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

. .

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONRegion I

Report No. 50-213/82-05

Docket No. 50-213

License No. OPR-61 Priority Category C--

Licensee: Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company

P. O. Box 270

Hartford, Connecticut 06101

Facility Name: Haddam Neck Plant

Inspection at: Haddam, Connecticut

Inspection conducted: February 8-12, 1982

Inspectors: y -[a b ,/ / -Mp_ J[' .2/f 2_OC.' D. Petrone, Reactor Inspector dite signed

d| L 4 / ffh~ /s 3hz /? L.J. W. Chung, Ph.D., Re'ctor Inspector date' signeda

Approved by: e.dr4 ~ 3//7-/91L. H. Bbttenhausen, Ph.D., Chief, Test Program date signed i

Section, Engineering Inspection Branch

Ingection Summary: l

Inspection on February 8-12, 1982 (Report No. 50-213/82-05)Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of local leak rate testing,training and qualification, control room activities, and post refueling startuptesting including, control rod drops, control rod worth and baron worth,isothermal temperature coefficient measurement, shutdown margin, and coreoutlet thermocouple calibration. The inspection involved 53 inspector-hoursonsite by two region based NRC inspectors.Results: No items of noncompliance were identified.

l

|

Region I Form 12(Rev. April 77)

0204020207 820319PDR ADOCK 050002130 PDR

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

. .

DETAILS

1. Persons Contacted

Principal Licensee Employees

I * R. C. Beganski, Engineer* N. Burnett, Operating Assistant to Engineering* J. L. DeLawrence, Senior Engineer, ISI

R. Eppinger, Reactor EngineerJ. H. Ferguson, Unit Superintendent

* R. H. Graves, Station Superintendent* D. J. Ray, Engineering Supervisor

P. Shanley, Licensing Engineer, NUSCO* R. Test, Station Service Superintendent

M. E. Turner, Assistant ISI Engineer

USNRC

* T. Smith, Resident Inspector

The inspectors also interviewed other licensee employees including adminis-trative, operations, and I&C personnel.

* denotes those present at the exit interview.

2. Local Leak Rate Testing

The inspector performed a review, on a sampling basis, of the Local LeakRate Testing (LLRT) precedures and test results for conformance withTechnical Specifications and 10 CFR 50, Appendix J, Type B and C require-ments to verify:

Technically adequate and approved procedures were used;--

-- Test personnel were qualified;

Special test equipment required by procedures was calibrated;--

Post maintenance work was parformed for failed LLRT in accordance--

with facility procedures;

Post maintenance LLRT was performed for failed LLRT;--

LER was issued on failed LLRT; and,--

Test results were in accordance with the requirements specified in--

Technical Specifications (TS).

|

|

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

. .

3

a. LLRT Program

The inspector determined by review of the LLRT program procedure, lSUR 5.7-15-C, Original, February 28, 1980, and 1979-1980 test summarythat the following penetrations were excluded from the 10 CFR 50,Appendix J, type B or C tests.

(1) N2 supply line penetration to PRT.

(2) Reactor Coolant Pump (RCP) seal water supply.

(3) Service water to and from the containment cooling coil.

(4) Residual Heat Removal System penetrations.

(5) Main steam line.

(6) Feedwater system.|

The inspector noted that exemptions to Appendix J tests were proposedto the NRC as documented in letters to the NRC dated March 14, 1975and August 9, 1977, and in a letter from the NRC to the licenseedated March 11, 1977, requesting more information. The proposedexemptions have yet to be approved by the NRC, and the tests werenot performed during that period.

The inspector concurred with the licensee's contention that, eventhough the Feedwater Isolation Valves were isolated automatically bya Containment Isolation Signal is per TS, Feedwater and Main SteamPenetrations were not subjected to Type C test requirements ofAppendix J, Paragraph II-H, 10 CFR 50.

The check valve on the N2 supply penetration to PRT was leak-testedand incorporated into the LLRT programs during 1981 testing. However,the inspector was concerned with one inboard check valve on thepenetration which had no additional outboard isolation valve. In alicensee letter to NRR dated August 8, 1977, the licensee proposedto install two additional check valves inside of containment and toseismically qualify the lines between the three check valves. Theinspector reviewed design modification packages, i'DCR Summary ofJanuary 1,1978 through February,1982, NUSCO Drawings, and CY 50.59 |

|) reports, and verified by onsite inspection that the N2 supply line I

was not modified to qualify the line seismically and the proposedcheck valves were not installed. It is our understanding that thelicensee would resolve this item with NRR.

A licensee representative stated that the items (2), (3) and (4)listed p uviously would be implemented into the LLRT program priorto the next refueling outage and that these tests would be completedprior to restart. Tcis is an unresolved item pending NRC:RI inspectionof additional test implementation into LLRT program (213/82-05-01).

. .

4 ,

i

b. LLRT Procedure Review

IThe inspector verified by review of the station procedure reviewprogram and its computer printouts of February 10, 1982, that 29 of49 LLRT procedures were overdue for review as required by TS 6.8.1and ANSI N18.7-1976.

The inspector determined that Station Engineering which was reorganizedrecently recognized the inadequacy of LLRT procedures and their |

review. The inspector understood that the procedure review would becompleted by June 1, 1982. This is an unresolved item pendingNRC:RI inspection on LLRT procedures (213/82-05-02).

c. Test Results - 1981

The inspector reviewed LLRT results performed between September 23,1981 and November 14, 1981, and noted that total leak rate was56,935 lb. of air / day. The acceptance requirement was 882 lb. ofair / day at 40 psig. The inspector verified that 56,511 lb. of thetotal 56,935 lb. air / day leak rate was attributed to componentcooling to the neutron shield tank cooler due to valve seat leaks onCC-CV-885. Subsequently LER 81-18/3L was issued.

Corrective maintenance was performed on CC-CV-885, and LLRT wascompleted again on October 17, 1981. Total leak rate of 335.21 lb.of air / day met the acceptance criteria of 882 lb. per day.

The inspectors had no further questions.

3. Post Refueling Startup Testing

a. A review of the startup testing program was performed to verifyconduct and completion of TS requirements. This review encompassedthe following:

-- In-house Startup Report;

-- Control rod drop times;

Control rod worth and boron worth;--

-- Isothermal temperature coefficient measurement;

-- Reactor shutdown margin; and

-- Core outlet thremocouple calibration.

b. The inspector verified by review of facility records in the followingareas that startup testing was conducted in accordance with technicallyadequate procedures and that the facility is being operated withinlicense limits.

i

1

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

,

: . .

t

i

5

i

!

| (1) Post Refueling Startup Report Reviewi

The inspector and licensee representatives discussed the licensee's |.

plans to submit a Starccp Report to the NRC. The licensee ;,

stated that a Startup Report would not be submitted because no; changes had taken place during the refueling which would require

,

f

a report submittal as specified in the Technical Specifications.-.

The inspector verified the licensee's determination by review'

of the following documents for the Cycle 11 refueling:.

!'

r-- BAW-1680, Connecticut Yankee Cycle 11 Nuclear Design

! Report, June, 1981.!

-- BAW letter FPL-81-202, dated November 24, 1981, " ConnecticutYankee Reactor Effects of Cycle 10 Coastdown on Cycle 11".,

The inspector noted that the licensee's Reactor Engineer is! preparing an in-house Startup Physics Test Report which discusses1 the tests performed and summarizes the results obtained. The

inspector reviewed a preliminary draft of this report.,

j No items of noncompliance were identified.

(2) Control Rod Drop Times

Control rod drop time tests were performed to verify conformance.

with TS 4.2-2. The inspector reviewed procedure SUR 5.3-2-C,;

Hot Rod Drop Time Measurements, Revision 5, effective April 24,,

1981, which was used for this verification. The inspectorindependently reviewed Visicorder traces for selected rod drops-

4 and compared his results to licensee analyses with no discrepancies. '

|No items of noncompliances were identified. :;

(3) Control Rod Worth and Boron Worth !

The control rod reactivity worth and ejected rod worth are; determined in accordance with procedure SUR 5.3-6-C, Control !' Rod Group Reactivity Worth Combined with Boron Worth and Ejected ;

i Rod Worth, Revision 9, effective April 16, 1981, to meet the |~

requirements of TS 3.10. |

Procedure SUR 5.3-6-C performed November 7 and 8, 1981, was !; reviewed to determine technical adequacy. The measured data i

were compared with the predicted values for control rod worth.|i

The following results were noted.'

,

|

.|

'

|

. .

6

Control Rod Bank Measured Worth Predicted Worth{%deltak/k) (% delta k/k)

B .83 0.78 + 15%*A 1.99 1.81 I 15%D 2.28 2.05 T 15%C 1.78 1.76 7 15%

Total 6.88 6.40i15%Ejected Control Rod Measured Worth Predicted Worth

(% delta k/k) (% delta k/k)

Bank B at 233 stepsBank A, D, C at 320 steps

8-11 .027 .029 + 20%B-31 .015 .016120%

Bank A at 170 stepsBank B at 0 stepsBank C, 0 at 320 steps

B-11 0.182 0.180 + 20%B-31 0.112 0.139120%

The inspectors also reviewed reactimeter traces for selectedrod worth determinations. Boron worth determinations for sevencritical boron concentrations with corresponding inserted rodworths were compared with predicted values from the NuclearDesign Report. A linear-least-squares-fit to experimental dataresulted in an inverse boron worth of 135.5 ppm per % deltak/k. This value agrees with the predicted values of 145 forall rods in and 149 for all rod out within the allowable toleranceof 112%.

No items of noncompliance were identified.

(4) Isothermal Temperature Coefficient Measurement

The licensee measures isothermal temperature coefficient inaccordance with procedure SUR 5.3-5-C, " Moderator TemperatureReactivity Coefficient Measurement", Revision 5, April 16, 1981to comply with the requirements of TS 3.16. SUR 5.3-5-C wasreviewed and found to give satisfactory isothernal temperaturecoefficient data. The moderator temperature coefficients(corrected to an equivalent hot, full power moderator coefficient)averaged -6.88 E-5 delta k/k per 0F which is in close agreementwith the predicted value in the Nuclear Design Report of -6.7E-5 and less than the maximum value of +7.1 E-5 in TS 3.16.

No items of noncompliance were identified.

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

. .,

7

(5) Shutdown Margin ;

;

; The inspectors reviewed the manner in which the licensee met| T.S. 3.10.F to demonstrate that a 3*I, delta k/k shutdown margin

is maintained during subcritical operations, considering a'

j stuck control rod. The total measured worth of the controlrods, 6.887 delta k, less 1.10% for stuck rod H2, less .5% for L

uncertainties demonstrates adequate shutdown margin at the !'" beginning of Cycle 11.

No items of noncompliance were identified.4

1

| (6) Core Outlet Thermocouple Calibration

| The licensee performs an intercomparison of incore thermocouple| readings and reactor coolant loop resistance temperature devices: (RTD) at hot, isothermal conditions prior to initial criticality4 using Procedure PM 9.3-2-C, Revision 2, April 16, 1981. An; offset is then computed and made part of the computer correction

to the thermocouple reading. The offset value is the difference,

j between the actual thermocoulle reading and the average thermo-couple reading when all outlying values are removed from the

! average. The average thermocouple reading was 535.70F. The'

maximum difference between each operable thermocouples reading,

and the average isothermocouple temperature (measured by thej incore thermocouples) was 1.7610F. The offset for each operable{ thermocouple was within the + 20F criterion specified in PM

.' 9.3-2-C. As a result of this test, nine of the forty-eightthermocouples were declared inoperable and the input from thesethermocouples was eliminated from the computer program.

4. Control Room Observation,

; The inspectors observed control room operations for shift turnover andi facility operation in accordance with the administrative procedures and| TS requirements. Documents reviewed included weekly surveillance, shift -

turnover, shif t logs, and primary-side log sheets. The inspectors notedtwo alarms on the Control Center Alarm Board, for which MaintenanceRequests were issued to repair a noisy control rod drive "B" MG set

i bearing and to calibrate on alarm board instrument setpoint.'

No unacceptable conditions were identified.'

5. Unresolved Items

f Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in: order to ascertain whether they are acceptable, an item of noncompliance,| or a deviation. The unresolved items identified during the inspection '

| were discussed in Paragraphs 2.a and 2.b.!

l

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

._- .

o .

8

6. Exit Interview

At the conclusion of this inspection, the inspection scope and findingswere presented to the licensee's management (identified in paragraph 1)by Dr. J. Chung.

.

e - ,- _ _. , - - -