IR 05000369/1982001
| ML20041A723 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | McGuire, Mcguire  |
| Issue date: | 01/26/1982 |
| From: | Burnett P, Jape F NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20041A718 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-369-82-01, 50-369-82-1, 50-370-82-01, 50-370-82-1, NUDOCS 8202220440 | |
| Download: ML20041A723 (5) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _.
_
-
.
/
o, UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
g c
REGION ll o@[
101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., SUITE 3100 o,
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303
Report Nos. 50-369/82-01, 50-370/82-01 Licensee:
Duke Power Company P. O. Box 2178 Charlotte, NC 28242 Facility Name:
McGuire 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-369, 50-370 License Nos. NPF-9, CPPR-84 Inspection at McGuire site on Lake Norman, North Carolina MNb Inspe tor:,
qu ~
Date Signed P. T. urnett g/
Approved by:
MM
__
-h
/ [2.Ja [h F. Jape, Section Chief //
/'
[ Tate Signed
~
Engineering Inspectidrf Branch Engineering and Technical Inspection Division SUMMAP.',
Inspection on January 11-15, 1982 Areas Inspected This routine, unannounced inspection involved 25 inspector-hours onsite.
Core performance tests completed at the 50-and 75 percent power plateaus were reviewed for Unit 1.
Portions of the initial escalation of Unit 1 to 100 percent power were observed.
Results Of the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
8202220440 820129 PDR ADOCK 05000369 G
'
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
y
!
.
.
REPORT DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- M. D. McIntosh, Station Manager
.
- T. G. McConnell, Superintendent of Technical Services
- W. M. ' Sample, Projects & Licensing Engineer
- d. H. Hamilton, Performance Engineer J. Randles, Associate Engineer Other licensee employees contacted included two shift supervisors, four operators, two engineers and two office personnel.
Other Organizations J. Roth, Westinghouse NRC Resident Inspector P. R. Bemis
- Attended exit.intarview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on January 15, 1982 with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above. The commitments discussed-in paragraphs 6, 6.a(1), and 6.b were confirmed. Subsequent to the inspection the licensee was informed by telephone on January 21, 1982 that an unre-solved item had been identified.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not inspected.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required to determine whether they are acceptable or may involve violations or devia-tions. New unresolved items identified during this inspection are discussed in paragraph 6.a(2).
5.
Fower Escalations of Unit 1 The inspector reviewed the official copy of procedure _ TP/1/A/2100/01,
" Controlling Procedure for Power Escalation" and the procedure changes appended to it. The review confirmed that all scheduled testing at each
w
..
-
power plateau through and including 90 percent power had'been. completed in a
- timely manner. Further each successive escalation to a new' power platea'u
~
was approved in writing by each department superintendent and the station manager based upon their review of. completed test results.
Testing at the 90 percent. plateau was completed on January 13, 1982, and on that date the inspector witnessed portions of the escalation of the. unit to 100 percent power.
Power increase was not steady, there were holds for electrical generator tests and for putting auxiliary equipment into service.
The maximum rate was two percent per hour. Full power was attained at about 1505 as indicated by the best estimate thermal power calculation.
The turbine _ generator gross output was an indicated 1225 megawatts electric.
All four power range nuclear instruments indicated 100 percent power. Axial flux difference remained in bounds during the ' escalation and during the reduction to 50 percent power following 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> at 100 percent power. From-discussions with operators it appears that no. operational problems were encountered in maneuvering around at 100 percent power.
6.
Reactor Tests at Power In -reviewing the tests discussed later in this paragraph and other, the inspector noted considerable dependence on the boronometer -rather than chemical analysis for boron concentration determinations important to the tests. However, calibration of the boronometer was not addressed in any of the test procedures (TP's) performed. Licensee representatives stated that ample data comparing borometer indication and chemical analysis had been obtained in the course of the zero power physics tests. These observations had been used.to calibate the boronmeter and to determine the response time-of the instrument during changes in boron concentration. To document'the-
- work performed and to assure ' adequate review of the results the licensee agreed to address calibration of the boronometer in the soon-tc-be-issued
"Startup Report." The presentation would be the.same as if the calibration had been a formal TP. This commitment was confirmed in the exit interview and will be tracked as IFI 50-369/82-01-01.
!
a.
Flux Assymetry Tests (72608)
l (1) TP/1/A/2150/05, "Below Bank Rod Test" was performed at 50 percent power. The reactivity computer cas fed from all four power range-i nuclear instruments in an attempt to satisfy test purpose 1.3,
!
obtain integral and differential control rod worths at power.. A l
licensee representative agreed that this part of the test was not
successful in that no correction was made for doppler effects. No
'
attempt was made to obtain integral worth from evaluation of the t-change in boron concentration.
Corrective action is not required since no acceptance criteria was specified for that part of the test. The issue is addressed here i
to emphasize the dubious value of using the reactivity computer at power. Such use of the reactivity computer will be of regulatory
!
l t
m e:
-
concern if it is used to satisfy technical specification '4.-l.1.3.b later in core life.
The test results did.show-that FQN and F delta H remained within,
-
limits satisfying test purpose 1.2 and acceptance criteria 11.2 and 11.3.
The material in the test package, as ' evaluated, did n_ot demon-strate that the incore or_ excore nuclear instruments are sensitive to the inserted rod since no quadrant' tilt or axial flux pertur--
bation observations were included.
Hence test purpose 1.1. and acceptance. criterion 11.2 were not satisfied. A license repre-sentative stated that raw data from the test were available and '
would be evaluated to demonstrate nuclear instrument sensitivity.
At the exit interivew a commitment was made-to present the obser-vations and evaluations in the startup report.
This commitment will be tracked as IFI 50-369/82-01-02.
.
(2) TP/1/A/2150/08, " Dynamic Rod Drop Test" was performed at 50-percent power.
Only_ two of four power range ' nuclear instru-
,
. ments produced negative rate trip.
Thus the acceptance _cri-terion requiring response from' three of four' instruments 'was not satisfied,_and a discrepancy report was filed with the. test.
Based on a letter from the-NSSS wndor stating that the re'sult.
was expected and that guidance on rod management issued earlier to compensate for single rod drops not leading to negative rate scrams the licensee changed the acceptance criterion to two. of four channels producing a trip.
_
.
During the inspection only the reportability of the test results under section 6.9 of technical specifications was discussed..and the licensee defended a position that' no licensee event report was required.
In the course of later discussion and review in _the. Region II office _it was concluded that changing the acceptance criterion without prior NRC approval was an apparent violation of paragraph 2.c(3)(b) of license NPF-9.
Pending~ discussion with NRR' and further review of the licensee's actions the. issue of changing-and acceptance. criterion in the dynamic rod drop test without prior NRC approval will be tracked as unresolved item 50-269/82-01-03.
The licensee was informed of this decision by ' telephone 'on
~
January 21, 1982.
b.
Power Coefficient (61709)
Initial inspection of power coefficient measurements was reported in Inspection Report 50-369/81-31. In continuing the inspection the, inspector reviewed the NSSS vendor report WCAP-9323, "The
-
n
.. - e.
,
.
.
4-Nuclear ' Design and Core Physics Characteristics of the W. - B.
McGuire Unit 1 Nuclear Power Plant Cycle 1."'
The calculations
~
required in the -doppler-only power coefficient verification-tests -
use theoretical coefficients and correction factors taken-from WCAP-9323. -In comparing numbers'used in the. calculations with those in WCAP-9323 it appears that errors.had been made in trans-posing the " PROGRAMME 0 Tsubmod CORRECTION" from figure A.13.to the test-input. The licensee made a commitment, confirmed at the exit'
interview, to review the numbers used in the calculations and to complete the review in two weeks.
The issue will be tracked as-
-. IFI 50-369/82-01-04.
c.
Power Distribution (61702)-
Inspection 'in-this area. was begun and reported in Inspection Report 50-369/81-31. During this inspection the user's manual for the analysis code used to-generate core power distribution f_ rom core flux _ maps was reviewed.. This document, SNA-1617, " CORE-Codes for Operating Reactor Evaluation" produced by Shanstrom Nuclear Associates makes no reference to benchmarking the code against
~
experimental results or against other benchmarked codes. Also, the manual does not~ provide guidance on_pr_eparing the theoretical factors for-input -to the code.
These factors proportional. to power densities in selected fuel assemblies or to reaction rates-
.
at selected detector locations are as important to code results as the input from the moncable detectors.
From discussions with licensee personnel it was learned ~that the-fuel -vendor, Westinghouse, provided the theoretical factors'and-had compared the results of using the licensee's code with those from the Westinghouse INCORE code and found them equivalent.
!
l l
p
!
i
!
!
,
l -
i
!
.
'
,