IR 05000301/1981016
| ML20010F349 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 08/24/1981 |
| From: | Hopkins J, Jackiw I, Robinson D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20010F347 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-301-81-16, NUDOCS 8109100069 | |
| Download: ML20010F349 (5) | |
Text
i
.
.,.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT PIGION III Report No. 50-301/81-16 Docket No. 50-301 License No. DPR-27-Licensee:- Wisconsin Electric Power Company 131 West Michigan-Milwaukee, WI 53203 Facility Name: Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit 2 Inspection At: Point Beach Site, Two Creeks, WI Inspection Co1 ducted: August 4-5, 1981
\\.tA. 3AM
%
[-k-N t
Inspectors:
D. L. Robi on e
'
a
,-
ohns
[- M8/
J.
.
Approved By:
.' J cting Chiei
["
D
.
st gram Secticn t
Inspection Summary Inspection on August 4-5, 1981 (Report No. 50-301/81-16)
Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection cf Cycle 8 scram time tests; reactor thermocouple /RTD cross calibration; incore/excore calibrations; control rod worth measurements; reactor shutdown margin determinatiu., isothermal temperature coefficient measurement; power cnafficient >f reactivity measurement; core thermal power evaluation; core powe-distribution limits; target axial flux difference calculation; determination of reactivity anomalies. The inspection involved a tott,1 of 28 inspector-hours onsite by two NRC inspectors including 0 inspector-hours onsite during off-shifts.
Results: No items of noncomp]l.ance or deviations were identified.
l i
f*109100069 810828
-
.
{DR-ADOCK 05000301 E
..
_
. *
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- G. A. Reed, Manager, Nuclear Operations
- J. J. Zach, Superintendent, Technical Services
- P. N. Kurtz, Nuclear Plant Engineer
- J. G. Schweitzer, In-Service Inspection Engineer
- F. A. Zeman, Of fice Supervisor
- W. G. Guldemond, USNRC Senior Resident Inspector
- R. L. Hague, USNRC Resident Inspector
- Denotes those present during the exit intervieu.
2.
Verification of Conduct of Startup Physics Tests
,
The inspectors reviewed the Cycle 8 startup physics tests for Unit 2 and verified that the licensee conducted the following:
a.
Rod Drive and Rod Position Indication Checks b.
Reactor Thermocouple /RTD Cross Calibration c.
Core Power Distribution Limits d.
Incore/Excore Calibration e.
Core Thermal Power Evaluation f.
Determination of Reactor Shutdown Margin g.
Isothermal Temperature Coefficient h.
Power Coefficient of Reactivity Mcasurement i.
Control Rod Worth Measurement j.
Target Axial Flux Difference CalcuL a
k.
Determination of Reactivity Anor: lies 3.
Control Rod Drive and Position Indication Checks The inspectors reviewed the results of Test Procedure WMTP 9.1, Revision 7, " Rod Control Mechanism Timing, Rod Drive, and Rod Position Calibration" and concluded that all rod drop times satisfied the acceptance cr'.teria of 1.8 seconds or less required by the Technical Specifications.
The inspectors verified that rod drive and rod positica indication checks were performed at that time.
No items of noncony,11ance or deviations were identified.
4.
Reactor Thermocouple /RTD Cross Calibration The inspectors revieted information related to reectar thermocouple /
RTD cross caltbration for Unit 2 and verified that the incore thermo-couples and reactor coolant RTD's were properly calibrated.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
-2-w
-
-
-.
.
.~
.
.
.
.
-
_
..
~
?.
'
'
-
..
&
a
-
t
~
- 5.
Incore/Excore Detector Calibration
'The: inspectors ' reviewed information related to incore/excore-detector-
- ctlibration as described in test-Procedure WNTP 9.2,' Revision'9,
" Power Range Calibration, Quarterly Axial.0ffset Test," for Unit 2 conducted on May 24, 1981. The inspectors reviewed the graphs of incore axial offset versus excore axial ' offsets for thel four power range channels and noted'that the calibration. currents were properly'
obtained for the upper and the lower'excore detectors. The inspectors Ldetermined 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.
6.
Target Axial flux Difference' Calculations
'
.The inspectors 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 inspectors examined snrveillance 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 dif-ference quarterly and to update target differences monthly.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
7.
Control Rod Worth Measurement I
The inspectors reviewed test Procedures WMTP 9.5.A, Revision 4,
" Control Rod Worth, Boron Worth, and Endpoint Measurement," and
WMTP 2.4.3, Revision 0, " Rod Worth Measurements by Swap Method," for Cycle 8 determination of control rod worths. The reactivity of the reference bank (Bank A) was measured using the boration/ dilution j
technique and'the reactivity worth of the remaining banks was inferred
[
using. rod swap reactivity comparisons to the reference bank. The inspectors noted that the worth of the reference bank as measured by_
the, reactivity computer was more than 15% greater than the predicted worth. The licensee stated trat this was apparently due to an ex-L cessive dilution rate during ;he test'.
When this measured worth was i,
used to infer the reactivity worth'of the other backs, the acceptance criteria was met, but not the review criteria. As a result, the licensee decided to regard the reactivity computer measurement as erronous and inferred the worth of the reterence bank from the boron endpoint measurements and the design boron worth. Using the inferred
~
worth for Bank A, all acceptance and review criteria were then
-
-
L satisfied y
,
l The inspectors discussed the validity of the~ test results with NRC l
headquarters personnel and concluded that the control rod worth-
,
measurements' for Cycle 8, as performed, were acceptable despite
-3-I
-
_
_
. - _
-
- ,:
..
.
.
concern over the methods employed.. The inspectors discussed the performance.of the. physics, test and their concerns with the licensee.
- at the1 conclusion-of the' inspection.
No' items of noncompliance'or deviations were identified.
8.
Determination of Shutdown Margin
'The inspectors reviewed information relating to an analytical determination of Cycle 8 shutdown margin at beginning of life-(BOL)
.
and end of life (EOL).
.
Since *c 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.
9.
Isothermal Temperature Coefficient The inspectors reviewed information related to the Cycle 8 determina-tion of isothermal temperature coefficient as described ~in test Procedure WMTP 9.6, Revision 4, " Hot Zero Power Temperature Coefficient Measurement," for Unit 2 conducted on May 20, 1931. The. average isothermal temperature coefficient measured at 523* F and all rods out (AR0) condition was - 4.7 pcm/ F and the Westinghouse predicted value was - 3.2 pcm/*F. The inspectors noted that there are no technical specification requirements on either isothermal. temperature ( sef-ficient or moderator temperature coefficient.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
10.
Power Coefficient of Reactivity The inspectors reviewed information related to the Cycle 8 d$termina-tion of power coefficient of reactivity as de:cribed in test Procedures WMTP 9.7, Revision 4, " Power Coefficient Measurement," for Unit 2'
conducted on May 28, 1981. The inspectors concluded that the procedure does not provide cufficient technical instructice to perform the test properly. The power coefficient was measured first without rod move-ment and then with rori movement, matching Teve to ref. The first technique produced measurements within 10% of the predicted value while the_second technique gave results within:21% of design..The second technique introduced additional errors due to xenon. swings and the uncertainty associated with rod worths.
The inspectors discussed the adequacy of the test procedure with the licensee at the conclusion
,.
of the inspection. The licensee. acknowledged the inspector's concerns.
The inspectors also noted that Technical Specifice* ions'do not require-the licensee to perform a power coefficient measurement.
,
'
No items of nonccrpliance or deviations were identified.
,
~
-4-
%-
e _
,,._,._._,;.__.,_
cr
-
W
A
. *'
,
..,
-
>
. n
Lp 111. Core Power' Distribution' Limits L
~
The. inspectors examined the results of several. full core maps taken ~
at full' power sin'ce the Cycle 8 startup and concluded that all prc-
!
requisites _were met, the onsite computer was using input ~ values from
<
the actual plant' conditions, all thermal margins satisfied Technical'
'
d.
. Specification requirements, and the calculated values _byJthe computerr were within the acceptance crite'ria established by the licencee.
r-
,
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
L 12.
Core ~ Thermal Power Evaluation
'
-
The inspectors reviewed information related to the evaluation of core
,
l thermal power as described in operating Procedure REI 1.0, Revision 5, L<
'" Power Level Determination." The-inspectors noted that core thermal
. power as calculated by the onsite computer did not compare well with l
'
l-the indicated power level. The licensee stated that the observed discrepancy was due in large part to errors introduced in the measure-l ment of feedwater flow. New leading edge flow meters are to be installed in the spring, but until then, core thermal power will be established onaT comparative to 100% AT.
The inspectors concluded
thet this approach would be satisfactory as long as the indicated power
"
H level on the nuclear instrumentation was always greater than the
'
comparative.
No ite.ns of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
.
.
13.
Determination of Reactivity Anomalies s
The insp.tetors reviewed information relating to Cycle 8 determination of reactivity anomaly. The Technical Specifications require that a s
reactivity anomaly greater than or equal to 1% of reactivity be.a-reportable occurreace.
The inspectors noted that the cceputer code (FOLLOW) was.used to udjust the measured boron concentration to critical boron concentra-tion at ARO and equilibrium xenon condition, and the adjuscad boron concentration values were compared with the Westinghouse predicted
'
values. The Westinghouse critical boron concentration values were slightly higher, and the differences'between the Westinghouse and the adjusted values were within 1% of reactivity.
The inspectors concluded that the determination of reactivity -anomaly I
satisfied Technical Specification requriements on reportable occur-
'
rences.
r No items of noncompliance or deviations were 1,dentified.
14. Exit Interview The inspectors met with licensee representatives (denotad in Paragraph 1)
~
i j
at the conclusion of the inspection on August 5, 1981. The inspectors l.
summarized'the purpose, scope,._and findings of the inspection.
.
,.
N L-5-
. '
.
s V
&
.
,
'
m
.
. - -.
-.
-
-
- -
-