IR 05000305/1985008

Insp Rept 50-305/85-08 on 850513-17.No Noncompliance or Deviation Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Core Power Distribution Limits,Target Axial Flux Difference,Isothermal Temp Coefficient & Control Rod Worth Measurements

ML20126B911
Person / Time
Site:	Kewaunee
Issue date:	06/06/1985
From:	Harrison J, Ring M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20126B875	List: IR 05000305/1985008 ML20126B872
References
50-305-85-08, 50-305-85-8, NUDOCS 8506140246
Download: ML20126B911 (5)

Text

.

.

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION III

Report No. 50-305/85008(DRS)

Docket No. 50-305 License No. DPR-43 Licensee: -Wisconsin Public Service Corporation Post Office Box 1200 Green Bay, WI 54304 Facility Name: Kewaunee Inspection At: Kewaunee, WI Inspection Conducted: May 13-17, 1985 Inspector: M.A. Ring) s/h/h6 3

, Dat'e /

,g-Approved By: J J. Harrison, Chief Engineering Branch bh Date Inspection Summary Inspection on May 13-17, 1985 (Report No. 50-305/85008(DRS))

Areas Inspected: Routine, announced inspection tc review licensee procedures and results in the areas of core power distribution limits, target axial flux difference, isothermal temperature coefficient, control rod worth measurements and core thermal power. The inspection involved 39 inspector-hours onsite including 4 inspector-hours onsite during offshifts.

, Results: No items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie t

!

'

f

\

PDR

.

.

DETAILS Persons Contacted

• C. Steinhardt, Plant Manager

• K. Evers, Assistant Manager, Plant Operations

• C. Schrock, Corporate Licensing

• D. Ropson, Corporate Licensing

• R. Pulec, Plant Technical Supervisor

• D. Berg, Superintendent, Plant Quality Control M. Kwitek, Reactor Supervisor M. Marchi, Assistant Manager, Plant Technical Services P. Lindberg, Technical Projects Engineer D. Lohman, Reactor Engineer Additional station technical and administrative pe.rsonnel were contacted by the inspector during the course of the inspectio * Denotes those personnel present at the exit intervie . Core Power Distribution Limits and Target Axial Flux Difference The inspection reviewed licensee procedures and results to determine that the plant was being operated within ifcensed power distribution limits, that adequate methods for determining target axial flux difference were implemented, that Technical Specifications were met and that results were within prescribed ifmit The inspector utilized the following procedures during the review:

Reactor Engineering Procedure RE-1, " Flux Mapping at Power,"

Revision C, dated September 11, 198 *

Reactor Engineering Procedure RE-12, " Flux Map Summary," Revision A, dated November 6, 1984, and performed April 30, 198 '* Surveillance Procedure SP48-132, " Hot Channel Factor Determination,"

Revision G, dated January 31, 1985, and performed May 14, 198 * Surveillance Procedure SP48-046, " Target Band Determination,"

Revision H, dated April 9, 1985, and performed May 14, 198 * Reactor Test Procedure RT-2, " Low Power Physics Test," Revision 1, dated May 1, 1984, and performed April 9, 198 With regard to RT-2, " Low Power Physics Test," the results evaluation package contained a description of circumstances surrounding an unsuccessful performance of the Hot Zero Power Flux Map and a safety evaluation for not performing a flux map at 25% power and delaying that performance until 40% power. This situation was discussed with the Core Performance Branch of NRR who requested the licensee to provide a complete description of these events in the 45-day Startup Repor .

s

.

%

The licensee agreed to do so arid this issue will be examined by NRR upon receipt of the:Startup Repor f x No items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie ., Isothermal Temperature Coefficient The i spector reviewed licenses procedures and results to determine that prerequisites, plant conditions and precautions for measurement of Isothermal Temperature Coefficient'were met, that results obtained were within FSAR and Techn'. cal Specification limits and that any discrep3ncies were properly evaluated. The inspecthe utilized the following= procedures during the review: _'

• Reactor Test Procedure RT-4, " Isothermal Temperature Coefficient Measurement," Revision D, dated February 26, 1982, and performed

April 9, 198 ,

-

-

• Reactor Test Procedure RT-2, " Low Power Physics Test," Revision 1, dated May 1, 1984, and performed April 9, 198 " Reload Safety Evaluation Kewaunee Cycle XI," dated December 198 '

n No items of. noncompliance,or deviations were identifie . Core Thermal Power The inspector reviewed 1icensee procedures and results to verify that the calculation of core thermal power 'is technically correct and that results indicate reactor power within prescribed limits. The inspector utilized the following procedures during the review:

~

• Reactor Test Procedure RT-6, " Power Escalation Tests," dated September 18, 198 *

Reactor Engineering Procedure RE-11, " Calorimetric Calculations,"

Revision B, dated July 17, 198 * Surveillance Procedure SP 87-125, " Shift Instrument Channel Checks-0perating," Revision AD, dated May 3, 198 In addition, the inspector reviewed several performances of calorimetric calculations performed each shift per SP 87-12 No items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie ' Control Rod Worth Measurements The inspector reviewed licensee procedures and results to verify that prerequisites, precautions and plant conditions were met, that values obtained were within acceptance criteria and consistent with Technical

. . _ . . _ . _ _ . .. . . _ ._ .

i

r

<

Specifications, and that any discrepancies were properly evaluate The inspector utilized the following procedures during the review:

Reactor Test Procedure RT-2, " Low Power Physics," Revision 1,

. dated May 1, 1984, and performed April 9, 198 l

• '

~ Reactor Test Procedure RT5.1, " Control Rod Worth Using Rod Swap,"

Revision D, dated December 11, 1984, and performed April 9, 198 *- Reactor Test Procedure RTS, " Control Rod Worth, Boron Worth and Endpoint Measurement," Revision C, dated February 26, 1982, and performed April 9, 198 *

" Nuclear Fuel Management Core Physics Report-Cycle 11" dated '

~ March 14, 1985.

i

' With regard to RT5.1, " Control Rod Worth Using Rod Swap," the inspector noted the following problems:

,

~(1) Step 4.1 required sampling for boron concentration at 15 minute intervals yet only 3 of 8 samples were recorded at 15 minute. intervals. The remainder were recorded at 30 minute intervals. The intent of the procedure for this test was to maintain a relatively constant boron concentration  ;

and'the 30 minute sample frequency was adequate for.this-purpose. This issue is viewed as an isolated occurrence with no safety significance and the inspector has no further concern

in this are (2) Five of the six data sheets for RT5.1 were dated April 29, 1985, which was the date of transcription of the data versus the-date of performance which was April 9, 1985. In Step 4.3

'

(a general step describing the rod swap method) the wording was-incorrect for the intended actions. . Subsequent action steps were worded correctly. The computer printout labeled the all-rods-out (ARO) position as 226 steps versus the test procedure which recorded ARO as 228 steps. The actual rod position was 228 steps and the computer software was in erro The above three difficulties had no technical significance-yet constitute areas where procedure and/or practice should be improved. The Reactor Supervisor noted that a procedure revision was already planned and these areas would be addresse The inspector has no further concerns in this area.

' With regard to RT-5, " Control Rod Worth, Boron Worth and Endpoint Measurement," the inspector noted the following problems:

'

(1) Similar data sheet dating as was observed in RT-5.1 was also observed in RT-5.

,

'(2): Step 5.6.b indicated reactivity traces should be marked to indicate initial and final boron concentrations, however,

'

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

..

..

.

only 1 of 5 traces was marked with the final concentratio The concentrations were recorded on the teble in the test procedure so there was no technical significance to not recording them on the trace (3) Step 12f indicated boron worth should be calculated and entered in the remarks, however, no worth was entered. This value is not used in the comparison to acceptance c.*iteria and hence has little technical significanc The above three items were judged by the inspector to hava minimal technical significance yet were indicative of areas in which the licensee's performance could be improved. As discussed in paragraph a. above, the Reactor Supervisor agreed to review these areas for program improvemen No items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie . Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives denoted in Paragraph 1 at the conclusion of the inspection on May 17, 1985. The inspector summarized the scope of the inspection and the findings. The inspector also discussed the likely informational content of the inspection report with regard to documents or processes reviewed by the inspector during the inspection. The licensee did not identify any such documents /

processes as proprietary.

!

._