all four.CPC . ' L, , channels, which was'in compliance:with the criterion.? Licensee ', L _ management committed to reviewing its STPs to ensure that sufficient ' instructions.are given to ensure calculations can be. independently i e , verified to establish compliance with acceptance criteria.
y4 e Y c.
Calibration of Nuclear Instrument'ation (NI) Systems *(61705) I, ' The purpose of this part of the inspection was to verify that . 3 incore/excore nuclear instrumentation calibration was performed and b that the excore safety channels were appropriately adjusted.
% Pursuant to these objectives,~the inspector reviewed the following ' b completed procedures: L STP NE-2-010,, Revision 1. " Linear Power Subchannel Adjustment" l.
.
E' Surveillance-Procedure M1-3-101, Revision 3, "NI Linear Power L-Channel Calibration Safety Channel A B C D_" !- The-inspector determined that the required data had been documented and the new linear current values had been established as , ! appropriate.
, I ? r p - 3 ~ L \\
m y _ _
n ni? ; um:, -
f eM.,9 , ' ~ . $ e' ' ,\\ y-5-oM , p ' , i-
' ' ld.
Core' Thermal Power Evaluations -(61706)~ i ' ' , . The purpose of;thistpart of the1 inspection was'to determine that the / core. thermal power was correctly established by calorimetr.ic ' < calculationsiat the required intervals during the startup.
Pursuant to this objective, the inspector reviewed-the following completed - , ,i . procedures: ., i - Surveillance Procedure NE-04-006 Revision 3, "RCS Flow Rate i
. Calculation with COLSS Operable" , s STP NE-2-120, Revision 0, " Nuclear and Thermal. Power.
"" Calibration" . STP'NE-02-100,- Rev.ision'1, " Fast Power Ascension Data Colle*ction
' and Analysis" j o
. . T The inspector determined that'the core thermal power had been ' ,, established at: appropriate intervals during the startup..Also,, reactor power level and flow instrumentation had been adjusted to - provide conservative supervisory controls and. inputs' to thesplant
protection-system.
' i Determination of Reactor Shutdown Margin '(61707) e.
t Th'e purpose of this part of the inspection was to determine that adequate.. reactor shutdown margin had been established prior'to.
< ~ goperation:above 5 percent of rated thermal power. Completed . Surveillance Procedure NE-04-007, Revision 0, " Shutdown Margin at the ' . iTransient Insertion Limits," indicated satisfaction of.this ' requirement. Calculations indicated'an available 5.8 percent ' delta K/K reactivity shutdown ~ margin versus an-acceptance criterion '
of 5.15 percent delta K/K.
. . + y .v "1 .Ef.
Isothermal and Moderator Temperature coefficient Determination '(61708)
During this portion of the inspection, the inspector verified the - . licensee'sdeterminationofmoderatortemperaturecoefficient(tiTC)
- -
, and reviewed isothermal temperature coefficient (1TC) comparisons; l; with predicted values and TS requirements. The licensee measures the , , , ITC and then determines the corresponding MTC. This is accomplished ' by, Procedure HE-02-060, " Isothermal Temperature Coefficient . " Measurement." During the review of the data for this procedure, the inspector noted that the strip charts used for recording reactivity, j reactor coolant temperature, and reactor power were not labeled to , h, identify the trace to the parameter and did not have a scale index.
! L To assess procedure performance, the inspector had to rereview this L data with a licensee representative.
1 The inspector verified that the licensee satisfactorily fulfilled ITC ' J measurement test precautions and prerequisites. Actual plant , , , . . - - . - - . ... .-. _ .. ._
' ~ ' ^~~ ~ 3- .t um w7-
, ,, g ' -, , , l-U,. ,.i , e l f ;. 4.., W< > - , - ][G l ', < 'A.
Y ' , , w y- ,; -.
, , .. q
- O' ~" '
_ < i g
-, ,-6- ,#<. ~ t _ t . g" - , + >c . . . ..:.. ' conditions established duringlthe. test were the?same~as those assumed .ir. the analytical predictions. The : licensee corre'ctly calculated ITC ' ' 1from reactivity and RCS' temperature traces $taken for dual RCS heatup . F, - and cooldown. cycles performed at hot zero power. 'The ITC value- ,4 determined was consistent with the predicted value,and within TS , ' l requirements.
> g g; . Total Power Coefficient"of Reactivity (61709) { ' , ,. 1The total power coefficient of reactivity typibally is not measured o~ ~. .following core reloads, at pressurized water reactors, unless the ' core parameters depart markedly from-typical fuel and poison- <
- loadings. The licensee has not been required to determine total
, power. coefficient of reactivity since initial startup.
, t < h.
C6ntrol Rod Worth Measurements (61710) ~ "
3 .This' area <of the. inspection was to verify that control rod worth '
- ~
s l measurement procedures follow the licensee's commitments for the'- - - Cycle 4. core reload analysis report.
. The inspector. reviewed licensee Procedure NE-02-040, Revision 1, "CEA' Group Worth Measurementi" : Control element assembly group worth.
s measurements were performed utilizing the rod group exchange.- a^ technique in accor. dance with the procedure and included determination 'of reference group worths by boration-dilution. The inspector . i verified portions of the results by independent data reduction and evaluation. Collection and reduction of data conformed to the' procedure requirements.
' 3L _ Exit-Meeting- < l An exit meeting was held December 11', 1989, withtheindividualsnotidin ' paragraph 1 of this report..At this meeting the-scope of the inspection .and the findings were'sumarized. The licensee did not identify as r , proprietary any-of the information provided to, or reviewed by the . inspectors.
% t . . ' D i ,- .. . _ _., _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. . - _, _ _ _ _ .. ..
' _ }}