ML19254D889

Forwards Cycle 7 Startup Physics Test Rept

ML19254D889
Person / Time
Site:	Robinson
Issue date:	10/26/1979
From:	Furr B CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:	James O'Reilly NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
References
GD-79-2678, NUDOCS 7910300292
Download: ML19254D889 (4)

Text

.

.'> d ') 1 D r 2. J C ren.u ? wer 3 :q. t 0. mear 7 October 26, F 79 .

FILE: NG-3513 (R) SERIAL: GD-79-2678 Mr. James P. O'Peilly, Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II 101 Marietta Street, Suite 3100 Atlanta, GA 30303 H. B. ROBINSON STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNIT NO. 2 DOCKET NO. 50-261 LICENSE NO. DPR-23 START-UP PHYSICS TEST REPORT

Dear Mr. O'Reilly:

In accordance with Section 6.9.1.a of the Technical Specifications for the H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2, the attached Cycle 7 Start-up Physics Test Report is submitted. This report fulfills the requirement for a summary report within ninety (90) days of the completion of the start-up test program following reactor power uprating.

The H. B. Robinson Unit No. 2 reactor power level was uprated from 2200 MWt to 2300 MWt during the Cycle 7 refueling outage. As outlined in our letter from Mr. E. E. Utley to Mr. A. Schwencer on March 17, 1978, additional core power distribution measurements were taken at 95.7% power (2200 MWt) and 100% power (2300 MWt). Also, NSSS parameters were closely monitored to ensure temperatures and pressures followed their expected trends during the last i M MWt escalations in power, which they did.

Yogs very truly, -

'd. *G*Y V U J_.-l)

B'. J. Furr Vice President - Generation GD/CSB/j nh*

Attachment 1238 067 1

not P Yi L

~ T ~. . . _ .. ~ . . . - - - IT .

Q

r. . .,. . . . , . . . . ... .

.s... .. ..

7g,g3gg y /-

f

Enclosure To Serial:-GD-7932678 CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY H. B. ROBINSON UNIT NO. 2 CYCLE 7 STARTUP PHYSICS TEST RESULTS Cycle 7 Initial Criticality: July 16, 1979.

Startup Phycies Test Completion Date: July 30, 1979.

. ~

I.

All Rods Out Critical Boron Concentration Measurements:

A. Acceptarice Criteria: Prediction ind measurement shall agree within i 50 PPM.

B. Resulta: Prediction: 1216 PFM Measuremenc: 1227 PPM Dirference: 11 PPM II. Control Rod Worth Measurements:

A. Acceptance Criteria:

1. Control Bank "C" integral react'vity worth prediction and measurement shall agree within i 15%.

2. Control Bank "D" integral reactivity worth pr'.' diction and measurement shall agree within i 15%.

3. Control Banks "C" & "D" combined integral reactivity worth prediction and measurenent shall agree within i 10%.

B. P.esults :

Bank Prediction Measurement  % Difference C 745 723 -3.0 D 1279 1270 .7 D&C 2024 1993 -1.5 pb 238 060

Enclosure to Serial: GD-79-267&

III. Moderator Temoerature Coefficient Measurements:

A. Acceptance Criteria:

Sufficient data shall be colJected to implement administrative controls to ensure that the moderator temperature coefficient during power escalation is non-positive.

B. Results:

Bank "D" Position Moderator Temperature Bank "C" Position Boron Concentration Coefficient (PCM/oF) 211 228 1215 PPM +2.82 0 209 1165 PPM +0.26 42 (Overlap) 170 1145 PPM -0.01 0 120 1119 PPM -1.16 Administrative controls were implemented to ensure a non-positive mocerator temperature coefficient during power escalation. These controls were based on the control rod positions and boron con-centrations which were observed during the moderator temperature coefficient measurements.

IV. Power Distribution Measurements:

Flux maps were taken at approximately 0, 30, 70, 90, 95J, and 100% power.

A. Acceptance Criteria:

1. Hot zero power map:

a. Assembly wise FAH <(1.08 X predicted) if (FSH predicted) > 1.0.

b. Assembly wise FAH < (1.15 X predicted) if (FAH predicted) < 1.0.

c. Quadrant tilts < 1.02.

1238 U69-pt Enclosure to Serial: GD-79-2678 IV. Continued

2. Power maps:

a. Fq (Z) < 2.2/P P = Fra_ tion of full power PA SO%

4. 4.4 P 4 507.

b.

F{H<T.55 (1 + .2T1-P))

1.04

c. Quadrant tilts < 1.02 B. Results:

1. Hot zero power map:

All assemblies satisfied the Fag acceptance criteria. The most limiring comparisons were:

a. For FaH predicted > 1.0, quarter _ core location G-8.

Prediction = 1.071 1.08 X Prediction = 1.157 Measurement = 1.151

b. For FaH predicted < 1.0 quarter core location G-9.

Prediction = .943 1.15 X Prediction = 1.084 Measurement = 1.022 The H2P quadrant tilts satisfied the acceptance criteria.

The largest quadrant tilt measured was 1.004 (.4%) in the Northeast quadrant.

2. Power maps.

All maps satisfied each acceptance criteria. The following is a summary of the results:

% Power Fn Limit F0(Z) 1.55 (1 + .2(1-P)) _ Efag_ Maximum Quadrant Tilt 1.04 31 4.400 2.124 1.696 1.425 1.000 ( <.1%)

69 3.188 2.390 1.583 1.390 1.009 (.9%)

90 2.444 1.974 1.520 1.393 1.008 (.8%)

95 2.316 1.974 1.505 1.401 1.008 (.8%)

100 2.200 1.880 1.490 1.399 1.005 (.5%)

pb 1238 070

__