ML20246A946
| ML20246A946 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 08/08/1989 |
| From: | Eapen P, James Trapp NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20246A923 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-443-89-81, NUDOCS 8908230193 | |
| Download: ML20246A946 (10) | |
See also: IR 05000443/1989081
Text
.
- _,_
. _ , _ _
ll
'
,,
,
[.
/
1
1;
l
U.S.. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I.
Report No. '50-4'43/89-81-
.
l Docket No. 50-443
[
License No. NPF-67
>
Licensee: Public Service of New' Hampshire
.P.O. Box 330
,
Manchester, New Hampshire 03105
Facility Name: Seabrook Station, Unit 1
'
Inspection At:
Seabrook, New Hampshire
Inspection Conducted: June 12-23, 1989
-Inspectorsi
.P. Drysdale, Reactor Engineer, DRS
P. Eselgroth, Chief, PWR Section, OB, DRS
K. Kimura, Engineer, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
D. Moy, Reactor Engineer, DRS
G.-Schwenk, Sr.' Nuclear Engineer, NRR
A
B - 1 - 8 'l
J.TrapppTeamLead#r'
date
dpproved by:
9
-
-
Dr. P. K..Eapen, Chief. Special Test
' dat'e
Programs _Section, EB, DRS~
Inspection Summary: Unannounced team inspection conducted June-12-23, 1989.
(Inspection Report No.50-443/89-81)
Areas Inspected: The licensee's. implementation of the Low Power Startup Test
Program. This included witnessing pre-critical preparations, approach to
criticality, and startup testing performed with the reactor critical.
Results:
In general the inspectors found the Startup and Operations personnel
to be knowledgeable and informed as to the intent of the Low Power Test Program.
3
(;
The. Low Power Test Program was conducted in accordance with approved procedures.
All preliminary test results reviewed, showed acceptable agreement with previously
' calculated design values. During tne performance of the Natural Circulation
Test, the inspectors' identified a condition where the operators failed to comply
with a procedural step which required a manual trip of the plant.
Inspection
findings regarding this issue are documented in NRC Inspection Report
50-443/89-82.
I
8908230193 890811
ADOCK 05000443
Q
- _-_-
R
L
-
-
.
'
.
1.0.' Persons' Contacted
A.
-Licensee Personnel
- R. Belanger,: Lead Engineer Compliance
- S. Buchwald, QA Supervisor
L
J. Burson, Shift-Test Director
E
. J. Cady Jr.. ISEG Supervisor
A. Chesno, Startup Engineer
R. Couture, Startup Engineer
- D. Cov111, Surveillance Supervisor
-*E. Desmatais, IRT
- J. Grillo, Operations Manager
P. Gurney, Asst. Startup Manager
G. Kann, Startup Manager.
- G. Kiine, Technical Support Manager
- J. Marchi, Audit and Evaluation
- D. Mclain, Production Service Manager-
A. Merrill, Startup Engineer
,
- D.~ Moody, Plant Manager
- T. Murphy, I&C Supervisor
.
- D. Perkins, Operational Programs
- J.'Peterson, Asst. Operations Manager -
L'.
Rau, Shift. Test Director
J. Tefft, Shift Test Director
- W. Temple, NRC Coordinator
- J. Vargas, Manager of Engineering .
- C. Vincent, QC Supervisor
T. Waechter, Shift Test Director
- L. Walsh, Manager of Operations Support
B.
NRC Personnel
N. Dudley, Senior Resident Inspector, Seabrook Station
D. Haverkamp, Section Chief, DRP, Region I
L. Prividy,Sr. Reactor Engineer, DRS, Region I
- Denotes personnel present at exit meeting held on June 23, 1989.
.2.0
Cycle 1 Startup Testing Progra_m
!
The purpose of this inspection was to observe the licensee's performance
and to verify that the startup program was conducted in accordance with
the license and Technical Specification requirements and FSAR commitments.
i
_
_ _ --_--- _
- _ _ . _ _ _ - - - - - _ - - -
-
- --
J
___
_ _
s
.h
.
',
3
The low power physics testing procedures were' reviewed previously as
e
detailed in NRC Inspection Reports Nos. 50-443/86-31, 86-48, and 88-13.
The licensee's r8artup procedures reviewed during these inspections are
provided in Attachment A.
The startup. test program was conducted according to test procedure 1-ST-1,
"Startup. Test Program Administration," Rev. 2.
1-ST-1 outlined the steps
in-the test program, set special precautions,-and referenced detailed
tests and data collection in separate test procedures.
Initial criticality of Cycle.1 was achieved on June 13, 1989, and the Low
Power Startup Physics Test Program was completed on June 22,-1989.
The inspectors independently verified that the predicted values and
'
acceptance criteria which were obtained from "The Nuclear Design and Core
Physics Characteristics of the Seabrook Unit 1 Cycle 1," dated December 1985,
(WCAP-10982) were incorporated into the test proccdures. The inspector
reviewed the test results to ascertain that the results met the requirements
l
of the Technical Specifications and FSAR commitments and were wit.hin
predetermined acceptar.ce criteria.
3.0 Pre-critical Tests
..
The' inspector reviewed pre-critical calibrations and functional. tests
results and verified the following:
l-
Procedures were provided with detailed instructions;
Technical content of procedures was sufficient to result in
satisfactory component calibration and test;
Instrumentation and calibrated equipment used were traceable to the
National Bureau of Standards;
Acceptance and operability criteria were in compliance with Technical
Specifications.
3.1 Control Rod Drop Time
The rod drop time measurement was performed in accordance with
procedure RX 1700, " Rod Drop Time Surveillance", and Instrument and
Control Procedure IX1666.911. The inspector reviewed the test results,
to verify that all Rod Cluster Control Assemblies (RCCAs) were tested.
Rod drop times of selected RCCAs were independently verified. All
RCCA drop times were 'less than 2.2 seconds (Technical Specifications
requirement). The rod drop data were consistent with rod drop measure-
ments taken earlier using Startup Procedure 1-ST-7 " Rod Drop Time
Measurement."
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
j
_______________________________________________________________________________________.__j
- -_ --
---
-
w
. ,
.
$
,
'4
-
.
4
3.2 Approach To Criticality
The inspectors witnessed the approach to criticality performed in
accordance with Startup Test Procedure 1-ST-16, Rev. 4, " Initial
Criticality." Criticality was achieved by' withdrawing control bank D
to Step 140 and diluting the RCS boron concentration to criticality.
1/M plots were maintained by the licensee startup staff during the
approach to criticality. The approach to criticality was well
controlled by the start-up staff and control room operators, and was
conducted in accordance with test procedure 1-ST-16.
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
4.0 ' Post Critical Tests 4.1 The inspectors witnessed the conduct of the startup test program and
verified the following:
Conformance to license and procedural requirements;
Adequacy of operating and startup staff knowledge and ability;
and,
Adequacy of the test program records, including preliminary
=
evaluation of test results.
4.2 Reactivity Computer Operational Verification
The' operational verification of the reactivity computer was conducted
in accordance with test procedure 1-ST-16, Rev. 4, " Initial Criticality,"
and RN-1736, Rev. 1, " Reactivity' Measurements." The verification is
performed by inserting a predetermined positive reactivity into the
core. The reactor power doubling time is then measured using two
calibrated stop watches, and converted to an equivalent reactivity
using design parameters. The error between the measured and calculated
reactivity values is then used to ensure proper reactivity computer
operation. The largest measured error during this test was 2.7%,
which is below the 4% acceptance limit. The Reactivity Computer
)
Checkout was conducted in accordance with approved procedures. The
l
"
licensee staff performance and test results were acceptable. The
l
l.
inspectors had no further questions regarding this test.
l.
4.3 Boron Endpoint
The licensee measured the boron endpoints in accordance with Startup
L
-Test Procedure 1-ST-17, Rev. 2, " Boron Endpoint," and RN-1736, Rev. 1,
" Reactivity Measurements." The inspectors witnessed all boron endpoint
!
measurements and noted the following preliminary results:
i
{-
_ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - - - - - _ - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - -
-
_
_ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _
.
'
.
.
5
Measured Value
Predicted Value
' Bank Configuration-
PCM/ PPM
All Rods Out (ARO)
1174
1150
-11.24
D In
1114
1092
-11.41
D+C In
1018
998
-11.26-
D+C+B In
917
901
-11.61
D+C+B+A In
825
801
-11.25
All Rods In (ARI)-Rod H-10
522
490
-12.36
withdrawn
- The acceptance criterion for the ARO boron endpoint is 150 PPM. The
boron endpoint acceptance criterion for other measrred control rod
configurations is 1000 PCM (Percent Milli Rho). All boron endpoints
measured met the acceptance criteria. The largest difference was
between.the measured and predicted values of 395 PCM for the ARI-Rod
H-10 withdrawn test case. The tests were conducted in accordance
with approved procedures. These results were independently verified
by the inspectors to be within their respective acceptance criteria.
The inspectors determined that the conduct of these tests was accept-
able and had no further questions regarding tSese measurements.
4.4 Isothermal Temperature Coefficient
Isothermal Temperature Coefficients (ITCs) were measured and docu-
mented in accordance with 1-ST-18 Rev. 2, " Isothermal Temperature
Coefficients," and RN-1736, Rev.1, " Reactivity Measurements." The
inspectors witnessed all ITC measurements and reviewed the preliminary
test results. The preliminary test results measured during this test
were as follows:
Measured Value
Predicted Value
Bank Configuration
(PCM/*F)
(PCM/*F)
ARO
-1.43(D/206 Steps)
-1.21(D/228 Steps)
D-IN
-2.27(D/30 Steps)
-2.01 (D/0 Steps)
C+D-IN
-6.88(B/206 Steps)
-5.92 (C/0 Steps)
The preliminary ITC results evaluation indicates that the ITC measure-
ments are within the 13 PCM/ F acceptance criteria. The inspectors
observed that the measured ARO Moderator Temperature Coefficient (MTC)
is positive. A positive MTC is allowed during physics testing by
Technical Specification Special Test Exception 3/4.10.3 but not allowed
during normal Mode 2 operation. The licensee procedure RX-1704,
"Moderater Temperature Coefficient Surveillance," provides the necessary
administrative controls tu implement the above technical specification
,
test exception. The inspectors determined that the conduct of the
above tests was acceptable and had no further questions in this regard.
4.5 Control Rod Worth Measurement
i
The control rod reactivity worth measurements were performed in
)
accordance with Startup Test Procedure 1-ST-20, Rev. 2, " Rod Worth
b
i
-_
. - -
l
.
'
.
.
6
Measurement," and RN-1736, Rev. 1, " Reactivity Measurements." The
inspectors witnessed all rod worth measurements performed by the
licensee and independently verified the test results. The rod worth
measurements were performed using both dilution and rod swap methods.
The results indicated below are preliminary and used the dilution
method for rod worth measurement:
Measured Worth
Predicted Worth
Bank
(PCM)
(PCM)
C/D
669
645
C/C
1052
1045
C/B
1153
1116
C/A
1026
1090
S/E
486
535
S/D
680
673
S/C
1021
1010
S/A+SB(H-10 out)
1555
1591
The acceptance criteria for control rod worth measurements is 15%
or .1% Delta-Rho, whichever is greater, for individual control banks
and 10% for the total rod worth. All control banks measured met the
acceptance criteria.
During the stuck control rod worth measurement an urgent rod stop
alarm was received because the operators failed to reset the rod
control alarms prior to moving the next bank of rods.
The applicable
procedure did not have a step to reset this alarm. The stuck control
rod worth measurement is a one time measurement and it is not required
to be repeated during future reloads.
The control rod worth measurements were performed in accordance with
approved procedures and the results were acceptable. The inspectors
verified the measured shutdown margin met Technical Specification
I
requirements for the ARI condition with the highest worth rod stuck
out test case. No unacceptable conditions were identified during the
rod worth measurement tests.
4.6 pseudo Rod Ejection Tert
The pseudo rod ejection test was performed by placing the control
,
banks at the Technical Specification rod insertion limits (RIL) and
j
withdrawing Rod D-12 (control bank D) to the fully withdrawn position.
!
1-ST-21, Pseudo Rod Ejection Test was the governing procedure for
this test. With this control rod configuration, the reactivity worth
!
of rod D-12 and incore flux was mapped.
The results indicated that
the worth of rod D-12 was 480 PCM, and the peak Fq (Total peaking
factor) was 7.91.
The acceptance criteria stated in the FSAR for the
pseudo rod ejection test are reactivity worth of rod D-12 < 860 PCM,
and the peak Fq < 13. The measured results were within the FSAR
acceptance criteria. The results were independently verified by the
inspectors and found to be acceptable.
No unacceptable conditions
were identified during this test.
l
_ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _
_ _ _ - - - _ -
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
__ _
-- _
. _ - _ .
_ _ _ _ _
. _ - - - _ - _
_
_
_
__
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ,
..
,
-
.
..
7
l
!
4.7 Power Distribution Measurements
The-inspectors witnessed flux distribution measurements taken with a
number-of different control rod configurations.
Power distribution
measurements are made using procedures 1-ST-19, Rev. 2, " Flux Distribu-
tion Measurements at Low Power," RN-1733, Rev. O, " Flux Mapping System,"'
and RN-1732, Rev. O, "Incore Analysis." These test procedures provided
adequate detail for operating the moveable incore system and analyzing
incore ' flux maps. The acceptance criteria for low power flux distribu-
tions is~110% fu relative assembly power > 0.9, and 15% for relative
assembly power dL9 of the predicted to measured assembly-wise power.
The prelimintr3 ro ults indicated that the acceptance criteria were
satisfied for
<! low power flux measurements. .The inspectors reviewed
the intore results and expressed a concern that the in: ore code was
not deleting . traces which failed validity checks. The licensee
acknowledged this concern and stated that it would be addressed prior
to finalizing the incore analysis. The inspectors had no other concerns
regarding power distribution measurements.
4.8 Effective Full Power Minute (EFPM) Determination
A license condition of the Seabrook 5% power license is that the
licensee should not exceed a burnup of .75 Effective Full Power Hours
(EFPH) which is equivalent to 45 Effective Full Power Minutes (EFPM).
To assure compliance with this condition, the licensee tracks cycle
burnup by developing a computer logging program. The computer program
was run on the plant process computer and used intermediate range
detector amps to determine core thermal power. The intermediate
range detector amps require normalization to indicate core thermal
power.
This normalization was performed using procedure RN-89-1-7,
Rev. 00, " Core Exposure Tracking During The Low Power Test Program."
The inspectors reviewed the licensee calculation No. RECALC-89-0004
used.to determine the normalization between core thermal power and
intermediate range detector readings. The inspectors concluded that
the calculations were performed in accordance with the licensee
guidance " Functional Description for the Program used to calculate
accumulated core exposure during low power physics testing," and the
resulting normalization for intermediate range detectors amps was
reasonable. The inspectors expressed a concern when the normaliza-
tion factor was input to the computer prior to a final review and
approval of the calculation. The normalization factor was corrected
and re-input in the computer following the review and approval of the
calculation. The inspectors verified that this change in normaliza-
tion factors did not affect the cumulative EFPM following the second
normalization factor update. The total measured cumulative burnup
during the Low Power Test Program was 19.18 EFPM. The inspectors
verified on a sampling basis that the EFPM computer was in reasonable
agreement with the intermediate range detector amps and core exposure.
The inspectors had no further questions concerning this issue.
-
_ _ _ - _ _ _ - - _ - _ _ _ - _ - _ - - _ _ _ _ -
_ _ _ .
-_.
k
.
'
.
8
I
'
4.9 Natural Circulation Test
The natural circulation test was' conducted on June 22, 1989 in
accordance with test procedure 1-ST-22, Rev. 2, " Natural Circulation
Test." The test was initiated by securing all four reactor coolant
pumps (RCPs) while maintaining the reactor critical with a thermal
power level cf approximately 2%. Approximately seven minutes after
the RCPs were secured, steam dump valve MS-PV-3011 failed open causing
a cooldown of the Reactor Coolant System (RCS). The ensuing cooldown
caused the volume of water in the RCS to decrease which resulted in
a decrease in pressurizer level.
Startup Test Procedure 1-ST-22,
Rev. 2, Attachment 9.3, required that the reactor be manually tripped
if the pressurizer level decreased below 17%.
Pressurizer level
decreased below 17% and remained below 17% for approximately five
minutes. During the time the pressurizer level was below the manual reactor trip criterion, no attempt was made by the licensed operators
in the control room to manually trip the reactor. During the period
of time the pressurizer level was below 17%, startup organization
staff did not recommend to the operating staff to manually trip the
reactor.
Following restoration of pressurizer level, the reacter was
manually tripped due to the rapidly increasing pressure.
For details
of this event, see NRC Inspection Report 50-443/89-82.
5.0 Conclusions
The following observations were made by the inspection team while providing
twenty-four hour a day coverage during the low power test program. Obser-
vations made during the natural circulation test are provided in NRC
Inspection Report 50-443/89-82.
Listed below are the program strengths
identified during the low power testing inspection:
The Reactor Engineering staff was dedicated, and very knowledgeable
in the content of the startup test procedures. The Reactor Engineers
provided detailed instructions to the plant operating staff on con-
figuration changes needed to conduct specific tests. The staff
implemented the program in accordance with the test procedures.
The effectiveness of the shift startup engineers progressively grew
stronger during the low power test program. The shift startup
engineers became very effective in coordinating startup activities
conducted during the shift.
The licensed operating staff was observed to perform well. The
operators were observed to follow procedures and were cognizant on
details of test activities.
There was excellent communications
between the operating staff and the startup engineers.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _
_ _ - - _ - _
. _ _ __ _ __
__ _ _ _ _ _ .
_ _ . __ _ _ - .
. _ _ _ _ _
_-___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ -
.
. , .
.,
,
'
9
QA/QC provided continuous on shift coverage during the low power test
program. All QA/QC witness points reviewed were properly dispositloned
by the QA/QC staff on shift.
t
In generalLthe Startup Test and Reactor Engineering procedures
provided adequate detail to perform-zero power physics testing. No-
significant procedural errors were identified during the low power
.
test program.
,
Review of preliminary test results showed agreement with the design
a
l
calculations.
- The following are. weaknesses identified during observations of the low
power test program.
A single point of contact, on the stsrtup staff, was not designated
=
to direct the licensed operators in making reactivity and reactor
power changes. When this was pointed out to shift test director
changes were made.to have a single reactor engineer on shift review
and approve any reactivity or power changes requested by the
startup staff.
Training of startup support staff on data evaluation techniques
was identified as a weakness. The corporate personnel delegated to
perform preliminary data evaluation had strong backgrounds in startup .
testing, but were not adequately trained in data evaluation techniques
to be used at Seabrook. Preliminary and final test results will be
reviewed by a cognizant reactor engineer prior to approval. The
tabove weaknesses were corrected adequately by the licensee upon
identification by the inspector.
1
.
_ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . . .
.m
_._ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _
c.
.-
..
%-L
.,
'
c ,
..'
-
Attachment'A
Start Up' Procedures Reviewed
,
.
'l-ST-1
Start'Up Program' Administration
.1-ST-7
Rod-Drop Time Measurement
11-ST-16
-Initial Criticality
.1-ST-17'
Boron Endpoint Measurement
..
1-ST-18
Isothermal Temperature Coefficient
1-ST-19
' Flux Distribution Measurements
1-ST-20.
' Control Rod Worth Measurements
,
1-ST-21
Pseudo Rod Ejection Test
1-ST-22-
Natural Circulation Test
RN 1732-
Incore Analysis.
RN 1733
Flux Mapping System
RN 1736
Reactivity Measurements
Rx 1700
. Rod Drop Time Surveillance
Rx 1704-
. Moderator Temperature Coefficient Surveillance
-Rx 1705
Nuclear.Enthalpy Rise Hot Channel Factor Surveillance
l ..
!
.
a___1__
_ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _
.
1