IR 05000309/1981029
| ML20041D392 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Maine Yankee |
| Issue date: | 02/18/1982 |
| From: | Martin T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | Garrity J Maine Yankee |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20041D393 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8203050285 | |
| Download: ML20041D392 (2) | |
Text
,
-
.
FE : 3 7982
o g
/
Docket No. 50-309 (
D RTCELVED
!qcy MAR 0 41982 > I Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company d2 ATTN: Mr. John H. Garrity
~,
-
Senior Director ma gaya Nuclear Engineering and Licensing
txm f
83 Edison Drive Augusta, Maine 04336
es Gentlemen:
Subject:
Inspection 50-309/81-29 This refers to your letter dated January 4,1982, in response to our letter dated December 4, 1981.
The request to withdraw finding of the violation notice is denied.
The previous open item 309/78-13-02 had been resolved based on the two facts that:
Shutdown Margin (SDM) for the previous Cycle 5 was demonstrated by
-
computer calculations for Beginning of Cycle (BOC) and End of Cycle (EOC) in the Cycle 5 Performance Analysis Report, Table 4.2; and
-
Selected parameters contributing to the SDM margin were measured during the startup physics tests to verify the computer model.
For Cycle 6, the SDM was neither calculated by the computer in the Cycle 6 performance analysis report available onsite nor demonstrated in the startup physics testing performed July, 1981.
Site personnel were not able to provide a calculation of SDM.
The SDM calculation was provided to the site on October 28, 1981 upon request by the inspector; this calculation did not include the built-in uncertainty and the conservatism associated with the calculations. A review of startup test cata by the inspector then verified adequacy of selected parameters.
Based on discussions held with the Maine Yankee (MY) staff during the inspection, it was our understanding that you would incorporate either a SDM calculation in the performance analysis report and the subsequent identification and verification test of the selected parameters in the startup test program or an SDM demonstration procedure into the low power physics testing program for future reloads. 'four response oiscusses method; the fact that a Shutdown Margin Demonstration was not made for Cycle 6 is a noncompliance.
Regarding Finding B, we would like to re-emphasize the importance of test requirements specified in 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XI. Acceptance criteria for the reactivity computer checkout in Procedure 11-2 were not R1:DETI R1:DETI R1:DETI Chung/wb Bettpnhausen Ebneter
/1/82 di
'f_.---
0FFICIAL RECORD COPY h
Doh O!bhb3h9 bg k G
.
V
.
.
Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company
established. The checkout performed July,1981 was not reviewed in accordance with established acceptance criteria since these were not established until November 25, 1981.
Based on the above, your additional request to diminish the severity level to a category of less severity is denied.
The corrective actions taken for Finding B will be examined during a future inspection.
The response does not address specific corrective actions the MY staff will take to prevent further recurrence of the type of noncompliance identified in Finding A.
The MY staff sheuld submit to this office within twenty (20)
days those corrective actions taken to avoid further items of noncompliance and the date when full compliance will be achieved to resolve Finding A.
Your cooperation with us is appreciated.
Sincerely,
/ThomasT. Martin, Director b Division of Engineering and
/
Technical Inspection cc:
E. C. Wood, Plant Manager E. W. Thurlow, President R. H. Groce, Senior Engineer, Licensing J. A. Ritsher, Esquire Public Document Room (PDR)
Local Public Document Room (LPDR)
Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC)
NRC Resident Inspector State of Maine bec:
Region I Docket Room (with concurrences)
R. Gallo, DRPI, RI 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY i
.
.
_.
.
-
-.
. - -
.