ML17318A623
| ML17318A623 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cook  |
| Issue date: | 01/08/1980 |
| From: | Chow E, Little W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17318A621 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-315-79-28, NUDOCS 8002200336 | |
| Download: ML17318A623 (7) | |
See also: IR 05000315/1979028
Text
U.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE
OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
Report No. 50-315/79-28
Docket No. 50-315
I,icense
No. DPR-58
Licensee:
American Electric Power Service Corporation
and Michigan Power
Company
2 Broadway,
N.Y. 10004
Facility Name:
Donald
C.
Cook Nuclear Plant Unit 1
Inspection At:
Donald
C.
Cook Site,
Bridgman,
MI
Inspection Conducted:
December ll thru 14,
1979
Nuclear Support Section
1
Ins ection
Summar
Ins ection on December ll thru 14
1979
(Re ort No. 50-315/79-28)
Areas Ins ected:
Routine,
announced
inspection of shutdown margin deter-
mination; isothermal temperature
coefficient; power coefficient of reacti-
vity measurement;
target axial flux difference; reactivitiy anomalies.
The inspection involved 22 inspector
hours onsite by one
NRC inspector.
Results:
Of the five areas
inspected,
no Items of Noncompliance
or Devia-
tions were identified in four areas.
One Item of Noncompliance
was identi-
fied in one area.
(Deficiency - failure to update the plant technical data
book - Paragraph
7).
soossoo
DETAILS
Persons
Contacted
.*V.
- E
%J
- T.
"E.
"D
~R.
Ho, Performance
Engineer
Vanderburg,
Nuclear Engineer
Smarrella,
Technical 'Superintendent
Stietzel,
QA Supervisor
Beilman, Senior
QA Auditor
Townley, Assistant Plant Manager
Shaller, Plant Manager
Masse,
Resident Inspector,
NRC, RIII
- Denotes those present
during the exit interview.
2.
Verification of Conduct of Startu
Ph sics Testin
The inspector
reviewed the startup physics testing
and verified that
the licensee
conducted
the following:
a
~
b.
c
~
d.
e.f.
g
h.
J
~
Rod Drive and Rod Position Indication Checks
Core Power Distribution Limits
Incore/Excore Calibration
Core Thermal Power Evaluation
Determination of Shutdown Margin
Isothermal Temperature Coefficient
Power Coefficient of Reactivity Measurement
Control Rod Worth Measurement
Target Axial Flux Difference Calculation
Determination of Reactivity Anomalies
3.
Shutdown Mar in Determination
The inspector
reviewed information relating to Cycle 4 shutdown
margin determination
as described in Appendix B, "Shutdown Margin
Verification," of Procedure
12 THP 6040
PER .059, Revision 2, "Zero
Power and Power Ascension Tests,"
dated
May 8,
1979.
The inspector noted that the calculated
shutdown margin with the
most reactive
rod F 14 stuck out of the core
was
4689
pcm which met
the Technical Specification requirement of 1750 pcm.
The inspector noted that only the worths of control banks were
measured
and the worths of shutdown banks
were not measured
but cal-
culated by assuming that the ratio of the measured
control bank worth
P
~
0
to the predicted control bank worth was the
same
as the ratio of
the measured
shutdown bank worth to the predicted
shutdown bank
worth.
The licensee
agreed that the assumption of using the
same
ratio to calculate
shutdown bank worth might not be conservative
and would review the procedure.
This Unresolved
Item (315/79-28-01)
will be reviewed in a subsequent
inspection.
No items of noncompliance
or deviations
were identified.
4.
Isothermal
Tem erature Coefficient
The inspector
reviewed information relating to Cycle 4 determination
of isothermal temperature
coefficient as described in Procedure
12
THP 6040 PER.
050, Revision 2, "Isothermal Temperature
Coefficient
Measurement,"
dated July 9,
1979.
The licensee's
acceptance
criterion requires that the measured
isothermal temperature
coefficient be within +3 pcm/ F of the pre-
dicted value.
The inspector determined that this requirement
was
satisfied.
The isothermal
temperature
coefficient measured
during
heatup
was
.2048 pcm/ F and the coefficients
measured
during two
cooldowns were
.2621 pcm/ F and
.2125 pcm/ F.
No items of noncompliance
or deviations
were identified.
5.
Power Coefficient of Reactivit
Measurement
The inspector
revs.ewed
xnformatxon relating to the Cycle 4 determin-
ation of power coefficient of reactivity as described in Procedure
THP 6040 PER.054, Revision 2, "Determination of the Doppler Power
and Total Power Coefficients,"
and Procedure
12 THP 4030 STP.307,
"Moderator Temperature Coefficient Determination."
The inspector noted that the power coefficient was calculated
from
the measurements
of Doppler and moderator temperature
coefficients.
The inspector
reviewed the results of power coefficient tests at
50'j of rated power on July 22,
1979
and at 90'j of rated power on
July 25,
1979.
The review criterion was that the power coefficient
obtained
from the measurements
be within + 30'j of the design value.
The inspector noted that the predicted
power coefficient was -12.22
pcm// power and the power coefficient obtained
from measurements
was
-9.177 pcm/g power.
The inspector
concluded that the review criterion
was met,
No items of noncompliance
or deviations
were identified.
4
6.
Tar et Axial Flux Difference
The inspector
reviewed information relating to the Cycle 4 deter-
mination of target axial flux difference
as described in Procedure
12 THP 4030 STP.372,
Revision 3, "Target Flux Difference Update."
The inspector noted that the Technical Specification requires that
. the indicated axial flux difference
be maintained within a +5/ target
band about the target flux difference,
and
a new target band will be
issued if the measured
or updated target value is more than 1/ dif-
ferent from the present target value.
The inspector
reviewed the
flux map taken
on November
16,
1979
and noted that
a new target value
was calculated
and the related target band
was issued.
The inspector
further noted that the target flux difference
was measured
at least
once per 92 effective full power days
(EFPD)
and
was updated at least
once per
31 EFPD.
No items of noncompliance
or deviations
were identified.
7 ~
Reactivit
Anomal
Determination
The inspector
reviewed information relating to the Cycle 4 deter-
mination of reactivity anomaly
as described in Procedure
1-THP
4030 STP.308,
Revision 2, "Boron Curve Update," dated January 4,
1979.
The inspector noted that,
based
on the boron endpoint
and
rod worth measurements,
the measured differential boron worth was
about 20/ higher than the Exxon design value.
The inspector noted
that the determination of reactivity anomaly using either the mea-
sured differential boron worth or the predicted value satisfied
Technical Specification requirement.
Plant Manager Instruction PMI 4060 requires
the licensee
to forward
only properly prepared,
reviewed
and approved technical data for
entry in technical data books.
The inspector noted that Unit
1 Cycle 4 Physics Test Data
Summary
stated that the values for'he differential boron worth used in the
plant technical data book have been scaled up'o reflect the true
boron worth in the core.
Contrary to the above,
the differential boron worth curves in the
technical
data books have not been scaled
up to reflect the dis-
crepancy
between the predicted
and the measured differential boron
worths.
This is considered
to be an item of noncompliance of the
Deficiency level.
The licensee
stated that Exxon had acknowledged
the discrepancy in
boron worth and also discovered
the similar problem at another nuclear
power plant.
This Unresolved
Item (315/79-28-02) will be reviewed in
a subsequent
inspection.
8.
Unresolved
Items
Unresolved
Items are matters
about which more information is re-
quired in order to ascertain
whether they are acceptable
items,
Items of Noncompliance,
or Deviations.
Two Unresolved
Items dis"
closed during the inspection were discussed
in Paragraph
3 and 7.
9.
Exit Interview
The inspector
met with licensee
representatives
(denoted in Paragraph
1) at the conclusion of the inspection
on December
14,
1979.
The
inspector
summarized
the purpose
and the scope of the inspection
and
the findings.