ML19254E240
| ML19254E240 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Robinson  |
| Issue date: | 10/26/1979 |
| From: | CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML14184A115 | List: |
| References | |
| GD-79-2678, NUDOCS 7910310365 | |
| Download: ML19254E240 (7) | |
Text
-
b Enclosure To Serial: CD-79-2678 CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY H. B. ROBINFON UNIT NO. 2 CYCLE 7 STARTUP PHYSICS TEST RESULTS Cycle 7 Initial Criticality: July 16, 1979.
Startup Physics Test Completion Date: July 30, 1979.
I.
All Rods Out Critical Boron Concentration Measurements:
A.
Acceptance Criteria:
Prediction and measurement shall agree within 1 50 PPM.
B.
Results:
Prediction:
1215 PPM Measurement:
1227 PPM Difference:
11 PPM II.
Control Rod Worth Measurements:
A.
Acceptance Criteria:
1.
Control Bank "C" integral reactivity worth prediction and measutement shall agree within i 15%.
2.
Control Bank "D" integral reactivity worth prediction and measurement shall agree within i 15%.
3.
Control Banks "C"
& "D" combined integral reactivity worth prediction and measurement shall agree within i 10%.
B.
Results:
Bank Prediction Measurement
% Difference C
745 723
-3.0 D
1279 1270
.7 D&C 2024 1993
-1.5 5
054 pb 7020310.3 6 S
Enclosure to Serial: GD-79-2673 III. Moderator Temperature Coefficient Measurements:
A.
Acceptance Criteria:
Sufff ient data shall be collected 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 moderator temperature coefficient during power escalation.
These controls were based on t'e control rod positicus and boron con-centrations which were observed during the maderator temperature coefficient measurements.
IV.
Power Distribution Measurements:
Flux maps uere taken at approximately 0, 30, 70, 90, 95J, and 100% power.
A.
Acceptance Criteria:
1.
Hot zero power map:
Assembly wise FaH <(1.08 X predicted) if a.
(F6H predicted) > 1.0.
b.
Assembly wise FaH < (1.15 X predicted) if (FaH predicted) < l.0.
c.
Quadrant tilts < 1.02.
5 055
^
pb Enclosure to Serial: GD-79-2678 IV.
Continued 2.
Power maps:
?q(Z) < 2.2/P P = Fraction of full power P A 507, a.
4 4.4 P 4 50%
b.
F{n<T.55 (1 +.2T1-P))
1.04 c.
Quadrant tilts < 1.02 B.
Results:
1.
Hot zero power map:
All assemblies satisfied the FaH acce tance criteria. The r
most limiting comparisons were:
a.
For FaH predicted > 1.0, quarter core location G-8.
Prediction 1.071 1.08 X Prediction = 1.157
=
Measurer.ent 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 HZP quad rant tilts satisfied the acceptance criteria.
The largest quadrant tilt measured was 1.004 (.4%) in the Nc.-theast 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))
FEu 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 (.6%)
100 2.200 1.880 1.490 1.399 1.005 (.5%)
5 056 pb