ML17174A047
| ML17174A047 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden  |
| Issue date: | 09/25/1979 |
| From: | Janacek R COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| To: | Ziemann D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17174A048 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910050394 | |
| Download: ML17174A047 (8) | |
Text
...... *. -
,,.. :.,... A I'.;..~
'Commonweat.Adison* *** *. *r-: ':**' * **
One First National*~. Chicago, Illinois.;.,.....
Address Reply to: Post Office Box 76i ' ** '* '*
Chicago, Illinois 60690
~.
Mr. D. L. Ziemann, Chief Operating Reactors -
Branch: 2 Division of Operating Reactors September 25; 1979 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission W~shington, DC 20555 *
Subject:
Dresden Station Unit 2 Summary Startup Test Report for Reload 4 (Cycle 7)
NRC Docket. No:. 5.0-:-237
Dear Mr. Ziemann:
Enclosed for your information and use is the Dre.sden Unit 2, Reload 4, Cycle 7 Startup Tes.t ReporL. This report is in accordance with p~evious !equests froci.the NRC.Staff.
Please address any questions you may have concerning this matter to this of~ice~
One (1)
~igned original ~nd thirty-nin~* (39) copies of this letter and enclosure* are provided for y0ur use.
RFJ:mae enclosure Very trul1 youcs,
'Robert F.
e Nuclear ~icensing Admini~trator Boiling Water: Reactors 7 910050 3~~
_p
- ~.
PURPOSE DRESDEN UNIT 2 STARTUP TEST NO. 1
- CORE LOADING VERIFICATION:
The p*urpose of this test is to visually verify that the. core is
.loaded as intended.
CRITERIA The as-loaded core must coriforui with the referenced core upon which the licensing analysis was performed. *At least one indef.endent person must *e.ither pari,.ti.cipate *in p*erforming the verif *c*ation or rev.iew a videotape of the* verification prior to a scartup.
any discrepancies discovered in.the.loading will be promptly.corrected and the affected*
areas re-verified to be properly loaded prior to startup.
Conformance to the reference loading will be demonstrated by a permanent core serial number map and documented by the signatures of the
- verifiers.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The Cycle 7 core verification consisted of a core height check per-formed by the fuel handlers and two videotaped passes over the core by nuclear engineering personnel during which assembly orientation and
- location were verified.
Two independent CECo. auditors participated in the verification of the reactor core.
No discrepancies were discovered.
LfDI.
7 910050
,:.:.Ill.;
,.~...
t
~
PURPOSE DRESDEN UNIT 2 STARTUP TEST NO. 2 CONTROL ROD OPERABILITY AND SUBCRITICAL CHECK The purpose of this test is to assure that no. gross lar.ge local reac ti-
- vity irregularities exist and that all control rods are functioning properly.
CRITERIA
- 1)
Each. control rod will be withdrawn after the four fuel bundles surrounding the given control rod are loaded.
This will in-
. sure that the mobility of the 'control rod is not impaired.*
- 2)
After the core is fully loaded, each control will be withdraw'n and inserted one at a time to assure that criticality will not occur due to the withdrawal of a single rod.
Nuclear instru-mentation will be monitored during the movement of each control.
rod to verify subcriticality.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Each control rod was withdraw:n after the four fuel bundles surround-ing the given con.trol rod were loaded.
Control rod mobility was assured.
After the core was loaded, each control rod was withdrawn and in-serted one at a time.
The Source Range Monitors were m<>nitored during t~e movement* of each rod and subcriticality was verified.
ti: 0 s:-
7 e1oosc. :C* *.~
DRESDEN UNIT 2 STARTUP TEST NO. 3 TIP SYSTEM SYMMETRY, REPR~DUCIBILITY, AND TOTAL UNCERTAINTY PURPOSE The primary purpose of this test is to determine the Transversing In.:...core Probe (TIP} system total uncertainty (using.a detailed statisti-cal analysis) which consists of geometric and random noise components.
A gross TIP symmetry check,.whic.h involves comparing in-
~egrated s~m~etrical* TIP strin~ read~ngs is ~lso performed.
-CRITERIA
- 1)
TIP Uncertainty-Gross.Check The maximum deviatio.n between symmetrically located TIP pairs of LPRM strings should o.e less than 25%.
- 2)
Total TIP Uncertainty-Statistical Check The TIP geometric-random noise.uncertainty obtained by averaging the uncertainties for all data sets must be less than 9%.
NOTE:
A minimum of two and up to six data sets may be used to meet RESUL'l'S the above criteria. If either* criterion is not met and the cal-culations have been rechecked, the calibration of* the TIP system (e.g. axial alignment) shall be checked. For the statistical check.; it;may be ~ece~sary to omit daia ~airs fr6m the analysis if exac.t octant symmetry is not atta.inable 'in fu~l loading or control rod patt~rns.
In such *cases, offline code predictions of ~xposure or cdntrol rod indticed asy~metry may prove useful in explaining the uncertainty.
Two complete sets of data required for evaluating TIP uncertainty were obtained during the D2 BOC7 Startup Testing Program.
Data was ob~
tained at steady state power levels greater than 75% of rated power.
The results for each method of analysis are summarized below.
'i 910050 Lf.;~:
e*
2....
RESULTS (Continued)
_machine normalized, full power adjusted TIP readings
~ere 6btained. and averaged for each symm~tric TIP pair.
The percent deviation between each symmetribal TIP paii and their ave~a~e was calculated and is ~iven in Table 3.1.
The average deviati6n. over all symmetric TIP pairs was 8.29% with a maximum.deviation of 19.99%
(occurring* iii' a TIP pair near the periphery).
The worst-case pair *is less than the 25% criterion on maximum devia-tion.
- 2) Total TIP Uncert~i~ty (Statisti6al Check}
The to~~l TI*P uncertainty was calculated using the method recommended by General Electric.
Individual nodal values of SASE (from ~he process co~puter) in the upper left-hand quadrant of t~e core were divided by their symm!tric c-0unterpart and used to find an average ratio R.
This R w~s then used to calculate the random noise-geometric uncertainty.
The first data set gave a value for random noise-geometric TIP Uncertainty.of 7. 03% ( 5-15-79) and the second of 7.43% (6-21-79).
This yields an average of 7.23%
which is less than the 9% *criterion..
fj
- e.
DRESDEN UNIT 2 Startup Test No. 4 Initial Criticality Comparison
.PURPOSE The purpose of this procedure is to perform a 'critical eigenvalue
- comparison.
This is done by comparing the predicted critical control rod pattern to the actual critical control rod pattern and accollllting for period and temperature coefficient corrections.
CRITERIA The actual cold critical.rod pattern should be within 1%AK of the predicted control rod pattern..If the difference is greater than +/- 1%
~K, General Electric and Commonwealth Edison Company core management engineer~ will be promptly contacted to investigate the anomaly.
RESULTS The Unit 2 initial critical occurred on May 1, 1979 at 7:15 p.m.
0 on the B sequence.
The moderator temperature was 148 F and the period was 68 seconds.
The General Electric predictions and rod wo.rths were performed using the PANACEA code, which assumed a 68°F moderator.
When corrected for temperature and period, the actual critical was
- within 1%AK of the predicted critical.
Table 4-1 summarizes the results.
7 910050. ir*'~
)
TIP SYMMETRY - GROSS CHECK Table 3.. 1 TIP Pair
% Deviation on 5-15-79
% Deviation on 6-21-79 *-
1 2.23 19.39
- 2 12.14.
- 12. 3 3
19.69 19.99 4
. 3.47 1.67 5
- 15. 4 7 12.15 6
2.80
- l. 71 7
2.63 6.05 8
4.09 4.33
.9 3.57 4.89 10 5.19 10.30 11 7.10 9.66 12
.1.. 87 3.60 13
.3.43 1.64 14 9.12 10.81 15
- 1. 61 4.47 16
- 5. 76.
2.58 I
17
- 6. 34 8.26.
18 15.14 15.43 Average:
- 6. 76
. 8. 29 SYMMETRIC,TIP LOCATIONS TI!' PAIR LPRM TIP PAIR LPRM 08-17 1
16-09 10 24-33 32-25 08-2*5 24-41 2
24-09 11 40-25
.{
08-33
. 24-49 3
32-09 12 48-25 00..,.41 24-57 4
40-09 13 56-25 08-49 32-41 5
48-09 14 40-33 16-25 32-49 6
24-17 15 48-33 16-33 32-57 7
32-17
, 16
.56-33 8
. 16-41 40-17 17 40-49 48-41 9
16-49 48-17*
40-57.
18 56-41
~*
(~
TABLE 4-1
- CRITICAL EIGENVALUE CALCULATIONS Keff with all rods in p inserted by Group
- 1 rods p inserted by Group 2 rods withdrawn at criticality Panacea Keff A..t Critical Rod Pattern at btj Temperature Correction between 6 ff F. and 15 3° MTC of -3.3 x 10-5 AK F
K Panacea Keff at critical Rod Pattern-corrected for Temp.erature Keff at time of Critical with 00 period Period correction for 68 sec period Actual Keff with 68 sec period Difference (Panacea Keff - Actual Keff)
K
.9475
.0364 AKeff
.0198 AKeff IL 003~
- 00264AK.
IL 001061 1.000
+.00076AK IL000761
- 0003tiK
.03%AK Data Sources Used in Calculations Data Source II 1 Ill fli 112
- 3 111.
G"E 1 e t t e r, A. F. D e v i t a t o T.
J. R a u s c h d a t e d M a y 2 1, 1 9 7 9.
- 112.
Act u a 1 Moderator Temp. Coe ff. de term in e d B 0 C 6 on site.
113.
fJ vs. T tables.