ML19254D889
| 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 M MWt i
escalations in power, which they did.
Yogs very truly,
'd. Y U
J_.-l) *G* V 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
-1.5 238 060 pb 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:
Moderator Temperature Bank "D" Position 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:
F (Z) < 2.2/P P = Fra_ tion of full power PA SO%
a.
q
- 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:
For FaH predicted > 1.0, quarter _ core location G-8.
a.
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%)
1238 070 pb __