IR 05000458/1989025

Insp Rept 50-458/89-25 on 890710-14.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Startup Testing. Conservative Error in Util Procedure for Manual Calculations of Core Thermal Power Identified

ML20247M264
Person / Time
Site:	River Bend
Issue date:	07/27/1989
From:	Ray Azua, Bundy H, Seidle W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:
Shared Package
ML20247M260	List: IR 05000458/1989025 ML20247M258
References
50-458-89-25, NUDOCS 8908020020
Download: ML20247M264 (7)

Text

m; .

wpr

c, ;;-p w m;n

- - - - --

e 5 +

+

'

-

+

, ,. , L: . ; n

'

ni

#

d; s t '

.L ,

M.4$ [h[

_ Jd'h

' '

. $, y , ^ 0 gr. e 9 j *

$

'

a- t

I,,",*e 4 ' , ,

• ~ >

'

98.i3,4., "

-

.

,-

,

! APPENDIX- .

- -

, a

% ' g' Y ,

, UAS.ENUCLEAR' REGULATORY.' COMMISSION q.; , , -REGION IV y ,

,

w>

~

<... -

. , , yf .

<

. ,.(NRC:> Inspection' Report: 50-458/89-25 Operating License: NPF-47-

'

~ s ,

y,m> ,

'

,

e n  ! Docket: 50-458' ,

,

.

,4 , ,

t

.

'

Licensee

~Gdif.StatesUtilities(GSU) <

,

%y ~

y P.O. BoxL220' . .

y J .St. Francisv111e, Louisiana 70775 ,

< .

~

. . . . ,

Facility Name

. River Bend Station w" c" ,

l Inspection At: .ERiver BendiStation (RBS), St."Francisville, Louisiana *

,

!: , . , _ . . .

Inspection Conducted: . July *10-14, 1989

.

' '

Inspectors:) M .

Date Ed7

• gH. F. Bundy. Reactor. Inspector, Test Programs -

g ,

' '

,

.

Section, Division of Reactor Safety ,

,s J ,

da '

'

MYks #

2Y8f

[#

"

,

-

"

RLVr h, TeaGrTnspector, Test Programs c

Section,-Division of. Reactor Safety Date ' ~

,

Approved: '= +

7 7 P'?

(j M C. Seidle, Chief. Test Programs Sectio Datie e Division of Reactor Safety 1 Y i Inspection Summary

Inspection Conducted July 10-14, 1989 (Report 50-458/89-25)

y Areas Inspected: Routine, announced-inspection including .startup testin , r nResults: Startup testing for Cycle 3. operation:had been completed in

- ' accordance with requirements. ' Extra shift manning for startup. reduced erro'r g : possibilities. . There generally appeared to be comfortable marg 1'ns to core thermal limits. ' Computer backup data capability was good. The training records of the personnel involved in the.startup testing were reviewed and

• found,to meet the licensee's requirements. A conservative error in the' licensee's N procedure for manual calculation of core thermal power was identified by the inspectors. No violations or deviations were identifie L -

,

8908020020 990727 t PDR ADOCK 05000458

+ Q PDC -

pu e,

_ __ _

___

r

.

<

. .S .

l.

,

..z-2-

,

.

DETAILS Persons Contacted Gulf States Utilities

• T. F. Plunkett, Plant Manager

• L.'A. England Director - Nuclear Licensing

• M. F. Sankovich, Manager - Engineering

• K. E. Suhrke, Manager - Project Management

• H. Odell, Manager - Administration

• R. G. West, Assistant Plant Manager - Technical Support

• G. S. Young, Jr., Reactor Engineering Supervisor D. Vernigan, General Maintenance Supervisor-J. Venable. Assistant Operations Superintendent J. E. Boyle, Shift Supervisor R. J. Vachon, Senior Compliance Analyst R. Gaylor.. Supervisor, Computer Systems Group C. R. Maxson, Acting Operations Quality Assurance Superintendent M. A. Huiatt, Reactor Engineer G. Humphreys, Systems Analyst - Computers System M. S. Feltner, Engineer - Licensing D. Andrews, Director - Nuclear Training W. Bushall, Training Coordinator - Maintenance Training General Electric (GE)

J. Fu, Engineer - Field Engineering NRC

• E. J. Ford, Senior Resident Inspector W. Jones, Resident Inspector The NRC inspectors also interviewed other licensee employees during the inspectio * Denotes those attending the exit interview on July 14, 198 . -Startup Testing - Refueling (72700)

The purpose of this inspection was to verify that startup testing following Refueling Outage 2 (beginning of Cycle 3) was in accordance with NRC requirements, fuel vendor requirements, and licensee procedures. In conjunction with this, it was verified that results met acceptance criteria and that deficiencies were resolved in a timely manr.er. To ascertain technical requirements, the inspectors reviewed the folicwing documents:

i

__ _ ____ ---____________--_- - -

e( y m.,

. -

.r

-

g(. ;

. .

~ ,

. - -

, -

w g ' ,' , - - >

a , <

l t

t - g

.t

. ['*' GSU License Amendment Request 88-016 Approved by Nuclear Review" Board (NRB)onNovember 21, 198 .

,

s

• Letter; RBG-29376 CSU to NRC. " Amendment' to RBS-Unit 1 Technical-Specifications (TS), Appendix A," dated November 18, 1988.,

, ,

Letter RBG-29574. GSU to NRC, " Additional Information Pursuant to j . Amendment Request of. November 18, 1988," dated December 20, 198 * Letter RBG-29573, GSU to NRC, " Amendment Request for Eight TS to'be Used During Refueling Outage Two " dated December 16, 198 * Letter NRC to GSU, "RBS, Unit 1 - Amendment No. 33.to Facility  ;

. Operating License No. NPF-47," dated January 30, 198 .

The-major technical change for Cycle 3 consisted of a higher linear- heat

. 9eneration rate for the new fuel and its resultant effects on other

- thermal limit :

To ascertain the licensee's startup testing program, the inspectors  !

interviewed operations and reactor engineering supervisory personnel and

' '

. reviewed the following documents: l

,

Cycle.3 Starting Testin'g Schedule, j

• " ' Administrative Pr6cedure (ADMI-0024, Revision 4. " Conduct of Reactor i

'

Engineering," and Critical Data Sheets completed June 23, 1989 and July 1,:198 * - General Operating Procedure (GOP)-0001, Revision 10. " Plant Startup," !

completed July 1, 198 !

i Taken together, when used by trained personnel, these documents appeared i to constitute a viable startup testing program. The following startup  ;

'

manning practices were described to the inspectors:

• An extra crew operating foreman (senior reactor operator) was assigned i to attend to administrative requirement * Extra licensed operators were assigned to the startu *

A ranagement person (operations superintendent, assistant operations ,

. superintendent, or assistant plant manager) assumed overview dutie * A reactor engineer was available in the control room prior to pulling i

,

,

,

rods to critica The' inspectors conoucted interviews and reviewed training records to ascertain qualifications of' selected test personnel in the reactor engineering and instrumentation and control (I&C) department ,

'

,

'

._a-. _ _ _ m__a_ __m . _ __ n, r- - - - x .

-

S

,?.

);;^

,

'

>

.-4-The I&C department personnel . training records were reviewed against the

"I&C Site Orientation Matrix," the "I&C Continuing Training Matrix," and Training Procedure No. TPP-7-015. Revision 2. " Instrument and Contro Maintenance Training," dated March 28, 1988. The reactor engineering department's personnel training records were~ reviewed against Procedure No. REP-006, Revision 1 " Reactor Engineering Qualification Matrix," dated September 13,.1988. The personnel training records reviewed, met the requirements set forth in the procedures described above. The procedures ,

were found to be adequat j s

During the inspection of this program area, it was noted that the training

'

v 1 department had, in the past, waivered some personnel from trainirig, listing their prior experience as the reason for this action. The licensee explained that this practice was abandoned after a couple of years because- l of the diffi::ulty in tracking the reasons for a particular waiver. The present practice does not allow for waivers, requiring all personnel to

- teke the required training course G0P-0001 required verification of nuclear instrument recponse and rod

. coupling during startup. The inspector reviewed Procedure No. STP-052-3701, Revision 5. " Control Rod Scram Testing," dated June 14, 1989, aiid found it to be technically adequate. The procedure was verified to have the proper approvals, as indicated by appropriate signaturer. In addition, the test data for the rod screm times were found to have met the acceptance criteri Specific-physics tests are discussed in detail in the following ,

subparagraph l

i Surveillance of Core Power Distribution Limits (61702) i This part of'the inspection was conducted to verify that the plant i

. was being operated within the licensed power distribution limit Pursuant to this objective, the inspectors reviewed the following procedures and data:

Surveillance Test Procedure GTP)-050-3001, " Power Distribution Limits Verification," completed June 25, 1989 j l

STP-000-0001, Revision 11. " Daily Operating Logs - Thermal .

Limits,"' completed July 6-10, 1989 .

P1 Reports from June 25-28, 1989 j

\

This data covered operation to 100 percent thern'al power. Except for-brief transients, it w o M erved that there were generally comfortable margins to thermal limit Discussions with the reactor engineering staff indicated that the arocess computer had been very reliable. The staff appeared l knowledgeable with regard to its capabilities and limitations. The

-

y ----w -

,

'

q (x: ~

'

L,',~ a; *

-5-

'

,

i

_

7' computer systems group had hour-by-hour responsibility for'its

'

operation'and_ exhibited expert knowledge of its capabilitie ,, Historical process computer data was stored on hard drives and

>

. . transferred to. magnetic tapes every 4 days. Therefore, the most A operating data'that could be lost would be the last 4 days. If the

, process computer were unavailable, the licensee had the capability of obtaining thermal limit calculations promptly from an offsite GE-computer through the BUCLE progrsm. Use of BUCLE was controlled by-the following procedure:

~

"

. Reactor 1 Engineering; Procedure (REP)-0026, Revision 1 "Use of BUCLE." effective May 19, 1989 Although use of BUCLE had r+ver been required, the inspector reviewed data indicating the program nad been updated approximately every-3' weeks. If it were required, an update would be made with the latest information available prior to us The inspectors' determined that'the process computer had been updated for Cycle 3 by review of the following procedure:

"

Engineering Department' Procedure (EDP)-CC-0202, Revision 1,

-

"Pr9 cess Computer Initialization Following Refueling' Outages,"

comp'teted June 9 1989-Through discussions with the reactor engineering staff and review of the following procedure, the inspectors ascertained that a program

'

had been-implemented to maintain configuration control of the process -

computer:

"

EDP-CC-0001 Revision 1. "Non-Safety Related Computer System Configuration Control," approved December 14, 1988'

i Calibration of Nuclear Instrumentation Systems (61705)

The inspector reviewed the licensee's efforts to calibrate its nuclear instrumentation. This included the local power range monitor (LPRM),

the average. power range monitor (APRM), and the traversing incore probe (TIP) system. The review included a look at STP-505-4251, Revision 5,-"RPS/ Local Power Range Monitor 1000 EFPH Channel Calibration .

'{APRM A through H)," dated April- 18, 1989, and STP-506-3700, Revision 3 j

"TIP System Operability Test," dated May 26, 1989. Both procedures were found to be technically adequate and' incorporated the associated ,

regulatory requirements and commitments. The procedures were also !

o verified to have the proper approvals, as indicated by appropriate ;

.

signature (

V h

! l

-

-

. - - --

- ---

y w

'

i . .

% b;- $ k ;x - - v-v

'

,

43, ,,

1, 1

? -6-

-

r:

,

The most recent' test data for the proceduresglisted above were reviewed.by the inspector and were found to have met the acceptance

"

, criteria set forth in these procedure In addition, the inspector e verified that the calibration had been performed at.the proper ,

frequency as stated in the procedures and in t e h licensee's. Technical Specifications, Core Thermal Power Evaluation (61706)

This part of the inspection was' performed to verify inat the calculation of core thermal power was correct and that the procedure

- used was. technically adequate. Pursuant to this objective the inspector.revtewed the following procedure:

REP-0030, Revision 2, ". Reactor Heat Balance," completed June 27, 198 As a result of procedure review and discussions with the reactor

- engineering supervisor, the following are among the purnoses for using

- this' procedure:

Verification of process computer core thermal power calculatio /

Determining substitute values for input to the process corrputer when tailed sensors are discovere *

Calculating core thermal power and inlet subcooling for input to the BUCLE progra The procedure reviewed was completed to verify the core thermal power calculated by the process computer. By performing independent calculations using the input data given, the inspector verified the process computer calculation within 0.1 percent on the conservative side. However, the inspector discovered a conservative error in the data given by the procedure. The value given for enthalpy of saturated water at an assumed CRD supply temperature of 80' F was 0.016072 btu /lb-M. The value should have been 48.037 btu /lb-M. The

- licensee issued Temporary Change Notice 89-0955 to correct the procedure error and attached it to RBS Condition Report 69-0883 for followup sction. The inspector estimated that the conservative error was less than 0.02 percent powe Determination of Reactor Shutdown Margin (61707)

The purpose of this part of the inspection was to'asceri tin that the !

liccnsee had demonstrated adequate shutdown margin in acordance with Technical Specifications and the GE Cycle 3 Management Repor Pursuant to this objective, the inspector reviewed the following procedure:

~

_ _ -

.

' "

'. W . ,

e. . W.,

e-g-;,,,...

gd.: -

.]

Mj' -7- <

]

,

'

, ,

,

STP-050-3601 Revision 6,'" Shutdown Margin Demonstration,"

41 ' completed June 19, 198 .i

.The. data reviewed satisfied Technical Specifications and was very close to design prediction No violations' or deviations were identified in the startup testing s area.-

'

3. : Exit Interview:

=5 The inspectors' met with~t~ he-licensee representatives denoted in paragraph 1 on July 14, 1989, and summarized the scope and findings of-this inspection.- Proprietary materials provided to the inspectors were returned at the conclusion of the inspection and none of their contents are reproduced in:this repor .

S A

i F A l

,

e n

"

n.