ML20246A946

Team Insp Rept 50-443/89-81 on 890612-23.No Violations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Licensee Implementation of Low Power Startup Test Program,Including Witnessing Precritical Preparations,Approach to Criticality & Startup Testing

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: ML20246A920 ML20246A946
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

date

J.TrapppTeamLead#r'

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

3 to be knowledgeable and informed as to the intent of the Low Power Test Program.

(; 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

PDR ADOCK 05000443

Q PDC

- _-_-

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

e The low power physics testing procedures were' reviewed previously as

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

l-

results and verified the following:

• 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- (PPM Boron) (PPM Boron) 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

t by the QA/QC staff on shift.

• 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.

,

a

Review of preliminary test results showed agreement with the design

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