ML19274D560
| ML19274D560 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | North Anna  |
| Issue date: | 02/05/1979 |
| From: | Stallings C VIRGINIA POWER (VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER CO.) |
| To: | Harold Denton, Parr O Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| 064, 64, NUDOCS 7902130108 | |
| Download: ML19274D560 (10) | |
Text
.I s
THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS P00R QUAll1Y PAGES VIRGINI A ELECTRIC AND POWER COMP ANY. HlCHMOND, VIRGINI A 23266
. February 5, 1979 Mr. Harold R. Dcnton, Director Serial No. 064 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FR/EJL Attn:
Mr. 0.D. Parr, Chief Light Water Reactors Branch No. 3 Docket No. 50-339 Division of Project Management U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20355
Dear Mr. Denton:
NORTH ANNA POWER STATION - UNIT 2 MODIFIED STARTUP PHYSICS TESTING PROGRAM A review and evaluation of the planned initial startup physics testing program for North Anna Unit 2 has been performed by our staff.
As a result of this, several changes to the physics testing program have been made. Attachment 1 lists the physics tests that will be performed as part of the Unit 2 startup program.
These tests were chosen because the successful completion of these tests will:
- 1) verify that the core was correctly loaded and that there are no anomalies present which could cause problems later in the cycle,
- 2) verify that the calculational model, which has been used, will correctly predict core behavior during the cycle,
- 3) verify the reactivity worth of the control rod banks,
- 4) provide data for nuclear instrumentation calibration, and
- 5) demonstrate the sensitivity of this instrumentation to abnormal core conditions.
It is our position that these items constitute the physics testing program goals that are appropriate for a unit,of this type, and that the performance of the tests listed in Attachment 1 is sufficient to provide the information necessary to ensure that these goals are achieved. Additionally, these items encompass the physics test goals listed in the NRC Branch Technical Position DOR-1, " Guidance For Reload Submittals, Draft-Spring, 1978". lists those physics tests that were performed during the Unit 1 startup in order to confirm that design values used in selected accident analyses were indeed conservative with respect to measured core parameter values, or to provide additional design check-points.
It is planned that these tests not be repeated as part of the 7902130Wi>
Unit 2 startup program. We believe that deletion of these physics tests from the startup orogram is justified for the following reasons:
1) the successful performance of the abbreviated program is sufficient to achieve the physics testing program
- goals, 2) the calculational model was verified as a result of the Unit 1 startup, and 3) the fuel and core characteristics of Unit 2 are virtually identical to those of Unit 1, and the results obtained for these tests during the Unit 1 startup demonstrated that a large margin exists between the measured para-meter values and the design values used in the accident analyses (see Attachment 3).
In essence, we believe that it is not necessary to perform the tests listed in Attachment 2 because it is appropriate to take credit for the verification of the calculational model that was obtained from the Unit 1 startup and the demonstrated margin between accident analysis design values and measured parameter values.
We propose to establish a hold point following the completion of the zero power physics tests.
Proceeding past this hold point wr21d be contingent upon a review of the zero power physics tests results by the Station Nuclear Safety and Operating Committee with the conclusion that the tests results were satisfactory. At this point, should the review of the tests results be unfavorable, we would incorporate the tests listed in Attachment 2 into the startup program on a formal basis.
Impleaentation of this program is not currently described in the FSAR. Attachment 4 contains the portions of Chapter 14 of the FSAR that are affected by this program, and identifies the changes to these sections. These revisions will be part of FSAR Amendment 66 which is tentatively planned to be submitted by April, 1979.
Should you have any questions or comments regarding this material, please contact us.
Very truly yours,
/4 4/3 C. M. Stal ings, Vice President Power Supply and Production Operations Attachments
ATTACEMENT 1 UNIT 2 STARTUP PHYSICS TESTS A.
Hot Zero Power Tests 1.
Reactivity computer checkout 2.
Isothermal temperature coefficient at ARO and D-bank in (also D+C banks in if MTC for D-bank in is > 0 pcm/oF).
3.
Boron endpoints at ARO; D-bank in; D,C-banks in; D,C,B-banks in and D,C,B,A-banks in.
4.
Control rod worths for all banks.
5.
Boron worth over the control banks range during rod insertion and withdrawn 1 6.
Power distribution measurements for ARO and D-bank in.
B.
Power Ascension Tests 1.
30% power flux cap 2.
50% power flux map 3.
Pseudo dropped rod test (RCCA D-10) and associated power distribution measurements at 50% power.
4.
Power coefficient at or above 65% power 5.
Incore/Excore detector calibration flux maps at 75% power.
6.
APDMS flux maps at or below 95% power 7.
Flux maps at 90% and 100% power (equilibrium conditions)
ATTACIMENT 2 PHYSICS TESTS TilAT IIAVE BEEN DELETED FOR UNIT 2 A.
Hot Zero Power Tests 1.
Isothermal temperature coefficient at D,C-banks in; D,C,B-banks in; and D,C,B,A-banks in.
2.
Boron endpoints at D,C,B,A,SDB-banks in and N-1 rods in condition.
3.
Worth of N-1 rods.
4.
Pseudo-rod ejection and associated power distribution measurement.
B.
Power Ascension 1.
Pseudo-rod ejection at 30% power and associated power distribution measurement;.
2.
Pseudo-dropped rod test (RCCA H-6) and associated power distribution measurement.
3.
Power coefficient at 30%, 50%, and 75% power 4.
Integral power defect 5.
Doppler-only power coefficients C
ATTACHMENT 3 gnvvAPY OF UNIT 1 MEASURED VALUES. DESIGN VALUES. AND ACCIDENT ANALYSIS t'oTTrnT A FOR PHYSICS TESTS THAT HAVE BEEN DELETED FOR UNIT 2 Test Description Core Parameter Unit 1 Design Value Accident Analysis Condition Measured Value Criterion 1.
Isothermal Tempera-Banks D,C, in a
-7.86 pcm/ F
-8.9 pcm/"F
< -2.107 pcm/0F 7
ture Coefficient Banks D,C.B.A in a
-13.48 pcm/0F
-34.1 pcm/0F 5,-2.134,>cc/0F T
~
Banks D,C,B,A in a
-14.07 pcm/uF
-13.'8 pcm/0F 1 -2.135 pcm/up T
2.
Boron Endpoint Banks D,C,B,A, CB 688 ppm 683 ppm axCB124000 pcm, SDB in u.here c= 11.08 pcm/pp N-1 rods inserted CB 601 ppm 580 ppm axC 124000 pcc 3
3.
Rod Worth Shutdown bank B ISDB 1034 pcm 1037 pcm NA Shutdown bank A, less the most ISDA-MRRS 870 pcm 1161 pcm NA reactive rod N-1 rods (I -1)/1.04> 5780 pcm I -1 8015 pcm 7893 pcm N
N 4.
Pscudo-ejected II7.P, Bank C at Fq 6.85 10.8
'13.0 Control Rod 120 steps, Bank D B
443 pcm 464 pcm I -8 (I -8)X 1.04< 785 pcm B
at 0 steps,RCCA B-8 at 228 steps 30% power, Bank D Fq 2.1 2.1 7.07 at 194 steps, RCCA I -8 3 pcm 7 pcm
- (I -8)X 1.04 1200 pcm.
B B
B-8 at 228 steps 5.
Pseudo-dropped 50% power, FN 1.62 1.70 1.69*
Control Rod RCCA 11-6 I 11 - 6 138 pcm 145 pcm (I -6)X 1.041 250 pcm H
6.
Power Coefficient 30% power (Dp/DQ)P
-15.24 pcm/% power
-13.38 pcm/% power NA 50% power (0p/DQ)
-12.74 pcm/% power
-12.76 pcm/% power NA (DP/BQ)po er
-13.57 pcm/% power
-13.39 pcm/% power NA
- Accident analysis value referenced to hot full power e
a-Core Unit 1 Accident Analysis Test Description Condition Paramater Measured Value Design Value Criterion 2.
Power Defect 0-100% power Reactivity Worth 1270 pcm 1299 pcm NA (a p/3Q)f" opp {#
-13.62 pcm/% power
-11.45 pcm/% power Inferred value plus or Doppier-only 30% power cr Power Coeffi-minus 30% uncertainty cient 50% power (ap/30)f" [# -
-10.77. pcm/% power
-10.55 pcm/% power must overlap allowable d
g rang f FSAR If d
75% power (ap/aQ) Doppler
-11.08 pcm/% power
-9.75 pcm/% power Figure 15.1-5 90% power (ap/aQ)In crr d
-7.59 peu/% power
-9.36 pcm/% power hote: All inferred EE
~
values fell within the range of FSAR Figure.
15.1-5, as shown on the following page e
e G
e e
6 b
e
o
)
g _ ___ _____ ___.
q o
]_
/
]-
/= :,,
.f c.3j t
3 6
l_____ -s t
p dl g
1--
-/-$
i_.__.]
j r
s a
e Ng r
a E
s== c,,
t x
t x
t
=
g
=u
[
m l
" j__
3; e
v u
sa-c, c
,/
E ~- is r /
.., o,
~
I E
k l-
.f: -
d '" - /
N,
$i
_=
e.
yr er e
u m
-=
4 g
O M C, 5" N SM-c v
C
=
-/-
c
_--l-
.?
-_r. -.
/._
' ~ - - - -
uu =:.
e y
t-
.l _.. _.
._ =c c _ ____ _ _ t jl;,
e P_.
r w
(.
u i
li -*
$E $2 1
S
/=__
d = '_ _
O2 :4 3
=
U
/
.,d j_c
- v x
c 1
y
+
2 O
o g
v a
e,
/
-f c: = B =. -
3x
=x t
i C#
O
= n =l G7 i
_~ _=
g
=
f.
- "' : n4
=~
__1 2
= 8" 9/
b b N-
" 8 :% [-
- = "
=
= = -/ -
._.j__.
=
5 4
u
=
e m.
2
/--
---.-.-e_._--_----
.c c
--f
__._.--t._._----
,..A=_,_--
N n
2 g__ _f_ =. _ _, _
?
b 6
] = - / -- - - - --"- -N 1 : _ C_-- _. __.. _.,7., _ c ___
a U_
I*
f
).
g
\\
-,/., z. --
._-____.__f-.___-_._ _._. / :- _ :--- - r_- __-. 5
=
j
+
9
\\ = = = _._.
g. = = __ _.. :'/== r.m====- r._
-- 1 :._ -- _._. = =-- -
"Is -
ir= =1 n.,
- -waar-h.esteurrm 1
-t O
o o
e v
n o
m e
v n
o N
M M
e4 e-4 M
i I
I I
I 4
I I
i (E3r.0d %/H3d) 2.N3I3133200 E3M0d E2*IddOQ 4.1.4-4 e
ATTACHMENT 4 N1F 14-1 FSAR REVISIONS 14.0 INITIAL TESTS AND OPERATION This section presents material describing the scope of tests and operations performed over the time period when construction was sufficiently complete to operate and test individual components and systems through the acceptance run at full power. This time period is divided into two categories, a)
Preoperational Testing - tests performed prior ;o the initial core loading
- and, b)
Initial Startup Testing - tests and operations from t he initial core loading through the acceptance t e tts.
The preoperational and startup prcerams are outlined in Tables 14.1-1 and 14.1-2.
For Unit 1, these tests comply with the intent c f Regulator) Guide 1.68, "Preoperational and Initial Startup fest Programs for Water-Cooled Power Reactors," dated November 1973, in most cases. The listing utilizes the same wording as the guide es much as possible in order to mora clearly address the NRC guide requirements.
Based on the success of the Unit 1 startup program, and because the fuel and core characteristics for both units are virtually identical, certain nonessential startup physics tests were not included in the program for Unit 2.
These tests are indicated in Table 14.1-2 as having been performed on Unit 1 only.
Tams 11.1-2 (continued)
I.IST OF S*ARTUP Tf;STS PIJL'iT TITIZ C7 TEST CONDITION /
C A EASURT'C*rP PRERE(UISITE TEST OnJECTIVE Afl0 StM'*.AkY OF TESTING 5.
Moderator Terperature
- cro pcwcr test At normal no load ten:peraturo and no nuclear heating, reactor coolant Reactivity Coefficient system cooldown and heatup were accceplishcd using the secas dt=p a.d reactor coolant pumps operation as required. An approxir. ate 5 F char.ge 0
in temperature was initiated and during these changes T,yg ar.d re-activity are recorded on an X-Y plotter. From these data t2.a tempera-ture coefficient was determined.
6.
Pressure Reactivity Sircet measurements of pressure coefficient of reactivity were not Coefficient Moacurcmonts msdo sinco the effects of prc:curo on reactivity are of sccord ordcr when compared with othcr ef fectc.
7.
Control Rod Reactivity Zero power tests Under zero power conditions at near operating temperature and prcct.;re, North - Determination of the nuclear design predictions for Rod Cluster Cor.txol A:sc:11=* (FOCA) individual ar.1 intcgral groups differential worths were validated. These validations were :.sde worth ar.1 verification of f rom boron concentration cumpling data, PCCA group rcsitions ar.d worth for shutdown recorder traces of reactivity. Frca these data the ir.tegral ROCA capability c roup worths woro determined ir.cluding vcrificatior. of rod inscrtion limits to assure adequato shutdown rurgin.. The minimum boron c ncen-tration for ruintaining the reactor ' shutdown with the ror.t reactive
=
E ROCA stuck in the full out position wa: dutcrmir.cd for l' nit 1.
The dctcrr.ir.ation ws: rado from analysi: citorca cor.contration are MCA 7
t wrth.
e 9
tan:2 18.1-2 (Continued)
LIST OF STARTUP "ESTS PLAhT TIT.I OF TEST CONDITION /
O"t Oft?M?:*
PPIRIOUISITE TEST CBJCIVE AD St%"EtY OF TESTIfC 12.
Pseudo Rod Ejection Test, 2ero Power Incore measurements were mado for Nnit I under p:cudo ejected rod cor.ditio.s to Verify Safety Analysis simulating the zero power accident to determine the Mt char.nel fac-(Ect) tors and verify that they were within asse: ptions made ir. the a:cident analysis.
III.
POW"R A!;CE':SION TESTS 1.
Natural Circulation Test The ability of natural circulation to remove decay heat has been dc:en-to Confizu Sufficient strated at the Carolina Power and Light, H. B. Rctinson Unit No'. 2.
Cooling Capacity Tests have shown natural circulation flow to bc =cre than adequate to rettovo decay heat and such a test was r.ot repeated on the North A..a Units No. 1 and 2.
2.
Power Reactivity Coefficient During power During each power escalation for Unit la rccerder traco: were r.c.Jo cf rcacter Evaluation ard Power Dcfects escalations M wcr tand reactivity char.ges. Prca theco traccs the K ver c:,cfficicat Of Mcasure=ents (30s, SQL, 75%
reactivity and power defects were determir.ed. A Power coefficient =casurerent and 1004) was eerformed at or above 65: power for Unit 2.
2 3.
Plant Response to Icad During power Plant response to the following load changes was dcr.onstrated q
Svings including Auto-oscalation
[
r.atic Control Systc:a a.
,los step load char.go fres 304, 75%, and loot power Checkout.
(30s, 50s, b.
50% load reduction fro:t 75% and 100' power g
754 ar.d loot) c.
Plant trips from power levels up to 1004
.