IR 05000364/1981016
| ML20005B526 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Farley  |
| Issue date: | 06/09/1981 |
| From: | Burnett P, Whitner H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20005B515 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-364-81-16, NUDOCS 8107080332 | |
| Download: ML20005B526 (5) | |
Text
+
..
s
>"1ito
- *
<f o
UNITED STATES
!} w NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION a. c REGION ll
- [- \\ "
o
101 MARIETTA ST.. N.W.. SUITE 3100 g %# [
ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30303
.....
JUN 10 wat Report No.- 50-364/81-16 Licensee:
Alabama Power Company 600 North 18th Street Birmingham. AL 35202 Facility Name:
Farley 2 Docket No. 50-364 License No. NPF-8 Inspection at Fa 'ey si+ _ ear Dothan, AL
.
'
fhpfM'
g(- 9-X
.'
Inspector:
H.T.
_"enet Date Signed v
Approved by:
_ ///)A.fM
[- [- 7/ ~
P7. Burnett, Acting Section Chief Date Signed
-~
Engineering Inspection Branch Engineering and Technical Inspection Division SUMMARY Inspection on May 7-9, 1981
-
Areas Inspected Thfs routine, announced inspection involved 26 inspector-hours onsite witnessing low power testing.
Results No violations or ceviar. ions were identified.
" Es107C80332 E10710 l PDR ADOCK OSOOOg gG
)
,.
.-
_-
.
-
.
'hs
.
.-
..
.
REPORT DETAILS
. 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
"G..Hairston, III, Plant Manager D. Morey, Operation Superintendent
- K. McCracker., Technical Superintendent R. Rogers, Technical Supervisor R. Mariow, Reactor Engineer I
Other licensee employees contacted included reactor operators, shift super-visors and I&C personnel.
Other Organizations Westinghouse F. Bowen L. Grobmyer
- Attended exit interview -
2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on May 9,1981 with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above.
'
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspectio'n Findings j
Not inspected.
4.
Unresolved Items
Unresolved items were r.ot identifi 3d during this inspection.
5.
Initial Criticality
,
The inspector witnessed the initial criticality to ascertain that the test was performed i n accordance with appropriate sections of the Technical Specification, Section 14 of the FSAR, test procedure and Regulatory Guide 1.68.
The licensee's activities inspected or reviewed included:
(1)
procedure 500-7-201, Initial Criticality, to verify that the procedure was approved and conformed to NRC requirements; (2) test preparation; (3) test performance; and (4) data collection and analysis.
e.
--m-.
--
,.,,.r.m4,,
,.-oa,
,,gn,,--r.
e
-
..
.=.
.
....
.
,
,
~
.,
,
V General Observations During the pe i.;d _ May 7-9, 1981,. the inspector witnessed and/or reviewed portions of the initial criticality. The following items were inspected on a sample basis:
a.
Appropriate test procedure was available and in use.
b.
Changes to the test procecure were reviewed, approved and documented.
,
c.
Test prerequisites were completed.
d.
Test equipment including nuclear instrumentation and reactivity compu-ter were installed and calibrated.
,
e.
Functional checkouts of nuclear instrumentation and reactivity computer
.
were perfordied just prior to the test.
f.
Trip setpoirts on power range instrumentation were reduced.
'
g.
Overlap between source and intermediate range channels was verified.
h.
Test data were collened, recorded, processed, and analyzed as required.
The inspector concluded that the licensee performed the criticality experi-ment in a controlled manner which met the license, Technical Specification,
<
and procedural requirements.
The reactor was declared critical at 11:21 a.m. on May 9,1981 with bank D at 160 steps, all other rods fullout, and the boron concentration of the RCS at 1301 ppm.
6.
Hot Zero Power Testing After achieving critical, zero power testing was initiated.
The inspector witnessed and/or reviewed portions of selected Iero power tests including a
the determination of the upper limit of neutron flux for zero power testing, calibration of the reactivity computer, control bank D partial worth measurement, All-Rods-Out boron concentrations, isothermal temperature
-
coefficient of reactivity, and control rod bank D reactivity worth.
No problems were observed during the above tests with the eneption of the review acceptance criteria based on Unit i test results.
This matter is
'
discu sed in paragraph 7 below.
7.
Acceptance Criteria The license, NPF-8, issued October 23, 1980 to authorize fuel loading and
>
low power testing contains certain stipulations concerning the initial test program. Specifically, the licensee may not make a major modification to
_._
.
.
._ _ __ _ ___.. _. -.. _.... _ _ _.. _, _ _ _. _,
.
.
.
~
e.
the test program prescribed in section 14 of the FSAR without prior NRC approval.
By letters dated May 28, 1980, and July 7,1980 the applicant requested NRC approval of a modified low power and startup physics test program in whicn some tests described 17. the FSAR and perforned on Unit I would not be performed on Unit 2.
The basis of this request is that unit 2 core design is essentially identical to Unit.
Tests performed on Unit I were satisfattory. The NRC approved the modified test program (see NUREG-0117, Supplement No. 4 to the Farley SER) with the condition that specific acceptance criteria based on Unit I test results be used in evaluation of
Unit 2 tests.
Consequently, the test procedures contained in the review acceptance criteria and the Westinghouse design acceptance criteria.
Preliminary review of certain test results showed parameters were in good agreement with the Westinghouse design criteria but in three cases the results did not meet the review criteria based on Unit I test results.
These results were as follows:
.
a.
- All rods out baron concentration:
Review Criterion 1344 25 ppm Design Criterion 1319 50 ppm
.
Measured Value 1313 ppm b.
Bank D inserted boron concentration:
,
Review Criterion 1199 25 ppm Design Criterion 1169 20 ppm
- Measured Value 1169 c.
Banks 0+C inserted boron concentration:
Review Criterion 1091 25 ppm Design Criterion 1050 17 opm Measured Value 1065 The inspector concluded that the deviations were not significant enough to effect continued low power testing. At the conclusion of the low power physics test program the licensee will evaluate the test results to deter-mine if an expanded test program is necessary. A report will be submitted-
'
-to the NRC on this evaluation.
8.
Procedure Review The inspector reviewed selected Unit 2 power test procedures to verify that
appropriate procedures were ?stablished which contained adequate controls, precautions and limitations.
The verification and/or review included the following:
.
-,
p
-,e-r-w,vv- - +,
-,.,e.
r-
. ar m e-
.w,,r,-,.-,.--g--
~.rg-vm w-y,
-<-,n--,~
,,vem-~.w a,,n e r
,,-.sn--
sym. e o,,ne-,sn,-ne r -- w wy,
,
-
__
._
- _... _ -
._-.
._ _
.
_
. _..
..
_
e
. *
y
= =. '.
t
.
Y
-
500-7-201, Revision 0 - Initial Criticality
-
500-7-202, Revision 0 - Control Bank D Partial Worth Measurement During Boration 500-7-203, Revision 0 - ARO Critical C, Flux Map, and Isothermal
-
b Temperature Coefficient.
-
500-7-204,- Revision 0 - Control Bank D Worth Measurement During Dilution
-
_500-7-205, Revision,0 - Control Bank C Worth Measurement'During
-
Dilution
-
500-7-206, Revision 0 - Control Bank B Worth Measurement During Dilution
-
500-7-207, Revision 0 - Control Bank A Worth Measurement During Dilution
-
500-7-208, Revision 0 - Minimum Shutdown Verification
.The inspector concluded that the licensee had. established procedures to accomplish the modified low power physics test rirogram and the procedures
contained adequate controls, precautions, limitations, instructions and
acceptance criteria to insure that the tests were conducted in a controlled
!
manner.
i f
4
!
$
.
J i
.a