IR 05000317/1988011

Insp Rept 50-317/88-11 on 880616-17 & 0627-0701.No Violations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Startup Testing Following Refueling of Unit 1,Cycle 10 & post-mod Testing Procedures on 880616-17 & 0627-0701

ML20207H085
Person / Time
Site:	Calvert Cliffs
Issue date:	08/10/1988
From:	Eapen P, James Trapp, Van Kessel H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20207H034	List: IR 05000317/1988011 ML20207H030
References
50-317-88-11, NUDOCS 8808240347
Download: ML20207H085 (10)

Text

._ .. .,. . . _ _ _ _ _

.

.

.

,

. .

.

.

U.S. NUCLEAR' REGULATORY"COMMISSION REGION-I Report No. .50-317/88-11 Docket N License No. DPR-53 Licensee: Baltimore Gas and Electric Company P.O. Box 1475 Baltimore; Maryland 21203 Facility Name: Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Powee Plant,-Unit 1 Inspection At: Lusby, Maryland Inspection Conducted June :6, 17, 27-Ju13 1, 1988 Inspectors: '

S k~Y N Henri Van Kessel, Reactor Engineer date 0*H-88 Jam 6 actor Engineer date d,Trapp, 0 Approved by: e- m u T- lO-N pr- Dr. P.K. ~Eapen,1C41ef, Special Test date Programs Section, EB, DRS

' e Inspection Summary: Routine, unannounced inspection of startup testing

-

following refueling of Unit Number 1, Cycle 10, and post modification testing procedures on June 16, 17, 27-July 1, 1988. (Report Number 50-317/88-11)

Results: No violations were identified. Two items were designated as unresolved; 1) training qualification records, and 2) calibration of test equipmen '

'

O

- - - . .

.

.

.

.

. .

.

.

DETAILS

.

1.0 Persons Contacted Baltimore' Gas and Electric Company-A. B. Anuje, Supervisor Q/A R. D. Branch, Engineer, PE ,

• J. Carroll, General Supervisor, QA J. B. Couch, Sr. Engineer, Fuel Cycle Management

• S. R. Cowne, Sr. Engineer, Licensing R. J. De Alley, Sr. Engineer, Q/A

• R. M. Douglass, Manager, Q/A S. Elkins, Sr. Engineer, Reactor and Analysis Work Group

• P. Katz, General Supervisor, Design Engineering

• J. A. Mihalcik, Principal Engineer, Fuel Cycle Management J. Rivera, Engineer M. S. Rominger, Engineer, Q/A K. M. Romney, Sr. Engineer, Q/A J. D. Runion, Engineer, FCM

• L. B. Russell, Manager, Operations and Maintenance J. Snodderly, Engineer L. P. Strayer, Shift Supervisor J. William, Sr. Er.gineer, FCM

• R. L. Wenderlich, General Supervisor - Electrical and Control

• J. Wood, Engineer, Q/A US Nuclear Regulatory Commission

• V. Pritchett, Resident Inspector

• D. Trimble, Senior Resident Inspector The inspector also contacted other licensee personnel in the course of l the inspectio * Denotes those present at the exit interview held on July 1, 198 .0 Unit Number 1, Cycle 10, Reload Safety Evaluation

'

Calvert Cliffs Unit Number 1, Cycle 10, is the first twenty-four months reloao core for Unit Number 1. This cycle uses a low-leakage core design wherein previously used fuel assemblies are placed around the periphery I of the core with fresh assemblies located predominantly in the central core regio l Of the ninety-six fresh Batch M assemblies, ninety-two were manufactured l by Combustion Engineering and four by Advanced Nuclear Fuel (ANF). The four ANF assemblies used Gd 2 3 0 for control shimming, instead of B C used

l

!

i

!

!

!

-- .- . . - . . , . - - -

. .- -

.

'

.

-

.

.

-

.

by Combustion Engineering. The ANF is being used as part of an effort to qualify ANF for twenty-four month cycles. The inspector reviewed the compatibility evaluation for ANF, which was supplied to the Commission as an appendix to the' license submittal for cycle 10 reloa The composition of the central Control ElementfAssembly (CEA), which is part of the lead bank (bank 5), was changed during the' Cycle 9/10 Refuel-ing Outage. The change reduces the reactivity worth of the central CE This change was presented to the Commission in "Request for Amendment, Eight Cycle License Application", dated February 6,1987 for Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Unit Number The inspector reviewed the "Request for Amendment, Unit one tenth Cycle License Application; Unit Two Axial Shape Index Region Enlargement:

dated February 12, 1988, and the "Unit 1 Cycle 10 Technical Spacification '

, Amendment" to assure ccmpliance of the Physics Testing Program. No unacceptable conditions were identifie .0 Cycle-10 startup Testing program The Startup Test Program was conducted according to test procedur PSTP-2, Rev. 11 "Unit No. 1, Cycle 10, Initial Criticality". The test procedure outline steps in the test program, set initial conditions and prerequisites, specified calibration or surveillance procedures at appropriate points in the test sequence, and referenced detailed tests and data collection in separate appendices. The Startup Procedure was approved by the on site review committee (POSRC) at meeting 88-56 on June 8, 198 .

"

The inspection performed included all tests up to and including initial criticality, which occurred on July 1, 1988. TSe Startup tests witnessed by the inspector were:

• Incore Thermocouple Evaluation

• CEDM/CEA Performance Test q

• RCS Flow Test l The details and findings of the startup test review are described in ,

Section !

4.0 Cycle-10 startup Testing - Precriticality Tests The inspector reviewed calibration and functional tests to verify the following:

• Procedures were provided with detailed instructions;

.

-_

. . ,. .

.

'

.

.

• Technical content'of procedures was sufficient to result in

' satisfactory' component calibration and functional test;

• Instruments used were calibrated;

• Acceptance and Review criteria were in compliance with Technical Specifications:

The following tests were reviewed:

4.1 Incore Thermocouple Evaluation '

Forty-five Core Exit Thermocouples were checked in accordance with PSTP-2, Appendix The loop RTO's are well_ type and are removed for calibration during refueling outages. The inspector reviewed the thermocouple evaluation and noted that the evaluation was satis-factory. No unacceptable conditions were identifie ,

4.2 Control Element Drive Mechanism (CEDM)/ Control Element Assembly (CEA) Performance Test The CEDM/CEA Performance test was conducted in accordance with PSTP-2 Appendix 8 on June 29-30, 1988. The inspector independen'ly t reviewed the test results and verified that the CEA drop time was in compliance with the Technical Specifications. The inspector noted the visicorder (s/n 3401JE76) used to measure theLCEA drop times was beyond it's calibration due date. The inspector notified the licensee of the finding. The licensee extended the calibration due date to July 10, 1988. The licensee agreed at the exit meeting to supply the resident inspector with the basis for the extension, until this is completed, this matter will be held as an unresolved ite (50-317/88-11-01)

4.3 RCS Flow Test

~

The inspector independently reviewed the results 'of the RCS flow tes The flow test verifies the operation of the differential pressure transmitters across the core and the Reactor Coolant Pumps. The data was reasonably consistint with previous cycle data. No unacceptable conditions were identifie .0 Post Modification Test Program 5.1 Post Modification Test Procedure Review The procedures listed in Attachment A were reviewed for the following attributes:

• management review and approval

. - _

_

.

,. .

. .

.

• procedure format

• clarity of stated objectives

• prerequisites

'

• environmental conditions -

• acceptance criteria and their sources

initial conditions

• attainment of test objectives

• degree of detail for test instructions a

restoration of system to normal after testing

identification of test personnel

evaluation of test data

• quality control and assurance involvement It was noted that reference 1 did not have a separate section for acceptance criteria with a comparison of actual and acceptable values. Acceptable values, however, were found under the section for Initial Conditions. This test procedure also did not show restoration steps af ter the completion of the test steps. Since this procedure is for the testing of components, the absence of system restoration steps is considered to be an administrative

'

weakness. Apart from the above discrepancies, the listed test l procedures were found to be adequat A j 5.2 Post Modification Test Results Evaluation 1

The test procedures, listed in Attachment A, were reviewed for the l following attributes: '

• test changes

• test exceptions

• test deficiencies

.1

• acceptance criteria l

• performance verification l

l l

f i

.. . .l l

- t i 6 )

• recording of conduct of test

• QC inspection records

• system restoration to normal

• independent verification of critical. steps or parameters

• identification of test personnel

• verification that the test results have been approved None of the test results had been approved at the time of revie Change No. 2 of reference 3 was a shift in initial condition (step 4.1.1) from mede 5 to mode It had not received POSRC approval at the time of the inspector's review. Administrative procedure CCI-104H requires Plant Operations Safety Review Committee (POSRC) approval within 14 days for temporary changes. The inspector learned that POSRC did approve this change later, on July 1, 1988, one day away from the dead line (the change was dated June 17, 1988). Changes 3, 4 and 5 of the same procedure were in the same position. All four changes were approved on July 1, .98 It was noted that many temporary changes in STPM 514-1 (Ref. 2), for the wide range nuclear instrumentation, existed in the form of notes placed on the back side of the mastercopy of the test procedur Contrary to the Engineering Test procedures, which have a form for test changes, the Surveillance Test procedure does not have such a form. The changes (16), however, were approved by POSRC in two separate sessions and signed off on the mastercopy aof the test procedur Apart from the above administrative discrepancies, the test results for the listed test procedures were found to be adequat .0 Independent Inspection Effort The inspector reviewed the qualifications records of six FCM personnel against the requirements of ANSI N.18.1 (1971), "Selection and Training of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel" to which the licensee is committe The basic requirements for a reactor physics engineer are: A Bachelor's degree in Engineering or Physical Science and two years of experience in such areas as reactor physics, core measurement, core heat transfer and !

core physics testing programs. The requirements for a technician are lower: a high school diploma and two years of plant experienc !

i I

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _

n -

s ,

'

.  !

-

l

. .

-

s

1

.

The qualification records reviewed consisted of 5 reactor engineers and one technician. It was noted that Attachment 8, the principal form'of the records, had an entry for "Experience" but no entry for the position held at the time of the last record revision. The latter lack of infornation made it difficult to determine if ANSI 18.1 was being met. It was also noted that the experience records did not include details in the positions held and the experience gained with BG&E. In two cases, the experience record was blan The licensee acknowledged the shortcomings noted by the inspector and will take corrective actio The item has been designated as an unresolved item. (50-317/88-11-02)

7.0 QA/QC Interface The participation of the BG&E QA Staff in the modification program was evaluated by the inspector. A number of QA Surveillance / Audit repor+.s, pertaining to modif', cations performed during this refueling outage, as listed in Attachment 8, were reviewe In the Audit Schedule of ref.1, four major audits are identified as follows:

Audit Number Activity 88-15 Out of Core Fuel Management 88-18 Outage Modification Inspection (OMI)

88-19 In Service Inspection 88-23 In Core Fuel Management In a meeting on July 1,1988, the QA staff presented their findings to date in the audits listed above. Some impressive technical findings were noted including the environmental qualification problem with the Buna-N material used in the valves hCV-517 (see ref. 2 of Attachment B). It should also be noted that the QA staff used the NRCs inspection checklists in the Safety Systems Outage Modification Program (ref. 6; Appendices D and E).  !

l The surveillance report on the replacement of the actuator air regulators for hCV-517, Pressurizer Auxiliary Spray Valves (ref. 2), indicates that this issue is not yet clearly resolved. Corrective actions, however, are in progress.

_ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_

_ _ _ _ _ _

5,

.

.- .

-

..

8-Overall, the listed references and the discussions with the QA staff

' indicated adequate QA coverage for the modification and startup activities. The startup activities of this week, also were witnessed around the clock by members of the QA staf .0 Plant Tours

. The inspector made a tour of the plant including the control room, switch :

gear rooms, and turbine building to observe the work in progress, housekeeping, testing activities, and cleanlines f

'

No unacceptable conditions were note .0 Unresolved Items

>

Unresolved items Ere matters about which more information is required in order to determine whether they are acceptable, an item of noncompliance, or'a deviation. New unresolved items in this report are identified in sections 4.2 and ,

10.0 Exit Interview t At the conclusion of the site inspection, on July 1,1988, an exit interview was conducted with the licensee's senior site representatives (denoted in Section 1). The findings were identified and previous it2ms were discusse At no time during this inspection was writta- .aterial provided to the licensee by the inspector. Based on the NRC Region I review of this report and discussions held with licensee representatives during this )

inspection, it was determined that this report does not contain information subject to 10 CFR 2.790 restrictions, l

l i

. ~ . _ _ . . - . . . _ . . _ - . . - _ _ . _ _

,

.-

.

..

- -

, s

-

'

ATTACHMENT A

.

POST MODIFICATION TEST PROCEDURES , , .,

Re Procedure Number Title POSRC Approval' ETP-88-29 Engineering Test Procedure, 05/27/88 Rev. O, "CV517, 518 and 519 Actuator Stroke Time Measurement" STPM-514-1 Surveillance Test Procedure, '04/06/88  :'

Rev. 6, "Wide Range Nuclear'

Instrumentation" ETP-88-04 Engineering Test Procedure, 05/11/88 Rev. 0, "Diverse Scram System

, Functional. Test - Unit 1" J

,

5 i

4 [

,

-

,

a ,

l-

-

. - . . . . . .-. - . .

.

,.

'

O ,

.

ATTACHMENT B

.

QA REFERENCES FOR MODIFICATION PROGRAM 3 Quality Audits Unit Internal Audit Schedule for.1988, Rev. 2,Edated May 198 . Surveillance Number 588-18, "Quality Assurance Surveillance of the Air Regulator Replacement for hCV-517," surveillance dates: '

March 31-April 12, 1988 Audit Checklist Number 88-15', "Out of Core Fuel Management," 1988, Quality Audits Unit

, Audit Checklist Number 88-22, "In Core Fuel Management," 1988, Quality Audits Unit Quality Assurance Audit Number 88-19, "Inservice Inspection,"

! surveillance dates: April 20-June 8, 1988 ' Internal NRC Memorandum from J.G. Partlow to R.W. Startostecki,

"Inspection Checklists - Safety System Outage Modifications' Inspection .

Program (SSOMI)", dated June 6, .1.986, with er. closures (Appendix D and E)

i I

s n

!

.

a

d

.

.

.

<m. , - - - . , .-. - - . , = - . . . - . . - . . - - - . , _ . . - .

_- . . , _ , ._ - - - . - . - - - _ , . . . - - . - - . - -