IR 05000266/1980001
| ML19322E482 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 02/06/1980 |
| From: | Chow E, Streeter J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19322E478 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-266-80-01, 50-266-80-1, NUDOCS 8003280191 | |
| Download: ML19322E482 (4) | |
Text
r
- U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT REGION 1II Report No. 50-266/80-01 Docket No. 50-266 License No. DPR-24 Licensee: Wisconsin Electric Power Company 231 West Michigan Milwaukee, WI 53203 Facility Name:
Point Beach Unit 1 Inspection At: Two Creeks, WI Inspec' ion Conducted: January 8-11, 1980 T. T C(J-Inspector:
E. T. Chow k d'C
~...
c.
3 4%t. __
,2 ' /6 f
Approved By: J F. Streeter Inspection Summary Inspection on January 8-11, 1980 (Report No. 50-266/80-01)
Areas Inspected : Rout.ine, unannounced inspection of incore/excore calibration; isothermal temperature coef ficient measurement; target axial flux difference calculation; shutdown margin determination; reactivity anomaly determination. The inspection involved 19 inspector-hours on site by one NRC inspector.
Results: No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
<
8 00segg
/Gj
<
r 9-DETAILS
- .
1.
Persons Contacted
- J. Greenwood, Assistant to Manager
- J. Zach, Superintendent, Tcchnical Services
- J. Bauer, Technical Assistant Reactor Engineer N. Pitterle, Nuclear Plant Engineer
- Denotes those present during the exit interview.
2.
Verification of Conduct of Startup Physics Testing The inspector reviewed the startup physics testing and verified that the licensee conducted the following:
a.
Rod Drive and Rod Position Indication Checks b.
Core Power Distribution Limits c.
Incore/Excore Calibration d.
Core Thermal Power Evaluation Determination of Shutdown Margin e.
f.
Isothermal Temperature Coefficient g.
Power Coefficient of Reactivity Measurement h.
Control Rod Worth Measurement i.
Target Axial Flux Difference Calculation j.
Determination of Reactivity Anomalies 3.
Incore/Excore Calibration The inspector reviewed information relating to incore/excore monitor calibration as described in Procedure WMTP9.2, " Power Range Calibra-tion Quarterly Axial Offset Test," Revision 8, dated December 7, 1979.
The inspector reviewed the graphs of incore axial offset versus excore axial offsets for the four power range channels and noted that the calibration currents were properly obtained for the upper and the lower excore detectors. The inspector determined that the licensee had satisfied the Technical Specification requirement to calibrate the nuclear power range channels quarterly.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
4.
Isothermal Temperature Coefficient The inspector reviewed information relating to Cycle 8 determination of isothermal temperature coefficient as described in Procedure WMTPl.4.1, " Cycle 8 Initial Criticality, All Rods Out Flux Map, Endpoint and Temperature Coefficient Measurements," Revision 0, dated December 1, 1979. The Technical Specifications require, except-2-
f
,
,
during low power physics tests, that the moderator temperature coef-
,
ficient be negative.
In addition, the licensee's acceptance criterion requires that the isothermal temperature coefficient be within +3 pcm/ F of the predicted value. The inspector determined that these requirements were satisfied in that the average isothermal temperature coefficient measured at 520 F and all rods out (ARO) condition was 0.1 pcm/ F, and the Westinghouse predicted value was 0.8 pcm/
F.*
No items of noncompliance or_ deviations were identified.
- WCAP9548, "The Nuclear Design and Core Management of the Point Beach Unit 1 Nuclear Reactor Cycle 8."
5.
Target Axial Flux Difference The inspector reviewed information relating to Cycle 8 determination of target axial flux difference as described in Procedure WMTP9.15,
" Target Flux Difference Determination," Revision 0, dated December 27, 1979. The average target flux differences of the four excore detectors were determined from the 48-hour measurements of flux differences by the process computer. The average target flux differences of the four channels were used to update the process computer and the four detector meters.
The inspector verified that the licensee had satisfied the Technical Specification requirement to update the target axial flux difference every month.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
6.
Shutdown Margin Determination The inspectors reviewed information relating to an analytical deter-mination of Cycle 8 shutdown margin at beginning of life (BOL) and end of life (EOL).
Since the difference between the measured and the prediced worth ofthecontrolrodbankssatigfigpthereviewandtheacceptance criteria established by NRR, - - the measurements confirmed that adequate reactor shutdown capability existed at BOL and E0L.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
1/ A letter dated April 10, 1979, from A. Schwencer, NRR to S. Burstein, WEPCO.
2/ A letter dated December 19, 1979, from C. W. Fay, WEPCO to H. Denton and A. Schwencer, NRR.
-3-
f
.-
7.
Reactivity Anomaly Determination
,
The inspector reviewed information relating to Cycle 8 determination of reactivity anomaly. The Technical Specifications require that a reactivity anomaly greater than or equal to 1% of reactivity be a reportable occurrence.
The inspector noted that the computer code (FOLLOW) was used to adjust the measured boron concentration to critical boron concentra-tion at ARO and equilibrium xenon condition, and the adjusted boron concentration values were compared with the Westinghouse predicted values. The Westinghouse critical boron concentration values were slightly higher, and the differences between the Westinghouse and the adjusted values were within 1% of reactivity.
The inspector concluded that the determination of reactivity anomaly satisfied Technical Specification requirements on reportable occur-rences.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
-
8.
Exit Interview
The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on January 11, 1980. The inspector summarized the purpose and the scope of the inspection and the findings.
,
t
'
-4-
-
.
-
.
-
-.