IR 05000282/1980018
| ML20003A104 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Prairie Island  |
| Issue date: | 12/11/1980 |
| From: | Choules N, Robinson D, Streeter J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20003A101 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-282-80-18, 50-306-80-18, NUDOCS 8101290573 | |
| Download: ML20003A104 (5) | |
Text
-
.
O f, -
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0tittlSS10N OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEt!ENT
REGION III
Reports No. 50-282/80-18; 50-306/80-18 Docket Nos. 50-282; 50-306 Licenses No. DPR-42; DPR-60 Licensee: Northern States Power Company 414 Nicollet flall Flinraapolis, flN 55401 Facility Name:
Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2 Inspection At:
Prairie Island Site, Red Wing, ?!N Inspection Conducted: November 19-20, 1980
/.., '
/,.. /7.
'
^.u% -
-
Inspectors:
Ch es
/, //, fu u
.
.
..
{
lso
/.?y eld
'
,
/
y c.
/ /
D&3 Approved By:
'J.
F. Streeter, Chief Qfa V
.
Nuclear Support Section 1 Inspection Summary
'
Inspection on November 19-20, 1980 (Report No. 50-282/80-18; 50-306/80-18)
Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of control rod drive and position indicator checks, core power distribution limits, reactor' shutdown margin determination, isothermal temperature coefficient measurement, control'
rod worth measureaents, target, axial flux dif ference calculation,. and deter-mination of reactivity anomolies for Cycle 6 for Unit 1 and Cycle 5_for Unit 2.
The inspection involved a total of 24 inspector-hours onsite by two hPC inspectors including 0 inspection-hours onsite during offshifts.
Results: Of the areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
- _
i 81 01290 i
.,
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted F. Tierney, Plant Manager
- J. Brokaw, Plant Superintendent, Operations and Maintenance
- E. Watzl, Plant Superintendent, Plant Engineering and Radiation Protection
- A. Hunstad, Staf f Engineer J. Hoffman, Superintendent, Technical Engineering
- M. Klee, Nuclear Engineer J. Curtis, Electrical Engineer C. Feierabend, US-NRC Senior Resident Inspector B. Burgess, US NRC Resident Inspector
- 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 c.
Determination of Shutdown Margin 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 Anomolies 3.
Control Rod Drive and Position Indication Checks The inspectors reviewed the results of surveillance test procedures numbers 1046 and 2046, " Full Length Control Rod Drop Timing," for both Units 1 and 2 respectively, 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 rod position indication checks were_ performed for both Units I and 2 in accordance with surveillance calibration procedure numbers 1018.RCU.4 and 20119.RCU.4, " Analog Rod Position System Test and Calibration."
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
l
4.
Core Power Distribtuion Limits The inspectors examined the printouts of the periodic and the on-demand programs related to Cycle 6 power distributions for Unit 1.
-2-
-
l
\\
The inspectors noted that a 5% quadrant flux tilt was observed on the incore flux detectors during the zero power physics tests for Unit 1.
A check by the licensee was made for abnormal conditions such as a dropped rod but none were found. As power was increased, the tilt decreased to around 2% at 100% power. With the 2% flux tilt all measured thermal limits were within the Technical Specification limits. The inspectors noted that the quadrant flux tilt has remained at about 2% since obtaining 100% power early in November.
The inspectors also examined the printouts of the periodic and the on-demand programs for Cycle 5 of Unit 2.
The inspectors determined that all prerequisites were met, the process 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. The inspector determined that the licensee had satisfied the Technical Specification requirement to determine hot channel factors every effective full power month.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
5.
Incore/Excore Calibration
'
The inspectors reviewed information related to incore/excore monitor calibration as described in surveillance procedures numbers 1006, Rev. A, and 2006, Rev. A, " Nuclear Power Range Axial Offset Calibra-tion," for Units 1 and 2 respectively. The inspectors reviewed the-graphs of incore axial offset versus excore axial offsets for the 'four power range channels and noted that calibration currents were properly obtained for the upper and the ~1ower excore detectors. The inspectors determined-that the licensee had satisfied the Technical Frecification requirement to calibrate the nuclear power range channels quarterly.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
6.
Determination of Shutdown Margin The licensee does not perform a specific shutdown margin physics' test.
~
Results of control rod worth measurements are used to verify shutdown margin. The inspectors reviewed the licensee's minimum shutdown margin-calculations for both beginning of life and end of life conditions for, both Units 1 and 2.
The-inspectors' evaluations indicated that the applicable Technical Specifications would be met.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were' identified.
-
7.
Isothermal Temperature Coefficient
-
The inspectors reviewed information related to the determination of the isothermal _ temperature coefficient for both units as described in procedure D-32, Rev. - 1, " Temperature Coefficient 'at Hot Zero Power."
-3-
--
-
-
...
. --
,
.
'
The licensee's acceptance criterion requires that the measured iso-thermal temperature coefficients be less that 0 pcm/*F. The inspectors determined that this requirement was met for both units.
For the all rods out condition, the measured isothermal temperature coefficient was-2.67 pcm/*F for Unit 1, Cycle 6 and -3.45 pcm/*F for Unit 2, Cycle 5.
The corresponding predicted values were -1.46 pcm/ F.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
8.
Control Rod Worth Measurement The inspectors reviewed information related to determination of control rod worths for Cycle 6 of Unit I and Cycle 5 of Unit 2 as described in procedure D-30, Rev. 2, " Post Refueling and Startup Test."
In each case, the boron dilution technique was used to measure control rod worths. The rod worth measurements for both units met the acceptance criteria in that the individual Control Bank rod worths were within 10% of the design values given in the Prairie Island Unit 1, Cycle 6 Startup and Operations Report of September, 1980, and Prairie Island Unit 2, Cycle 5 Startup and Operations Report of November, 1979.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
9.
Target Axial Flux Differenca Calculation The inspectors reviewed information related to the determination of target axial flux difference as described in surveillance procedures number 1135, Rev. 4, and number 2135, Rev. 4, "
I Target Measurement,"
for Units 1 and 2 respectively.
The inspectors examined surveillance test data for Cycle 5 for Unit 2 taken over' the eight months since startup and initial test data for Cycle 6 for Unit 1.
The inspectors concluded that for both units the licensee had satisfied the Technical Specification requirements to determine the target axial. flux difference at least once per equivalent full power quarter and to update target differences monthly.
.
.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
10.
Determination of Reactivity Anomolies The inspectors reviewed surveillance' procedure number 1104, Rev. 4,
" Reactivity Anomolies," and verified that for Cycle 6 for Unit I and Cycle 5 for Unit 2,'the procedure had been performed periodically in.
accordance with Technical Specifications. A review.of the surveil-lance data showed that there was agreement within 1%_of the predicted curve as required by Technical Specifications for both Units.1 and 2.
,
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
-4-
-
.
.. -.
.
.-
._.
.
, _. - -.,
_ -. _., - -.
,
-
.
11.
Exit Interview The inspectors met with licensee representatives (denoted in Para-graph I at the conclusion of the inspection on November 20, 1980. The inspectors summarized the purpose and the scope of the inspection and the findings.
-5-