ML19323H284
| ML19323H284 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 04/30/1980 |
| From: | ARKANSAS POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19323H283 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8006120316 | |
| Download: ML19323H284 (48) | |
Text
._
i i
1 O
i ARY.ANSAS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY 4
.t ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE I
.EAM ELECTRIC STATION UNIT TWO j
STARTUP REPORT TO THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1
1 i
LICENSE NUMBER NFP-6 DOCKET NUMBER 50-368 l
l 1
]
SUPPLEMENT 3 i
l PERIOD ENDING APRIL 30, 1980
)
I 1
2 1
i t
4 4
1 i~
.scost403i Q u
m,
w FOREWARD This Startup Report for Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 2 covers the period from January 30, 1980, until April 30, 1980.
It is being submitted in accordance with Unit 2 Technical Spe'cification 6.9.1.1 and Regulatory Guide 1.16, " Reporting of Operating Information - Appendix "A" Tech-nical Specifications." The latter requires a startup report to be submitted within 90 days following completion of the startup test pro-gram or within 9 months following initial criticality, whichever is earliest, and a subsequent report every 90 days until the startup test program is completed.
=
I-
S3-1 e
ca TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR SUPPLEMENT 3 SECTION PAGE 6.4 Post 100% POWER PLATEAU INTRODUCTION S3-1 6.4.1 Ejected CEA Test S3-2 6.4.2 Dropped CEA Test S3-5 6.4.3 Pipe / Component Hot Deflection Test S3-8 6.4.4 Steady State Vibration Test S3-10 6.4.5 Process Variable Intercomparison S3-13 6.4.6 Chemistry & Radiochemistry Test S3-14 6.4.7 Loss of Offsite Power Test S3-15 6.4.8 CPC/COLSS Verification S3-18 6.4.9 Condensate & Feedwater System Test S3-21 6.4.10 Unit Load Transient Test S3-22 6.4.11 Shape Annealing Matrix Verification S3-26 6.4.12 Biological Shield Survey S3-44 6.4.13
~CESEC Verification Test S3-44
7.3 CONCLUSION
(Post 100% Power)
S3-45 ATTACHMENT A - Hot Leg Temperature Anomaly S3A-1 Update
S3-l' 6.4 POST 100% POWER PLATEAU l
INTRODUCTION i
. After the 100% Power Turbine Trip on January 29, 1980, ANO-2 was shut down for implementation of TMI Lessons Learned Modifications. Failure of an Emergency Diesel Generator kept the plant shut down until March 16, 1980. During the plant heatup and escalation in power various tests were performed, including the Loss of Offsite Power Test. ANO-2 was declared to be in commercial operation on March 26, 1980.
i A severe storm on April 7 caused damage to system transmission lines, j
resulting in a plant trip. The plant was returned to power on April 20, 1980.
Sections 6.4.1 through 6.4.13 provide a detailed description of tests and analyses performed during this period. An update on the anomaly is presented in Attachment A.
J
'l f
i 4
i i
i e
i e
t e
v e
'e--
e-+--w m
y e
-w-c---
Te y
S3-2 9
s 6.4.1 EJECTED CEA TEST 6.4.1.1 Purpose The purpose of this test was to verify that the measured power distribution associated with pseudo-CEA ejection from the 100% Power Transient Insertion Limit (i.e., CEA Group 6 insertion to 102" withdrawn) is adequately represented by the predicted values.
6.4.1.2 Test Method Initial conditions for this test were reactor at 50% power 12%, (following the 80% plateau) constant Teold 1 2 F, pressurizer level constant 4
i 11% and RCS pressure equal to 2250 psia 115 psia.
l The test commenced with the insertion of Group 6 to 100% Power Transient Insertion Limit, (102" WD +1.5 "WD).
Equilibrium Xenon conditions were then allowed to develop.
This was followed by the boration of the center CEA, CEA 6-1, to the fully withdrawn position.
Following stabilized conditions, incore detector data was taken for the " pseudo-ejected" center CEA configuration, CEA 6-1 was then inserted in trade for the with-drawal of CEA 6-46.
CEA 6-1 resulted in being aligned with the Group 6 height while CEA 6-46 was taken to its fully withdrawn position.
Conditions were allowed to stabilize and data was taken for the "psuedo-ejected" CEA 6-46 configuration.
CEA 6-46 was then realigned with Group 6 while maintaining power & temperature with Group 6 withdrawal.
Throughout the test, power and temperature were held constant.
I 6.4.1.3 Test Results CE Windsor reduced the data from this test and compared it to the appropriate core physics calculational models. The measured pre and post ejected CEA power distributions were com-pared to the calculated power distributions, and the agreement was found to be consistent-with the uncertainties assumed in the safety analysis. Results of this comparison are presented in Table 6.4.1-1.
S3-3 6.4.1.4 Conclusion The measured power distributions resulting from the pseudo-CEA ejections from the 100%
Power Transient Insertion Limit were adequately j
represented by the CE Windsor calculational models.
CE Windsor has reviewed the data from this test and found it acceptable.
j 4
I l
I 1
4
- i 5
i i
4 1
1 1
?'
2-
S3-4 e
Table 6.4.1-1 Comparison of the Magnitude and Location of Pre-Rod Ejection Planar Peaks as Given by Calculation and Measurements Calculated Peak Measured Peak Case Magnitude Location Magnitude Location (Box No.)
(Box No.)
- 1. Bank 6 in, eject 1.2477 133 1.2906 133 Rod 6-46 '
- 2. Bank 6 in, eject 1.2706 133 1.2906 133 Rod 6-1 Comparison of the Magnitude and Location of Post-Rod Ejection Planar Peaks as Given by Calculation and by Measurement Calculated Peak Measured Peak Case Magnitude Location Magnitude Location (Box No.)
(Box No.-)
- 1. Bank 6 in, eject 1.3884 130 1.4101 145 Rod 6-46
- 2. Bank 6 in, eject 1.4091
.88 1.4333 88 Rod 6-1 4
S3-5 6.4.2 DROPPED CEA TEST 6.4.2.1 Purpose The purpose of this test was to measure the power distribution resulting from a dropped CEA with the reactor at 50% power, and to measure the plant response to the transient for the purpose of CESEC verification.
6.4.2.2 Test Method Following the 80% power variable T
'8D' AVG reactor power was reduced to 50% power and the plant stabilized until 3D all rods out (ARO) equilibrium Xe was achieved. At this time, full length CEA 5-60 was dropped into the core by opening the appropriate individual CEA circuit breaker. The turbine load limit was immediately adjusted to match the new reactor power. This new reactor power and the appropriate T were maintained for one hour c
after the CEA drop by adjusting the turbine load limit and/or RCS boron concentration. After one haur had elapsed,_the dropped CEA was withdrawn while maintaining' constant reactor power by RCS boration. After ARO equilibrium Xe was reestab-lished, part length CEA P-24 was dropped into the core using the same technique.
6.4.2.3 Test Results CE Windsor reduced the data from this test and compared it to the appropriate core phy0 cs calculational models.
The measured pre and post dropped CEA power distributions were compared to the calcuated power distributions, and the agreement was found to be consistent with the uncertainties assumed in the safety analysis. The calculated and measured penalty factors for both of the dropped CEA cases were found to be conservative with respect to the penalty factors used in the CPC/CEAC's.
S3-6 6.4.2.4 Conclusion The measured power distributions resulting from the dropped CEAs were adequately repre-sented by the CE Windsor calculational models.
CE Windsor has reviewed the data from this test and found it acceptable.
l
S3-7 Table 6.4.2-1 Comparison of the Magnitude & Location of Pre-Rod Drop Planar Peaks as Given by Calculation and Measurements Calculated Peak Measured Peak Case Magnitude Location Magnitude Location (Box No)
(Box No)
- 1. Rod P-24 drop 1.2406 89 1.1957 88
- 2. Rod 5-60 drop 1.2571 89 1.1949 89 Comparison of the Magnitude & Location of Post Rod-Drop Planar Peaks as Given by Calculations and Measurements Calculated Peak Measured Peak Case Magnitude Location Magnitude Location (Box No)
(Box No)
- 1. P-24 drop 1.2506 104 1.2508 88
- 2. 5-60 drop 1.3088 119 1.2838 88 i
/
S3-9 6.4.3.3 Test Results The test was re-performed at the 100% plateau and it was verified conclusively that all piping systems expand freely with constraints only at the rigid restraints and anchors.
Following a cooldown from 100% power to cold shut-down conditions it was further verffied that the piping systems returned to their approximate re-quired baseline positions.
All data points were re-measured, evaluated, and determined to be within the required acceptance criteria as specified by the test procedure.
6.4.3.4 Conclusions It was shown that no interference with potential obstructions, such as pipe whip restraints, cable trays, equipment, or other pipe exists.
The piping expands freely and returns to its approxi-mate baseline positions in the cold condition.
All data point deflections are within the accept-able range.
l S3-10 1
6.4.4 STEADY STATE VIBRATION TEST 6.4.4.1 Purpose The purpose of this test was to monitor pipe vibrations of the systems listed below during all significant plant operating modes that are likely to cause vibration in the subject system, and are postulated to have a moderate to high probability of occurrence during the plant's lifetime.
- 1) Main Feedwater System
- 3) Main Steam System
- 4) Reheat Steam System
- 5) Condensate System
- 6) Extraction Steam System
- 7) Service Water System
- 8) Gaseous Waste (2T17 to CV-2428)
- 9) Spent Fuel Pool Cooling and Purification
- 10) Fenetration Room Ventilation Vibration monitoring was limited to a qualita-tive examination of each system at the specified test mode.
t 6.4.4.2 Test Method 1)
Main Feedwater System:
The Main Feedwater System was tested for steady state vibrations with each train operating simultaneously at 50% capacity (100% plant power).
Verification was made that flow through each feedwater train is 14,200 (+500)gpm, for trains "A" and "B" respectively. Following flow verification, a walkdown of the system was performed and the piping was inspected to ensure that the steady state vibrations were acceptable.
S3-ll 2)
Emergency Feedwater System:
he Emergency Feedwater System (EFS) was testad for steady state vibration with both pumps operating simultaneously at the max-iwam design flow rate supplying water to Steam Generator 2E24A, then to Steam Gen-erator 2E24B.
First, it was verified that the EFS pumps 2P7A and 2P7B are operating and that flow through each EFS train was 575 (+25) gpm.
Following flow verification, the system was inspected to ensure that the steady state vibrations were acceptable.
3)
Main Steam System:
The Main Steam System was tested for steady state vibration with the plant operating at 100% power.
It was first verified that the flow through the main steam lines from steam ggnerators 2Eg4Aand2E24Bwereeach6.2X10
(+0.2 X 10 ) lb/hr. The main steam line was in-spected and visually verified that the steady state vibration of the system piping was within the acceptance criteria.
4)
For the test of the Reheat Steam, Condensate, and Extraction Steam system, the prerequisites were that power range testing be in progress with the plant at a power level greater than 75%, and that the system be in a steady state operating condition.
A walkdown was performed to visually verify that the steady state vibration was acceptable.
5)
The Service Water, Gaseous Waste, and Penetra-tion Room Ventilation systems require that the plant be in power ascension testing and
)
the system be in an operating mode.
Here also, a walkdown was performed to~ insure and verify that the steady state vibration of che subject piping is acceptable.
m
S3-12 The Spent Fuel Pool Cooling and Purification system requires that the pool be filled. A walkdown is performed to verify acceptability of the piping system.
6.4.4.3 Test Results The test was performed at various power plateaus during r.scension from 50% to 100% full power.
Each particular section was performed as dictated by the procedure.
There were a number of items that indicated higher than expected steady state vibrations.
They were:
)
Train "B" main feed regulating valve bypass a.
piping (2CV-0744, 2FW-0744-A, and 2FW-0744-1).
b.
Main steam atmospheric dump valves 2CV-0305 and 2CV-0301.
Main steam dump to condenser, specifically c.
d.
The No. 1 main steam header, snubbers of 4
hanger 2EBD-lH13.
The above noted items were referred to Bechtel (S.F.) for engineering evaluation. Based upon this analysis and resulting calculations, the i
steady state vibration of the noted piping and systems was found to be receptable and complies with the acceptance criteria for steady state vibration in the ANO-2 FSAR.
The Spent Fuel Pool Cooling and Purification system was not inspected at this time. The steady state vibration inspection of this system is to be periormed at the first refueling out-age when the pool is to be filled and all associated systems will be in operation.
6.4.4.4 Conclusion This test proved that the piping systems steady state vibrations are acceptable and comply with the acceptance criteria following visual examin-ation by a qualified Test Engineer with the required experience in piping stress analysis.
S3-13 6.4.5 PROCESS VARIABLE INTERCOMPARISON TESTS 6.4.5.1 Purpose The purpcse of this test was to compare Process Instrumentation readings obtained from the Plant Computer, Plant Protection System, Core Protection Calculators, and various console meters to verify proper agreement between systems.
6.4.5.2 Test Method After establising steady state RCS conditions at the 100% power plateau, data was recorded for the following process variables:
1.
RCS cold leg temperature, 1
2.
RCS hot leg temperature, 3.
RCP differential pressure, 4.
RCP speeds, 5.
RCS pressure, 6.
Pressurizer level, 7.
Steam Generator levels, and 8.
Steam Generator pressures.
Common process variable readings for each system were then intercompared against preset acceptance criteria to assure the accuracy of process loop calibrations and system signal processing.
6.4.5.3 Test Results Instruments which were found to be out of tolerance, as reported in Supplement 2 of this startup report, were recalibrated and retested at the 100% power plateau. All instrument readings which were previously out of tolerance were found to be acceptable.
The out of tolerance instruments found at 80% were calibrated and retested at 100%
power.
Their accuracy was verified based on the 100% data collected, l
6.4.5.4 Conclusion All instrument readings have been found to be within the preset acceptance criteria.
Instrument calibrations have been verified.
i
=
L-
S3-14 6.4.6 CHEMISTRY AND RADI0 CHEMISTRY TESTS 6.4.6.1 Purpose The purpose of this test was to conduct chemistry tests with the intent of establishing baseline corrosion data and activity buildup with power level. As a result of this, procedures for sample collection analysis'were verified. Also, this test was used to verify the calibration of the letdown process radiation monitor.
6.4.6.2 Test Results During the period of this report the plant has not cperated at 100% power long enough to obtain equilibrium data to confirm the correlation between the Process Radiation Monitor and lab-oratory analysis. Additional data is expected to be taken following attaining 100% power equilibrium chemistry conditions.
e
S3-15 6.4.7 LOSS OF OFFSITE POWER 6.4.7.1 Purpose The purpose of this test was to verify that the NSSS can be safely shutdown and maintained in hot standby following a loss of offsite power with a concurrent loss of turbine generator.
6.4.7.2 Method The plant was operating at a steady state power level of approximately 20% and receiving power for station loads from the auxiliary trans fo rmer. The steam dump and bypass control system was in automatic (condenser dumps only) and the pressurizer level and pressure control systems were in automatic. The plant was isolated from all offsite power by isolating the startup transformers.
The blackout test was initiated by manually depressing the turbine trip pushbutton resulting in a turbine trip and subsequent reactor trip. The plant was powered from emergency power sources (station batteries and emergency diesel generators) for approximately 30 minutes during which time the plant was brought to hot standby.
6.4.7.3 Test Rd alts l
After the manual turbine trip,.AC power was 4
inte' erupted to all plant equipment not tied to a vital bus. The reactor tripped as a result l
of the reactor coolant pump coastdown and the main feedwater regulating valve ("B" train was in use) closed.
Emergency power became available once the two diesel generators started and tied on to their respective buses.
Diesel generators No. 1 & 2 tied on to their respective buses in 10.01 seconds and 6.74 seconds following the turbine trip.
f l
S3-16 Table 6.4.7.1 summarizes the values of selected plant parameters during the course of the transient. Approxmiately 40 seconds after the turbine trip, RCS temperature (T OT) and pressuge reachedrelativeminimumvaluesNydecreasing8F and 40 psia respectively, and steam generator pressures reached a maximum value of 986 psia (increasing 46 psia). From 40 seconds after the trip until the end of the test secondary pressure gradually decreased. The steam dump and bypass control system was not needed to control RCS temperature and pressure. No quick opening signals were received and all of the condenser dumps remained closed through-out the transient. From 40 seconds until 5 minutes after trip RCS temperature (THOT) and pressere reached relative maximum values by increasing 6 F and 60 psia respectively. From 5 mir.utes after the trip until the end of the test RCS temperature (TH0T) and pressure gradually decreased.
6.4.7.4 Conclusions All of the following acceptance criteria for the loss of offsite power test were satisfied:
A.
Both diesel generators started auto-matically upon loss of power and accelerated to > 900 RPM within 15 seconds.
B.
The reactor was shutdown and maintained in hot standby using only emergency power sources.
C.
Pressurizer pressure and steam generator
. pressures were maintained at less than 110% of design pressure. The maximum values of pressurizer pressure and steam generator pressure were 2280 psia and 986 psia respectively.
D.
The reactor coolant temperature increase
- 1 stabilized after the loss of power and did not exceed (T )= 600 F.
The maximum incorethermocoupkereadingduringthe course of the test was 556.6 F.
E.
Adequate instrumentation was powered and responding to monitor critical plant conditions.
n,
S3-17 TABLE 6.4.7.1 VALUE3 0F SELECTED PLANT PARAMETERS DURING LOSS OF OFFSITE POWER TRANSIENT TIME AFTER PRESSURIZER PRESSURIZER RCS TEMP SG PRESSURE SG LEVEL TRIP PRESS.(psia)
LEVEL (%)
TH ( F)
(psia)
(%)
0 2260 34 554 940 69 38 sec. 2220 31 546 986 58 5 min.
2280 35 552 958 58 36 min.
2214 31 543 882 55 s
t
S3-18 6.4.8 CuLSS/CPC Varification 6.4.8.1 Purpose The CPC/COLSS Verification Tests were per-formed to:
a) Verify that the CPC/COLSS DNBR and LPD calculations are correct.
b) Evaluate the effect of process input noise on the CPC/COLSS system.
c) Evaluate the effect of electromagnetic interference on the CPC system.
6.4.8.2 Test Method The process input noise was measured at all power plateaus, with ARO and equilibrium xenon.
Plant computer reports containing i
information on the CEA's, CPC's and COLSS were obtained for use in the verification of the CPC/COLSS DNBR and LPD calculations.
The CPC/COLSS data was compared to the results of the CEDIPS* computer code and incore detector analysis results.
Conducted and radiated electromagnetic noise measure-ments were made at 50% power.
6.4.8.3 Test Results The process noise data was recorded for all power plateaus. The data required at all power levels for verification of CPC/COLSS and LPD calculations was collected and compared to the results of the CEDIPS*
computer code. All data was transmitted to CE-Windsor for review.
The data from the conducted and radiated electromagnetic noise survey was evaluated by CE-Windsor.
1 6.4.8.4 Conclusions a)
CE has evaluated the CPC/COLSS DNBR and LPD calculations and verified that
, they are consistent at all power levels with results predicted by the CEDIPS*
code.
- CEDIPS is a FORTRAN program for statistical analysis of effects of process inputs upon j
the CPC system.
l i
l
S3-19 b)
As required by Staff Position #12 of Supplement 2 to the Eafety Evaluation report, an evaluation of CPC response to l
process noise has been performed. This evaluation was performed by examining analog recordings of CPC channel inputs and DNBR i
and LPD margin to trip outputs.
It has been verified that at all power levels process noise at the CPC inputs conservatively reduces the margin to trip relative to the noise-free condition.
In addition, the effects of process noise do not reduce the margin to trip to the extent that plant perfor-mance and availability are unnecessarily reduced.
c)
As required by Staff Position #12 of Supplement 2 to the Safety Evaluation Report, the results of the Electromagnetic Interference survey conducted at the plant have been evaluated. A comparison of maximum observed EMI levels with previously demonstrated minimum susceptibility levels is shown on Table 6.4.8-1.
Whers the data are not directly compatible, it is clear that the observed ambient conditions are far below the CPC susceptibility thresh-olds.
1 l
)
S3-20 Table 6.4.8-1 Comparison of CPC Susceptibility levels Versus Measured EMI Ambient at ANO-2 Test Type Maximum Minimum Susceptibility EMI Ambient Threshold Conducted 120 dBUA @ 180 HZ
>1.2 VRMS (CS01)
This is a 60 HZ 30 HZ - 50 KHZ harmonic, not EMI.
(Not directly
>l VRMS (CS02) comparable) 50 KHZ - 400 MHZ
>100 volt spike with 10 ps pulse width (CS06)
Radiated, magnetic 112 dB pt
>100 volt spike with (Not directly 10 ps pulse width and I
comparable) 60 HZ, 20 amp. (RS02)
Radiated, electric field, 75 dBW/M
>l V/M, 14 KHZ to 2 MHZ 14 KHZ to 10 GHZ 58 dBW/M
>5 V/M, 2 MHZ to 35 MHZ 104 dBW/m
>l V/M, 35 MHZ to 2 GHZ none detected
>5 V/M, 2 GHZ to 10 GHZ (RS03)
General note: V/M means volts per meter dBW/M means DB above one microvolt per meter 120 dBW/M = 1 V/M dBpt means DB above one pico-tesla dBUA means DB above one micro-ampere
~
S3-21 6.4.9 CONDENSATE AND FEEDWATER SYSTEM POWER ESCALATION 6.4.9.1 Purpose To obtain base line data while demonstrating the ability of the Main Feedwater System to supply the steam generators at required pressures, temperatures, and flows of 100%
plant capacity.
6.4.9.2 Method The plant was stabilized at 100% power with the Feedwater Control System in automatic.
Data was collected on various feedwater system parameters from the plant computer and local indications and recorded in the l
proper sections of the test procedure.
6.4.9.3 Results All required data was obtained at the 100%
plateau. Other than adjustments to the lube oil pressures to bring them within the required limits all data yielded satisfactory results.
6.4.9.4 Conclusion The Condensate and Feedwater systems will supply the steam generators with proper flows, pressures and temperatures at 100% plant capacity.
l
S3-22 6.4.10 UNIT LOAD TRANSIENT TEST 6.4.10.1 Purpose The purpose of this test was to:
Demonstrate the following systems operate satisfactorily in the automatic mode to maintain plant parameters within acceptable limita during steady state power operations and during trans-sient conditions, including plant trips.
a.
Reactor Regulating System (RRS) b.
Feedwater Control System (FWCS) c.
Steam Dump and Bypass Control System (SDBCS) d.
Megawatt Demand Setter (MDS) e.
Pressurizer Level Control System (PLCS) f.
Pressurizer Pressure Control System (PPCS) 6.4.10.2 Test Method The specified system tests, with the exception of those listed below, have been performed during previous startup report periods and the results of those tests are described therein.
A.
Integrated Test This test was performed after the system tests at all other power plateaus had been successfully completed.
The reactor was stablized at 50% power and control systems were verified to be in the Automatic mode of control. The Reactor Regulating System was placed in Auto-Sequential to allow automatic CEA motion.
From the Megawatt Demand Setter (MDS) panel, turbine power was lowered at a rate of 5% per minute to approximately 30% power and stabilized. Turbine power was then increased to 40% at 1% per minute from the turbine generator panel. After stabilizing, a step change from 40% to 30%
was initiated from the turbine generator panel.
When stability was achieved, a ramp increase to 50% power was made from the MDS panel at a rate of V% per minute.
S3-23 During the transient described above, brush recorders and computer trends were used to monitor key system parameters to verify correct systea operation.
B.
Plant Trip Test Various plant parameters for evaluation of control system performance were monitored using strip chart recorders during the performance of the 20% Loss of Offsite Power Trip.
6.4.10.3 Test Results A.
Integrated Test Analysis of the data collected during this test showed that the RRS, FWCS,SDBCS, MDS, PLCS, and PPCS can control system parameters within their acceptable ranges during the transients created in this test.
Table 6.4.10-1 contains a listing of the systems and their responses during the transients shown.
B.
Plant Trip Test The specified data was monitored on brush recorders for the 20% Loss of Offsite Power Trip. Analysis of the data tevealed that proper system control was maintained i
by RRS, FWCS, SDBCS, PLCS and PPCS.
6.4.10.4 Conclusions A.
Integrated Test The RRS, FWCS, SDBCS, MDS, PLCS, and PPCS have been shown to maintain proper plant control during 5% per minute down ramps, 1% per minute up ramps,10% step changes and % per minute up ramps when in the automatic mode of control.
B.
Plant Trip Test All required data was gathered during the 20% Loss of Offsite Power Trip. Analysis of the data _retraled that proper system j
control is maint..ined during a loss of j
offsite power t the plant control systems.
r
~.
S3-24 TABLE 6.4.10-1 SYSTEM RESPONSES DURING THE INTEGRATED TEST TRANSIENT SYSTEM POWER RAMP CHANGES POWER STEP CHANGE RRS During ramp decreases in power, During the step change from CEA insertion signals were de-40% to 30% power, a high manded.
If the T rate insert signal was de-AVE REF error was great enough, a manded which quickly corrected high rate insert signal was the T discrepancy.
AVE REF seen. The opposite was true of ramp increases in power.
Proper CEA motion was main-tained.
FWCS When ramp decreases were During the transient, a initiated a resulting de-swell in steam generator crease in feedflow was de-levels was seen.
This was manded by FWCS #1 and #2 quickly corrected by FWCS with steam generator levels automatic action.
remaining relatively un-affected. The opposite was true of ramp increases.
SDBCS No automatic action Permissive signals were observed on the 2CV-0302 and 2CV-0303 dump valves.
2CV-0302 ramped open to
$25%, 27 seconds after the step change then ramped shut in approximately 30 seconds.
23 seconds after the step changei 2CV-0303 ramped open to approximately 75% then ramped shut a minute later.
No quick open signals were seen.
S3-25 TABLE 6.4.10-1 (cont)
TRANSIENT SYSTEM POWER RAMP CHANGES POWER STEP CHANGE MDS Tha MDS operated as designed Not used during the loss of during the ramp changes in offsite power tansient.
power. During the 5% per minute down ramp, generator output was maintained closely with the load reference de-manded until the final ref-erence set output was achieved.
During the % per minute up ramp, generator output lagged approximately 30 MWe behind the load reference. This discrepancy was made up when the load reference achieved the reference set-point.
4 PPCS These systems operated as designed during the transients initiated to control pressurizer pressure and pressurizer level within their control bands.
A 4
o
~
m p
(
l S3-26 6.4.11 SHAPE ANNEALING MATRIX AND BOUhTARY CONDITION MEASUREMENT TESTS 6.4.11.1 Purpose The objective of this test was to measure the Shape Annealing Matrix (SAM) and to verify the Boundary Point Power Correlation (BPPC) constants for the CPC's.
These constants are used in the CPC power distribution synthesis algorithm.
6.4.11.2 Test Method This SAM coefficients and BPPCs are determined from a least squares analysis of the measured excore detector readings and corresponding axial power distribution determined from the incore detector signals.
Since these values must be representative for rodded and unrodded cores throughout life, it is desirable to use as wide a range of core axial shapes as are available to establish their values.
This is done by initiating an axial Xenon oscillation.
Data is periodically gathered during the oscillations so that it will be representative of as wide a range of axial shapes as possible.
Incore, excore and related data are recorded, and incore analysis is performed which relates the incore detector signals to power distribution and excore detector data in a form and format which can be easily input to programs used to perform the least squares fitting. The incore analysis results include:
A.
Excore detector fractional responses for each CPC; B.
Core peripheral power fractions for the upper, middle, and lower third of the core; C.
Core average power fractions for the upper, middle, and lower third of the core; and D.
Upper and lower core boundary average power.
The above output is used to determine a "best set" of SAM coefficients and BPPC constants by using least squares analysis. The results of these calculations are then used to adjust the power uncertainty factors (BERR1, BERR3) used by the CPC's in the LPD and DNBR calcu-lations.
S3-27 6.4.11.3 Test Results Specific test results and the values of Shape Annealing Matrices have been pre-viously reported. This report deals with the analysis of axial shape synthesis uncertainty, as' required by Staff Position
- 1 of Supplement 2 to the Safety Evaluation Report. To perform this analysis, CPC values of F, ASI, the 20 node core average axial shapk,andthe20nodehotpinaxialshape are compared to values determined from incore detector data. These values are generated by COLSS or where available CECOR, an off-line program which uses the incore detector signals to determine a 3-D assembly power distribution and assembly hot-pin power distribution. The CPC data, incore detector data, and COLSS data were collected during the startup test program.
CPC values other than input param2ters and DNBR and LPD margin to trip outputs were generated by the CPC FORTRAN code which is used to qualify on-line software during software development.
A total of 99 cases were selected which cover a wi.e range of CEA positions and power levels.
A summary of these cases is presented in Table 6.4.11.1.
6.4.11.3.1 Three Dimensional Peaking Factor F The comparison of CPC values of F with COLSS g
and CECOR is summarized in Table 0.4.11.2.
In all cases the 4.2% uncertainty applied within the CPC to raw values of F before they are O
used is sufficient to insure that the F used by the CPC is conservatively large.
Cobparisons made to COLSS more often need the uncertainty to be conservative than do those made to CECOR.
This is because CECOR is providing a best estimate calculation, whereas COLSS is itself expected to be conservative.
In one case, the COLSS value of F is considerably higher than the CPC values. qHowever, this occurred during a test during which a special COLSS penalty factor was installed. Reconstruciton of the non penalty COLSS value using a simulation program resulted in all 4 CPCs having higher F than the simulation.
q
S3-28 6.4.11.3.2 Axial Shape Index Axial Shape Index is defined as the difference between power generated in the bottom half of the core and power generated in the top half of the core divided by total core power.
CPC uncertainty analysis determined to 95/95 con-fidence that the actual ASI would be no more than'0.032 larger and no more than 0.086 smaller than the CPC value. Of 396 comparisons (99 cases over 4 channels) only 6 have CPC ASI's which fall outside this range. 5 occurrences were fsr deviated CEA cases, when a substants.al penalty factor is applied in'the CPC. The last case has no apparent reason to be out of the band.
Clearly the 95/95 confidence level is justified.
6.4.11.3.3 Core Average Axial Shape The 20 mode CPC synthesized axial shapes were compared to CECOR, where available, and to COLSS. The comparison was made by determining the RMS difference between CPC values and CECOR/COLSS values, excluding the two top and two bottom nodes. This was done according to the, equation:
('CPC(") ~ ICECOR/COLSS("))
For various cases, the value of this RMS difference ranges between 0.02 and 0.07.
+
This range is acceptable and within the bounds of the CPC uncertainty analysis.
The larger values occur during deviated CEA cases, where one CPC channel is incorrectly inferring CEA group position. An increased penalty factor compensates for this error.
Figures 6.4.11.1 through 6.4.11.7 ere repre-sentative of the comparisons made.
C
~
a.-
S3-29 6.4.11.3.4 Hot-Pin Axial Power Shaqes A comparison similar to that performed in 6.4.11.3.3 was done for hot pin axial shapes.
The RMS values obtained run in the range bet-ween.06 and.12, with deviated CEA cases having substantially higher RMS values. These greater differences are explained by the con-servatism of the radial peaking factors assumed in the CPCs, and also b2cause the data were not normalized before comparison. Never-theless, the agreement obtained helps to verify the adequacy and conservatism of the CPC shape synthesis. Figures 6.4.11.8 through 6.4.11.12 show representative comparisons.
6.4.11.4 Conclusions An analysis of axial shape synthesis has been made using data collected during startup testing at various lower levels and CEA configurations.
Final conclusions are:
a)
The three dimensional peaking factor F ascalculatedbytheCPCshasbeencomhared to incore data through CECOR (off-line) and COLSS (on-line) and the values of CPC F are always conservative when the uncert9inty multipliers is applied.
b)
The ASI values determined by the CPCs agree with those calculated by COLSS and CECOR to within the modeling errors of the uncertainty analysis.
c)
The RMS differences between the CPC core average axial power distribution and those s
produced by CECOR and by COLSS were found to be acceptable as were the hot pin axial power distributions.
d)
The uncertainty associated with axial shape synthesis is known accurately enough to ensure conservatism of the algorithm.
S3-30 TABLE 6.4.11.1 Summary of Cases for CPC Axial Shape Synthesis Evaluation CEA CONFIGURATION
- of cases All CEA's out 43 Gp 6 in 28 Cp 6 + 5 in-2 Gp 6 + 5 + 4 in 4
Gp 6 + 5 + 4 + PLR in 2
Gp 6 + PLR in 6
i' Gp 6 + 5 + PLR in 2
PLR in 5
4 One CEA deviated 7
99 POWER LEVEL Approx. 20%
16 Approx. 30%
6 Approx. 50%
66 Approx. 65%
6 Approx.100%
5
)
99 e
d q
4 4
~
w-
~
c-r+,
S3-31 TABLE 6.4.11.2
. Summary of Cases for Comp -ison of CPC, COLSS, and CECOR Values of Fq Total Cases =
99 Cases with CECOR available 56 Cases with CPC F > CECOR F 51 Cases with CPC F x1.042>OOLSSF 5
q Cases with CECOR unavailable 43 Cases with CPC F > COLSS F 33 Cases with CPC F x1.042 > 00LSS F 9
Cases with CPC F x1.042 > SimulatSd COLSS F 1
0 (see text) e m
o A_
- 0
^
- - - ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ - -
S3--32 a
-_ O
~
o e
.m
+)
v1J U o
c.
v v e
e e
Hm 6
e e
e H
O H
e e4 O
e c
g
..o =
M C
N
=
i
_aoo c:
w e: :r
< o w c Ju o o o
- N
.t o
o.
e.
.o o.
e m
NOIIGEIMISIG Eilt10d '1VIXY 3DVH3AY 3H03 1
\\
o 6
e e
Figure 6.4.11.2 2.0
. fiUCLEAR JULI A!i DATE R2584ZD 20" POWER COLSS o CPC 2
Se; p.
m 5
asy
- 1. 0 -
2 N
4 E'
~
s U
'5 8
l
CAtlK 6 CEA
['
0 25'%
50:
75%
100%
PERCCriT WITilDRAuti e
e
+
S3-34 g
O 9
e t
OO e
r--
O OO O W
0-O O 9
..M g
6 9
e 9
9
-4 e
Z=
e dp D
.N b
. o-3 e P-m O
.r-A 9
QC g
S W
M r-O 4
W N
C4 e
W S
F-<
--tn O
N I
Z t
w J
Q
'"3 MW d 3 4 O W
C-J O b4 D O 4
Z W 4
8 Y.
O O.
i.O.
m 5
N0llaElylsIQ y Od 'IVIXV HDVH2AV 3H03 4.s e
i
!iI llll nw $
c 0
0
\\*
1 R
O C '
E "
C '
A E
C 4
~
=
,t K
5 N
7 AB 4
11 N
4
!A 6
%R 0 Dl e
A A
5 i r
E E
T I
u C
C g
W 5
6 i
F T
rs K
N N
E f
tr i
R A
A C
8 B
B R
7 E
7 P
2R E
TA 5
2 D
NA I
L UJ R E
R W A O E P LC %
u 0 l
f 5
0 0
s.
0 5
0 2
1 1
hURWd' E g2 $Q g1 M8
~
~
)
Figure 6'.4.11.5
- w, 2.0 ARO DEVIATED CASE WIT)( BANK 6 CEA AT 50S WITilDRAWN ID= R27721Q CECOR
=
e CPC A (DEV) c.
t-a CPC B E i g-5 50% Power rm r-r e
a 9
E
/;,
N..
5, 1.0 G
,/
- u g
=
a
'd E
M
.5 c
g 7
3, ONE BAhK 6 CEA 0*lt.Y 0
g.;
25.;
50-
- 757, 100%
PERCENT WIT!iDRAWil
0 v
~ '
S3-37 g
u
' O 3
e t
Vi
=
V1 4O 9
U 5O v
U w
C.
U U
S c4 h
O 4
9 O
O e
M M
=
a W
N h
2 @;
e o =: -
c P
L.
O 3
.CD
- r=
g_
v Mw O
C.
t
- e A
N W
'Q 4
=<
A D
M D
W
<. >=
Q.
W 0%
a
- r St U
O 3
N Q-6 5 *=
M 3
O.
d.i u.
o att N
c=
e==
=
KOIInEIBISIG H330d 'IVIXV HDYH3AV 2H03 4
lI1 tWiw*
n
~
!;. ~
u O
1 S
S LO C
R O
C C
E P
C C
e5 7
_-- 7 1
1 4
N 1
W 6
/, A 0H I
50
._ e l
r i
T u
I g
W
_ i F
T N
EC
,7, R
E P
/
5 2
E TAD 7
N A
I L
U R
J EW R
F O
A X
P E
6 L
4 1
C 9
0
/
U 2
0
/.
H R
1 0
0 5
0 5
0 2
1 1
5s$=ii mEe n NoNNN 28 t
I
.i 31
i i
eWl n
=
0 0
\\
1
\\
\\
\\
\\
s
~
g
\\
\\
t R
5 i
4 O
5 C
1 C
\\
E 0
P
.\\
C C
C
- \\
5
\\
7
- \\
N N
+
\\
8
- \\
\\
1
\\
1 aN 4
N NW 6
- s AR N
~ D e
0li r
5T I
u 4
W g
i F
Q T
N
~ %s
- E C
R E
P f*
f/*
/
5 7
2 E
/
T j
A
/./
C ff I
A
/
/,
I LU J
R
/
E
/
R G
l
/
A K
O',
i E
1 P
f L
6
/
C 7
/
U 2
0 I
i R
5 y
f 0
0
.s.
0 5
0
. 2 1
1
= EeEb u$" #G%,g g*
r 1
~ _
Figure 6.4.11.9 3.0 HUCLEAR JULIAH DATE R2778Ril
- ~~
~
CECOR
~ s 2.5
~50% POWER
- s COLSS 'S N
e s S
/
\\
$5
/
- \\
S 2.0
\\
. c-
./
s
/
5
\\
/
\\.
w
/
y
/
\\
1.5 7
\\,
/
\\
'N
/
\\ a 5
/
N
\\
.i s
t 8
1.0
.e s
N
- N N
'N N
.5 N
BANK 6 CEA mi 0
i t
i 0
25%
50%
75%
100%
4 1
1 PERCENT WITilDRAWN i
Figure 6.4.11.10 AR0 DEVIATED CASE WITli BAtlK 6 CEA AT 50 WITil9R AWff
/',-
4.0
~~~,
C EC0i'.
N
- - COLSS
/
e CPC
/
e
- N 10 R27721Q
/
y 3.0 50% Power
/
g
/
\\
/
\\
\\
/
\\
=E
/
g
\\
B e
/
\\
h, 2.0
/
\\
E
/
N 5
/
\\
i y
/
\\.
/
a
\\
9
/
- 5 3
/
@l.0 o
e
=
.5 h
~
OrlE SA!:K 6 CEA OfiLY 25if 50h.
75~
100%
0
()
PERCEll! WITHORA!.'!1 O
'\\
)
lIl l\\
a W1
.^
~
zn o
j
' +
\\
\\
R S O S e
C L C E O P C C C 1
\\
\\
- N
\\
v 9
5
.N 7
s
,x
[
1 1
NN s
1 e
1 4
6 s
e 0
r
~
5 u
l g
i W
i A
F R
lD i
T I
H
~
T it E
- ~
C R
E P
,e I
5 1,
2 E
T A
D
/
ll A
/
I f
L j/
U R
J E
/
W
/
R U
O
/
A T
P E
9
/
L 4
/
C 9
0 u
2 0
fl R
1
/
5 0
0 f
g 0
2 1
1 2S$ 6msA g b y 5 A FOt 4 ug
llI l
1) uwIk s
q 9
t.', 1, 0'
0
\\
1
\\
\\
A
\\.
S
\\
H
\\
R S
C O
S
\\
C L
C E
O P
C C
C
- s. \\
\\
- \\
5
\\
7
,\\
,s x s 2
1 N.,
1 1
i N
- D l
4 HA e ~
R 6
~
0l i
5 T e
e I
r W
u g
T N
i E
F C
R
[
E P
e_
(
4 5
2 p
E T
A D
t
/,,
rA
/
I
/
L R
e U
E J
- O R
F P
A x
E 6
L 4
C 9
0 U
2 0
- i R
1 J
0 5
0 5
0 2
1 1
ncd.gU08 ml6c-ay-E e
S3-44 6.4.12 BIOLOGICAL SHIELD SURVEY TESTS 6.4.12.1 Purpose The test'was conducted to accomplish the following objectives:
A.
Determine background radiation levels prior to initial criticality.
B.
Evaluate the adequacy of plant radiation shielding.
C.
Determine radiation levels throughout the plant at various power levels.
6.4.12.2 Test Results The reactor was not at 10'0% power long enough during this period to complete the Biological Shield Survey.
It is expected that it will be i
completed during the next period of steady state operation at 100% power.
6.4.13 CESEC VERIFICATION TEST 6.4.13.1 Purpose The purpose of this test was to acquire data
)
during the following NSSS transient tests.
1.) 80% Loss of Flow Trip 2.) Dropped CEA Test 3.)
100% Turbine. Trip Test The data obtained will subsequently be used by CE-Windsor in a comparison of actual NSSS response to simulated NSSS response as pre-dicted by CESEC, the CE NSSS response code.
6.4.13.2 Test Results The analysis being performed by CE is in progress but has not been completed. No preliminary results are available at this time. The analysis is expected to be completed during this summer (1980).
j i-
S3-45 o
7.3 CONCLUSION
(POST 100% POWER)
During the period of this report data has been collected to clear deficiencies on a number of previously performed tests.
In addition, analysis of data pre-viously collected has been completed for certain tests. The only change observed in the behavior of the t anomaly has been a decrease in the frequency and hot average magnitude of the events.
Testing remaining to be performed is.
1.
Completion of the Spent Fuel Pool Cooling System Steady State i
Vibration test when this system is placed in service during the first refueling.
(Section 6.4.4) 2.
Completion of the letdown process monitor comparison with radiochemistry analysis of reactor coolant letdown at 100%
)
' power.
(Section 6.4.6) l 3.
Completion of the Biological Shield Survey at 100% power.
(Section 6.4.12) 4.
Performance of a 100% Generator Trip (Load Rejection) test whict is planned following implementation of a Technical Specification change to reduce the low steam generator level trip setpoint and completion of planned modification to the condenser and atmospheric steam dump valves.
In addition, analysis of the results of the CESEC verification testing is to be completed later during the summer of 1980.
l l
r -
S3A-1 o
e ATTACIDfENT A ANO-2 HOT LEG TEMPERATURE ANOMALY UPDATE The temperature bias between RTD's on opposite sides of the reactor coolant hot legs has been previously described. This phenomenon has been called the T an andtheperiodickikps,omalyandincludesboththesteadystatebias or shifts of higher temperature from one side of the pipe to the other and back.
During the period of this report, continuous monitoring was performed at 100% power.
Since the end of the continuous monitoring, periodic monitoring has been performed. To date, the following characteristics have been observed:
1.
The steady state bias remains about 6 F at 100% power.
2.
The frequency of flips appears to be decreasing slightly.
Flips frequently occur in groups, with perhaps 3 occurring within an hour, then none for several hours.
3.
Flips frequently do not result in a complete exchange of temp-eratures across the pige. The maximum change during a flip is usually less than 6 F, sometimes as little as 1 F.
4.
The averaging used at the input to the Core Protection Calculators (CPCs) appears to adequately shield the CPCs from the effects of the anomaly.
It has not been possible to correlate any change in CPC calculated DNBR with the occurrence of a T fli -
h P
The periodic monitoring described in Supplement 2 of this startup report will be continued.
.