IR 05000369/1982009
| ML20053E380 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | McGuire  |
| Issue date: | 04/01/1982 |
| From: | Burnett P, Jape F NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20053E350 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-369-82-09, 50-369-82-9, NUDOCS 8206070849 | |
| Download: ML20053E380 (4) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:- - _ -.. - -. . . 'o# UNITED STATES
1, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
= REGION !! % [[ 101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., SUITE 3100 o, ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 i Report No. 50-369/82-09
Licensee: Duke Power Company P. O. Box 2178 Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 Facility Name: McGuire 1 Docket No. 50-369 . License No. NPF-9 Inspection at McGuire sit ear Cornelius, North Carolina .' Burn tt' pd M/Y2 A/ / Inspector: Date Signed P.
Approved by: 2[ / /~b F. Jabe, ~Section Chie / /Dat6 Signed ' Engineering Inspecti ranch Division of Engineering and Technical Programs SUMMARY Inspection on March 8,1982 Areas Inspectec' This routine, unannounced inspection involved 34 inspector-hours on site to review of startup test results and reports.
Results One violation was found (unapproved change in acceptance criterion in essential , startup test - Para. 3).
' i i i l
8206070849 820S28 l PDR ADOCK 05000 o , L -- _ - - -.. . _ _ - - _ - .. _. _.. . ... . .. - . .. -_ __.- ___.
_ .... _ - -
, . - . . REPORT DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- M. D. McIntosh, Station Manager W. M. Sample, Project s & Licensing Engineer
- B. Hamilton, Performance Engineer
- D. Lampke, Licensing Engineer
- R. Wilkinson, Superintendent of Administration D. Marquis, Reactor Engineer Other licensee employees contacted included one shif t supervisor, three operators and three office personnel.
NRC Resident Inspector
- P. R. Bemis, Senior Resident Inspector
- Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on March 12, 1982, with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above. The item addressed in para-graph 3 was discussed as a potential violation. The licensee was informed, by telephone, on March 17, 1982 that a notice of violation would be issued.
The inspector expressed the view that the draft startup report was deficient in several ways; no reference was made to the test procedures used, test observations or measurements were not present for comparison with computer-smoothed results (see paragraph 6), there were too few graphs, and there were no conclusions on the acceptability or range of applicability of the results. The licensee's response was that they had received no guidance on required form and contents of the startup report and had followed the form of some startup reports they had seen.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Unresolved item (50-369/82-01-03): Acceptance criterion for an essential test changed without prior NRC approval. An acceptance criterion for the Dynamic Rod-Drop Test was presented in test procedure TP/1/A/2150/ 08 as three-of-four negative rate channels respond to a double rod drop.
Failing that, the licensee, after consulting with the NSSS vendor, changed the acceptance criterion to two-of-four channels respond. Review of the
. - .- . - . . , - . --- - . .-. _- . . . ,
i i
' FSAR, Table 14.1.4-1 (page 31 of 35) and questions and responses,
413.9(p. Q 413-11-12), 413.10 (p. Q413-13), and 413.18 (p. 413-22-23-24); ! showed that the three-out-of four criterion was firmly established. There is no record that the licensee' proposed the change to acceptance criterion to the NRC, and no such approval was granted.
Changing the acceptance
criterion of an essential, significant, test is a violation of license j condition 2.C(3). This issue will be tracked as VIO (50-369/82-09-01).
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
5.
Status of Outstanding Items . (Closed) Licensee identified item (50-369/NRE 81-03): Positive moderator ' coefficient reported August 25, 1981. The inspector confirmed by review of operating procedure OP/1/A/6100/01 that timely and adequate procedural control had been instituted to prevent conditions leading to a positive ' i moderator coefficient.
Discussions with licensed personnel revealed that they were aware of the problem and the procedural remedy.
(Closed) Inspector followup item (50-369/82-01-01): Calibration of borono- , meter. The inspector reviewed the instruction manual for the Combustion Engineering boronometer, MCM 120.09-156, and a licensee internal document, MEMORANDUM TO FILE dated February 18, 1982. The latter included a compila-tion of comparison of boronometer readings obtained and chemical analysis . performed during the initial approach to criticality, zero power physics testing and power operations during January.1982. Excellent correlation was , i obtained. The boronometer appears to be as precise as chemical analysis.
The boronometer is not useable in modes where normal letdown and makeup are not in use or when the boron thermal regeneration system (BTRS) is in use.
, The instrument turns off on low flow in the first case, and procedures
contain cautionary statements addressing the second case.
t (Closed) Inspector followup item (50-369/82-01-04): Numerical errors in ' analysis of the doppler-only power coefficient verification (DOPCV). The inspector compared the output of the corrected computer program with the source document, WCAP-9323, and found them compatible.
The corrected ' j results were reported in the draft startup report.
(0 pen) Inspector followup item (50-369/82-01-02): Results of below-the-bank
rod test.
The write up in the draf t startup report did not indicate that
the excore detectors were sensitive to the mispositioned rod from either quadrant tilt or axial offset considerations.
The sensitivity of incore detector scans to rod position was not demonstrated.
I , i ! ,
- ..
...
6.
Power Distribution Monitoring The inspector reviewed the following completed procedures and the full core flux maps that were performed as part of the procedures: a.
TP/1/A/2600/16, "Incore and Nuclear Instrumental Systems Correlation," performed November 28, 1981, b.
TP/1/A/2150/07C, " Core Power Distribution," performed 11/27/81, c.
TP/1/A/2150/070, " Core Power Distribution," performed 1/7/82, and d.
PT/0/A/4600/02B, "Incore and Nuclear Instruments Systems Calibration," performed 2/22-24/82.
In all cases the measured values of F-sub Q, F-sub delta-H, axial offset and quadrant power tilt were within the limits of technical specifications for the power level and test conditions.
Tests, a and d, that correlated incore measured axial offset with power-corrected values of currents for the upper and lower excore detectors were analyzed using a sn all-computer program.
The output of that program pro-vides only "best-fit" values for current at a pre-set number of offsets.. No comparison was made, either graphical or numerical, of measurement with the computer-smoothed results. Thus, no estimate, quantitative or qualitative, could be made of the acceptability of the measurements or reasonableness of the results. This observation was presented to the licensee for considera-tion and was discussed in broader form at the exit interivew.
For the two tests considered, the inspector did verify good agreement between measured and smoothed data.
7.
Other Inspection Activities Completed startup procedure TP/1/B/2650/09, " Thermal Power Output Measure-ment" was reviewed and timely performance of both primary and secondary heat balance was confirmed at all test plateaus, 20%, 30*., 50%, 75%, and 100% of rated thermal power.
The plant curve book was reviewed, and tank volume relationships were recorded for later use in evaluating primary system leakage rates.
A recent " Reactivity Balance Calculation" from GP/0/A/6100/06, was checked to confirm adequate shutdown margin and correct sources of the data used.
a . }}