IR 05000266/1981004
| ML19347E169 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 03/16/1981 |
| From: | Jackiw I, Robinson D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19347E167 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-266-81-04, 50-266-81-4, NUDOCS 8104240165 | |
| Download: ML19347E169 (5) | |
Text
_
,
O
-
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE Of INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
Report No. 50-266/81-04 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:
Point Beach Site, Two Creeks, WI Inspection C nducted: February 24-25, 1981 D
D
\\
w. ~.
.
Inspectors:
binson 3-ib-? l
$f~)2
~
w_
N. Jackiw
/
,
k k[ ting Chief
I'
Approved By:
Ja Test Pro gram Section
/
i Inspection Summary i
Inspection on February 24-25, 1981 (Report No. 50-266/81-04)
Areas Inspected: Routine, announced inspection of control rod drive and position indication checks; control rod worth measurement; reactor shutdown margin determination; isothermal temperature coefficient; power coefficient; core thermal power evaluation; core power distribution; reactivity anomaly determination. The inspection involved a total of (
22 inspector-hours onsite by two NRC inspectors including 0 inspector-hours onsite during offshifts.
Results: No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
i
!
l f,h N
. -
.
..
-
-
- - - - - -
.
-
- - -
I
.
'
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- G. A. Reed, Manager, Nuclear Operation
- R. E. Link, Assistant to the Manager
- J. J. Zach, Superintendent, Technical Services
- R.
L. Harris, Reactor Engineer
- F. A. Zeman, Office Supervisor
- 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 e.
Determination of Shutdown Margin f.
Isothermal lemperature Coefficient g.
Control Rod Worth Measurement h.
Target Axial Flux Difference Calculation i.
Determination of Reactivity Anomalies 3.
Control Rod Drive and Position Indication Checks The inspectors reviewed the results of test procedure WMTP 9.1, Revision 7, " Rod Control Mechanism Timing, Rod Drive, and Rod Position Calibration" and concluded that all rod drop times satisfied the acceptance criteria of 1.8 seconds or less required by the Technical Specifications. The inspectors verified that rod drive and red position indication checks were performed at that time.
4.
Control Rod Worth Measurement The inspectors reviawed test procedures WMTP 9.5.A, Revision 4,
" Control Rod Worth, Boron Worth, and Endpoint Measurement", and WMTP1 4.3, Revision 3, " Rod Worth Measurements by Swap Method",
for Cycle IX determination of control rod worths. The reactivity of the reference bank (Bank A) was measured using the boration/
dilution technique and the reactivity worth of the remaining banks was inferred using rod swap reactivity comparisons to the reference bank. The inspectors concluded that the results of the rod swap procedure satisfied all acceptance and review criteria established by NRR as specified in an October 12, 1978 letter from Mr. A. Schwencer-2-
i
'
(NRR) to Mr. Sol Burstein. The maximum difference between measured and predicted worth was 13% for Rod Bank C.
The sum of the six control rod bank worths was 108.6% of the design rod worth sum for those six banks. The inspectors noted that the observed deviation from the predicted rod worths was due in part to a smaller burnup at the end of Cycle VIII than that originally projected. Unit I has been operating for some time under a self-imposed 80% power ceiling as a result of
'
steam generator problems.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
5.
Determination of Shutdown Margin The inspectors reviewed information relating to an e=lytical determination of Cycle IX shutdown margin at beginning of life (BOL)
and end of life (EOL).
l Since the difference between the measured and the predicted worth l
of the control rod banks satisfied the acceptance and the review l
criteria established by NRR, the measurements confirmed that adequate i
reactor shutdown capability existed at BOL and E0L.
i l
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
!
6.
Isothermal Temperature Coefficient The inspectors reviewed information relating to Cycle IX determination of isothermal temperature coefficient as described in Test Procedure I
WMIP1 4.1, Revision 0, " Cycle IX Initial Criticality, All Rods Out Flux Map, End Point and Temperature Coefficient Measurements." The Technical Specifications require, except during low power physi.cs tests, that the moderator temperature coefficient be negative.
In addition, the licensee's acceptance criterion requires that the isothermal temperature coefficient be within i3 pcm/*F of the predicted value. The inspector determined that these requirements were satisfied in that the average isothermal' temperature coefficient measured at 523*F and all rods out (ARO) condition was -5.5pcm/ F and the Westinghouse predicted value was -6.9pcm/ F.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
7.
Power Coefficient L
l The inspectors reviewed Test procedure WMTP 9.7, Revision 4, " Power
!
Coefficient Measurement", and concluded that the procedure was technically adequate for determining the power coefficient of re-activity. The licensee stated that no power coefficient measurement was performed for Cycle IX as Unit I has been operating at less than 80% rated power due to steam generator problems. Technical Specifica-tions do not require the licensee to perform a power coefficicnt l
measurement.
-3-
.
'
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
8.
Core Thermal Power Evaluation The inspectors reviewed information relating to core thermal power evaluation noting that the excore detectors were calibrated and the input to the offsite time-sharing computer program was taken from the actual plant conditions. The inspectors verified that the onsite computer program was working properly, and the core thermal power calculated by the onsite computer and the power calculated by the offsite time-sharing program agreed with the acceptance criterion of 15%.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
9.
Core Power Distribution Limits The inspectors reviewed the surveillance data taken at hot zero power on December 29, 1980, to determine core power distribution limits. The review indicated that all prerequisites were met, the casite computer was using input values from the actual plant conditions, all thermal margins satisfied Technical Specifications requirements, and the calculated values by the computer were within the acceptable criteria established by the licensee.
In addition, the inspectors reviewed the results of full core maps taken at 80% power on January 26, 1981. The review indicated that the distribution of core power was being maintained within Technical Specifications limitations.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
10.
Reactivity Anomaly Determination
.
The inspector reviewed information relating to Cycle IX 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 lower, 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.
-4-
.
_
.
.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
11.
CILRT Requirements - Duration of Test Unresolved Item (50-266/81-04-01)
Appendix J of 10 CFR Part 50 does not specify the duration of a con-tainment leak rate test; however, Appendix J does require in Section III.A.3(a) that the test be conducted in accordance with the provisions of ANSI N45.4-1972. Section 7.6 of the standard requires a test dura-tion of 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> unless ".
it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction
..
of those responsible for the acceptance of the containment structure that the leakage rate can be accurately determined during a shorter test period, the agreed-upon shorter period may be used.
The only
"
..
approach which has been approved by the NRC, other than interim approval, for conducting tests of less than 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> durations is contained in Bechtel Corporation Topical Report BN-TOP-1, " Testing Criteria for Integrated Leakage Rate Testing of Primary Containment Structures for Nuclear Power Plants."
During the inspection, the inspector discussed with plant personnel the acceptability of licensees using BN-TOP-1 for the first time or using other methods in conducting CILRT's. The inspector stated that test periods of less than 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> durations are currently under review by the NRC. The licensee was also informed that until an NRC position has been established and communicated to all licensees, the acceptability of reduced duration tests will be judged on a case by case basis.
!
Prior to the exit interview, the inspector was informed that the
licensee is currently addressing a number of issues, including I
duration of testing, in response to a letter from NRR to j
Mr. S. Burstein, dated January 27, 1981. This item remains open l
pending further review by the NRC.
12.
Unresolved Item l
Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required
!
in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of noncompliance, or deviations. An unresolved item disclosed during the inspection is discussed in Paragraph 11.
13.
Exit Interview The inspectors met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on February 25, 1981. The inspectors summarized the purpose and the scope of the inspection and the findings.
l-5-