IR 05000293/1982018

IE Insp Rept 50-293/82-18 on 820608-11.No Noncompliance Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Cycle VI post-refueling Startup Testing & Traversing in-core Probe Maint Tests

ML20054M413
Person / Time
Site:	Pilgrim
Issue date:	06/21/1982
From:	Bettenhausen L, Chung J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20054M408	List: IR 05000293/1982018 ML20054M407
References
50-293-82-18, NUDOCS 8207130163
Download: ML20054M413 (7)

Text

.

.

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION I

Report N /82-18 Docket N License No,'DPR-35 Priority -

Category C Licensee: Boston Edison Company 800 Boylston Street Boston, Massachusetts 02199 Facility Name: Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 Inspection at: Plymouth, Massachusetts Inspection c ducted: June -11, 1982 Inspector: -

a [O. b 4 '~' L

'J W. Chung, Reactor pector date signed G date signed date signed Approved by: M/N/ te L. H. Bef.tinhausen, Chief, Test Program f date 2/signedh Section, EIB Inspection Summary:

Inspection on June 8-11, 1982 (Report No. 50-293/82-18)

.

Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspector of licensee action on Cycle VI post refueling startup testing; and Traversing Incore Probe (TIP) maintenance tests. The inspection involved 24 inspector-hours on site by one region-based ,

inspecto Results: No. violations were identifie PDR ADOCK 05000293 o PDR L

_ ____-___ -

.

.

DETAILS Persons Contacted

Aboltin, 1 P., Senior Reactor Engineer

,

Armstrong, J., Deputy Nuclear Operations Manager

Frazer, J. , I&C Supervisor

Lester, K., Stone & Webster

McLoughlin, T., Senior Compliance Engineer

Smith, P. D., Chief Technical Engineer

Ziemanski, E. J. , MSG Group Leader ,

USNRC Johnson, J. R., Senior Resident Inspector

'

i The inspector also interviewed other licensee employees during the inspection, including operations, technical support and clerical personne *

denotes those present at the exit meeting on June 10, 1982.

l Cycle VI Startup Testing l

The inspector reviewed functional and calibration tests and their results to verify that:

--

Procedures were provided with detailed stepwise instructions;

--

Instruments and calibration equipment used were traceable to the National Bureau of Standards;

--

Methods and calculations were clearly specified and the tests were performed accordingly;

--

Review, approval, and documentation of the results were in accordance with the requirements of the Technical Specifications (T.S.) and the licensee's administrative controls;

--

"As Found" and "As Left" conditions were recorded;

--

Acceptance and operability criteria were observed in accordance with the T.S.;

--

Technical content of procedures was sufficient to result in satisfac-

,

tory component calibration and test; Y

b

. _- __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

. . . . .

.

.

Boston Edison Company 3

--

Work Order was issued and corrective actions were taken if the test was not acceptable;

--

The test programs were implemented in accordance with Cycle VI Refueling Sequencing Procedures;

--

Provisions to recover from anomalous conditions were provide .1 Initial Cycle VI Criticality and Shutdown Margin (SDM)

The reactor achieved criticality on March 26, 1982, with rod 30-35 at notch position 08 and a reactor period of 43.5 second The SDM was demonstrated by the in-sequence criticality method. The inspector verified by review of results performed March 26, 1982 that the SDM was 2.207% delta k, and was greater than the required value of 0.768% delta No unacceptable conditions were identifie .2 Core Thermal Power (CTP)

Procedure 9.3, Core Thermal Power Evaluation, Revision 7, March 7, 1980, established four methods of evaluating the core thermal power. They were:

'

(a) Nuclear Steam Supply System (NSSS) heat balance by computer using computer edit 00-3; (b) Balance of Plant (BOP) heat balance by computer; (c) Long Form (RE 4) and short form manual heat balances; (d) Nomographs from the figure, core thermal power versus feed water flo The inspector was informed that method (c) was periodically performed to evaluate the computer result The inspector reviewed the CTP evaluations performed April 11 and 16, 1982 at 1010 MWt and 1577 MWt respectively, and determined that the CTP's by (a) and (c) methods were practically identic3 COMPARISON OF METHOD

%

Date hand (RE 4) 00-3, Option 2 difference 4/11 1014.68 MWt 1010.10 MWt 0.45 4/16 1612.95 MWt 1576.75 MWt 2.30 o - - _ _ _ _ _ _

__

.

.

Boston Edison Company 4 The inspector also reviewed the calibration record of the instru-ments and the sensors for the heat balance calculatio No unacceptable conditions were identifie .3 Cycle VI Operating Strategy The inspector reviewed Pilgrim Cycle VI Cycle Management Report, November, 1981, and Optimized Control Rod Patterns for Pilgrim-Cycle 6, February 2, 1982. The operating strategy for Cycle VI is to optimize the power output at the end of cycle (E0C) by shifting neutron spectra during the beginning of cycle (B0C).

j The excess power shift to the bottom of core at BOC and the conse-l quent spectral hardening enables conversion of more fertile material

,

at BOC, and generation of more power at EOC from the fuel thus

created. The inspector noted that the increased power peaking at l the bottom of core would result in relatively severe thermal hydraulic conditions in this region at BO No unacceptable conditions were identifie .4 Core Thermal Limits The inspector reviewed the cora thermal limits given in Pilgrim Cycle VI Final Process Computer Data Bank to verify the Minimum Critical Power Ratio (MCPR), Maximum Average Planar Linear Heat Generation Rate (MPALHGR), and Peaking Limits (PLIM) from the on-demand process computer results of P-1 and 00-6 options 3 and Procedure 9.22 specified that the core thermal limits would be obtained from 00-6, option 4, in which the twelve highest ratios of a bundle MAPLHGR to its limiting LHGR and other thermal information would be obtaine The inspector identified that the 00-6 runs for the reported test results performed April 14, 1980 were acceptabl No unacceptable conditions were identifie .5 Local Power Range Monitor (LPRM) Calibration The inspector reviewed the Traversing Incore Probe (TIP) traces and the on-demand 00-1 printout of April 15, 1982, and verified that the LPRM's were calibrated in accordance with procedure 9-5, Revision The inspector had no further question L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

.-

.

Boston Edison Company 5 2.6 Average Power Range Monitor (APRM) Calibration The inspector verified by review of the 00-3. printouts dated April 10 and 14, 1982 that the APRM's were calibrated against the Reactor Core Thermal Power. The inspector also verified that the APRM scram setpoints were calibrated at 23% and 72% power level The inspector had no further question .7 Core Power Distribution i The inspector reviewed the periodic process computer program and the on-demand program output to verify that the plant was being operated within the licensed power distribution limit The following is the sequence of the program runs and calculations performed April 15, 1982:

(1) 1200 hrs, April 15, 1982; P-1 at 1459 MWt; BASE CRIT CODES shown in the output (2) 1517; 00-8 LPRM Console Readings

00-3 Core Thermal Power and APRM calibration (3) 1518; 00-1 LPRM Calibration and Base Data (4) 1528; TIP Traces prior to LPRM calibration (5) 1522-1626; 00-1, new BASE DISTRIBUTION (6) 1629; P-1, no BASE CRIT CODES (7) 1649; LPRM Gain Adjustment Factor (GAF)

(8) 2048; TIP Traces after LPRM calibrations (9) 2226; 00-1 (10) 2231; 00-3; 00-6, cptions 3 and 4 for thermal limits; 00-8 (11) 2233; 00-7, Control Rod Notch Positions (12) 2251; 00-13, LPRM Ion Chamber Sensitivity Data l

The inspector also reviewed P-1 output performed June 7, 1982 to l verify any abnormality, including the iterative process of CPR l calculations (IXYFLAG), BASE CRIT CODE, acceptance of LPRM readings, j and direct flow calculation No unacceptable conditions were identifie .8 Nuclear Instrument (NI) Calibration The inspector reviewed NI procedures, 3.M.2-5-1, Source Range Monitor Calibration Instruction, Revision 3, September 17, 1980, and 3.M.2-5.2, IRM Calibration check, Revision 4, October 24, 1978. The inspector also verified by review of test results performed January 30, 1980 and October 1-14, 1981 for SRM, and December 17, 1981 for IRM, that the tests were conducted in accordance with the respective procedures and that the results were acceptabl The inspector noted that the procedures did not require recording

"As Found" and "As Left" calibration data, and that the results were maintained on separate Visicorder data cards, independent of the u- .

.. .. .

_ - _

.

.

Boston Edison Company 6 procedures. Also, the procedures neither required a record of the test date nor identification of persons who were conducting the tests. This was not an isolated situation but was generally prac-ticed in the Instrument and Control (I&C) preventive maintenance-calibration procedures (3.M.2 series).

!

This is an example of an unresolved item summarized in paragraph 4 .9 TIP Maintenance The inspector reviewed the following procedures and calibration records associated with the TIP maintenance activities:

(1) TIP XY recorder calibration performed February 21, 1980 and March 25, 1982; (2) TIP intermachine calibration performed on April 14, 1982 at 25%

CTP, and April 15, 1982 at 75% CTP (Procedure 9.6, Revision 7, July 16, 1980);

(3) TIP drive mechanism checkout performed October,1981 and January,1982 (Procedure 3.M.2-5.6.6, Revision 0, May 19,1976);

(4) TIP Indexing Mechanism checkout (3.M.2-5.6.5, Revision 0, May 18, 1976);

2. Findings The inspector determined by review of the test procedures and the results that I&C procedures in the 3.M.2-series, were not fully adequate, in that:

--

The acceptance criteria in procedure 3.M.2-5.2, step 15, specified that peak frequency of an amplifier be 350-450 kHz. The data sheet listed the acceptable tolerance as 320-400 kHz;

--

IRM and SRM calibration procedures (paragraph 2.8), 3.M.2-5.1.1 and -5.1.2, neither required a record of calibration i

results nor identification of the persons who performed the test;

--

TIP drive mechanism checkout test results performed October, 1981 - January, 1982 were not reviewed for their acceptability;

--

Procedure 3.M.2-5.6.6 neither required a record of the

test date, nor review of the results; i --

Procedure 3.M.2-5.6.8 did not require review of the test result .

.

Boston Edison Company 7 These are examples of not fully adequate procedures based on a selective review of the 3.M.2 series procedures. The inspector determined that test data were documented and filed in separate Visicorder file cards, separate from the procedure The licensee acknowledged the inspector's findings, particularly in regard to the adequacy and continuity of the procedures, and stated that all 3.M.2 series procedures would be reviewed and revised, if necessary, in accordance with the requirements specified in ANSI N18.7 and 10 CFR 50, Appendix B by June 1, 198 This is an unresolved item pending NRC:R1 inspection of the procedures following review and revision (293/82-18-01). Unresolved Items Unresolved items are findings about which more information is required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of noncompli-ance or deviations. Unresolved item disclosed during the inspection is discussed in Paragraph 2. . Exit Interview Licensee management was informed of the purpose and scope of the inspection at the entrance interview. The findings of the inspection were periodically discussed and were summarized at the conclusion of the inspection on June 10, 1982. Attendees at this exit interview are denoted in Paragraph 1.

m