IR 05000301/1978019

Insp Rept 50-301/78-19 on 780907-08.No Noncompliance Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Reactor Physics Test Performed Prior to Full Power Operation for Cycle 5

ML20062B402
Person / Time
Site:	Point Beach
Issue date:	09/19/1978
From:	Kohler J, Streeter J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20062B401	List: IR 05000301/1978019 ML20062B398
References
50-301-78-19, NUDOCS 7810270376
Download: ML20062B402 (4)

Text

_ _ .

- - _ . _ . .. __ . ,_ _ ._ .,

_ _ _

.

.

.

,

U.S. NUCIE.AR REGULATORY CCHMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCE.WT

REGION III

Report No. 50-301/78-19 Docket No. 50-301 License No. DPR-27 Licensee: Wisconsin Electric Power Comp 4cy Wisconsin Michigan Power Camp my 231 West Michigan Milwaukee, WI 52303

,

Facility Name: Point Beach Unit 2 Inspection At: Point Beach Site, Two Creeks, WI e

Inspection Conducted: September 7-8, 1978 U,Lv

.

4,. * ,*

Inspectors: J. E. Kohler C . . ' ' s. : '*

.

G h .M& , ~4,I J.*F. Streeter e* e '.4 RF4)s=i-h Approved By: R. F. Warnick, Chief 9-19 7L Reactor Projects Section 2

,

Inspection Summarv ( Insoection on September 7-8, 1978 (Report No. 50-301/78-19)

Areas Inspected: Routine, announced inspection of reactor physics testing performed prior to full power operation for Unit 2 Cycle The inspection involved 15 hours1.736111e-4 days <br />0.00417 hours <br />2.480159e-5 weeks <br />5.7075e-6 months <br /> onsite by two NRC inspeccot Results: Of the areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified. Two open items, control rod worth calculations using rod swap technique (paragraph 6) and shutdown margin (paragraph 7)

are being carried.

.

13/o-17 o 37 G

. - - .. . .. ._ .

. .

. . ._ .- .

_ _ . _ _ _ __ . . _ _ _ , _ .

.

.

DETAILS 1. Persons Contacted

• G. Reed, Manager, Nuclear Power Division

• P. Kurtz, Engineer J. Zach, Reactor Engineer 2. Moderator Temperature Coef ficient The inspector reviewed the results of the testing performed to deter-mine the moderator temperature coefficient. The results were in approximate agreement with predicted values supplied by the fuel manufacturer (Westinghouse) and indicated that the value was nega-tive. The inspector noted that the XY plot of the moderator tempera-ture coefficient showed some non-linearity. This was discussed with the licensee. The licensee stated that there has been some dif ficulty

' ' '

with the XY plotte However, results of several heatup and cooldown yielded a moderator temperature coefficient in fairly good agree-ment with the Westinghouse estimate. The inspector has no further questions regarding this ite . Incore/Excore Calibration The inspector reviewed the procedure to calibrate the excore instru-mentation to insure that the instrumentation is capable of measuring correct axial offset and quadrant power tilt. The inspector deter-mined that this calibration was performed in Cycle 5 and has no further questions regarding the incere and excore calibration pro-cedur . Power Distribution I / ,

The inspector reviewed the full core maps taken at hot zero power.

l The review indicated that all thermal margins were within Technical

'

Specification requirements, all prerequisites were met, input values into the incore computer analysis code were taken from actual plant conditions at the time the maps were taken, and predicted values calculated by the computer code were within allowable acceptance l criteria established by the licensee. The inspector further re-l viewed the results of full core maps taken during full power opera-

'

tion for Cycle These maps and their summaries indicated that the plant power distri-l bution was being maintained within Technical Specification limita-tions. The inspector has no further questions regarding the power distribution for Cycle 5.

l l 5. Target Axial Flux

.

,

The inspector reviewed the licensee's determination of the target axial i flux band for Cycle The target axial flux band indicating instru-mentation was inspected in the control rcom. Axial flux difference j -2-

I

_ _ _ _ _ _ .__ _ _ . ._ ___ -_ _ u _ _ _ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ ._ .

.

.'.

.

.

limits were displayed on the control room operating panel. The in-spector determined that the plant was being operated within the target band during power changes. The inspector has no further questions regarding this item.

' Control Rod Worth Measurements The inspector reviewed the results of measurement performed to deter-mine control rod worth. The procedure called for the worth to be determined by the rod swap technique. Control banks D, C, B, and A, as well as shutdown banks B and A were measured. Control bank A was designated as the reference bank. The results of the test showed that control banks B and D exceeded -20% difference when compared with the predicted values supplied by Westinghouse. However, the overall sum of the control rod worths measured by rod swap showed less than -3% difference when compared to Westinghouse prediction The information regarding the test and the test results has been supplied to NRR for review. A meeting is scheduled to be held in the near future between NRR and Westinghouse in order to determine I

the adequacy of the rod swap technique in calculating control rod worth and shutdown margin. Consequently, this item will be carried as open and will be followed up in a future inspectio . Shutdown Margin The inspector reviewed the licensee's calculation of shutdown margin beginning of life and end of life. Technical Specifications require that 1,000 pcm shutdown margin be available beginning of life and 2,770 pcm shutdown margin be required end of life. Discussion with the licensee determined that the shutdown margin determination was made af ter going above 5% power. There is no formal requirement to determine when this shutdown margin calculation should be made. This item is being carried as open pending NRR's determination of the adequacy of the control rod worth measurements and shutdewn margin calculation. This ites will be followed up in a subsequent

1. .

inspectio . Acceptance Criteria for Physics Test The inspector determined that the licensee's Quality Assurance Plan, Appendix H, requires that acceptance criteria be provided for physics tests performed during startup testing prior to full power operatio Review of the licensee's procedure indicated that acceptance criteria were not included. Discussion with the licensee determined that ac-ceptance criteria for . physics tests are contained in a separate doc-ument entitled " Reactor Engineering Instruction 15.0". This docu-ment was not available during the inspection. Consequently, this item will be followed up during a subsequent inspection when the document can be reviewed. The inspector has no further questions regarding this ite ___

_ _ _ _ _ . _. _ . __ _ - - - _ . _ . _ . - - _ _ _ . - . __ . ._ _ . . __ __ _ _ _ _ . _ _

1 -. - - - - -

, - . . _ . . .

. _ _ . - .-. _ _ _ _ .

1 .

,

.

.

. . . '

i Management Exit l The inspectors met with the licensee at the conclusion of the inspec- ,

tion and stannarized the results. The inspector stated that no items

, of noncompliance or deviations were identified.

d l

i i

d r=

.

9" e

I I

i I

!

i i

!

! [

v d

i

!

f

!

t

,

f I.

i

,

b

_4-I l

[

' . _ _ _ _ _ .. . , . _ - - . . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . . . , _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ , , . . _ _ _ _ - _ . ___, _ _ .