IR 05000266/1988014

Insp Rept 50-266/88-14 on 880613-17.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Control Rod Testing, Core Power Distribution Limits,Calibr of Nuclear Instrumentation Sys & Control Rod Worth Measurements

ML20196H951
Person / Time
Site:	Point Beach
Issue date:	06/29/1988
From:	Phillips M, Wetzel B NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20196H945	List: IR 05000266/1988014 ML20196H941
References
50-266-88-14, NUDOCS 8807060287
Download: ML20196H951 (5)

Text

__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ -

,,

.

,

. .x U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION III

Report No. 50-266/88014(DRS)

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, Wisconsin-Inspection Conducted: June 13-17, 1988 +

• - ' Inspector: . Wetzel h 29kd Date

,

Approved By: Chief 7 Operational Programs Section Date Inspection Summary-

'

Inspection on June 13-17, 1988 (Repor+ No. 50-266/88014(DRS)) >

-A_reas Inspected: Routine, announced safety inspection of control rod testing (72700), core power distribution limits (61702), calibration of nuclear instrumentation systems (61705), core thermal power evaluation (61706), moderator temperature coefficient determination (61708), estimated critical condition (61707), and control rod worth measurements (61710).

Results: No violations or deviations were identified.

i

i l

8807060287 880629

'

PDR ADOCK 05000266 g PDC

.-

__

, ,

'

.

. -

.

...

'

i l

DETAILS

'

'

s Persons Contacte .)

c 1

• J. J.-Zach, Manager, PBNP R. P. Heyse, Nuclear Engineer J. E. Knorr, . Regulatory Engineer

• R. C. Zyduck,-Reactor Engineering Superintendent ~

The inspector also interviewed other licensee personnel during the course of the inspection, including members of the operations staf * Denotes persons attending the exit meeting on June 17, 1988. ~ Control kod Testing (72700)

The inspector reviewed a number of completed procedures in the area of control rod testing; and verified that the surveillances were performed properly, and the results complied with Technical Specifications 15.3.1 .3.10.D, and 15.3.1 The following documents were utilized during the review:

.

WMTP 9.1. A, "Rod Control System: Rod Drop Testing," Revision 2 *

WMTP 9.1.B, "Rod Control System: Rod Control Mechanism Testing and ' Rod Position Calibration," Revision ' *

WMTP 9.1.C "Rod Control System: Verification & Rod Position Indicator Alignment," Revision *

WMTP 9.1.D, "Rod Control System: Rod Position Data," Revision WMTP 3.3, "Primary System Tests," Revision ,

Control Rod Drop Traces for Unit 1, Cycle 1 No violations or deviations were identifie . Core Power Distribution Limits (61702)

The inspector reviewed several procedures in the area of core power i distribution limits for technical adequacy and compliance with Technical i Jpecification limits and surveillance frequency requirements. The

-

inspector verified that the licensee complied with Technical Specification limits on quadrant power tilt ratio, hot channel factors, axial flux

! difference, and departure from nucleate boiling parameters by reviewing l the following documents:

l l OPS-34, "Unit 1 Control Room Shift Log," a completed two week i sample from June 1-13, 198 L .

- _ _ _ _ -

. . ...

. . . . .. - - . -.

, _ . .. .

.

.

.

-*

.

.,

' ' WMTP 5.2, "Reactor Engineering Tests During Escalation to Full Load," Revision 10, performed May 22, 198 '

RESP 6.1,,"Core Power Distribution 8 Nuclear Power Range Detector Calibration Checks," Revision 0, completed May 22, 198 *

WMTP 5.1, "Reactor Engineering Tests Near 25% Power," Revision 12, completed May 20, 198 Unit 1, Cycle 16 Flux Maps taken on May 22 and 24, 198 REI 6.1, "Flux Map. Analysis," Revision No violations or deviations were identifie . Calibration of Nuclear Instrumentation Systems (61705)

The inspector reviewed applicable portions of procedures WMTP 5.2, WMTP 6.1, and REI 2.0 (Power Range Detector Power Level Adjustment, Revision 7) to verify that the nuclear power range detectors were calibrated properly and at the required frequenc No violations or deviations were identifie . Core Thermal Power Evaluation (61706)

The inspector verified that heat balances were performed shiftly as

'

required by Technical Specifications Table 15.4.1-1 and that the power range nuclear instrumentation was adjusted when necessary. REI 1.0,

"Power Level Determination," Revision 13 and a three week sample of OPS-34, "Unit 1 Control Room Shift Log," were reviewed and found to be adequate. The inspector noted during the review that the heat balance result for the second shif t on June 11,1988, was 100.3% core thermal power. However, this was an instantaneous power; further inspection exhibited that the average core thermal power for an eight hour shift before and after the 100.3% reading did not exceed 100% core thermal powe No violations or deviations were identifie . Moderator Temperature Coefficient Determination (61708)

The inspector reviewed applicable portions of WMTP 4.1, "In ..

Criticality, All Rods Out, Endpoint and Temperature Coefficient Measurements," Revision 12, performed May 17, 1988, and verified that Technical Specification 15.3.1.F, dealing with moderator temperature coefficient (MTC) was met. The inspector also performed an independent calculation of the MTC by using the heatup and cooldown slopes acquired by the licensee during the performance of WMTP 4.1, and obtained similar results to those that licensee personnel compute No violations or deviations were identifie _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .

. -

^-.

' '

.

+[.* ,

i 7.' Estimated Critical Condition (61707)

1( The inspector reviewed the completed Procedure WMTP 4.1, "Initial Ac Criticality, All Rods Out, Endpoint and Temperature Coefficient

Measurements," Revision 12, performed May 17, 198 The results complied with Technical Specifications and were consistent with predicted values found in the Westinghouse Nuclear Design Report for Unit 1, Cycle 1 However, during the review the inspector identified one concern; WMTP required the difference in boron concentration between the-reactor coolant leg and the pressurizer to be less than or equal to 200 ppm, which is a large difference that could affect test result The actual

..

'

difference in boron concentration during the test was much less than the 200 ppm limit. ANSI 19.6.1, 1985, "Reload Startup Physics Tests for Pressurized Water Reactors," which the licensee is not committed to, but uses as a guideline for some physics tests, recommends less than or equal to a 20 ppm difference. The Reactor Engineer could not identify the basis for the 200 ppm and agreed to revise the procedure to require a lower difference in boron concentration between the reactor coolant leg and pressurize The inspector's concern was adequately addresse No violations or deviations were identifie . Control Rod Worth Measurements (61710)

The inspector reviewed licensee procedures and results relating to control rod worths and verified that acceptance criteria were me The inspector also performed independent calculations of the control rod worths using rod swap data and Unit 1, Cycle 16 design data, and obtained the same results as the licensee. The following documents were utilized-during the review:

• WMTP 4.2, "Control Bank A Measurements," Revision 8, performed May 18, 198 WMTP 4.3, "Bank Worth Measurements by Bank Swap Method," Revision 8, completed May 18, 198 REI 20.0, "Control Rod Worth, Boron Worth & Endpoint Measurement Instructions," Revision Reactor Operating Data Book, Revision 0, May 10, 198 No violations or deviations were identifie . Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1)

on June 17, 1988. The inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspection. The inspector also discussed the likely informational content o

. . - _ . - -

,

l

.

.'

.

'

=. .

of the inspection report with regard to documents or processes reviewed by the inspector during the inspection. The licensee acknowledged statements made by the inspector and stated that the Nuclear Design Report referenced within this report was proprietary, but references to the document would not be considered proprietary.

I

!

,

t

!

l ..