IR 05000301/1980009
| ML19321A646 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 06/06/1980 |
| From: | Chow E, Hopkins J, Streeter J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19321A644 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-301-80-09, 50-301-80-9, NUDOCS 8007240018 | |
| Download: ML19321A646 (4) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:, t O U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ' v 0FFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
Report No. 50-301/80-09 Docket No. 50-301 License No. DPR-27 Licensee: Wisconsin Electric Power Company 231 West Michigan Milwaukee, WI 53203 Facility Name: Point Beach Unit 2 Inspection At: Two Creeks, WI Inspection Conducted: May 27-29, 1980 Inspectors: [[
- g J Hopkins [ ' ' ad~ Approved By: . F. Streeter, Chief, h Nuclear Support Section 1 / ' Inspection Summary Inspection on May 27-29, 1980 (Report No. 50-301/80-09) Areas Inspected: Routine, unan% unced inspection of core power distri-bution limits; reactor shutdown margin determination; isothermal temperature coefficient of reactivity measurement; control rod iorth measurements; target axial flux difference calculation; determination of reactivity anomalies; and rod drop time test. The inspection involved 22 inspector-hours on site by two NRC inspectors.
Results: No itec of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
8007846
. t DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- G. Reed, Manager - Operations
- R. Link, Assistant to Manager
- J. Zach, Superintendent - Technical Services
- R. Harris, Reactor Engineer J. Bauer, Technical Assistant Reactor Engineer P. Kurtz, Nuclear Plant Engineer N. Pitterle, Nuclear Plant Engineer
- F. Zeman, Office Supervisor 2.
Verification cf Conduct of Startup Physics Testing The inspectors 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 Determination of Shutdown Margin e.
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 Anomalies 3.
Core Power Distribution Limits The inspectors examined the printouts of the periodic and the on-demand programs for Cycle 7.
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 acceptable criteria established by the licensee.
-2- ) . _ _
- -. C.
- p . ' * ' 'The first full power map performed on May 20, 1980, indicated that the highest FNH was 1.5446 as compared to the Technical Specification limit of 1.55.
The licensee stated that the margin will increase (improve) with time.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
4.
Determination of Shutdown Margin The inspectors reviewed information relating to Cycle 7 determination of shutdown margin as described in WMTP24.3, Rev. O, April 8, 1980, " Rod Worth Heasurements by SWAP Method," and in attachment A, " Rod Swap Acceptance _and Review Criteria," to WMTP2 4.3, Rev. O, and in WCAP-9667, "The Nuclear Design and Core Management of the Point Beach Unit 2 Nuclear Reactor Cycle 7".
The shutdown margin met the acceptance criteria stated in Attachment A to WMTP2 4.3, Rev. O, which was specified by a letter dated October 12, 1978, from Mr. A. Schwencer (NRC) to Mr. Sol Burstein.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
5.
Isothermal Temperature Coefficient of Reactivity Measurement The inspector reviewed information relating to Cycle 7 determination of the isothermal coefficient of reactivity measurement as described in Procedure WMTP 9.6, Rev. 3, dated August 17, 1976. The acceptance criterion was that the measured value be within 1 3 pcm/*F of the predicted value. The measured value was -2.5 pcm/*F at 520*F and the predicted value was -3.8 pcm/*F at 547 F.
The difference between 520*F and 547 F would add + 3 pcm/*F to the predicted value, making it -0.8 pcm/*F. Therefore, the acceptance criterion was met.
The inspectors stated that calculations or measurements to determine the difference between predicted and measured values should be ad-justed to and compared at the same temperature. The licensee had not done this but agreed it should be done in the future.
6.
Control Rod Worth Measurents i ' The inspector reviewed information relating to Cycle 7 determination of control Rod Worths as described in procedure WMTP2 4.2, Rev. O, April 8, 1980, " Control Bank A worth and Endpoint measurement, and Temperature Coefficient Measurement with Bank A inserted" procedure WMTP2 4.3, Rev. O, April 8, 1980, and Attachment A to WMTP 2 4.3, Rev. O, April 8, 1980.
The rod worth measurements met the review criteria stated in Attachment A to WMTP2 4.3, Rev. O, which was specified by a letter dated October 12, 1978, from Mr. A. Schwencer (NRC) to Mr. Sol Burstein.
-3- . ._ .
_- __ - _ ' . . V No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
7.
Target Axial Flux Difference Calculation The inspector reviewed information relating to Cycle 7 target Axial Flux Difference Calculation as described in Procedure WMTP 9.15, Rev. O, July 22, 1977, " Target Flux Difference Determination". The inspector noted that the axial flux difference of + 1.5 was within the target band of +6% to -9% as required by Technical Specifications.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
8.
Reactivity Anomaly Determination The inspector reviewed information relating to Cycle 7 determination of reactivity anomaly. The Technical Specifications require that the reactivity anomaly be less than 1% of reactivity.
The inspector noted that the computer code (FOLLOW) was used to infer the measured boron concentration to critical boron concentra-tion at ARO (all rods out) and equilibrium xenon condition, and the inferred boron concentration values were compared with the Westinghouse predicted values. The inspector noted that the differ-ences between the Westinghouse and the inferred values were within 1% of reactivity.
The inspector concluded that the determination of reactivity anomaly satisfied Technical Specification requirements.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
9.
Rod Drop Time Test The inspector reviewed 'information relating to Cycle 7 determination of rod drop time test. The inspector noted that the Technical Specifications required that the rod drop time be no greater than 1.81.8 sectons from the loss of stationary gripper coil voltage to the dashpot entry. The inspectors noted that the rod drop times in the hot full flow condition met the Technical Specification Criteria.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
10.
Exit Interview , The inspectors met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on May 29, 1980. The inspec-tors summarized the purpose and the scope of the inspection and the findings.
-4-t . a.m }}