IR 05000413/1985018
| ML20127M169 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 05/06/1985 |
| From: | Burnett P, Jape F, Van Dyne K NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20127M150 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-413-85-18, NUDOCS 8507010130 | |
| Download: ML20127M169 (5) | |
Text
_
^
,
g REcq UNITED STATES D
p o
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
["
' $
REGloN 11 g
j 101 MARIETTA STREET,N.W.
- ATLANTA, GEORGI A 30323
%
/
- *
Report No.:
50-413/85-18 Licensee: Duke Power Company 422 South Church Street Charlotte, NC 28242 Docket No.:
50-413 License No.: NPF-35 Facility Name: Catawba 1 Inspection Conducted: April 12 and 16-19,1985 T
d Inspehtors:
P. T. Burnett ~
tw 6 6 fff
~n ts (
Ddte' Signed
,% L L sidv K. W. 'Ven Dyne Ddte ' Signed Md/P3 Approved by:
duf
_
Date Signed
~
F. Jape, Sectf(n Chief f
r Engineering Branch Division of Reactor Safety SUMMARY Scope: This routine, unannounced inspection involved 23 inspector-hours on site in the areas of startup test witnessing and review of completed startup tests.
Results: No violations or deviations were identified.
8507010130 850508 PDR ADOCK 05000413 O
'
.'
-
REPORT DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- J. W. Cox, Superintendent, Technical Services
- K. S. Canady, Manager, Nuclear Engineering
- C. L. Hartzell, Compliance Supervisor
- P. G. LeRey, Licensing Engineer
- J. Knuti, Operating Engineer D. M. Robinson, Reactor Engineer Other licensee employees contacted included shift supervisors, engineers, technicians, operators, security force members, and office personnel.
&
NRC Resident Inspectors
- P. S. Skinner, Senior Resident Inspector - Operations P. K. Van Doorn, Senior Resident Inspector - Construction
- Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on April 19, 1985, with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above. The inspectors described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection findings.
No dissenting comments were received from the licensee.
The following new item was identified during the inspection:
Inspector followup item 413/85-18-01: Review FAH acceptance criterion for the rod below bank test paragraph 6.
,
Proprietary material was reviewed during the inspection, but is not incorporated in this report.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters This subject was not addressed in the inspection.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during the inspection.
i
-
,
'2 5.
Startup' Test Witnessing and Observation (72302 and 72580)
-a.
Large Load Reduction Test The inspectors witnessed TP/1/A/2650/10, Large Load Reduction Test.
This test was performed during.the evening of April 12, 1985, to ensure the. capability of Unit 1 to meet the following objectives:
Demonstrate the ability of the primary plant, secondary plant, a'nd
-
automatic control systems to withstand a 44% step load reduction from 100% rated load.
Verify the adequacy of Abnormal Procedure AP' 1/A/5500/03, Load
/
-
Rejection, to establish stable plant conditions.
In addition,.the -inte. action between the control systems in response to the transient was to be evaluated to determine if. control systems setpoint changes are required to improve transient response.
The following items were observed during test performance:
Testing was conducted' in accordance with approved procedures and
-
copies of each procedure were available and in use by ' personnel conducting the test.
All test prerequisites and initial conditions were met.
-
-
Test data were collected and recorded as required by the procedure.
Adequate coordination existed among the responsible organizations
-
to conduct the test properly.
Operator actions appeared to be correct and timely during
-
performance of the test.
-
Preliminary : review of test results assured that the licensee's preliminary test evaluation was consistent with the inspectors'
observations.
b.
Unit Loss of Electrical Load at 100% Power TP/1/A/2650/06, Unit Loss of Electrical Load, was initiated the morning of April 19,.1985, by tripping the main generator output breakers. The inspectors witnessed the test from the control room. The unit tripped in response to the transient, which tripped the turbine. However, it appeared that all acceptance criteria were satisfied:
The turbine speed did not exceed 2007 rpm.
- There was no safety injection.
- '
The pressurizer safety valves did not lift.
- t L
_ _
.
,
Final assurance that the remaining acceptance criteria were satisfied requires further analysis of test data accumulated during the transient. The licensee's evaluation of those data will be reviewed at a future inspection.
6.
Review of Completed Startup Test Procedures (72608, 72301, 72584)
-
Below the Bank Rod Test TP/1/A/2150/05, Below the Bank Rod Test, was performed on March 17-18 and 22-23, 1985. The following full-core flux maps (FCM) were reviewed in concert with the review of the completed test procedure:
FCM/1/01/011, the base, unperturbed, case at a nominal 50%
power. Incore quadrant power tilt ratio (QPTR) was about 2.6%.
FCM/1/01/012, rod cluster control assembly (RCCA) D-12 fully
inserted.
Incore QPTR was 19%.
Excore QPTR was 9%.
FCM/1/01/013, D-12 at 179 steps, 25 steps misaligned.
FCM/1/01/019, obtained at 73.6% power on April 2, 1985, after the xenon transient caused by rod misalignment.
Incore QPTR was 2.5%.
The unperturbed core appears to have an inherent quadrant power tilt, which diminishes with increasing power. The tilt has been and is being evaluated by the licensee and the fuel vendor, Westinghouse. Neverthe-less, the excore instrumentation could detect a misaligned rod in spite of the inherent tilt.
There were no violations of hot spot factor, F, during the test.
g The acceptance criterion for hot channel factor, FAH, was given as 1.84 in the test procedure.
However, FSAR Table 15.4.3-1 indicates that
,
i FAH=1.68 is the maximum acceptance value with one RCCA fully inserted.
The licensee is currently reviewing the basis for the FAH acceptance criterion (Inspector followup item 413/85-18-01), Review FAH accep-tance criterion for the rod below bank test.
,
l
'
7.
Followup of Inspector Identified Item (92701)
(Closed) Inspector followup item 413/85-04-01:
Assure the acceptance l
criterion for the ejected rod test was satisfied.
The Catawba Nuclear
'
Station INTRASTATION LETTER on this subject dated February 6, 1985, was received in Region II on February 22, 1985. Details of the analyses of the l
IBM and WEST computer traces are given in an attachment. Data from the
'
latter are available only from 45 to 228 steps.
Over that span, the
,
!
__
.
.
.
.
licensee's WEST result of 621.5 pcm compared very well with the 620 pcm obtained independently by the inspectors.
Their result for IBM over that span was 611 pcm. For the span 0 to 45 steps, the IBM result was 83.5 pcm.
The inspectors estimated the WEST value for 0 to 45 steps by ratioing (621.5/611 x 83.5 = 84.9). This gave a total worth for the ejected rod of 706.4 pcm by the WEST computer.
When increased by 10% for measurement uncertainty the ejected rod worth became 777 pcm, which is less than the acceptance criterion limit of 780 pcm the corresponding value from the IBM computer was 764 pcm, and the average result was 770 pcm.
L.