IR 05000302/1985039

Insp Rept 50-302/85-39 on 850910-13.No Violation or Deviation Noted.Major Areas inspected:post-criticality Tests Performed Following Refueling Outage

ML20137X561
Person / Time
Site:	Crystal River
Issue date:	09/23/1985
From:	Burnett P, Jape F NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20137X539	List: IR 05000302/1985039 ML20137X533
References
50-302-85-39, NUDOCS 8510040539
Download: ML20137X561 (6)

Text

. _ - . . - _ _ . _ _ _ _ - _ - - . . _ - _ . . _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ ~ , . _ . - - - - _ . . ._...___m-

)

kQ 0800 UNITED STATES o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION .

[' / ,'n REGION il i g j 101 MARIETTA STREET * c ATLANTA GEORGI A 30323

%..../ +

i Report No: 50-302/85-39 l Licensee: Florida Power Corporation 320134th Street, South

'

St. Petersburg, FL. 33733

Docket No.: 50-302 j License No.: DPR-72  ;

! Facility Name: Crystal River 3

Inspection Dates: Septem er 10-13, 1985 Inspector: _  ! N//wh 9 .24 - M P. T. Burnett, Reactor Inspector Date Signed

Approved By: so.s[

F. Ja$e, Section Chfef/r 4sstR kEMM Date Signed Engineering Branch y Division of Reactor Safety  !

i t i SUMMARY l

SCOPE: This routine inspection involved 21 inspector-hours on site in the

,

review of post-criticality tests performed following the refueling outage, t

RESULTS: No violations or deviations were identifie :

!

i i

l l

8510040539 850925 PDR G ADOCK 05000302 PDR f

i I

h

- - . ,-- - - , - -- -- . - - , - - - , . -- - - . - . - - - - - - - - , , . - - - - - - , , , , , . + , . . - - - , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , - , - , , . - -

._ __ - - _ - .

.

.

REPORT DETAILS Persons Contacted Licensee Employees P. F. McKee, Nuclear Plant Manager

• J. Alberdi, Manager, Site Nuclear Operations Technical Services

• L Rossfeld, Site Nuclear Compliance Manager

• P. D. Breedlove, Nuclear Records Management Supervisor

• J. L Bufe, Nuclear Compliance Specialist

• M. W. Culver, Senior Nuclear Reactor Specialist

• K. R. Wilson, Supervisor Site Nuclear Licensing

• D. Fields, Raliability Supervisor

• V. A. Hernandez, Senior Nuclear QA Specialist Other licensee personnel included an assistant shift supervisor, operators, and office personne NRC Resident Inspector J.E. Tedrow, Resident Inspector j * Attended exit interview Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on September 13, 1985 with those persons indi:ated in paragraph 1 above. The licensee acknowl-edged the inspection findings. Proprietary information was reviewed and discussed during the inspection, but is not included in this inspection repor . Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters (Closed) Unresolved Item 302/80-22-01: SP-321 did not address the alignment of breakers to permit providing offsite power by backfeeding through the auxiliary transformer. Review of Revision 22 to the procedure confirmed that it addresses the proper alignment in item e, of data sheet . Unresolved Items

,,

Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.

i

__ _ _ __ .__

.- - . -- . - - _. -- - _ _ . - -

.

-

.

2 Procedure Reviews (72700, 61702, 61706)

The following zero-power-physics, power-escalation, and surveillance test

'

i procedures were reviewed following performance:

j PT-112 (Revision 6), Hot Zero Power Rod Group Worth and Differential

Boron Worth Measurement. When this procedure was reviewed prior to l

use during inspection 85-32 it was noted that it did not contain a

description of a reactimeter chart trace or how it was to be analyze !

'

Later in the same inspection the completed PT-112 was inspecte In

, reviewing the traces of reactivity and rod position versus time from the reactimeter, the inspector noted some difficulties in detennining

"

rod group position. The full-out position was offscale and the full-in position was offset from the zero line. Also, the test log indicated

! that the rod position scaling factors were not all the same. These j' parameters had not been considered in determining rod position from the chart recor All reactivity increments were independently analyzed by the inspector. '

The differences from the values recorded by the licensee were more i frequent and larger than previously experienced at this and other facilities. Given these observations, the licensee agreed to review the data analysis. The inspector used a spreadsheet from the SUPERCALC

,

3 (Release 2) microcomputer program to correct the raw data taken from

the chart records and to create differential and integral rod worth tables and curves. These results were compared with the licensee's i revised results during this inspection. This time the differences

between the licensee's values for the increments were appreciably

! smaller, typically 0.5 pcm and never greater than 1.5 pcm (about 4%).

!

The random nature of the differences can be seen from the good agree-ment in integral rod worth values shown below in units of pcm:

. Rod Group Inspector Licensee

! 5 142 .5 6 89 .0

7 92 .4

"

The measured rod worths satisfied the acceptance criteri In correcting for the errors in measured rod positions, the licensee

< took into account only the offset, and not the scaling factors. Conse-quently, the two sets of differential worth curves showed some axial l displacement of the plotted points as well as small differences in amplitude. The use of the spreadsheet made making both corrections an easy task for the inspector, whereas the licensee was faced with a

. more laborious task, for little gain, in performing all corrections l manually. The spreadsheet and graphs for rod group 7 are included in I this report as examples of the work done and the results.

! ,

!

,

- - .- - , _ _ , . x , ~ . , - , .- n _ _ -. ._.v__, , ,.,% ,,.-.-_, - , .

- - - . _ - - --

!

-

.

l

!

As was trentioned in report 85-32, noisy reactivity traces and a nar-rower than necessary reactivity span contributed to the difficulty and differences in analyzing the reactivity increments. The lack of descriptive guidance in the procedure on trace analysis may also have

been a contributing factor.

- PT-120 (Revision 8), Controlling Procedure for Power Escalation Testing. Testing at the 40 % power plateau was begun on August 30, 1985, and completed on August 31, 1985. Testing at 75% power was performed in the period September 1-2, 1985. During this inspection

>

power level was limited to 92-93%. Hence, the anticipated testing at 97.5% did not take place, and may not since steam generator fouling may limit power to the current level for the remainder of the fuel

' cycle. The procedure and its data sheets were complete to date. It was noted that the data sheets did not all make adequate provisions for identifying the recorders of the data or of the time and date at which they were performed. This issue was addressed earlier in inspec-tor followup item 302/85-32-01.

! SP-312 (Revision 28), Heat Balance Calculations, was performed as part

. of the startup test program and as a daily required surveillance tes Review of the procedure revealed that the equations in step 6.2.3, used

'

for weighting the primary and secondary side heat balances, were in error. However, the equations on Data Sheet II, where the calculations

'

were actually performed, were correct. Review of the station records for the period August 20 to September 7, 1985, confirmed that the sur-

, veillance had been performed with the required frequency during that perio SP-104 (Revision 18), Hot Channed Factors Calculations, was performed

'

to satisfy both startup test and surveillance requirements. Review of the four completed test procedures confirmed that the hot channel factors were acceotable through 75% power. The procedure had not been performed at the current power level, but the required extrapolation did not predict problems. Licensee personnel stated that the hot channel factors would be measured at the current power level within the next two to three days, depending on how well stable power was

.

maintained.

!

No violations or deviations were identified in the inspection of the com-pleted startup test procedure Attachments: Beginning of Cycle 6 Controi Rod Group 7

' Control Rod Group 7

-

Differential Reactivity

I

.

_ _ _ __ __ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ __ _ ___

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - ___- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

.

Attachment 1 CRYSTAL RIVER 3: Beginning of Cycle 6 Inspection Report 50-302/05-39 Control Rod Group 7 Offset Scaling Factor Rod Corrected (X E) Reactivity (pcm) Het Change Differential Plot at Integral Plot at Licensee Start Start Finish Start Finish Rho (pcm) Pos(~m) (pcmMOO) (% WD) (pca) (% W) Different 0 100 0 100 .0 100.0 10 .4 0 -7 .0 1 .1 94 7 .1 8 .4 8 .5 -2 .0 .9 86 12 .6 8 .7 7 .0 -2 .0 .7 81 17 .0 7 .4 7 .0 -3 .0 .2 76 22 .4 7 .5 6 .0 -2 .5 .1 71 26 .7 6 .2 6 .0 -2 .0 .5 67 31 .8 6 .5 6 .0 -2 .0 .0 63 35 .2 6 .5 5 .0 -2 .0 .8 58 39 .8 5 .0 5 .0 -2 .0 .2 54 44 .5 5 .9 4 .0 -2 .0 .7 50 48 .9 49.0 .4 2 .0 4 .5 1 .0 44 1 .6 4 .1 1 .5 4 .3 1 .5 40 1 .4 4 .6 1 .0 4 .5 1 .0 37 1 .0 3 .0 2 .0 4 .6 1 .0 33 1 .5 3 .4 2 .5 4 .6 1 .5 29 1 .0 2 .9 2 .0 4 .5 1 .5 26 1 .6 2 .2 1 .0 4 .7 1 .5 22 1 .0 2 .7 2 .5 4 .5 1 .0 18 1 .6 1 .9 2 .0 4 .8 .0 12 .9 1 .5 -1 .5 1 .9 6 92 .8 .0

.

e e

Attachment 2 Control Rod Group 7 DIFFERENTIAL REACTIVITY (pom/% wMhdrawn)

15- -B- Inspector

'

X Licensee f

a

'

'

.

- - ,

. .

-

10-c

>

M O

3 b o

O E

5-0 :. . . . .

.

0 20 +0 60 80 100

'. AVERAGE CONTROL ROD POSITION (% W/D)

.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _