IR 05000250/1978028
| ML17338A442 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 12/11/1978 |
| From: | Martin R, Vogtlowell R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17338A440 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-250-78-28, 50-251-78-28, NUDOCS 7901180313 | |
| Download: ML17338A442 (9) | |
Text
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
101 MARIETTASTREET, N.W.
ATLANTA,GEORGIA 30303 Report Nos.: 50-250/78-28 and 50-251/78-28 Docket Nos.:
50-250 and 50-251 License Nos.:
DPR31 and DPR41 Licensee:
Florida Power and Light Company P.
O.
Box 529100 Miami, Florida 33152 Facility Name:
Turkey Point, Units 3 and
Inspection at:
Turkey Point Site Inspection conducted:
November 20-24 Inspector:
R. J. Vogt-Lowell Accompanying Personnel:
None Reviewed by:
R.
D. Martin, hief Nuclear Support Section No.
Reactor Operators and Nuclear Support Branch Ins ection Summar Ins ection on November 20-24 1978 (Re ort Nos. 50-250/78-28 and 50-251/78-28 startup tests performed in connection with the refueling of Unit 4 for Cycle 5 operation; independent review of activities affecting quality of the reactor engineering department.
The inspection involved 28 hours3.240741e-4 days <br />0.00778 hours <br />4.62963e-5 weeks <br />1.0654e-5 months <br /> on-site by one NRC inspector.
Results:
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified within the areas inspected.
>90ggs op( 3
~ *
RII Rpt. Nos. 50-250/78-28 and 50-251/78-28 DETAILS I Prepared by:
R. Vogt-Lowell, Reactor Inspector Nuclear Support Section No.
Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch ltli</7g Date Dates of Inspection:
vember 20- 4, 1978 Reviewed by:
R.
D. Martin, Chief Nuclear Support Section No.
Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch 1.
Persons Contacted Florida Power and Li ht Com an-H. E. Yaeger, Plant Manager J.
K. Hays, Plant Superintendent, Nuclear-D.
W. Jones, Quality Control Supervisor
-'J.
E. Moore, Operations Superintendent, Nuclear-V. B. Wager, Operations Supervisor, Nuclear-H.
M. Ainsworth, Assistant Maintenance Superintendent, Nuclear
-"J. F. Englehardt, Reactor Engineer J.
Wade, Chemistry Supervisor J.
P. Mendieta, Instrumentation and Control Supervisor R. Spooner, Q/A Supervisor-R. E. Tucker, Q/A Technician
-"C. Becker, Reactor Engineering Technician
"-Denotes those present at the exit interv'iew.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Ins ection Findin s
Not applicable to this inspection report period.
3.
Unresolved items No new unresolved items in this report period.
4.
Exit Interview The inspect. or met with Mr. H. E.
Yaeger and other members of his staff as denoted in par'agraph 1 on November 24, 1978.
The inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspectio ~
~
RII Rpt. Nos. 50-250/78-28 and 50-251/78-28 I-2 5.
Unit 4 C cle
Startu Test Results The inspector reviewed the licensee records to verify that the following post refueling activities had taken place:
core power distribution determination; power range nuclear instrumentation channel check and calibration; core thermal power determination; shutdown margin deter-mination; isothermal moderator temperature coefficient determination; control rod worth determination; control rod drive and rod position indication checks; and power coefficient determination.
The results of the performance of the following procedures was reviewed by the inspector:
a
~
O.P.
12702.1,
"Normal Alignment of the Reactivity Computer"--covering insertion of the new computer constants for delayed neutron fractions and decay constants used by the reactivity computer in the solution of the In-Hour Equation.
b.
O.P.
0204.3, "Initial Criticality After Refueling-covering items such as the sequential steps in attaining criticality, the subse-quent determination of the nuclear heating point and a reactivity versus period check on the reactivity computer.
O.P.
0204.5,
"Nuclear Design Check Tests During Startup Sequence After Refueling"--specifies the startup test sequence from initial criticality to full power operation so that the following are acco'mplished:
determination of isothermal temperature coefficient of reactivity; establishment of the boron end points for the controlling RCC bank; determination of the neutron flux distribu-tion at essentially zero power; determination of the differential worths of specified RCC's; determination of the soluble boron reactivity worths.
The inspector pointed out the absence of a provision in this procedure for ensuring evaluation of test results by a responsible person as is required in the plant's administrative procedures.
During the exit interview, the licensee agreed to incorporate this requirement prior to the next usa'ge of O.P.
0204.5.
During the review of the section on isothermal temperature coeffi-cient (ITC), the inspector noted that the equation provided in the Westinghouse WCAP-0351 for correcting the design reference ITC for differing critical boron concentrations appeared not to have been used in presenting the ITC test results in the Startup Report.
The licensee agreed to review and revise the Startup Report as necessary and to incorporate a note in the ITC determination section of O.P 0204.5 which would alert the test engineer to utilize said equation for adjusting design values of ITC due to
0
RII Rpt. Nos. 50-250/78-28 and 50-251/78-28 I-3 differing critical boron concentrations prior to establishing a
comparison between the design and the measured values (78-28-01).
d.
O.P.
1604.8,
"CRDM/RPI, Stepping and Drop Time Tests"--the inspector reviewed the results for the hot zero power/
100~ flow test performed September 25-26, 1978.
e.
O.P.
12404.21,
"Power Distribution Surveillance Using the Incore Movable Detector System"--portions of the results of flux map number FM4Vl performed on September 29, 1978 were reviewed by the inspector.
f.
O.P.
12304.3,
"Power Range Nuclear Instrumentation Shift Checks and Daily Calibrations"--the inspector reviewed the data sheets associated with an October 5 and an October 8, 1978 heat balance determination.
g.
M.P. 0707.8,
"Periodic Calibration of Instrumentation Used in the Station Heat Rate Determination"--the inspector reviewed the data sheets associated with the October 18, 1978 performance of this procedure on Unit 4.
During th'e exit interview, the inspector commented on the lack of a management position on the acceptability of taking plant data in pencil versus in ink.
Noting that several of the data sheets reviewed contained pencil entries which could lend themselves to erasures and undocumented changes to data, the inspector received a commitment from the licensee that A.P.
190.14,
"Document Control and Q/A Records" would be revised to establish the requirement to use ink when taking plant data and performing plant procedures (78-28-02).
No items of noncompliance were identified within the areas inspected.
6.
Inde endent Review of Activities Affectin ualit in the Review of Reactor En ineerin De artment - Units 3 and
Qe The inspector examined a listing of the Reactor Engineering Department's operating procedures and attempted to identify (via discussions with the licensee's management during the exit interview) the licensee group responsible for reviewing activities affecting quality in the area of Reactor Engineering.
The licensee indicated that for the most part, the off-site Nuclear Analysis Group at the General Office was involved in reviewing the on-site Reactor Engineering activity.
On November 30, 1978, a conference call between the NRC Region II office (R. Vogt-Lowell, R.
D. Martin, E.
H. Verdery)
and the licensee's manager of the Nuclear Analysis Group (in addition to other members of the licensee's staff)
~,
V
RII Rpt. Nos. 50-250/78-28 and 50-251/78-28 1-4 was conducted with the purpose of clarifying the relationship between the off-site Nuclear Analysis Group and on-site Reactor Engineering Department.
From this discussion, it is the inspector's understanding that the relationship is an interactive one as opposed to one prescribed by a structured independent review function to be performed by the Nuclear Analysis Group on an established timescale.
The inspector had no further comments and advised the licensee that he would visit with them at the corporate office during a subsequent inspection in order to further clarify the responsibility for review of activities affecting quality in the area of Reactor Engineering.
No items of noncompliance were identified within the areas inspecte l C