ML17319A684
| ML17319A684 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cook  |
| Issue date: | 11/21/1980 |
| From: | Hopkins B, Streeter J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17319A681 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-315-80-16, NUDOCS 8101120034 | |
| Download: ML17319A684 (6) | |
See also: IR 05000315/1980016
Text
V.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE
OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
Report No., 50-315/80-16
Docket No. 50-315
License
No. DPR-58
Licensee:
American Electric Power Service Corporation
and Michigan Power
Company
2 Broadway
New York, NY
10004
Facility Name:
D.
C.
Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit
1
Inspection At:
D.
C.
Cook Site,
Bridgman,
MI
Inspection Conducted:
October 21-22 and November 5-7,
1980
PS
z
Inspector: ..
o
Other Accompanying Personnel:
J. F. Streeter
(October 21-22,
November 6-7,
1980)
Approved By:
J. F. Streeter,
Chief
Nuclear Support Section
1
~ ~/~i/rc)
Ins ection
Summar
Ins ection on October 21-22 and November 5-7
1980
(Re ort No. 50-315/80-16)
items;
core power distribution limits; control rod worths; incore/excore
calibration;
core thermal power evaluation; control rod position indication
checks;
and reactivity anomalies.
The inspection involved
a total of 27
inspector-hours
onsite by one
NRC inspector including 0 inspector-hours
during offshifts.
The inspector
was accompanied
by his supervisor.
Results:
Of the six areas
inspected,
no items of noncompliance
or'deviations
were identified in five areas.
One item of noncompliance
was identified in
one area
(Deficiency - failure to follow procedure - Paragraph
8).
DETAILS
Persons
Contacted
-D. V. Shaller, Plant Manager
-B. Z. Svensson,
Assistant Plant Manager
- E. A. Smarrella,
Technical Superintendent
-J. F. Stietzel,
gA Supervisor
- C. Ross,
Plant Nuclear Engineer
- J. C. Ho, Performance
Engineer
E.
W. Kant, Performance
Engineering Supervisor
'N. E. DuBry,
USNRC Resident Inspector
- E. R. Swanson,
USNRC Senior Resident Inspector
"Denotes
those present
during the exit interview.
Followu
on Previousl
Identified Ins ection Items
(Closed)
Noncompliance
(50-3/5/79-28) Failure to update the plant
Technical data book with the revised differential boron worth curves:
The inspector determined that licensee corrective actions
were con-
sistent with the licensee's
letter to Region III dated February 4,
1980.
(Closed) Unresolved
Item (315/79-28-01)
The licensee
uses
the ratio
of measured/predicted
Control Bank worth as
a multiplier of predicted
Shutdown Bank worth to obtain
a "measured"
Shutdown
Bank worth.
The
assumption that the Control Bank worth ratio is equal to Shutdown Bank
worth ratio might not be conservative.
The licensee
has modified the
shutdown margin determination procedure
such that
a 10/ penalty is
taken against
the Shutdown Bank worth value
and
a 5/ penalty against
the Control Bank worth value.
The 10/ penalty
on the unmeasured
Shutdown Bank worth value is consistent with the FSAR.
The 54
penalty
on the measured
Control Bank worth value is acceptable
since
the reactivity computer accuracy is required to be +4/.
A check was
made of previous cycle shutdown margins using this new method
and
these
met acceptance
criteria.
(Closed) Unresolved
Item (315/79-28-02)
The Unit 1 Cycle 4 measured
differential boron worth was about 20$ more negative
than the Exxon
design value.
A letter from Exxon to AEPSC dated July 15,
1980,
stated that the predicted differential boron worth would be increased
by a 10'ias
and that Exxon will continue to investigate
the observed
differences.
This 10/, bias
was applied to the Unit 1 Cycle 5 data
and
the measured
value
was only 6$ more negative
than the predicted value.
Verification of Conduct of Startu
Ph sics Testin
The inspector
reviewed the startup physics testing
and verified that
the licensee
conducted
the following:
"2-
a.
b.
c ~
d.
e.f.
g ~
h.
3
~
Rod Drive and Rod Position Indication Checks
Core Power Distribution Limits
Incore/Excore Calibration
Core Thermal Power Evaluation
Determination of Shutdown Margin
Isothermal Temperature Coefficient
Power Coefficient of Reactivity" Measurement
Control Rod Worth Measurement
Target Axial Flux Difference Calculation
Determination of Reactivity Anomalies
Control Rod Worths
The inspector
reviewed procedures
12 THP 6040
PER.
051, Rev. 4,
"Differential Boron, Individual Rod Bank Worth and Boron Endpoint
Measurements,"
12 THP 6040
PER.
060, Rev. 2, "Differential Boron,
Overlap Rod Bank Worth and Boron Endpoint Measurements,"
and
12 THP
6040 PER.
059, Rev. 4, "Zero Power and Power Ascension Tests" for
Unit 1 Cycle 5 determination of Control Rod worths.
The measurements
met the acceptance
criterion that individual Control Bank worths be
within 15'/ of the predicted values
and that total worth of the Control
Banks be within 10/ of predicted.
No items of noncompliance
or deviations
were identified.
Reactivit
Anomal
The inspector
reviewed information relating to Cycle 5 determination
of reactivity anomaly,
as
shown by the licensee's
Boron Letdown Curve.
Technical Specification requirements
were met since the determination
was
made at least
once every
31 EFPD and the measurements
were within
lg, of the predicted reactivity.
No items of noncompliance
or deviations
were identified.
Core Power Distribution Iimits
The inspector
examined the printouts of the computer program
CORE for
Cycle 5.
The inspector determined that all prerequisites
were met,
the computer
was using input values
from the actual plant conditions,
and hot channel factors,
quadrant tilts, and axial flux difference
measurements
satisfied Technical Specification requirements.
The
inspector determined that hot channel factors were measured at least
once every 31 EFPD as required by Technical Specifications.
The
inspector noted that,
as allowed by the Technical Specifications,
the
APDMS (axial power distribution monitoring system)
was turned off.
No items of noncompliance
or deviations
were identified.
'ontrol Rod Position Indication Checks
The inspector
reviewed procedure
12 THP 6030
IMP. 002, Rev.
3, "Analog
Rod Position Indication System Maintenance"
and verified that the final
(hot shutdown) calibration of control rod position indication was per-
formed satisfactorily prior to Cycle 5 startup.
No items of noncompliance
or deviations
were identified.
8.
Core Thermal Power Evaluation
The inspector
reviewed procedures
1-OHP 4030
STP.
029, Rev.
3,
"Reactor Thermal Power Determination,"
and
12 THP 6040
PER.
020, Rev.
2,
"Thermal Power Measurement"
and verified plant conditions, figures
and
equations
used in calculations,
instrument calibrations,
and frequency
of performance.
A daily check of nuclear instrumentation
had been
done
in accordance
with 1-OHP 4030
STP.
029,
Rev.
3,
and nuclear instrumen-
tation was adjusted
to the P-250 computer results
or to the hand
calculated
short form calorimetric if the P-250 computer
was unavailable.
The inspector also noted that the feedwater flow transmitters
were
last calibrated
on September
15,
1980; therefore,
for the October
15,
1980, performance of procedure
12 THP 6040
PER.
020,
Rev. 2, step 3.1
that requires
feedwater flow transmitters
be calibrated within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />
of the beginning of the test
was not followed.
This is considered
to
be 'contrary to Technical Specification 6.8
~ 1 and constitutes
an item of
noncompliance
(50-315/80-16-01)
of the Deficiency level.
The inspector
also noted that there is no criteria for agreement
between the hand
calculation
and the P-250 computer results.
The licensee
stated
he
would review the matter.
This is considered
to be an unresolved
item
(50-315/80-16-02)
and will be reviewed in a subsequent
inspection.
9.
Incore-Excore Detector Calibration
The inspector
reviewed procedure
12 THP 4030
STP.
362,
Rev. 5, "Incore-
Excore Detector Calibration," for Cycle
5 and verified that the axial
flux difference
was maintained
as required by Technical Specifications,
control rod insertaion did not exceed
the insertion limits, the 100/
excore detector currents
were correctly determined
and the calibration
has
been performed at least
once every 92 EFPD.
The inspector noted
that the first calibration on August 8,
1980,
was performed using the
gCFM (quarter core flux map) method vice the
FCFM (full core flux map)
method in order to save time as only four out of six detectors
were
available,
A FCFM was run on August 12,
1980,
when all six detectors
were available;
however,
since the incore-excore axial imbalance
was
within 3'/,
an incore-excore
detector recalibration
was not required
and was not performed.
No items of noncompliance
or deviations
were identified.
10.
Unresolved
Items
Unresolved
Items are matters
about which more information is required
in order to ascertain
whether they are acceptable
items,
Items of
Noncompliance,
or Deviations.
An Unresolved
Item disclosed
during the
inspection is discussed
in Paragraph
8.
ll.
Exit Interview
The inspector
met with licensee
representatives
(denoted in Paragraph
1)
at the conclusion of the inspection
on November 7,
1980.
The inspector
summarized
the purpose
and the scope of the inspection
and the findings.