ML20132C589

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

ML20132C589
Person / Time
Site:	Zion  File:ZionSolutions icon.png
Issue date:	09/20/1985
From:	Mccormickbarge, Ring M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20132C583	List: IR 05000295/1985027 ML20132C579
References
50-295-85-27, 50-304-85-28, NUDOCS 8509270095
Download: ML20132C589 (10)

See also: IR 05000722/2008030

Text

.

-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-