ML20132C589: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot change)
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Adams
#REDIRECT [[IR 05000295/1985027]]
| number = ML20132C589
| issue date = 09/20/1985
| title = Insp Repts 50-295/85-27 & 50-304/85-28 on 850722-0830.No Violation or Deviation Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Reactor Thermocouple/Rtd Cross Calibr,Isothermal Temp & Doppler Coefficient Measurements
| author name = Mccormickbarge, Ring M
| author affiliation = NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
| addressee name =
| addressee affiliation =
| docket = 05000295, 05000304
| license number =
| contact person =
| document report number = 50-295-85-27, 50-304-85-28, NUDOCS 8509270095
| package number = ML20132C583
| document type = INSPECTION REPORT, NRC-GENERATED, INSPECTION REPORT, UTILITY, TEXT-INSPECTION & AUDIT & I&E CIRCULARS
| page count = 10
}}
See also: [[see also::IR 05000722/2008030]]
 
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:.
                          -U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
                                        REGION III
  Report Nos. 50-295/85027(CRS); 50-304/85028(DRS)
  Docket Nos. 50-295; 50-304                        License Nos. DPR-39; DPR-48
  Licensee:  Commonwealth Edison Company
            .P. O. Box 767
              Chicago, Illinois 60690
  Facility Name:      Zion Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2
  Inspection At:      Zion, Illinois
  Inspection Conducted:      July 22 through Auge t 30. 1985
              IfM.}l.d  Y Dtd        d' M
  Inspector:          bcCormick-Barger                                  b28- h5
                                                                        Date
                    3            _
                  0                  S                                  9    ()V
  Approved By:    M. A. Ring, Chief
                  Test Programs Section                                Date
  Inspection Summary
  Inspection on July 22 through August 30, 1985 (Report No. 50-295/85027(DRS);
  50-304/85028(DRS))
  Areas Inspected:      Routine, announced inspection of licensee actions on
  previous inspection findings, general program requirements for Unit 1
  Cycle 9 Startup Testing, reactor thermocouple /RTD cross calibration,
  isothermal temperature coefficient measurement, doppler coefficient
  measurement, control rod drive and rod position indication checks, and
  incore/excore calibration. The inspection involved 94 inspector-hours
  onsite.
  Results: No violations or deviations were identified.
                                0
          8509270095
                  ADOCK
                          850  295
          PDR                  PDR
          G
 
                                                                                _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
                                                                        .
                                        DETAILS
  1. Persons Contacted
    *K. Graesser, Station Manager
    *T. Rieck, Station Superintendent, Services
    *W.  Kurth, Assistant Superintendent, Services
    *C. Schultz, Assistant Technical    Staff Supervisor
    *R. Chin, Nuclear Group Leader
    *W.  Stone, Quality Assurance Supervisor
    *J. Ballard, Quality Control Supervisor
    Additional station technical and administrative personnel were
    contacted by the inspector during the course of the inspection.
    * Denotes those personnel present at the exit interview.
  2. Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings
    (Closed) Open Item (295/82-21-01):      This item involved two concerns -
    the lack of acceptance criteria for the wide range Resistance Temperature
    Detectors (RTD) in surveillance procedure TSS 15.6.72, "RTD Cross
    Calibration," dated November 10, 1981 and that 15 of the 65 incore
    thermocouples for Unit 1 Cycle 7 were inoperable.
    The inspector reviewed TSS 15.6.72, "RTD Cross Calibration," dated
    September 20, 1984, and noted that it contained the following acceptance
    criterion for the wide range RTDs: " Step 6.13. Evaluate the wide range
    RTDs using the following acceptance criterion: -6 F 1 (predicted wide
    range RTD temperature - average temperature of all the good narrow range
    RTDs) 5 0.5 F." A review of the incore thermocouples for operability
    based on the results of TSS 15.6.72, dated September 20, 1984, and
    performed for Unit 1 Cycle 9 on September 7-13, 1985, indicated that
    only 5 of 65 incore thermocouples were inoperable which the inspector
    cormiders acceptable.
  3. General Program Requirements for Unit 1 Cycle 9 Startup Testing
    The inspector utilized the following documents during a review of
    general program requirements for Unit 1 Cycle 9 Startup Testing:
          *    Reload Safety Evaluation Zion Nuclear Plant, Unit 1
                Cycle 9, July 1984.
          *    NRC letter J. Norris to D. L. Farrar, NRC transmittal
                of Technical Specification Amendments No. 89 to DPR-39
                and No. 79 to DPR-48 and the associated safety evaluation                          1
                                                                                                    '
                report, dated May 24, 1985.
                                            2
 
                                                                                              . _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _
        .
  .
                    *    Commonwealth Edison (CECO) Internal Memorandum,
                          H. E. Bliss, Nuclear Fuel Services Manager, to
                          K. L. Graesser, Zion Station Manger, " Zion 1 Cycle 9
                          CAOC Analysis Based on Actual E0C8 Burnup," Z1C9/043,
                          dated June 7, 1985.
                    *    Safety Parameter Interaction List for Zion, Unit 1
                          Cycle 9, approved January 4,1984.
                    *    Zion 1, Cycle 9, Nuclear Design Report, NFSR-0035,
                          Revision 0.
l
                    *    CECO memo, H. E. Bliss to K. L. Graesser, " Revision
;
                          to Table 7.2 of Zion, Unit 1 Cycle 9 Nuclear Design
                          Report," dated August 2, 1985.
'
                    *    CECO memo, H. E. Bliss to K. L. Graesser, " Zion 1
                          Cycle 9 Rod Exchange Data," Z1C9/040, dated May 9, 1985.
                    *    Technical Staff Surveillance (TSS) Procedure 15.6.51,
                          "Zero Power Physics Measurements Following Refueling,"
                          dated June 3, 1985 and performed for Unit 1 Cycle 9
                          on June 14-16, 1985.
                    *    TSS Procedure 15.6.61, "At Power Physics Measurements
                          Following Refueling," dated January 10, 1984, and
                          performed for Unit 1 Cycle 9 on June 21, 1985
                          to July 27, 1985.
              With regard to TSS 15.6.51, "Zero Power Physics Measurements Following                                '
              Refueling," the results evaluation discussed inconsistencies in boron
              sample measurements taken during startup physics testing. Boron sample
              measurement inconsistencies were also identified in the results
              evaluation for TSS 15.6.51, dated July 2, 1984, and performed for Unit 2,
              Cycle 8 on July 4-7, 1984. For Unit 1 Cycle 9, differences between two
              measurements of the same boron sample were as much as 67 ppm and,
              for Unit 2 Cycle 8, were as much as 45 ppm. The corrective actions
              discussed in the Unit 2 Cycle 8 test evaluation recommended that a
              meeting be held between the Nuclear Group and the station chemists to
              discuss the importance of boron sampling measurements.                  Although no
              meeting minutes were kept, the Station Nuclear Engineer stated that
              this meeting had taken place prior to the Unit 1 Cycle 9 startup. To
              calibrate the boron measurement instrumentation, a standard with known
              boron concentration is used. In an attempt to improve boron sample
              measurements, the Unit 1 Cycle 9 test evaluation indicated that the
              licensee intends to investigate the possibility of using a standard
              with a boron concentration nearer to the boron concentration of the
              samples being measured. Review of the licensee's corrective actions
              in a subsequent NRC inspection will be tracked as an open item
I
L
              (295/85027-01).
I
  .s
                                                      3
i
k    .  .
            .
                              .
                                              . . . .  _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ -
 
  TSS 15.6.51 and TSS 15.6.61 both contained steps requiring that the
  manufacturer, model and serial number of all instruments used in the
  reactivity computer system be recorded. In both cases, the inspector was
  unable to locate this information in the completed test packages. In
  discussions of this matter with the licensee, the licensee explained
  that, since Zion has only one reactivity computer system, a standard
  type written sheet had been developed which provided all of this
  information. This sheet was inadvertently omitted from the completed
  test packages. The licensee stated their intent to take the necessary
  actions to ensure that future test packages include reactivity computer
  system data as required.
  Paragraph 5.a of this report contains comments regarding the Zion 1
  Cycle 9 Nuclear Design Report and CECO memo, " Revision to Table 7.2 of
  Zion, Unit 1 Cycle 9 Nuclear Design Report," dated August 2, 1985.
  No violations or deviations were identified. However, a portion of this
  area requires further review and evaluation and is considered to be an
  open item.
4. Reactor Thermocouple /RTD Cross Calibration
  The inspector reviewed surveillance procedure TSS 15.6.72, "RTD Cross
  Calibration," dated September 20, 1984, and performed for Unit 1 Cycle 9
  on June 7-13, 1985, to determine that results obtained were within
  prescribed limits and that any discrepancies were properly evaluated.
  During this review the inspector noted that the results for one of the
  wide range RTDs did not meet the acceptance criterion for wide range RTDs
  of: "-6 F <_ (predicted wide range RTD temperature minus the average
  temperature of all the good narrow range RTDs) < 0.5 F." The licensee
  stated that an evaluation of this condition tooE place prior to proceeding
  with the Unit 1 Cycle 9 initial startup.    The inspector had no evidence
  that would contradict that statement. However, the documented evaluation
  was not signed until June 27, 1985. (The test which was required to be
  performed prior to initial criticality was performed on June 12-13, 1985,  ,
  initial criticality occurred on June 14, 1985, and Unit 1 was at 88% power
                                                                              '
  on June 25, 1985.) In discussions with the licensee concerning this
  matter, the licensee agreed that, in the future, the evaluation of a
  startup test acceptance criterion that was not satisfied would be
  documented prior to proceeding with the startup testing. This is an
  open item pending NRC review during the next core physics startup
  testing inspection (295/85027-02).
  No violations or deviations were identified. However, a portion of this
  area requires further review and evaluation and is considered to be an    ,
  open item.                                                                )
5. Isothermal Temperature Coefficient and Doppler Coefficient
  The inspector reviewed licensee procedures and results to verify that
  prerequisites, precautions and plant conditions were met, that results
                                        4
 
        were within acceptance criteria and consistent with Technical
        Specifications and that any discrepancies were properly evaluated.
        The inspector utilized the following procedures during the review:
              *    TSS 15.6.54, " Isothermal Moderator Temperature Coefficient
                    Measurements," dated May 27, 1982, and performed for Unit 1
                    Cycle 9 on June 15, 1985.
              *    TSS 15.6.62, " Moderator Temperature Coefficient Measurement,"
                    dated July 9, 1980, (with Station Procedure Change Request
                    A85-613 approved June 27, 1985, attached) and performed for
                    Unit 1 Cycle 9 on July 9, 1985.
              *    TSS 15.6.62, " Moderator Temperature Coefficient Measurement,"
                    dated July 9,1980, (with Station Procedure Change Request
                    A85-613 approved June 27, 1985, attached) and performed for
                    Unit 1 Cycle 9 on July 27, 1985.
              *    TSS 15.6.63, " Doppler Coefficient Measurement," dated
                    February 8, 1985, (with Station Procedure Change Request
                    A85-612 approved June 27, 1985, attached) and performed for
                    Unit 1 Cycle 9 on July 9, 1985.
              *    TSS 15.6.63, " Doppler Coefficient Measurement," dated
                    February 8, 1985, (with Station Procedure Change Request
                    A85-612 approved June 27, 1985, attached) and performed for
                    Unit 1 Cycle 9 on July 22, 1985.
        The inspector also utilized the following document during the review:
              *    " Nuclear Design Report for Zion, Unit 1 Cycle 9,"    NFSR 0035,
                    Revision 0, Nuclear Fuel Services - Commonwealth Edison Company,
                    dated April 1985.
        a.  During the test evaluation for TSS 15.6.54, " Isothermal Moderator
              Temperature Coefficient Measurements," performed on June 15, 1985, a
              member of the Technical Staff discovered an apparent error in
              Table 7.2 of the Nuclear Design Report. In discussions between the
              Technical Staff and the Nuclear Fuel Services Section, it was
              confirmed that an error existed in the method used to generate the
              moderator temperature coefficient component of the isothermal
              temperature coefficient reported in Table 7.2. Table 7.2 was
              subsequently corrected via a memo from H. E. Bliss, Nuclear
              Fuel Services Manager, to K. L. Graesser, Zion Station Manager,
              " Revision to Table 7.2 of Zion, Unit 1 Cycle 9 Nuclear Design
              Report," Z1C9/045, dated August 2, 1985.      Other than this memo,
              members of the Technical Staff were not cognizant of corrective        i
              actions taken by the Nuclear Fuel Services section. Therefore,        l
              pending an NRC inspection of the CECO Nuclear Fuel Services section    l
              to review the licensee's corrective actions to prevent recurrence      l
              of errors in nuclear design reports, this is considered an unresolved
              item (295/85027-03).
                                              5
.-- -_--
                                                                                    1
 
                --
                                    - _ _ _ - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _                          ,
  .
        b.  The test evaluation for TSS 15.6.63, " Doppler Coefficient
            Measurement," performed on July 9, 1985, stated that all design
            and safety criteria were met. However, the measured doppler
            coefficient was -7.59 pcm/% power which was outside of the design
            acceptance criterion band of -8.95                                    1.34 pcm/% power (i.e.,
            -7.61 to -10.29 pcm/% power). At the time that the inspector
            reviewed the test evaluation, the Technical Staff Supervisor had
            not signed the procedure yet. Additionally, a subsequent doppler
            coefficient measurement had been performed on July 22, 1985, which
            resulted in a doppler coefficient value that did meet the design                                l
            acceptance criterion. Following discussion of this matter with the                              '
            licensee, the licensee rewrote the test evaluation to reflect the
            fact that the design acceptance criterion for the doppler coefficient
            had not been met in the July 9 instance.
        No violations or deviations were identified. However, a portion of this
        area requires further review and evaluation and is considered to be an
l      unresolved item.
    6. Control Rod Drive and Rod Position Indication Checks
i
f      The inspector reviewed licensee procedures and results to verify that
}      prerequisites, precautions and plant conditions were met, that results                                i
l'      were within acceptance criteria and consistent with Technical                                        l
        Specifications and that any discrepancies were properly evaluated.
        The inspector utilized the following procedures during the review:
            *      TSS 15.6.26, " Control Rod System Checkout," dated
                    January 1, 1985, and performed for Unit 1 Cycle 9
                    on June 10-12, 1985.
            *      TSS 15.6.57, "Checkcut of the Bank Overlap Unit,"
                    dated March 12, 1984, and performed for %it 1
                    Cycle 9 on June 11, 1985.
        a.  With regard to TSS 15.6.26, " Control Rod System Checkout,"
            the inspector noted the following:
            (1) All rod drop times satisfied the acceptance criterion
                    of 2.4 seconds or less required by the Technical
                    Specifications.
            (2) The inspector reviewed the slave cycler strip chart traces
                    for power cabinets 180 and 1AC and the rod drop timing traces
                    for rods in Shutdown Banks A, C, and D, and Control Bank A.
                    The inspector had no cor,cerns as a result of the review of
                    these strip charts.
              (3) Surveillance test TSS 15.6.26 was required to be completed
                    prior to initial criticality per Technical Specification 3/4.2.3.C.
                    However, the signatures in the last section of the procedure
                    (the test results evaluation section) were as follows:
                                                                                  6
 
    .
  .
!
                    Initial Criticality, June 14, 1985
                    Test Engineer's Signature, June 21, 1935
                    (Reactor at approximately 49% power)
l                  Station Nuclear Engineer's Signature, July 10, 1985
!
                    (Reactor at approximately 100% power)
                    Technical Staff Supervisor's Signature, July 19, 1985
l            The licensee stated that the startup test surveillances are
              considered to be complete when the last step is complete which
,            is prior to the test evaluation section writeup, but these
              surveillances were not signed and dated until after the test
:
              evaluation was complete.
              During discussions with the licensee, the licensee stated their
              intent to review the startup test procedures and revise them as
i
              necessary to provide for signatures and dates that would signify
              completion of the tests to the extent necessary to satisfy
L            surveillance requirements prior to proceeding with a reactor
              startup. This is an open item (295/85027-04) pending procedure
              revisions and subsequent NRC review.
      b. With regard to TSS 15.6.57, " Checkout of the Bank Overlap Unit," the
        inspector noted the following:
l        (1) Step 7.5.2 stated, "All rod positioning indicators are reading
              zero steps." When this step was signed, however, some of the
              Rod Positioning Indicators (RPI) were not reading zero as
              documented in the Data Sheet Section. For example, for
              Shutdown Bank A the following values were recorded:
                    Rod Designation (Group)      RPI Recorded Steps
                              M2(2)          l          5
l                              D2(1)          l        -5
j                              P4(1)          l          5
t                              B4(2)          l          0
                              P12(2)        l          0
l
                              B12(1)        l          0
                              M14(1)        l          5
                              D14(2)        l          7
              During discussions between the inspector and the licensee,
              the licensee indicated that:
              (a) This test was performed prior to the RPIs being
                    calibrated (that is, prior to TSS 15.6.26 being
                    performed) anJ, therefore, a precaution statement
                    should have been included in the procedure to state
                    that the RPI signals are not valid prior to
                                        7
 
  .
.
                        TSS 15.6.26 being completed.  (The procedure
                        contained precaution 5.6 which stated, "If this
                        test is performed in cold shutdown, the RPI signals
                        are not valid since they are calibrated for hot
                        shutdown conditions." This precaution did not
                        apply to TSS 15.6.57 as performed on June 11,1985,
                        because it was performed at hot shutdown conditions.)
                  (b) The intent of Step 7.5.2 was for the RPIs to read
                        within a tolerance band of zero steps.
                  The licensee initiated a procedure change request on
                  August 15, 1985, to include the precaution and tolerance
                  band discussed above.
            (2) The test evaluation section stated, "Several of the rod
                  bottom lights did not clear at 20 steps which is acceptable
                  since the RPI calibration had not yet been performed." The
                  Precautions, Limitations and Setpoint document establishes
                  20 steps as the setpoint for the rod bottom bistables. Upon
                  the inspector's request to review the documentation that showed
                  that the rod bottom lights had cleared at 20 steps (following
                  the RPI calibration), the licensee responded that the check
                  was made but was not documented. In discussions with the
                  licensee, the Station Nuclear Engineer stated that the station
                  procedures would be modified to include a check that the rod
                  bottom lights go out at 20 steps during the initial startup
                  following a refueling. This is an open item (295/85027-05)
                  pending the procedure revision and subsequent NRC review.
            No violations or deviations were identified. However, portions of
            this area require further review and evaluation and are considered
            to be open items.
    7. Incore/Excore Detector Calibration
      For Unit 1 Cycle 9, the inspector reviewed licensee procedures to verify
      that prerequisites, precautions and plant conditions were met, that
      results were within acceptance criteria and consistent with Technical
      Specifications and that any discrepancies were properly evaluated. The
      inspector utilized the following procedures during the review:
            *    TSS 15.6.2, "NIS Calibration," dated March 1, 1985,
                  and performed for Unit 1 Cycle 9 on July 3, 1985.
            *    TSS 15.6,0, " Flux Map Data Acquisition, Power
                  Distribution and Incore/Excore Axial Imbalance Checks,"
                  dated January 12, 1984, and performed for Unit 1
                  Cycle 9 on:
                  July 2, 1985 (associated with Flux Map 1-9-06)
                  July 3, 1985 (associated with Flux Map 1-9-07)
                                            8
 
    - - .
      .
                  = - -
  .
.
                        July 3, 1985 (associated with Flux Map 1-9-08)
            During the review, the inspector noted that surveillance test TSS 15.6.2,
            "NIS Calibration," was required to be completed prior to exceeding 90%
            power per Technical Specification 3.2.2.C.1. However, tne signatures in
            the last section of the procedure (the test results evaluation section)
            were as follows:
                  Unit 1 exceeded 90% power, July 5,1985
                  Test Engineer's Signature, July 8, 1985
                  Station Nuclear Engineer's Signature, July 10, 1985
                  Technical Staff Supervisor's Signature, July 19, 1985
            This is another example of the situation discussed in Paragraph 6.a.(3)
            of this inspection report. Refer to Paragraph 6.a(3) for additional
            discussion.
            The inspector reviewed the following procedures performed during
            Unit 1 Cycle 8 to verify that Technical Specification 3.2.2.C.1,
            concerning periodic checks and recalibrations of the excore nuclear
            detectors, was being met.
                  *    TSS 15.6.2, "NIS Calibration," performed for Unit 1
                        Cycle 8 on the following dates:
                              February 18, 1984
                              May 15, 1984
                              September 10, 1984
                              December 15, 1984
                  *    TSS 15.6.0, " Flux Map Data Acquisition Power Distribution
                        and Incore/Excore Imbalance Checks," performed 29 times for
                        Unit 1 Cycle 8 between February 11, 1984 and December 28,
                        1984, inclusive.
            No violations or deviations were identified.
          8. Open Items
            Open items are matters which have been dis:ussed with the licensee, which
            will be reviewed further by the inspector, oi1 which involve some action
            on the part of the NRC or licensee or both. Lpen items disclosed during
            the inspection are discussed in Paragraphs 3, 4, 6.a.(3), and 6.b.(2).
          9. 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 5.
                                                  9
 
      .-
  ..
        10.    Exit Interview
              - The inspector met with licensee representatives denoted in Paragraph 1 at
                the conclusion of.the inspection on August 30, 1985. The inspector
                summarized the scope of the inspection and the findings. The inspector
              -
                .al so discussed the likely informational content of the inspection report
                with regard to documents or processes reviewed by the inspector during
                the inspection. The licensee did not identify any such
                documents / processes as proprietary.
          ?,
                                                    10
t-
}}

Latest revision as of 23:06, 25 September 2020

Redirect to:

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20132C589&oldid=2945898"