IR 05000269/1993004
| ML16148A744 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 03/04/1993 |
| From: | Burnett P, Crlenjak R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML16148A745 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-269-93-04, 50-269-93-4, 50-270-93-04, 50-270-93-4, 50-287-93-04, 50-287-93-4, NUDOCS 9303160002 | |
| Download: ML16148A744 (3) | |
Text
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION il 101 MARIETTA STREET, ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30323 Report No /93-04, 50-270/93-04, and 50-287/93-04 Licensee; Duke Power Company 422 South Church Street Charlotte, NC 28242 Docket Nos.:
50-269, 50-270, and 50-287 License Nos.:
DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55 Facility Name:
Oconee 1, 2, and 3 Inspection Conducted:
January 28 to February 2, 1993 Inspector:
P. T. B u rn e t
,' Retor Engineer Date/ Signed Approved by:
R...J. C~enja, Pfikf atV Signed Operational Programs Section Operations Branch Division of Reactor Safety SUMMARY Scope:
This routine, announced inspection was conducted in the area of wit nessing and review of startup tests performed for Unit 1, cycle 1 Results:
Initial criticality for Unit 1, cycle 15, was achieved in a well controlled and conservative manne Precritical and zero power tests were performed in accordance, with approved procedures; In each of control rod groups 1 and 2, there was one slow control rod which required repetitive drops before meeting the limiting condition for operation. The licensee is considering monitoring those rods throughout the cycle to obtain additional drop time measurement' in the-event of a reactor tri Reactor engineering personnel have made effective use of preplanned computer spreadsheets to aid in data reduction and analysi No violations or deviations were identifie PDR ADOCK 05000269 G
REPORT DETAILS 1. Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- H. B. Barron, Station Manager C. C. Coutu, Unit 1 Operations Manager
- D. B. Coyle, Systems.Engineering Manager
- J.'M. Davis, Safety Assurance.Manager
- N. E. Edwards, Operations Manager
- T. P. Gillespie, Nuclear Performance Engineer J. W.. Hampton, Vice President, Oconee Sit. 0. Kohler, Shift Supervisor
- G A. Lareau, Reactor Engineering Supervisor R. R. Lingle, Shift.Manager J. B. Morgan, Assistant Engineer, Component Engineering
- M. E. Patrick, Regulatory Compliance Manager
- B. L. Peele, Engineering Manager
- S. Perry, Regulatory Compliance T. E. Sanders, Reactor Engineer Other licensee employees contacted included engineers, technicians, operators, and office personne NRC Resident Inspectors 0 E. Harmon, Senior Resident Inspector W. K. Poertner, Resident Inspector B. B. Desai, Resident Inspector
- Attended the exit interview on February 2, 199. Unit 1, Cycle 15 Startup Tests (72700,-61705, 61708, 61710)
Portions of the startup test activities for Unit 1, cycle 15, were witnessed in the control room as they were performed. All test records were reviewed shortly after completion and prior to final review by licensee management. The cooperation of licensee personnel in providing access totest activities and to procedures as they were completed was excellen The following docUments and procedures were reviewed by the inspector in the course of the inspection:
a. Oconee 1 Cycle 15 Physics Test Manua b. IP/0/A/0330/003A, Control Rod Drop Time Test:
C. PT/n/A/0711/1, Zero Power Physics Test d. OP/1l/A/1102/t (Enclosure 4.3), Unit Startup from Hot Shutdow Report Detai s 2 PT/0/A/0811/01, Power Escalation Tes The initial attempts to measure control rod drop time were made below operating temperature and pressure with all four RCPs operating.. One slow control rod was identified in each of groups 1 and 2. Tempera ture and pressure were increased to operating conditions before drop time testing resumed. The same two control rods were again too slow and had to be dropped six to seven times each before consistent, acceptable drop times were recorded. All other control rods satisfied the limit on the first drop. No explanation for the slow drop times was offered by-licensee personne The licensee is considering conti'nuous monitoring of the two rods so that drop time could be measured during any scram that might occur during the cycl The approach to criticality was delayed several hours to resolve differences between procedures listed in items 2c and 2 These differences could have been resolved prior to entering into the procedures had the licensee elected to perform a cross disciplinary review. The inspector could not find administrative guidance on when a cross disciplinary review is necessary. In the absence of a plant committee review of procedures, a cross disciplinary review is essen tial to assure well integrated procedure The tests observed by the inspector were performed by the licensee with hurried care. Although the test personnel appeared to be under pressure to complete the test rapidly, the inspector did not note any problems caused by the pressure and necessary attention 'to detail was observed. Overall, the test methods were acceptable and all test acceptance criteria were satisfied. Data reduction and analysis of test results were enhanced by the use of preplanned and carefully constructed spreadsheet. Exit Interview The inspection scope and results were summarized on February 2,1992, with those persons indicated in paragraph 1. The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection results. Although reviewed during this inspection, proprietary information is not contained in this report. Dissenting comments-were not received from the license. Acronyms-and Initialisms IP instrument procedure OP operating procedure PT periodic test RCP reactor coolant pump