IR 05000266/1982007
| ML20050C802 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 03/16/1982 |
| From: | Jackiw I, Robinson D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20050C798 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-266-82-07, 50-266-82-7, 50-301-82-07, 50-301-82-7, NUDOCS 8204090365 | |
| Download: ML20050C802 (5) | |
Text
-
a U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
Report No. 50-266/82-07(DETP); 50-301/82-07(DETP)
Docket No. 50-266; 50-301 License No. DPR-24; DPR-27 Licensee: Wisconsin Electric Power Company 231 West Michigan Milwaukee, WI 53203 Facility Name: Point Beach, Units 1 and 2 Inspection At: TVo Creeks, WI Inspection Conducted: March 2-3, 1982
\\Q W Inspector: D L.- R inson 3 II bE%
l?"[M l$f/4
_
L Approved By:
[
apkiw, Chief
/
.
'
Test P,rogram Section Inspection Summary Inspection on March 2-3, 1982 (Report No. 50-266/82-07(DETP); 50-301/82-07(DETP))
Areas Inspected:
Routine, announced inspection of Unit 1 Cycle 10 control rod drop time tests; control rod drive and position indication checks; reactor thermocouple /RTD cross calibration; incore/excore calibrations; target axial flux difference calculation; control rod worth measurements; reactor shutdown margin determination; isothermal temperature coefficient measurement; power coefficient of reactivity measurement; core thermal power evaluation; core power distribution limits; determination of reactivity anomalies; previously identified inspection items. The inspection involved a total of 12 inspector-hours onsite by one NRC inspector including 0 inspector-hours onsite during off-shifts.
.Results:
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
,
8204090365 820323 PDR ADOCK 05000266
PDR i
l
._
_
_
__
'
,
I DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- G. A. Reed, Manager, Nuclear Operations
- R.
L. Harris, Superintendent, Reactor Engineering
- J. G. Schweitzer, ISI Engineer
- M. J. Logan, Quality Engineer
- R. L. Hague, USNRC Resident Inspector 2.
Licensee Action on Praviously Identified Inspection Items
'
(Closed) Open Item (50-301/78-19-01): Acceptance of control rod worth measurements using rod swap method given in NRR letter from Mr. A. Schwencer (NRR) to Mr. Sol Burstein (WEPCO) dated October 12, 1978.
(Closed) Open Item (50-266/81-18-01, 50-301/81-20-01):
Lack of specific Technical Specification surveillance requirement on RCS leakage.
Surveillance frequency specified by controlled procedure is adequate. No further action warranted.
3.
Verification of Conduct of Startup Physics Tests The inspector reviewed the Cycle 10 startup physics tests for Unit 1 and verified that the licensee conducted the following:
a.
Rod Drive and Rod Position Indication Checks
b.
Reactor Thermocouple /RTD Cross Calibration c.
Incore/Excore Detector Calibration d.
Target Axial Flux Difference Calculation e.
Control Rod Worth Measurement f.
Determination of Reactor Shutdown Margin g.
Isothermal Temperature Coefficient h.
Power Coefficient of Reactivity Measurement
,
I 1.
Core Thermal Power Evaluation l
j.
Core Power Distribution Limits k.
Determination of Reactivity Anomalies I
l 4.
Control Rod Drive and Position Indication Checks l
The inspector reviewed the results of Test Procedure WMTP 9.1, Revision l
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 inspector verified that rod drive and rod position indication checks were i
performed at that time.
I No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
l
'
'I
_
,
5.
Reactor Thermocouple /RTD Cross Calibration The inspector reviewed information related to reactor thermocouple /RTD cross calibration for Unit 1 and verified that the incore thermocouples and reactor coolant RTDs were properly calibrated.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
6.
Incore/Excore Detector Calibration The inspector reviewed information related to incore/excore detector calibration as described in Test Procedure WMTP 9.2, Revision 9,
,
" Power Range Calibration Quarterly Axial Offset Test," for Unit 1
,
'
conducted on December 14, 1981. The inspector reviewed the graphs of incore axial offset versus excore axial offset 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 and check the calibration currents monthly.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
7.
Target Axial Flux Difference Calculations The inspector reviewed information related to the determination of target axial flux difference as described in Test Procedure WMTP 9.15, Revision 0, " Target Flux Difference Determination." The inspector examined surveillance test data for both the current and previous fuel cycles and concluded that the licensee had satisfied the Technical Specification requirements to determine the target axial flux differ-ence quarterly and to update target differences monthly.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
8.
Control Rod Worth Measurement The inspector reviewed Test Procedures WMTP 9.5.A, Revision 5, " Control Rod Worth, Boron Worth, and Endpoint Measurement", and WMTP 4.3, Revi-sion 0, " Rod Worth Measurements by Swap Method", for Cycle 10 deter-mination 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 inspector concluded that the results of the rod swap procedure satisfied all acceptance and review criteria. The maximum difference between measured and predicted worth was 7% for Rod Bank C and the sum of all control and shutdown banks was 104% of that predicted in WCAP 9974, "The Nuclear Design - Core Management of the Point Beach Unit 1 Nuclear Reactor Cycle 10".
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
,
!
l l
_
_
_ _
___
.
9.
Determination of Shutdown Margin The inspector reviewed information related to an analytical determina-tion of Cycle 10 shutdown margin at beginning of life (BOL) and end of life (EOL) conditions.
Since the difference between the measured and the predicted worth of the control rod banks satisfied the acceptance criteria established by NRR, the measurements confirmed that adequate reactor shutdown capability existed at BOL and EOL.
.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
10.
Isothermal Temperature Coefficient The inspector reviewed information related to the Cycle 10 determina-tion of isothermal temperature coefficient as described in Test Pro-cedure WMTP 9.6, Revision 4, " Hot Zero Power Temperature Coefficient Measurement," for Unit 1 conducted on December 9, 1981.
The Technical Specifications require, except during low power physics tests, that the moderator temperature coefficient be negative.
In addition, the licensee's acceptance criterion requires that the isothermal temperature coefficient be within 13 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 -4.3 pcm/*F and the Westinghouse predicted value was -3.5 pcm/*F.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
11.
Power Coefficient of Reactivity The inspector reviewed information related to the Cycle 10 determina-tion of power coefficient of reactivity as described in Test Procedure WMTP 9.7, Revision 4, " Power Coefficient Measurement," for Unit 1 conducted on January 24, 1982. The inspector noted that the averaged
,
l measured power coefficient of -12.0 pcm/% power compared favorably with l
the Westinghouse design value of -11.7 pcm/% power at 715 ppm boron I
and 81% power.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
12.
Core Thermal Power Evaluation The inspector reviewed information related to the evaluation of core thermal power as described in Operating Procedure REI 1.0, Revision 5,
" Power Level Determination." The inspector noted that the excore de-tectors were properly calibrated and that the input to the offsite time sharing computer program was representative of actual plant con-ditions. The inspector verified that the onsite computer program was working properly, and that the core thermal power calculated by the
l l
..
t
-
,
onsite computer and that calculated by the offsite time-sharing program agreed within the acceptance criteria of iS%. The inspector noted that the comparison is performed on a weekly basis.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
13.
Core Power Distribution Limits The inspector examined the results of several full core maps taken at 80% power since the Cycle 10 startup and concluded that all prere-quisites were met, the onsite computer was using input values from the actual plant conditions, all thermal margins satisfied Technical Specification requirements, and the calculated values by the computer were within the acceptance criteria established by the licensee.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
14.
Determination of Reactivity Anomalies The inspector reviewed information relating to Cycle 10 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 insps N r noted that the computer code (FOLLOW) was used to adjust the measuts
'>oron concentration to critical boron concentration at ARO and equ librium xenon condition, and the adjusted boron concen-tration 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 occurrences.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
15.
Startup Physics Test Procedures The inspector noted that most of the test procedures used in the startup physics testing program did not contain or reference appropriate accep-tance and review criteria or applicable Technical Specification require-ments. The licensee stated that the test procedures would be revised
'
to address the inspector's concerns. This is considered an open item (50-266/82-07-01 and 50-301/82-07-01).
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
16.
Exit Interview
,
The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on March 3, 1982. The inspector summarized the purpose, scope, and findings of the inspection.
i L.