ML19312E113
| ML19312E113 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Farley  |
| Issue date: | 05/28/1980 |
| From: | Clayton F ALABAMA POWER CO. |
| To: | Schwencer A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8006030292 | |
| Download: ML19312E113 (12) | |
Text
,
)
A:abama P;wer Company 600 Nodh 18th Street Post Offic3 Box 2641 Birmingnam. Alabama 35291 Tetephone 205 323-5341 k
L hkSt^!e71&nt Alabama Power May 28, 1980 tres v vo
- 2:s e m Docket No. 50-364 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Attn:
Mr. A. Schwencer JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT - UNIT 2 MODIFIED STARTUP PHYSICS TEST PROGRAM Gentlemen:
Alabama Power Company plans to modify the startup physics test program for Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant - Unit 2.
The objectives of the low power and power ascension physics test program are to:
1.
Confirm the nuclear design and correct fuel loading of the core and, to the extent practical, validate the analytical model so that the core behavior during all operating modes is correctly predicted.
2.
Provide data for nuclear instrumentation calibration and demonstrate the sensitivity of the instrumentation to abnormal core conditions.
The initial core designs of the Farley Nuclear Plant - Units 1 and 2 are identical with the exception of a small change in the secondary source locations as noted in Attachment A.
We do not anticipate that this change will produce any measurable difference in the Cycle 1 core physics characteristics of Units 1 and 2.
Our review of the startup physics program indicates that the tests listed in Attachment B, Table B-1 should be conditionally eliminated from the Unit 2 Test Program.
These tests, which were performed on Unit 1, would only provide redundant core design verifica-tion and a redundant confirmation of the values assumed in the accident analysis. Attachment B, Table B-2 lists the tests which should be performed on Unit 2 to meet the test program objectives.
The Acceptance Criteria and the method of evaluating the test data for Unit 2 is identical to that used for Unit 1.
Technical justification, for the proposed test deletions is provided in Attachment C.
Attachment C also lists the results of the tests performed on Unit 1 that will not be performed on Unit 2.
In short, the proposed physics test program is an adequate demonstration that the Unit 2 core conforms to its design.
Since the Unit 1 and Unit 2 core designs are essentially identical, the proposed program also demonstrates that the results of Unit 1 tests not repeated for Unit 2 are applicable to a close approximation to the core of Unit 2.
A similar modified startup physics test program has been approved by the NRC on North Anna - Unit 2.
80060302.92.
[
h I
i Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant - Unit 2 i
Modified Startup Physics Test Program l
Page 2
[
l To implement this program, we propose a hold point following the completion of hot zero power (HZP) tests. During this period, we will require verification that the test results of the HZP measuremenes satisfy the design criteria. If the Plant Operations Review Committee concludes that the results are unsatisfactory, the test program will be extended as necessary to fully verify core design.
A revision to the Final Safety Analysis Report which references this submittal will be filed with the next amendment.
Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Yours very truly, I
>~
T..~
. 4.. t F.'L.
Clayton, Jr.
FLCJr/TNE:aw Attachments cc:
Mr. R. A. Thomas Mr. G. F. Trowbridge
}
t j
i 4
s 1
4 w
,. < +., --
n
ATTACRMENT A J. M. FAP1EY UNITS 1 AND 2 INITIAL CORE The only difference between Unit 1 and Unit 2 initial core is the location of the secondary sources as shown in Figure A.l.
The secondary sources for Unit 1 and Unit 2 are both mounted on base plate type hold down assemblies. Each secondary source assembly in Unit 1 contains a symmetrical grouping of four secondary source rods and twelve burnable poison (BP) rods.
Locations not filled with a source or BP rod contain a thimble plug.
In the Unit 2 secondary source assembly, all BP locations are filled with thimble plugs.
'i l
?
u
5.
[. M. FARLEY SECONDARY SOURCE LOCATIONS RPNM LKJHG F
EDCB A
I 2
I (1)
}' -
(2) h r--
?
6 7
I i
8 9
ld l
1I (2) l2 (1)
- I]
14 15 Z te : (1) Secondary source location for Unit 1, Cycle 1.
(2) Secondary so0rce location for Unit 2, Cycle 1.
FIGURE A.1
-e ew w...
.e-
ATTACIDfENT B TABLE B-1 JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT PHYSICS TEST CONDITIONALLY DELETED FOR UNIT 2 A.
HOT ZERO POWER TESTS 1.
ISOTHERMAL TEMPERATURE COEFFICIENT AT D&C+B IN AND D&C+B+A IN.
2.
BORON ENDPOINT FGR THE N-1 RODS-IN CONFIGL"itATION.
3.
REACTIVITY WORTH OF SHUTDOWN BANKS AND N-1 RODS.
4.
PSEUDO-ROD EJECTION AND ASSOCIATED PON'ER DISTRIBUTION MEASUREMENTS.
B.
POWER ASCENSION 1.
PSEUDO-ROD EJECTION AND ASSOCIATED POWER DI3TRIBUTION t
MEASUREMENT AT 30% POWER.
2.
PSEUDO-DROPPED R0D TEST (RCCA H-6) AND ASSOCIATED POWER DISTRIBUTED MEASUREMENT AT 50% POWER.
(NOTE: THE PSEUDO-DROPPED R0D TEST WILL BE PERFORMED USING ROD D-10.)
- 3.
POWER COEFFICIENTS.
4.
INTEGRAL POWER DEFECT.
5.
DOPPLER-ONLY POWER COEFFICIENTS.
i TABLE B-2 JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 2 FTARTUP PHYSICS TESTS A.
HOT ZERO POWER TESTS
~
1.
REACTIVITY COMPUTER CHECK 0UT.
2.
ISOTHERMAL TEMPERATURE COEFFICIENT AT ARO AND D-BANK IN (ALSO, D+C BANKS IN IF MTC FOR ARO IN IS > 0 PCM/0F).
3.
BORON ENDPOINTS AT ARO: D-BANK IN; D+C-BANKS IN; i
D+C+B-BANKS IN; D+C+B+A-BAHT 3 IN.
4.
REACTIVITY WORTHS OF ALL CONTROL ROD BANKS.
5.
BORON WORTH OVER THE RANGE OF CONTROL BANKS A THROUGH D MOVING DURING R0D INSERTION AND WITHDRAWAL.
p 6.
POWER DISTRIBUTION MEASUREMENTS FOR ARO.
i B.
POWER ASCENSION TESTS 1.
25% POWER DISTRIBUTION (FLUX MAP).
2.
50% POWER DISTRIBUTION (FLUX MAP).
3.
PSEUDO-DROPPED ROD TEST (RCCA D-10) AND ASSOCIATED POWER DISTRIBUTION MEASUREMENTS AT 50% POWER.
4.
INCORE/EXCORE DETECTOR CALIBRATION TEST AT 75% POWER.
5.
FLUX MAPS AT 75% AND 100% POWER (EQUILIBRIUM CONDITIONS).
l t
l-l L_
ATTACHMENT C JUSTIFICATION FOR TEST DELETIONS 1.
ISOTHERMAL TEMPERATURE COEFFICIENT (ITC) WITH CONTROL BANKS D+C+B IN AND D&C+B+A IN The Technical Specifications require that the Moderator Temperature -
Coefficient (MTC) for Beginning of Life (BOL), Hot Zero Power (HZP), All Rods Out (ARO) conditions be less positive than zero ak/k/ F.
The MTC is obtained by taking the difference between the measured ITC and the Doppler Coefficient. The modified program requires that ITC measurement be perfor=ed for ARO, Control Bank D in, and optionally for Control Banks D+C in.
Additional verifications with control banks D+C+3 in and D+C+B+A in were completed during Unit 1 startup and all measured values were well within design limitations (Table C.1). Based on the measurements at ARO of banks D in and optionally banks D+C in, which (through demonstration of conformance to the common design) verify similarity between Unit 1 and 2, ITC measurements on Unit 2 with banks D+C+B in and banks D+C+B+A in are not considered necessary.
2.
BORON END POINT N-1 The purpose of the N-1 Boron Endpoint measurement is to verify the shutdown margin by measuring the critical boron' concentration-with all rod banks inserted and the highest worth rod cluster
control assembly fully withdrawn.
The Unit 2 shutdown margin can be demonstrated adequately by the design verification obtained from measurement of the control banks. Additional verification is obtained from the Unit 1 N-1 measurements, which can be applied to Unit 2 once testing confirms the Unit 2 similarity to Unit 1 (Via demonstration of conformance to the co= mon design).
3.
REACTIVITY WORTH ON N-1 RODS As stated in item 2, all individual control banks and other pertinent core parameters for Unit 2 will be measured and verified to be in conformance with the Unit 1/ Unit 2 common design, implying that the Unit 2 reactivity worth of N-1 rods is essentially the sans as for Unit 1.
A considerable shutdown 7 --
margin.was demonstrated in Unit 1 as shown in Table 0.1.
4.
PSEUDO ROD EJECTION AT H2P AND 30% POWER The main purpose of the test is to verify the consercatism of the assumed worth of ejected rods and the associated peaking factor at H7.P and at power for the ejected rod in the accident analysis.
The results of Unir 1 startup tests at HZP and 30% power in Table C.1 showed that the accident analysis assumptions are conservative.
By demonstrating that the Unit 2 measured power distribution and control bank worths $re within design criteria, the similarity of the Unit 2 physics characteristics with Unit 1 is assured.
Therefore, performance of these tests on Unit 2 is not considered.
necessa ry.
5.
PSEUDO DROPPED ROD (H-6)
The main purpose of the test is to demonstrate that the enthalpy 4
rise hot channel factor (FAH) will not exceed the v& ue that was assumed in the FSAR for a dropped rod at 50% power. This demonstration was performed twice in Unit 1 at core locations H-6
~
and D-10.
Both test results verified that the peaking factor and rod worth values assumed in the accident analysis are c:nservative (Table C.1).
The Unit 2 modified startup physics program requires that only the D-10 pseudo rod drop test be performed. Successful completion of the HZP tests and the D-10 pseudo rod drop test 4
vill confirm the similarity of Unit 1 and 2 physics characteristics.
Therefore, the additional pseudo ejection test at 50% power (Rod H-6) is not considered necessary.
6.
POWER COEFFICIENT, POWER DEFECT AND DOPPLER O!TLY POWER COEFFICIENT f
The purpose of the test is to verify the power coefficient and the Doppler-only power coefficient at 30, 50, 75, and 90% power, and to obtain the power defect.
If the Unit 2 isothermal temperature 2
coefficient, boron end point and rod bank measurements satisfy the common Unit 1/ Unit 2 design criteria, this would confirm the similarity between the physics characteristics of Unit 1 and Unit 2.
Therefore, it is not necessary to repeat these tests for Unit 2.
Figure C.1 demonstrates that the Unit 1 power coefficient and Doppler only power coefficient measurements are conservative compared to the values assumed in the accident analysis.
1
L JOSEPH ii. FARLEY f
DOPPLER PO'AER COEFFICIENT 1:
1 i
-2 0'
~
" Upper Curve" 140st flegative Doppler Only Power Defect -1.6% t.k
-18 T
E O
E 5
a 5 -14 7..;.
G b,gBOL(design, Cycle 1)
E N
\\
8 l*.easured Best Fit 7
12
%*% Line (BOL, Cycle 1) Uni t 1
~
s E0L (design, Cycl
'N' 4 4 c
N
%s %r-u N
N o
N
. -10 s
g s
N 8
s N
s N
%'~
.g.
s
" Lower Curve" Least flegative Doppler
-6 Only Power Defect -0.843% ak 0
20 40 60 80 100 Percent Power Level FIGURE C.1 o
TRDLC C.1 SU7ARY Of J. H. FARLCY tRitT 1 STARTUP NiYSICS RCSULTS, CCSICH VALUf.S. DCSIC*l CRITCRIA AND ACCIDENT ANALYSIS CRITERIA FOR PilYSICS TESTS C0:lDIT!0t! ALLY llEll:lED TUR Utili 2 TeTt DFusii~Value oesign Accident. Analysis Test-Test Condition Paran:eter Resul t (Best Estimate)
Criterion Criterion 1.
fsothermal Tec:perature il2P Banks D+C in a
EC*-
-8.6[ca 3gc3 i-
-7 ) O f Coefficient f
F Banks 0+C+B in a
-12.4((
-14.1[f 3[f N/A T
Banks 0+C4B+A in aT
-12.9 pcm
_j3,7 p53 23 ESE og op op 2.
N-1 Boron End Point IlZP All rods in, ex-C (543t(C' )CA 0 ppm j
740)2 N/A cept RCCA P-8(most B
603 pp:n 543 ppm 5
reactive rod) 3.
'N-1 Rod 1-l orth liZP All Rods In cx-I 7776 pcm 7850 pcm 79601796 pcm cept RCCA P-8 (most P-8
-> 7060 pcm reactive rod) 4.
Pseudo Rod Ejection liZP RCCA 0-8 with-drawn all rods out, f
6.76 13.0 N/A 13.0 g
(IlJ)x1.04<785pcm I.a 562 pcm 683 pcm N/A 1 S eps (la)
,3 g
30%P RCCA B-8 with-r 2.21 6.7 N/A 7.07 drawn all rods out Q
(![h)x1.01<200pcm C/D 0106 Steps (Ib)
I,g 3.7 pcm 102 pcm n/A Fall 1.5J 1 1;'
H/A l. '::'
5.
Pseudo Rod Drop.
50%P ARO. RCCA 11-6 In 1H-6 180 pcm i U pcm N/A 250 pcm
/0 0 225 Mcps (2)
F 1.6G 1.56
-< l.72 1.69 AH ARO. RCCA D-10 In I
171 pcm 180 pcm N/A 250 pcm C/D 0 222 Steps D-10 L.E 1M 1
F,g 1.G7 137 4
Taut c,l q
Page 21 i
lest LESitJn Yilue tesign Accident Analysis -
Test Test Condition Paraneter Itesul t (Dest Estimate)
Criterion Criterion
/aQ)p
-13.5 pan /IP
-12.6
(( P)* + 30% )
5.
Power Coefficient 30% P_
(UP 50% P
('P/ay)p
-l I.? I'C"/IP
-12.?
i(
)f"'I'l" '-
N/A 4
75% P (UP/aQ)I,
-17.6 pcm/%P
-11.6
(( P)" - 30% )
OI 90% P (UP/ay)p
-17.3 I"/IP
-11.3 Power Defect 0 - 100% Power I
1324 pcni 1360 paa
(!,])
+ 15%)1 PD N/A y Design,-
( I *D
- 15%)
p 1.
Doppler 0nly Power 30% P t /DQ)D
-1.
/
.0PM
[/a[q
'd 30 01 Cocificient See Figure C-1, inferred values fall 50% P (3P/aQ)D
-ll.69PC"/%P
-ll.55PC"/%P (3P/3Q)CS.9"<-
within upper and lowet Qi pcm bound 75% P (UP/aQ)D
-10.81PC"/%P
-10.70 jgp g(aoj39)u (. 30%)
90% P (UP/DQ)g
-10. 3ft 'cm/YP
-10. 30 '"/ (P P
i NOTE: (1 ) 10% uncertainty included in the design value.
i7 - Isothermal Temperature Coefficient a) Design values calculated with P/L in the bottom.
I - Integral reactivity wortli (pcm)
' b) Design and accident analyses performed at hot full power (llFP).
C - Doron Concentration g
(2) Design and accident analyses perfonned at ilFP.
- Q - lleat flux hot channel factor Design values included 15% uncertainty.
F,,- Enthalpy rise hot channel factor 3
(hP)) - Heasured Power Coefficient at 17 Qi
-