IR 05000369/1981021
| ML20010H437 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | McGuire, Mcguire  |
| Issue date: | 08/05/1981 |
| From: | Burnett P, Falconer D, Fiedler R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20010H432 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-369-81-21, 50-370-81-10, NUDOCS 8109240465 | |
| Download: ML20010H437 (4) | |
Text
.
.
,f* **:co
c
^q UNITE 3 STATE 4
t NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION U
i REGION 11 k
101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., SUITE 3100 ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 l
o
.....
Report Nos. 50-369 / 81-21, 50-370 / 81-10 Licensee:
Duke Power Company Facility Name:
McGuire Docket Nos. 50-369, 50-370 License Nos. NPF - 9, CPPR - 84 Inspection at McGuire Nuclear Plant near Charlotte, North Carolina Inspectors: //
awa7 cP 50 M
~ N FiiidleV g
Date Signed R
W mgg/Y 0]S Y/
b. 7. 'Fa l coner
/
Date Signed Approved by: /
zu,wX[
M -- F M P.~T. Burnett, Acting Section Chief Date Signed Engineering Inspection Branch Engineering and Technical Inspection Division SUMMARY Inspection l
Areas Inspected l
This routine, unannounced inspection involved 52 inspector-hours onsite in the areas of start-up test procedure review, special, low power test procedure review, witnessing of rod-drop-time measurements and a tour of the control room and auxiliary building.
Results Of the 4 areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
l
'
...,
n109240465 810826 EDR ADOCK 05000
-,. -
---
.. - _ -.
.
-
.
.
- _ -_
w.
.
.
REPORT DETAILS
,
,
-1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
~
-
- D. J. Rains, Superintendent of Maintenance t.
- W. M. Sample, Projects and Licensing Engineer
- B. Hamilton, Performance Engineer
- J. Randles, Performance Engineer
- D. B. Lampke, Assistant Enginear NRC Resident Inspector M. J. Graham
- Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on July 24, 1981 with those persons indicated to paragraph 1 above.
,
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection' Findings
,
Not inspected.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
5.
Start-up Test Procedure Review
The inspector reviewed the following start-up test procedures:
a.
TP/1/A/2100/01, Controlling Procedure for Power Escalation.
!
b.
TP/1/A/2150/07, Core Power Distribution.
.
c.
TP/1/A/2150/06, Pseudo Rod Ejection.
The inspector verified the following aspects of each procedure reviewed:
a.
The procedure format was consistent with Regulatory Guide 1.68.
b.
The test objectives, pertinent prerequisites and initial test conditions were clearly identified.
c.
The procedure incorporatt clearly identified and quantitative acceptance criteria.
d.
The procedure was consistent with the test description provided in the FSAR.
.
.
.
.
.-
_
...
...
. _. _ -, _
.
.. _.. _.,. _ - _,. __._.-.
. _ -
,
.. _ _
_
__
_
..
.__...
'
.-
.
.
.
J
- The procedures appeared adequate with the following exceptions
The Pseudo Rod Ejection procedure did not contain the acceptance' criterion
that no significant radial or axial power maldistribution exist with the rod.
cluster control assembly less.than or equal to fifteen : inches above its bank as specified in the applicable test abstract in FSAR Table 14.1.4-1 and the Controlling Procedure for Power Escalation did not incorporate. the requirement that management approval be obtained prior to ascending to the next power plateau as specified in Regulatory Guide 1.68.
These concerns were discussed with the licensee in detail.
The licensee agreed to add the missing acceptance criterion to the Pseudo Rod Ejection procedure and to incorporate a method to ensure management approval prior to power escalation to subsequent power plateaus into the Controlling Procedure for Power Escalation.
These concerns will be identified as inspector follow-up item 369/81-21-01.
6.
Special Low-Power Test Review The inspector reviewed the following special low power test procedures:
a.
TP/1/A/2150/20A, Natural Circulation Verification.
b.
TP/1/A/2150/21, Effect of S/G Isolation on Natural Circulation.
c.
T/1/A/2150/23, Natural Circulation with Simulated Loss of Offsite Power.
,
The inspector ver,fied the following aspects of each procedure:
a.
The procedure format was. consistent with Regulatory Guide 1.68.
b.
The test objectives, pertinent prerequisites and initial test conditions were clearly identified.
'
c.
The procedure incorporated clearly identified and quantitative acceptance criteria.
d.
The procedure was consistent with the test description in the licensee's safety evaluation.
e.
The procedure satisfied NUREG - 0694 requirements.
The procedures appeared adequate.
7.
Rod Drop Time Measurements The inspector observed portions of procedure TP/1/A/2600/07, Rod Drop. Time Measurements, to verify the following:
a.
That an approved master copy of the procedure was available and in use by testing personnel _ and control room operators.
,.
,
,.
.
. -. -
-
. -. -,
,..
-
,
- -. - -.
. _.. -
~.
..
.
-
-,
.
..
.
..
.
._
b.
That the test was being performed as required by the procedure.
c.
That ~ special test equipment required by the procedure was calibrated and in service.
d.
That operatc,r actions appeared to be correct and timely' during the performance of. the rod drops.
e.
That a test log was being maintained by test personnel which-recorded problems encounter.ed during testing.
Within the areas inspected there'were no violations or deviations identi-fied.
8.'
- Tour of the Control Room and Auxiliary Building A tour of the accessible areas was conducted to determine by observation that plant conditions and activities were in accordance with applicable requirements.
Within' the areas inspected' there were no violations or deviations-identified.
.. -. - - -
-.
- - - -
- - -
-
- - -
-
.
.
.
- - - - - - - - -
-
-
.
. -
-
-
-
-
-
.