IR 05000269/1978031
| ML15223A365 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 12/12/1978 |
| From: | Burnett P, Martin R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML15223A363 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-269-78-31, 50-270-78-29, 50-287-78-31, NUDOCS 7901100359 | |
| Download: ML15223A365 (4) | |
Text
j REGoU UNITED STATES o'
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Z
REGION II
101 MARIETTA STREET, ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 Report Nos.:
50-269/78-31, 50-270/78-29 and 50-287/78-31 Docket Nos.:
50-269, 50-270 and 50-287 License Nos.:
DPR-38, DPR-47 and DPR-55 Licensee:
Duke Power Company P. 0. Box 33189 Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 Facility Name:
Oconee Units 1, 2 and 3 Inspection at:
Seneca, South Carolina Inspection conducted:
November 14-17, 1978 Inspector:
P. T. Bu nett Reviewed by:
C /1 7. 7 R. D. Martin, Chief 4ate Nuclear Support Section No. 1 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch Inspection Summary Inspection on November 14-17, 1978: (Report Nos. 50-269/78-31, 50-270/78-29 and 50-287/78-31)
Areas Inspected:
Post-refueling, zero-power and power-escalation tests on Unit I were reviewed. Preparations for refueling Unit 2 were inspected by review of procedures, both completed and in-progress, and by observa tion of activities, recent operating experience on Unit 3 was reviewed, and discussed with licensee personne These activities required 27 on-site hours by one inspecto Results:
No items of noncompliance were identified in the three areas inspecte RII Rpt. No. 50-269/78-31 I-1 50-270/78-29, and 50-28f/78-31 DETAILS I Prepared by:
-
744/J P.Rea6tor Inspector Date Nuclear Support Section No. 1 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch Dates of Inspection: Yvember 14-17, 1978 Reviewed by: _,
/Ch 7i R. D. Artin, Chief Date Nuclear Support Section No. 1 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch Persons Contacted
- J. E. Smith, Plant Manager
- R. M. Koebler, Superintendent of Technical Services
- T. S. Barr, Performance Engineer
- R. T. Bond, Licensing and Projects Engineer
.
- P. V. Fant, QA Supervisor J. T. Campbell, Operating Engineer
- D. Curtis, Reactor Engineer
- L. A. Blue,Associate Health Physicist
- D. J. Vito, Associate Engineer/Licensing
- G. B. Beam, Junior Engineer/Reactor Various plant operations personnel
- Denotes attendance at Exit Interview on November 17, 1978 Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not addresse.
New Unresolved Items Non.
Exit Interview A meeting was held with Mr. J. E. Smith, Plant Manager, and those others indicated by asterisks in Paragraph I on November 17, 197 The scope and findings of this inspection, as described in the following paragraphs, were discussed with those presen RII Rpt. No. 50-269/78-31, 1-2 50-270/78-29, and 50-287/78-31 Post Refueling Testing of Unit I Following refueling of Unit 1 for cycle 5 of its operation, the licensee conducted a formal testing program on the unit. Zero-power physics tests were conducted in accordance with procedure TT/1/A/711/03 and enclosures to that procedure. Both the procedure and the test engineers'
log for this period were reviewed in detail. The review confirmed that records of source multiplication and plots'of inverse multiplica tion were maintained as safety and control rods were withdrawn and as the reactor was diluted in boron to criticality, and that adequate nuclear instrument overlap was obtained. The reactimeter was success fully checked outand the all-rods-out boron concentration measurement of 1423 parts per million (ppm) boron compared closely with the predicted value of 1426 ppm boro The licensee measured the moderator temperature coefficient in both the all-rods-out configuration and the all-control-rods-in configuration. In the former, the coefficient was positive, and in the latter it was negative. The licensee extrapolated these observa tions to 95-percent power, using analytical data reported in the physics test manual for this cycle. The inspector used a method of extrapolation addressed in the Bases to Technical Specification 3.1.7, and arrived at a value less negative than that obtained by the licensee but still acceptable. Following discussions with licensee personnel, the inspector concluded that neither result could be claimed to be the superior of the othe Measurements of control rod worths, group 5, group 6 and group 7, and of differential boron worth compared within +/-10 percent of predicted values,andhence,each satisfied the applicable acceptance criterio The measured worth of the pseudo-ejected rod was.662% Ak/k,and was extrapolated by worst-case analysis to a vaLue of.705% Ak/k. The predicted worth of the pseudo-ejected rod was.57 percent, but the limiting or acceptance-criterion value on the rod would be 1% Ak/k from the Bases for Technical Specification By rod swap, the licensee compared the worth of the measured pseudo-ejected rod with that of symmetric control rod The symmetric rods met the acceptance criterion of falling within +/-10 percent of the worth of the measured ro These symmetry checks were performed to get an early anticipa tion of the possible power asymmetries prior to raising reactor power to a level which could provide useful incore power distribution measure ment RII Rpt. No. 50-269/78-31, 1-3 50-270/78-29, and 50-287/78-31 Power escalation testing was guided by procedure TT/1/Atll/03, which was completed but not fully reviewed by station supervision when the inspector obtained it for review. Core power distribution measurements obtained from the fixed incore detectors analyzed by the plant computer were reviewed. Power distribution compared favorably with the predicted values for the distribution. Quadrant power tilt and reactor power imbalance in all cases were within the limits of Technical Specifica tions 3.5.2.4 and 3.5.2.6, respectively. These test records indicated a much smaller magnitude of quadrant power tilt than previously had been reported for this unit, and licensee personnel confirmed that that had also been the experience throughout the routine surveillance early in this cycle. They believe that these improved quadrant tilt values result from operating most of the previous cycle in a nearly all-rods-out configuration as well from improved fuel reshuffling scheme for their recycled assemblie In reviewing the at-power moderator and doppler coefficient measurements, the inspector noted that the acceptance criterion for the temperature coefficient was incorrectly stated as being positive instead of negativ He also noted that some of the calculations extrapolating temperature coefficient measurements from above 95 percent back to 95 percent power for,a comparison with Technical Specification of 3.1.7 require ments hadnot been made correctly. The value arrived at through recalculation still met the acceptance criterion. The inspector brought these discrepancies to the attention of the appropriate superviso. Refueling of Unit 2 Although anticipated, actual handling of Unit 2 fuel did not occur during this inspection. Nevertheless the inspector confirmed the licensee's preparations for moving fuel were adequate by reviewing the completed copy of their procedure OP/O/A/1503/1, "Preparation for Refueling". The completed portions of the refueling procedure, OP/O/A/1502/07, were reviewed and found acceptable. This procedure was completed up to the steps that immediately preceeded those for physical movement of the fue. Unit 3 Operating Experience A recent trip of Unit 3,caused in part by the dropping of two rods into the core in close sequence,was discussed with licensee personnel, and the draft investigation report was reviewed. In reviewing the report, the inspector commented that more details regarding the electrical systems and circuits involved would be more descriptive of the even This event will be further reviewed after the Licensee Event Report is received in the Region II office.