Home NRC Library Document Collections Generic Communications Bulletins 1996

Bulletin 96-01: Control Rod Insertion Problems

OMB No. 3150-0012 NRCB 95-02 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION WASHINGTON, DC 20555-0001 March 8, 1996 NRC BULLETIN 96-01: CONTROL ROD INSERTION PROBLEMS Addressees This bulletin is being sent to all holders of pressurized-water reactor (PWR) operating licenses (except those licenses amended to possession only status). It is expected that recipients will review the information for applicability to their facilities and consider actions, as appropriate, to avoid similar problems. However, action is only requested from PWR licensees of Westinghouse-designed plants. Purpose The U.S. NRC is issuing this bulletin to accomplish the following: (1) Alert addressees to problems encountered during recent events in which control rods failed to completely insert upon the scram signal. (2) Assess the operability of control rods, particularly in high burnup fuel assemblies. Background South Texas Project On December 18, 1995, with South Texas Unit 1 at 100 percent power, a pilot wire monitoring relay actuation caused a main transformer lockout, which resulted in a turbine trip and a reactor trip. While verifying that control rods had inserted fully after the trip, operators noted that the rod bottom lights of three control rod assemblies were not lit; the digital rod position indication for each rod indicated six steps withdrawn. A step is equivalent to 1.59 cm [5/8 inch], and the top of the dashpot begins at 38 steps. Boration of the reactor coolant system was occurring, with the charging pump suction aligned to the refueling water storage tank. One rod did drift into the fully inserted rod bottom position within 1 hour, and the other two rods were manually inserted later. During subsequent testing of all control rods in the affected banks, the rod position indication for the same three locations, as well as a new location, indicated six steps withdrawn. As compared to prior rod drop testing, no significant differences in rod drop times were noted before reaching the upper dashpot area for any of the control rods. Within 1 hour after the rod drop tests, two of the rods drifted to the rod bottom position and the other two were manually inserted. All four 9603120001. NRCB 96-01 March 8, 1996 Page 2 of 6 control rods were located in XLR fuel assemblies that were in their third cycle, with burnup greater than 42,880 megawatt days per metric ton uranium (MWD/MTU). Wolf Creek Plant On January 30, 1996, after a manual scram from 80 percent power, five control rod assemblies at the Wolf Creek plant failed to insert fully. Two rods remained at 6 steps withdrawn, two at 12 steps, and one at 18 steps. At Wolf Creek, a step is equivalent to 1.59 cm [5/8 inch] and the top of the dashpot begins at approximately 30 steps. Three of the affected rods drifted to fully inserted within 20 minutes, one within 60 minutes, and the last one within 78 minutes. The results also indicate that there was some slowing down of affected rods before they reached the dashpot. After the scram, the licensee initiated emergency boration because all rods did not insert fully. During subsequent cold rod drop tests, the same five rods, plus an additional three rods, failed to fully insert. All of the affected rods were in 17x17 VANTAGE 5H fuel assemblies, with burnup greater than 47,600 MWD/MTU. North Anna Plant On February 21, 1996, during the insert shuffle in preparation for loading North Anna 1, Cycle 12, two new control rod assemblies could not be removed with normal operation of the handling tool from the fuel assemblies in the spent fuel pool in which they were temporarily stored. The control rod assemblies were removed using the rod assembly handling tool in conjunction with the bridge crane hoist. The two affected fuel assemblies were VANTAGE 5H assemblies, which had achieved 47,782 MWD/MTU and 49,613 MWD/MTU burnup during two cycles of irradiation. Discussion At both South Texas units, a 14-foot active fuel length core design is used. Several differences between the standard 12-foot active fuel design and the 14-foot design are as follows: the 14-foot fuel design is approximately 76.2 cm [30 inches] longer than the standard fuel assembly design, it has 10 mid grids compared to 8, and the dashpot region is 25.4 cm [10 inches] longer and comprises a double dashpot. The control rod radial clearances above and in the dashpot region of the 14-foot fuel assembly are similar to those of the standard design. The South Texas core contains three different 17x17 fuel types--Standard XL, Standard XLR, and VANTAGE 5H--all of which are designed and fabricated by Westinghouse. This was the first operating cycle with VANTAGE 5H fuel. The core also contains 57 silver-indium-cadmium rods. The four affected rods were found in twice-burned Standard XLR fuel assemblies. During subsequent testing, the rod drop traces revealed no significant change in dashpot entry time; however, the affected rods did not show recoil on the rod drop trace. Recoil is a dampening affect that is normally seen in the traces as a result of contact of the control rod assembly spider hub spring against the fuel assembly. When similar rods in Unit 2 were tested, the results revealed no adverse indications. One rod did show the "no recoil" effect but inserted fully into the core. . NRCB 96-01 March 8, 1996 Page 3 of 6 At Wolf Creek, subsequent cold, full-flow testing of all of the control rod assemblies indicated that eight control rods, including the five control rods that did not fully insert following the reactor trip on January 30, 1996, did not fully insert when tripped. One control rod in core location H2 paused at 96 steps, stopped at 90 steps, and slowly inserted to 30 steps over the next 2 hours. The control rod was then manually inserted. The seven other affected rods stopped at various heights in the dashpot region, five of which fully inserted within 22 minutes. One of the other two drifted to the bottom within 1.5 hours, while the remaining rod needed to be manually inserted. The remaining 45 rods fully inserted when dropped, although a number of the rods did not exhibit the expected number of recoils. Of the total 53 control rod assemblies, the assembly at core location H2 (the only rod slowing outside the dashpot region) is a hafnium control rod, while the remaining are silver- indium-cadmium control rod assemblies. However, subsequent inspection of the hafnium rod did not indicate any adverse dimensional change. The licensee retested all rods that stuck, as well as those rods that failed to recoil more than twice, and the results were similar to the previous testing. At North Anna, the two affected control rods were removed and were inserted into a series of other fuel assemblies. No additional binding problems were observed. However, difficulty was experienced when another control rod was inserted into the two affected fuel assemblies. On the basis of this result, the licensee determined the cause of the binding problem to be related to the fuel assemblies and not the control rods. Subsequent control rod drag testing data indicated a correlation of control rod drag force to assembly burnup and a significant increase in drag force at assembly burnups greater than 45,000 MWD/MTU. These three events, as well as several similar events at foreign reactors, raise concerns about the operability of control rods in high burnup fuel assemblies. Although most of the testing to date has demonstrated that the control rods have reached the dashpot region of the guide tube and that adequate shutdown margin has been maintained, there have been indications of degraded rod drop times and a stuck rod well above the dashpot region. Thus, there is concern that these events may be precursors of more significant control rod binding problems in which required shutdown margins and rod drop times may be violated. Requested Actions To ensure that the required shutdown margin is maintained during a reactor trip, all licensees of Westinghouse-designed plants are requested to take the following actions: (1) Promptly inform operators of recent events (reactor trips and testing) in which control rods did not fully insert and subsequently provide necessary training, including simulator drills, utilizing the required procedures for responding to an event in which the control rods do not fully insert upon reactor trip (e.g., boration of a pre-specified amount). . NRCB 96-01 March 8, 1996 Page 4 of 6 (2) Promptly determine the continued operability of control rods based on current information. As new information becomes available from plant rod drop tests and trips, licensees should consider this new information together with data already available from Wolf Creek, South Texas, North Anna, and other industry experience, and make a prompt determination of control rod operability. (3) Measure and evaluate at each outage of sufficient duration during calendar year 1996 (end of cycle, maintenance, etc.), the control rod drop times and rod recoil data for all control rods. If appropriate plant conditions exist where the vessel head is removed, measure and evaluate drag forces for all rodded fuel assemblies. a. Rods failing to meet the rod drop time in the technical specifications shall be deemed inoperable. b. Rods failing to bottom or exhibiting high drag forces shall require prompt corrective action in accordance with Appendix B to Part 50 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR Part 50). (4) For each reactor trip during calendar year 1996, verify that all control rods have promptly fully inserted (bottomed) and obtain other available information to assess the operability and any performance trend of the rods. In the event that all rods do not fully insert promptly, conduct tests to measure and evaluate rod drop times and rod recoil. In summary, the first two actions requested by the bulletin ensure that all affected plants respond in a proactive manner to recent industry experience. The second two requested actions support data collection that will permit the staff to more effectively assess this issue and determine if further regulatory action is needed. Required Response Pursuant to Section 182a, the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and 10 CFR 50.54(f), all licensees of Westinghouse-designed plants must submit the following written information: (1) Within 30 days of the date of this bulletin, a report certifying that control rods are determined to be operable; actions taken for Requested Actions (1) and (2) above; and the plans for implementing Requested Action (3) and (4). (2) Within 30 days of the date of this bulletin, a core map of rodded fuel assemblies indicating fuel type (materials, grids, spacers, guide tube inner diameter) and current and projected end of cycle burnup of each rodded assembly for the current cycle; when available, provide the same information for the next cycle. (3) Within 30 days after completing Requested Action (3) for each outage, a report that summarizes the data and that documents the results obtained; . NRCB 96-01 March 8, 1996 Page 5 of 6 this is also applicable to Requested Action (4) when any abnormal rod behavior is observed. Address the required written information to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, DC 20555-0001, under oath or affirmation. In addition, submit a copy of the report to the appropriate regional administrator. Related Generic Communications . NRC Information Notice 96-12: "Control Rod Insertion Problems" . Letter from R.A. Newton (WOG) to Document Control Desk (NRC), "Response to NRC Questions Concerning Incomplete RCCA Insertion," February 23, 1996. Backfit Discussion This bulletin is an information request under the provision of 10 CFR 50.54(f). The objective of the actions requested in this bulletin is to verify that licensees are complying with the current licensing basis for the facility with respect to shutdown margin and control rod drop times. The issuance of the bulletin is justified on the basis of the need to verify compliance with the current licensing basis with respect to shutdown margin, control rod drop times, and proper operator action when control rods are not promptly inserted into the reactor. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This bulletin contains information collections that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). These information collections were approved by the Office of Management and Budget, approval number 3150-0012, which expires June 30, 1997. The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 240 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is seeking public comment on the potential impact of the collection of information contained in the bulletin and on the following issues: 1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the NRC, including whether the information will have practical utility? 2. Is the estimate of burden accurate? 3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected? 4. How can the burden of the collection of information be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques? . NRCB 96-01 March 8, 1996 Page 6 of 6 Send comments on any aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the Information and Records Management Branch, T-6 F33, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and to the Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, NEOB-10202 (3150-0012), Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. If you have any questions about this matter, please contact one of the technical contacts listed below or the appropriate Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) project manager. signed by Dennis M. Crutchfield, Director Division of Reactor Program Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Technical contacts: Laurence Kopp, NRR (301) 415-2879 Internet:lik@nrc.gov Margaret Chatterton, NRR (301) 415-2889 Internet:msc1@nrc.gov Lead Project Manager: Kristine Thomas, NRR (301) 415-1362 Internet:kmt@nrc.gov Attachment: List of Recently Issued NRC Bulletins

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021