ML19210E288

Summarizes Revised Cycle 3 Startup Test Rept.Corrects Util 791108 Submittal

ML19210E288
Person / Time
Site:	Brunswick
Issue date:	11/21/1979
From:	Furr B CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:	James O'Reilly NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
References
GD-79-2987, NUDOCS 7912040270
Download: ML19210E288 (4)

Text

~

J .

n.

.y*

s -s -

Form 2a  ?

-a, .'.- ,

- .~ ..

Carctina Pov,e.- & ~.ight Co:r;:any Company Correscowence FILE: NG-3513 (B) SERIAL: GD-79-2987 Mr. Jarces P. O'Reilly, Director ~

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II 101 Marietta Street, Suite 3100 Atlanta, GA 30303 BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNIT NO. 2 LICENCE NO. DPR-62 DOCKET NO. 50-324 CYCLE 3

SUMMARY

START-UP TEST REPORT REVISED

Dear Mr. O'Reilly:

Due to a typographical error in the Brunswick Unit No. 2 Cycle 3 Summary Start-up Test Report, as submitted to ycu on November 8,1979, Carolina Power & Light Company is resubmitting this report in its entirety. Mr. B. Riley of your office was notified of this error on November 19, 1978, as follows: The last paragraph of the original report referred to BSEP Unit No. 1, Cycle 2 not Unit No. 2, Cycle 3 as it should have. We hope this error has not caused any undue problems; This report is submitted in accordance with Technical Specifications, Section 6.9, to provide the Start-up Test Report for Unit No. 2 Cycle 3 aa appropriate for insertion of 8 x 8R fuel. Due to a misinterpretation of the start-up test reporting requirements, this report is not submitted within 90 days of resumption of coatoercial operation; however, it is within 90 days of completion of start-up testing and represents completion of start-up test reporting required by Technical Specification 6.9.1.3.

l The following physics testing was performed on Brunswick Unit {

No. 2 during the beginning of cycle start-up and power ascension:  ;

1. Shutdown Margin Demonstration The beginning of cycle, cold, xencn-free shutdown margin test was performed to demonstrate that the reactor remained shut down by the prescribed margin with the strongest ecd fully withdrawn. With the strongest rod fully withdrawn, a diagonally adjacent ontrol rod was withdrawn to a calculated position .orresponding to .38% + R, and the Aon s

1472 037 ,

9 7912040

///2,jo !

l m

Mr. James F. L ' ntilly 2- Novencer 21, 1979 reactor was observed to remain shut down (R = 0.0 for t' is cycle).

E. Reactivitity Anomaly At > 95% power and core flow, the predicted ontrol r-d density was compared to the actual control rod a .: sit ' with the following results:

Control Rod Density Required Control Rod Density Meashrad Predicted 3.5%

Minimum Maximum 0.0 6.8%

The hot, full power reactivity measurement was found to be within the required band (+1% reactivity) and as predicted.

3. Critical Eigenvalue The cold, critical, xenon-free eigenvalue was measured on the initial start-up of Cycle 2. The results are as follows:

Predicted K gg Measured K gg  % Deviation From Predicted 1.006 1.0091 .31%

The cold, critical eigenvalue was found to be close to the predicted value and within the acceptance criteria of + 1%.

4. TIP Uncertainty Total TIP uncertainty was determined above and below 75%

power while at steady state. Results are as follows:

Maximum Allowed Uncertainty Measured Uncertainty 9.00% 4.85% at < 75%

5.31% at > 75%

The TIP uncertainty was determined to be well below the required limit.

1472 038

Mr. James P. O'Reilly November 21, 1979

5. Core Power Distribution and Symmetry

a. At medium and high power levels, bundle power comparisons were made between symmetric bundles with the following results:

Maximum Expected Bundle Maximum Measured Bundle Power Asymmetry Power Asymmetry 15% / 66%

b. Measured and predicted values of core thermal limits (MCPR, MAPCHGR, LHCR) were compared at > 95%, and the measured values were found to be within + 10% of the predicted values.

The core power distribution and symmetry test indicated a symmetric power distribution as well as close agreement between predicted and measured values of core thermal limits.

As discussed in our letter to Mr. T. A. Ippolito of March 16, 1979, on the subject of Physics Start-up Test Program, the following tests were satisfactorily concluded:

a. Core Loading Verification - A core loading verification was performed per ESEP Fuel Handling Procedure (FH-11) . It was verified that the core was loaded as specified by the design reference loading pattern. This has. recently been reverified from video tapes.

b. Core Power Symmetry - Sea Response No. 4, TIP Uncertainty.

c. Control Rod Mobility - Control rod mobility was verified prior to start-up by contrcl rod functional / friction testing. Each control rod was verified to move full travel without binding or excessive friction. In addition, the reactor was observed to remain subcritical during the withdrawal of each control rod.

d. Reactivit*; Testing - Refer to Item 1, Shutdown Margin, and Item 3, Critical Eigenvalue.

1472 0J39

Mr. James P. 6'Reilly November 21, 1979 Core physics testing performed during the Unit No. 2 beginning of Cycle 3 start-up and power c.scension indicates that the reactor is performing safely and as predicted.

Youts v y tr ly,

/

$ Furr Vice President - Nuclear Operations MAJ/DCS/eaj*

cc: Mr. V. Stello Mr. R. A. Hartfield 1472 040 e