ML19208A261
| ML19208A261 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Quad Cities  |
| Issue date: | 07/12/1979 |
| From: | Chow E, Streeter J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19208A257 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-254-79-17, NUDOCS 7909130294 | |
| Download: ML19208A261 (4) | |
See also: IR 05000254/1979017
Text
'
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
-
,
,
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
.
.
Report No.:
50-254/79-17
Docket No.:
50-254
License No.:
Licensee:
Commonwealth Edison Company
- _
P.O. Box 767
--
Chicago, Illinois 60690
Facility Name: . Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1
Inspection At:
Cordova, Illinois
Inspection Conducted: June 26-29, 1979
JPFa' &
Inspector:
E. T. Chow
7-/2- 7f
Date
/?FN M &
Approved By:
J. F. Streeter, Chief
7-A?- 79
Nuclear Support Section 1
Date
Inspection Summary
Inspection on June 26-29, 1979
(Report No. 50-254/79-17)
Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of control rod scram
time tests; control rod sequence and reactivity checks; determination of
shutdown margin; determination of reactivity anomalies.
The inspection
involved 25 inspector-hours onsite by one NRC inspector.
Results: No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
7909130 2 9
,
f
swuh
.
DETAILS
s
1.
Persons Contacted
- N.
Kalivianakis, Superintendent
- G. Spedl, Lead Nuclear Engineer
- T. Lihou, Assistant Lead Nuclear Engineer
B. Strub, Nuclear Engineer
- J. Heilman, QA Engineer
.
R. Soenksen, Instrumentation Foreman
G. Tietz, Thernal Engineer
,_~l-
- N. Chrissotimos, Resident Inspector
- Denotes those present during the exit interview.
2.
Verification of Conduct of Startup Physics Testing
The inspector reviewed the startup physics testing and verified
that the licensee conducted the following:
(a)
Control Rod Scram Time Tests
(b) Control Rod Sequence and Reactivity Checks
(c) Core Power Distribution Limits
(d) LPRM Calibration
(e) APRM Calibration
(f) Core Thermal Power Evaluation
(g) Determination of Shutdown Margin
(h) Dete,rmination of Reactivity Anomalies
3.
Control Rod Scram Time Tests
The inspector reviewed information relating to Cycle 5 control rod
scram time tests as described in Quad-Cities Technical Staff
Surveillance Procedure QTS 130-4, " Control Rod Scram Timing".
The Technical Specifications limit the average scram insertion time
of all of the operable control rods to 3.5 seconds for 90% insertion,
and the average scram insertion time for the three fastest control
rods of all groups of four rods in a two by two array to 3.8 seconds
for 90% insertion.
-2-
SA..' 3.EN '
. .
%
The inspector noted that prior to scram time tests, the licensee
verified the original fully withdrawn positions of control rods and
measured the accumulator pressures. The results which were based
on scram testing of 177 control rods indicated that the maximum 90%
insertion time was 3.34 seconds for Control Rod Drive N-9, and
Technical Specifications requirements were met.
The inspector noted that the summary report dated May 8, 1979 of
the Cycle 5 startup test which was submitted to NRC contained
typing errors in the average scram time for 90% insertion for both
criteria. The licensee stated that a letter of correction would be
submitted to NRC.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
4.
Control Rod Sequence and Reactivity Checks
The inspector reviewed information relating to Cycle 5 control rod
sequence and reactivity checks as described in Quad-Cities Temporary
Procedure 1193, " Initial Insequence Criticality Estimate Evaluation",
'
dated February 24, 1979.
The inspector noted that with Control Rod Seguence B1 and Rod J9 at
position 04, the reactor was critical at 194 F on February 26,
1979. The difference between the reactivity of the actual critical
rod pattern and that of the GE predicted pattern at 68 F was -
0.1696% which included the effects due to discrepancy between rod
patterns, temperature difference, and period correction.
The inspector concluded that the results met the acceptance criterion.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
5.
Determination of Shutdown Margin
The inspector reviewed information relating to Cycle 5 determination
of shutdown margin as described in Quad-Cities Technical Staff
Surveillance Procedure QTS 1104-1, " Shutdown Margin Face Adjacent
Rod Suberitical Demonstration".
The acceptance criterion for
shutdown margin is that if a shutdown margin of 0.29% of reactivity
cannot be demonstrated with the strongest control rod fully withdrawn,
the core leading must be altered to meet this margin.
The inspector noted that GE supplied the rod worth curve for Rod
K8, the strongest worth rod, and J8, the strongest worth face
adjacent rod.
The inspector noted that on February 26, 1979, Rod
K8 was fully withdrawn and Rod J8 vag withdrawn to position 06, the
reactor was still suberitical at 205 F; a shutdown margin was
determined to be at least 0.94% of reactivity.
The inspector concluded that the acceptance criterion was met.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
OS$1
-3-
.
-
6.
Determination of Reactivity Anomalies
-
.
The inspector reviewed information relating to Cycle 5 determination
of reactivity anomalies as described in QTS 1300-S1, " Anomaly
Surveillance Data Sheet",, dated June 18, 1979.
The Technical Specifications require that the reactivity equivalent
of the difference between the actual rod configuration and the
expected configuration during power operation shall not exceed 1%
delta K, and a comparison will be made at leact every equivalent
full power month.
,
~
The inspector noted that OE supplied a reactivity anomaly curve at
rated conditions.
The curve depicted the total expected number of
control rod positions inserted as a function of exposure in Cycle
5.
The inspector further noted that GE provided a procedure for
calculating reactivity anomaly.
The procedure utilized normalization
coefficients of core power, core flow, inlet enthalpy and core
pressure to apply the reactivity anomaly curve to conditions other
than rated.
The inspector verified that the determination of reactivity anomalies
was performed at least every equivalent full power month.
The
results indicated that the difference between the actual rod configuration
and the predicted one contributed to a reactivity anomaly of 0.012%
which met the Technical Specification requirement.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
7.
Exit Interview
The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1)
at the conclusion of the inspection on June 29, 1979.
The inspector
summarized the purpose and the scope of the inspection and the
findings.
.
3%iUG
-4-