ML18114A146

Forwards Startup Physics Testing Summary for Cycle 2

ML18114A146
Person / Time
Site:	Saint Lucie
Issue date:	08/07/1978
From:	Robert E. Uhrig Florida Power & Light Co
To:	Reid R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
Download: ML18114A146 (35)

Text

Qog fis(y~

'0 QEGULATORY INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (RIDS)

DISTRIBUTION FOR INCOMING MATERIAL 50-335 REC:

REID R W

NRC ORG:

UHRIG R E

FL PWR

8. LIGf<T DOCDATE: 08/07/78 DATE RCVD: 08/15/78 DOCTYPE:

LFTTER NOTARIZED:

NO COPIES RECEIVED

SUBJECT:

LTR 3 ENCL 3 FORWARDING CYCLE 2 FINAL Pl-IYSIC TESTING

SUMMARY

OF SUBJECT FACILITY.

PLANT NAME: ST LUCIE ei REVIEWER INITIAL:

XJM DISTRIBUTOR INITIAL:

DISTRIBUTION OF TIGRIS MATERIAL IS AS FOLLOWS GENERAL DISTRIBUTION FOR AFTER ISSUANCE OF OPERATING LICENSE.

(DISTRIBUTION CODE AOOi)

FOR ACTION:

'NTERNAL:

EXTERNAL:

BR CHIEF ORB04 BC++W/7 ENCL REG FILE"~4~lJ/ENCL Ewe I-lANAUER~4~W/ENCL AD FOR SYS 0 PROJ~H~W/ENCL REACTOR SAFETY BR4~%W/ENCL EEB~~~W/ENCL J.

LPDR S FT PIERCE, FL4H~W/ENCL TEfiVH~~W/ENCL NS IC~~~W/ENCL ACRS CAT B4HFW/16 ENCL NRC PDR4+W/ENCL OELD<+LTR ONLY CORE PERFORMANCE BR<<W/ENCL ENGINEERING BR~>W/ENCL PLANT SYSTEMS BR<%W/ENCL EFFLUENT TREAT SYS>>W/ENCL RIJ Q,

~/~~M Dl TRIBUTION:

LTR 40 ENCL 39 S IZE: iP+26P QHf%% 38%0HHf 4 k%%%%%% 5 %%6 k%%%%%%0t %%%%%%

CONTROL NBR:

78219 079 A/l.

END ca+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

t 1

I l

h'I

yQ'i Ilg h(.,~

FLORIDAPOWER & LIGHTCOMPANY August 7, 1978 L-78-26+

,I Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attenti on:

Mr.

R.

W. Rei d, Chi ef Operating Reactors Branch 84 Division of Operating Reactors U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Coomission Washington, D. C.

20555 E

Dear Mr. Reid:

e r

i'>>

n CA e,

ra>,~ ~ r q "i)

L4 r~

Re:

St. Lucie Unit 1

Docket No. 50-335 Cycle 2 Startup Physics Testin Summar The startup physics testing summary for St. Lucie Unit 1, Cycle 2 is attached for your information.

It is a final report and is intended to satisfy both the draft report and final report commitments referenced in Section 11.0 (Physics Startup Tests) of the Staff's May 26, 1978 Safety Evaluation supporting Amendment 27 to Operating License DPR-67.

Very ours

~

Robert E. Uhrig Vice President REU/MAS/cpc Attachment cc:

Mr. James P. O'Reilly, Region II tIL7ZMTii;l'IIi(,';"i! i (';:It: fP7, 7821P007p PEOPLE... SERVING PEOPLE

(( (Q

l II 1

N k

FLORIDA POMER

& I.IGHT COHPANY ST.

LUCIE UNIT 1

CYCLE 2

STARTUP PHYSICS TESTING SUF&fARY

AUTHOR:

C. A.

1 Reactor Engineering DATE REVIEWED:

J..R.

Tomonto hfanager of Nuclear Analysis DATE S'

7 APPROVED:

DATE 8 Z 78 R. K. Ryall Reactor Engineering Supervisor PSL

TABLE OF'CONTENTS

~Pa e Title 17 21 Introduction Core Reload Approach to Criticality Zero Power Physics Testing Power Ascension Testing Summary

LIST OF FIGURES Title X~ae Reactor Fuel Location XCRR vs. Dilution Time for Channel B

ICRR vs. Dilution Time for Channel D

Boron Concentration vs. Dilution Time Integral CEA Group 7 Worth Integral CEA Group 6 Worth 7

10 Integral CEA Group 5 Worth Xntegral CEA Group 4 Worth 13 Integral CEA Group Integral CEA Group 3 Worth 2 Worth l4 15 Integral CEA Group 1 Worth Power Distribution at 30% Power Power Distribution at 50% Power Power Distribution at 100% Powerlt'6 18 19 20

LIST OF TABLES Title

~Pa e

Fuel Types for Cycle 2

Dilution Rates 4

CEA Worth Summary l

INTRODUCTION The intent of this report is to satisfy the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's request for a summary of the St. Lucie Unit 1, Cycle 2 Startup Physics Testing results.

The purpose of the Startup Physics Testing Program is to provide verification of selected design physics parameters before substantial increases in power are made.

The major phases of this program are the core reload, approach to criticality, zero power physics testing, and power ascension testing.

1

Page 2

CORE RELOAD:

The cycle 2 core contains five uniquely enriched fuel types as listed, in Table 1 below.

TABLE 1 Puel Tyue A

B C

D rDrr 9

80 68 40 20 1.93 2.33 2'2

3. 03 2.73 The cycle 2 loading pattern is given in Pigure 1.

The assembly serial number and full length control eleme'nt assembly (CEA) present (if applicable) are given for each core location'.

Pollowing the fuel shuffle and prior to the approach to criti-cality, the CEA performance tests were executed.

The objective of these tests was to measure'ravel time from tl>e fully with-drawn position to the 90% inserted position as well as verify correct operation of the CEA position'indication system.

The average CEA drop time was found to be 2.25 seconds.

The maximum and minimum drop times were 2.41 and 2.06 seconds respectively.

All CEA drop times met the acceptance criteria of 'less than or equal to 3.0 seconds as required in Technical Specification 4.1.3.4.

During this testing, CEDM coil holding times were measured and found to be significantly less (by greater than 0.1 second) than the 0.4 second assumed in the CEA withdrawal transient analysis.

DATE 5-4-78 Florida Power 5 Light Company REACTOR FUEL LOCATION St. Lucie Plant Unit No. 1 Page 3

FXGURE 1

CYCLE 2 N

Y X

W V

T S

R P NML I(J HG F

E D,

C B

A C

2~

D034 D047 D002 D02 20 19 D013 D033 D101 55 005 D04 105 63 C001 800 69 806 8050 D018 D123 8007 800 3031 D108 65 8065 C030 8078 Dll 8018 C011 62 7

61 C029 8062 8008 8044 8076 8020 59 58 57 3071 C007 C106 C014 C201 C010 54 53 D037 8028 C015 56'063 D04 D10 D017 60 8032 C02 D009 68 8079 8077 D112 52 D021 16

'l6 14 13 12 11 10 98 7

D004 D040 D032 D031 D038 8004 D106 C018 2

8035 3068 40 8017 D116 S-l 72 8045 8042 31 D107 C026 25 C019 3069 51 8074 C022 8067 C205 3

8026 C009 8057 C102 30 8039 C005 24 C109 8049 C111 805 C107 8019 50 8037 C037 C206A060 C208 C040 4

44 43 C105 C210A061 039 A063 C207 38 37 8051 A055 C016 019 C017 A066 34 33 32 C104 C204 A064 035 A067 C211 29 28 8046 C033 C209 058 C212 C027 23 22 21 C113 49 8021 C101 8055 C115 3024 8016 C012 8033 48 004 8066 C031 42 41 C112 8075 8073 36 C008 801'1 D113 71 C203 3022 3014 27 C021 8034 C03 20 19 D015 D117 D030 3015 35 DOZ4 3048 DOZ5 8072

'26 D027 D110 D001 803 C020 8012 18 C114 17 8043 C116 025 C110 8030 C103 16 8002 C034 15 8070 D007 D048 D124 14 D03 8059 8023 C002 8010 67 D014 D102 6

D042 8013 C023 C202 013 C108 C006 13 12 C038 8027 8029 053 8047 8080 10

.9 8

8056 C025 3041 ill 8060 C028 5

70 4

D006 D118 8040 036 8005 D114 2

1 D039 D026 D044 D029 8052 C036 7

8058 D003 8009 8064 D10

~

ll 300 C003 D03 66 D10 D019 3

DOO D020 LEG ENO Assembly No.

CEA No

Page 4

APPROACH TO CRITICALITY:

The approach to criticality involved the dilution from a non-critical boron concentration of 1730 ppm to a critical boron concentration of 995 ppm.

Inverse count rate ratio plots were maintained during the dilution process and are provided in Figure 2 and Figure 3.

A plot of boron concentration versus dilution time is provided in Figure 4.

The following table delineates the dilution rates and range of boron concentrations for which these are applicable.

TABLE 2 Dilution Rate Initial Boron Concentration Final Boron Concentration Dilution Time 88 GPH 44 GPH 1730 1250 1250 995 4 Hrs.

20 Hin.

5 Hrs.

25 Hin.

CritiCality was achieved on Hay 26, 1978, at 22:43 hours with CEA group 7 at 54 inches wit~~drawn and a critical boron concentration of 995 ppm.

PGge 5

ST. LUCIE UNIT 1 BOC$

CYCLE 2 0.9 0.8

'H 0.7 Ctl 0.6 0.5 8

0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 e

~

~

I

~

I

~

~ i INVERSE COUNT RATE vs.

DILUTION TIME FIGURE 2

= WXDE RANGE LOG CHANNEL B I

~

'I

~

I I

I

~

l I

I

~

I L

~

1 e

~

~

~

I

~

~

I I

e

~

~

~

~

e i

~

l e

I d

e DilUt.'

I 1

In'ter-upt-ed-I I

~

e

~

I I

e Il7

~

e

~I

~

~

~

I

~

I

~

I I

e I

I I

I

~

I I

e I; ~

e

~

~

3, 4,

5 6

DILUTION TIME (Houys)

I

~

e

~

~

1

~

~

~

e i

I e

~

l l

~

~

e e 71 e

I

~

I I

10

Page.

6 ST. LUCIE UNIT 1

BOC, CXCLE 2

. INVERSE COUNT RATE vs.

DILUTION TIME

'FIGURE 3

$TlDE RA'NGE LOG CHANNEL D 0.9 0.

I

~

I 1

I

~

~

d d

~

I I

I t

1 I

I

~

s

~

I

~

d I

s

~

~

~

I s

s

~

~

I

~

1 1

~

I I

s I

~

I

~,'

I I

1

~

s

(

~

s i ~s

~

d s

I S

(

s H

AC o

0.6

- PC 5

0.5 Ol 0.4 M

0.3

>fi

~

~

r I

I 1

I I

~

1 I

s

~

~

I 1

s

~

I

~

I I

s '

I I

I

~

~

s I

I

~

~

s I

td

~

~

I

~,

~

I I

I I

I

~

I 21UEI n&r'r pted;,

1 s

~

I

~

s

~

I s

I I

s I

S I

I d

0.2 0.1 tl d

s d

~

I s

s 7

~

~

1 I

s S

I I

~

~

I t

~

I

~

~

~

I 1

~

I

~

I

~

~

s It

~

~

+

t 2

3, 4

5

'6 DILUTION TIME (Hours)

Page 7

ST.

LUCXE UNXT 1

BOC, CYCLE 2 BORON CONCENTRATXON VS.

DILUTXON TIME FIGURE 4 1900 1800 1700 1600 "i)+<

I=i.+ "

~f Ls+

0 q,"j T l

-j j t

l t

~

IQI, f ~.lf t

I

)fg'-

I I

~

I, I

t

'I

'I I

~ 4

-f"f '

t

~

I ll

.3+k.~

I 5~f,

-)-i+t-h

~.-j f =i-f...fj,

!.~f ff.L L.i

.'Ll

--'t

~

I

=t I

~

~

f

~

I

~

~

J 4

t J,I. ).

~ t j I 1500 1400 I

1300 1200 1100 1000 900 800

~

If

..s.. f

~

't Ig t-<-t-

j. t-I-.(

r

-ff+

f j'-

t, j

h

-'-i"

~

I I

~

II Q

~

p I-

'Q f

I

~

~

~

.t t

f.

,~V f

L. I f..L t j

J-i-f-f-I I

t Li

~

~

i

~

tg t'ff

~ l

~

- t-g+ -j~

~- L-I-f'!0" t f f

II I

I I r f-j

~.j.l.",

.4 f'. ~}..

. ~

~-

- ~

I

~

l, 0,

-ff ~-I-r

>> ~ 3 Il on...

upted 0

.:Q..; 00

~-

-)-'- -r I

t fl I

,.gf f.t Dllutl Inter[

j

~

4 I

-'-5 v<

- ~ i ~

0-0

'3 'j+

. Llg..

0~..'6,

~j.-j..

~

I I

I

~ *

~ t

= t r-I

-I J

=; 8-~-'0 I !

t t

~

I 0'

.f- -I<<-t I

J I

+r

+~-'-

I. j..I 700

~<<

I t

4 -f I

-)+

f r-f,,~.lf.~

v f

.3+l

+ -4.

-)-f+

1

~

1 2

4 5

6 7

8 9

10 DILUTION TIME (HOURS)

l I: '

~

I

Page 8

ZERO POLKR PHYSICS TESTING:

The major tests in this phase of the startup testing program con-sist, of the following:

1.

Reactivity Computer Checkout 2.

CEA Latch Verification'.

Unrodded Critical Boron Concentration 4.

Moderator Temperature Coefficient Measurement 5.

Rod Morth Measurements During the performance of the. reactivity computer checkout, an appropriate range of flux was selected for use* throughout the remainder of the zero power physics,.testing program.

A compar-ison of measured reactivity insertion for a given period with the appropx'iate design reactivity value was also performed with good results.

Following the successful completion of the CEA latch verification for groups 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 and B a symmetry check test was performed on CEA group A.

The acceptance 'criterion for this test states that the reactivity measured for each of group A's dual CEA's shall be within +2.5C of the average reactivity measured for all of the group of A duals.

This criterion was satisfied.

The unrodded critical boron concentration was aetermined to be 1024 ppm.

This was well within the acceptance criteria of +100 ppm oi the. predicted unrodded critical boron concentration of 1004 ppm.

The ARO, HZP moderator temperature coefficient was measured to be +.41

~ 10 " Ak/k/oF.

This met the Technical Specification requirement that the MTC shall be less positive than 0.5 ~10 A /k/oF.

A comparison of the measured and design CEA group reactivity worths is provided in Table 3.

A plot of integral rod worth as a function of rod position for each CEA group is provided in Figure 5 through Figure'll.

The following acceptance criteria for rod worth measure-ments revere met:

1.

The measured value of each group CEA worth is within +15% or 0.1%Ap of the design CEA woxths, whichever is greater.

2.

The total worth for all the CEA groups measured is within +10% of the total design worth.

Page 9

TABLE 3 CEA WORTH SUM'fARY CEA GROUP TOTAL MEASURED WORTH

.691

%Ap

.430

.197 1.153

.320 1.184

.375 4.35

%hp DESIGN HORTH

.78

%Ap

.46

.19 1.28

.35 1.22

.37 4.65

%Ap PERCENT DIFFERENCE

-11.40

- 6.52 3.68 9.92 8.57 2.95 1.35 6.45

page 10 ST.

LUCIE UNIT 1 INTEGRAL CEA GROUP WORTH'OC,

HZP, CYCLE CEA GROUP e

FIGURE 5

.75

.70

.60 e

I e

i I

~

.50 a

a%4 ;40 e

~

I e

~

~

e I

I I

e e

I t

e e

I e 'I

~IJ.

ML.

i e

j e

I 30 I

I

~

~

IJ e

I I

I e

I I

I I

e I

I

~

I

.20 e

I I

e I

~

\\

e I

t I

e I

e e

e I ~

I I

~

e I

~

F 10 e

~

I I

I I

e I

I

~

I I

~ Ig I

I

~

I e

I 0

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 CEA WITHDRAWAL (INCHES)

J4~

0 Page 11.

ST.

LUCIE UNIT 1 INTEGRAL CEA GROUP WORTH

BOC, HZP, CYCLE 2

CRA GROUP 6

FIGURE 6,

.75

.70

.60

.50

.40 L

.30~..

~

I

.20

~

I I

~

.10 I

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 CEA WITHDRAWAL (INCHES)

Page 12 ST.

LUCIE UNIT 1

~ INTEGRAL CEA GROUP NORTH'OC,

HZP, CYCLE 2

CEA GROUP 5

FIGURE 7

.75

.70

.60

.50

.40 p

I I

I I

I foal 30

.20

.10 0

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130'40 CEA WITHDRAWAL (INCHES)

ST. LUCIE UNIT 1 INTEGRAL CEA GROUP WORTH

BOC, HZP, CYCLE 2

CEA GROUP 4

0 Page 13 FIGURE 8

1. 50 1.40

1. 30

1. 20 1.10 1.00 cM 90"

.50 8

.70 F4H

,.60 LL ~LL I

~

LLLI I

I

~

+C I

"if vi

.50

.40

.30

.20

.10 0

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 CEA WITHDRAWAL ( INCHES )

0 Page 14 ST.

LUCIE UNIT 1 INTEGRAL CEA GROUP WORTH',

BOC, HZP, CYCLE GEA GROUP FIGURE 9

.75

.70

.60

.50 I

C I

C

.30 H

.20

.10 C

0

. 10 20 30

.40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 CEA WITHDRAWAL (INCHES)

ST.

LUCXE UNIT 1 INTEGRAL CEA GROUP WORTH BOC HZP ~

CYCLE CEA GROUP 2

Page 15 FIGURE 10 N

1.50 1.40 1.30

1. 20 1.10 l

~

1.00 a

90

.R

.50 MLl I

I I

I e

I I~t l

..e '.L.~e I

I I

I I

I I

e I

I e

I

.60

.50

.40

.30

.20

.10 0

10 20 30 '0 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 CEA WITHDRAWAL ( INCHES )

Page 16 ST.

LUCIE UNIT 1 INTEGRAL CEA GROUP VORTH

BOC, HZP, CYCLE 2

CRA GROUP FIGURE 11

.75

.70

.60 I

I

~

s I

~s

~

s

.40

~

t

~

I I

~

I q 1+

t I

s

~

t

~

I LLEW J

I IM

.30 I b~

(

~

's s

I I

i

~

I I

I I

(

s

.20 I~+

~

I

~

)

s I

I I

.10 I

~

s I

I s

I I

I I

s 0

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80'0 100 110 120 130 140 CEA hITHDFNWAL (INCHES}

POLKR ASCENSION:

Page 17 Flux maps from the fixed incore detector system were used to verify that no unexpected abnormalities occurred in the Tq, LHR, F T, FT

, Fq, and ASII values at the 30, 50, 80,'nd 100 percent power plateaus.

xy'll of the above values corresponded well with design predictions except the total planar radial peaking factor, Fxy This peaking factor (PT ) was measured to be slightly greater than the design y

value of i.53 and required power to be limited to less, than 99 percent power as deliheated in Technical Specification 3.2..2.

The F was decreased by inserting group 7 to 124 inches at 100% power and xy accumulating burnup.

On Jul~ 21,

1978, the reactor was brought to HFP with all CEA's out and F

was found to be reduced as expected.

Calorimetric, nuclear power, End AT power calibrations were performed at the 20, 30, 50, 80, and 100 percent power plateaus.

A summary of the results obtained during the 30, 50, and 100 percent power flux maps is provided in Pigure 12, Pigure 13, and Figure 14 respectively.

A verification of the shape annealing factors (SAF) calculated and input as a gain adjustment in the linear power range sub-channels was performed.

During this test, a xenon oscillation was induced with the corresponding oscillation of the axial shape index (ASI) being monitored for each power range channel and by CECOR.

The cycle 3., SAP values

iere found to ~till be valid and the gain adjustments for the linear power range sub-channels were left as they were.

The moderator teriiperaiure coefficient was,measured shortly after entering the 100 percent power plateau.

This test was performed in two phases, both with group 7 at 102 inches withdrawn.

The first in-volves holding power constant, varying T-AVG and compensating for the resulting reactivity changes by CEA 7-1 movement.

The second entails'olding T-AVG constant, varying'power and again compensating with CEA 7-1 movement.

The measured value of.112 *10 45k/k/oP satisfies the Technical Specification requirement that the MTC shall be less negative than -2,2 <<10-46k/k/oF at rated thermal power, and less positive than

,0.2

> 10 4Ak/k/oF whenever thermal power is greater than 70 percent.

During this test, the isothermal temperature coefficient (ITC) was measured and found not to meet the vendor's acceptance criterion.

During the subsequent investigation, CE determined that the calculation of the original design value did not properly reflect the con'ditions at which the measurement was made.

Per CE's recommendation, an ad-justment was made to the design value and the acceptance criterion was satisfied.

~ ~

~

)

~

~

~

~

I o

I

~

~ ~

~ ol

~

~

~ o ~

~

~

~

~

~

~

I I

o o

~

~ I II II Io I

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~ ~

~

~

~

I

~

~

~

I ~

I ~ '

~

I ~

I ~

I

~

~

~

~

~

~ ~

I II I

I

~

~ I

~

~

~

I

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~ ~

o

~

~

)

~

~

~

I

~ ~

~ ~

~ ~

I

)

~ o

~

~

~ ~

I

~

I

)

ol'

~

~

~

~

~

~

I I

~

~

~

~

~

I ~

II ~

I I ~

~

I II II o I

~

~

~

I

~

o~ ~

I

~

I I ~ ~

I

~

~

~

~

o I ~ '

~

~

~

~

~

II ~

~

~

lo I

~

I ~

~ ~

~

~

~ ~

I I

~ ~

I I

~ I

~

~

~

~

~

~

~ I ~

~

~

~ I '

I

~

~

I

~

~

~ I I

~

II ~

I

~

I

~

II ~

I

~

~

~

~

~ ~

~

I I

~

~

I ~ I

~

~

~

~

o I I

~

o

~

I o I

~ ~

I

~

~ I ~

ol

~

~

~

~

I

~

~

~

4o ~

~

~

~

~

~

~

I I ~

I I

o ~

I I

~

~

~ ~

~

~

I I ~

e'

page 21 SUkMARY:

-'ll Technical Specification requirements were met.

No abnormalities remain unresolved.

REFERENCES:

1) Letter F-CE-6374, A.S. Jameson to A.L. Heil dated April 27, 2978.

2) Letter P-GK-6420, A.S.

Jameson to A.L. Heil dated June 7,

1978

')

Letter PRN-LI-79-143, A.D. Schmidt to R.E. Uhrig dated Hay 23, 1978.

4) Letter F-CE-6453~

A S ~ Jameson to R K

Ryall da,ted'uly 26~

1978.

C