ML19326C637

Cycle 3 Startup Rept for Period Ending 780507.

ML19326C637
Person / Time
Site:	Arkansas Nuclear
Issue date:	07/07/1978
From:	ARKANSAS POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML19326C635	List: ML19326C634 ML19326C637
References
NUDOCS 8004240576
Download: ML19326C637 (26)

Text

- --

p- ,~ ,. ,

\J . ^ * -

ARKANSAS POWER & LIGitT COMPANY

. ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNIT ONE YCLE 3 STARTUP REPORT TO TIIE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION LICE)JSE NUMBER DPR-51 DOCKET NUMBER 50-313 FOR TIIE PERIOD ENDING 7 MAY 1978 I

e 8004240'Y M S

s .

t ,

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1 l'RECRITICAL TEST

SUMMARY

2.0 CONTROL ROD DRIVE TRIP TIME TEST 1 IIOT ZERO POWER TEST SUMMARIES 3.0 ZERO POWER PHYSICS TEST 2 3.1 Determination of Critical Boron Concentration 3 3.2 Determination of Moderator. Temperature Coelficient 4 3.3 Control Rod Reactivity Worth Measurements 5 3.4 Ejected Rod Worth Measurement 6 POWER ASCENSION TEST SUMMARIES 4.0 CORE POWER DISTRIBUTION TEST g i

i 5.0 POWER IMBALANCE DETECTOR CORRELATION TEST 10 I

6.0 DETERMINATION OF REACTIVITY COEFFICIENTS AT POWER 11

7.0 CONCLUSION

12 l

l l l

i M

1 1

I

( ( Page 1

=

1.0 INTRODUCTION

On February 2,1978, the second refueling outage of' ANO Unit 1 began and was completed on April 23, 1T/8. ANO Unit 1 achieved criticality on March 25,,1978, and zero power physics testing was initiated.

Zero Power Physics Testing, which commenced on Mar.h 25, 1978, was successfully completed on March 27, 1978. This program was conducted at a nominal reactor coolant temperature of 532*F and below the level of nuclear heating to eliminate any temperature feedback effects.

Power escalation, which was delayed due to turbine generator problems, was begun on April 23, 1978. This testing program was carried out at three power _ plateaus during the power ascension:

Power Level (%FP) Date 40 April 23, 1978 75 April 26, 1978 100 May 5, 1978 The startup and power escalation testing sequence was completed on May 7, 1978.

PRECRITICAL TEST

SUMMARY

2.0 CONTROL R0D DRIVE TRIP TIME TEST 2.1 Purpose The purpose of the Control Rod Drive Trip Time Test was to verify the integrated, functional trip capability of the Control Rod Drive System and to determine for each control rod assembly, the total elapsed drop time from the initiation of the trip signal until the control rod assembly was three-fourths inserted.

2.2 Test Method j l

Initial Reactor Coolant System (RCS) conditions were established at a j temperature of approximately 532 F, at a pressure of 2155 + 30 psig, all four (4) reactor coolant pumps running, with Boron at a concen-tration of 1822 ppmB. Control Rod Groups 1 through 7 were fully withdrawn and Group 8(APSR's) were fully inserted. The Control Rod Drive Mechanisms (CRDM) was then tripped via the manual trip button.

The insertion times for each CRDM from its initial position to its 3/4 insertion point were measured by the plant computer Rod Drop Timer program. The printout of this program includes trip initia- ,

tion time, initial position and trip insertion time for each CRDM(excluding Group 8). l I

l l

I

\

k ( Page 2 2.3 Results and Evaluation An analysis of the' drop times indicates that rods 5-1, 5-2, 5-3, 5-6, 6-6, 7-4, and 7-5 were fastest at 1.133 + 0.017 seconds and rods 1-2, 1-4, 1-5, 1-6, 2-1, 2-6, 3-2, 3-5, 3-7, 3-11 and 3-12 were the slowest at 1.183 + 0.017 seconds.

'2.4 Conclusions The rod drop times were well below the criteria stated in Section 4.7 of the Technical Specifications, which specifies a maximum rod drop time of 1.46 seconds at full flow conditions.

HOT ZERO POWER TEST SUMMARIES 3.0 ZERO POWER PHYSICS TEST 3.0.1 Purpose The purpose of the Zero Power Physics Test was to verify the nuclear design parameters used in the safety analysis, the Technical Specification limits, and for developing operational parameters. All acceptance criteria established for this test n.ust be satisfied prior to commencing power escalation.

3.0.2 Test Method Criticality was achieved by control rod withdrawal and Boron dilution of the RCS after system conditions j had been established at 532 F and 2155 psig. During the approach ,

, to criticality, a plot of inverse neutron count rate ratio versus Boron concentration was maintained by using NI-l and NI-2 '

of_the nuclear instrumentation, and a plot of boron concentration versus time was also maintained. After achieving criticality, nuclear power was increased and the source and intermediate range nuclear instrumentation overlap was verified to be in excess I of one decade. During this same increase in_gower, the point of sensible heating was determined to be 9 X 10 amps, and the upper powerlgmit for Zero Power Physics testing was established at 5 X 10 amps.

i l

l

-Page 3

~

Physics testing was then conducted which included the following

, . measurements, listed in chronological order:

A. The "all rods out" Critical Boron Concentration.

B. Moderator. Temperature Coefficient of Reactivity at the "all rods out" condition.

C. Differential and Integral Rod Worth of Co.+.re,1 Rod Groups 8, 7, 6,~and 5 by the rod versus Boron swap technique.

D. Critical Boron Concentration at the regulating rods inserted condition.

E. Moderator Temperature Coefficient of Reactivity at the regulating rods inserted condition.

F. Ejected Rod Worth by the Borca swap and rod swap techniques.

3.1 DETERMINATION OF CRITICAL BORON CONCENTRATION 3.1.1 Purpose.

The purpose of this test was to determine the Boron concentrationrequiredtomagntaincriticalityatHot Zero Power (approximately 10 amps) with all control rods withdrawn and Xenon free. The resultant value was used to verify the predicted fuel depletion curves used in OP 1103.15, Reactivity Balance Calculation, and

to verify the "all rods out" Boron concentration j predicted by the fuel vendor.

3.1.2 Test Method

Initial RCS conditions were established at a temperature of l

532 + 2*F. Equilibrium boron concentratiog was attained at 1822 ppm Boron with power stable at 10 amps, and control rod groups 1-6 and group 8 at 100% withdrawn I and group 7 at approximately 85% withdrawn.

l l

I i

'l l

- j Q_ ,

]' ( Pags 4-

' The remaining reactivity held in the inserted portion of Group 7 was measured by withdrawal of Group 7 to its out limit and concurrent reactivity measurements. The, reactivity was converted to equivalent Boron concentration change using-the predicted Boron differential worth. The "all rods out" Boron concentra-tion is the sum of the measurad equilibrium Boron concentration and the equivalent Boron from the reactivity measurement.

The Critical-Boron Concentration at the regulating rods inserted condition was determined after the Control Rod Reactivity Worth Measurements had been made. The pre-dicted Critical Boron Concentration was determined by correcting the. predicted all rods out boron concentration for control rod insertion from the predicted rod worths.

This reactivity worth was then converted to an equivalent Boron concentration change. The Critical Boron Concentration is the sum of the measured Boron concentration and the equivalent Boron concentration change.

1 3.1.3 Results and Evaluation

. The results of the predicted Critical Boron Concentration and measured Critical Boron Concentration for "all rods out" and " regulating rods inserted" conditions are listed in Table 3-1.* Both measured Critical Boron Concentrations were within +100 ppm boron of the predicted valuesi and therefore satisfy the acceptance criterion.

j. 3.2 DETERMINATION OF MODERATOR TEMPERATURE COEFFICIENT 3.2.1 Purpose The pu'rpose of this test was to determine the moderator temperature coefficient of reactivity at Hot Zero Power.

The values measured are used to verify that the moderator temperature coefficient is within Technical Specification limits, that the moderator temperature coefficient is within specified limits of predicted values in the Physics i Test Manual and to provide verification of the data used in OP 1103.15, Reactivity Balance Calculation.

3.2.2 Test Method-The moderator temperature coefficient at Hot Zero Power was measured by using a Reactivity Calculator.

. Thefirststepwastoachievesgeadystatecritical

. conditions at approximately 10 amps on the intermediate range detectors. The Reactivity Calculator method measures reactivity changes'as T is varied in small increments (5-10*F). The'reactivily* change associated with the temperature change provides the data necessary to determine a moderator temperature coefficient.

l t -

my

y. - - - - , - - - m-y

. [ Page 5 The moderator temperature coefficient of reactivity at hot conditions with regulating control rod assembly groups inserted was measured after the Control Rod Reactivity Worth Measurements were made utilizing the same method.

3.2.3 Results and Evaluation The measured and predicted values of moderator temperature coefficient for the conditions of "all rods out" and regulating rods inserted are listed in Table 3-2. The measured values of moderator temperature cogfficient are within the acceptancecriteriaof+0.4XIg AK/K*F of the predicted values and less than + 0.5 X 10 aK/K/*F at Hot Zero Power conditions. Extrapolation of the moderator coefficient to 95% of full power indicated that the coefficient would be negative for all expected Boron. concentrations and allowable control rod configurations.

See Table 3-3.

3.3 . CONTROL ROD REACTIVITY WORTH MEASUREMENT 3.3.1 Purpose The purpose of this test was to determine the integral worth of the regulating control rods and Axial Power Shaping Rods at Hot Zero Power for the purpose of updating the integral control rod worth curves in the Reactivity Balance Calculation and for comparison with the predicted worths. This data was also used to verify reloadthe adequacy of the shutdown margin analysis for the core.

3.3.2 Test Meth i The initial by determined Boron concentration sampling. Then, of the RCS was first rod worths from the-fuel vendor,using the predicted the amount of control Boron dilution required to bring the control rods from the "all rods out" conditions to the all regulating rods inserted its configuration, maximum Group 5 at 0% withdrawn and Group 5 at worth, was determined.

Deboration was initiated and9 the reactor. was maintained critical a,t, approximately 10 amps by insertion of Group 8 until it was approximately at its maximum worth, then by periodic insertion of groups 7, 6 and 5(without overlap), while making concurrent reactivity measurements, until deboration was complete. ,

Frequent sampling of the RCS and Make Up Tank during debora- {

tion was would done be known. so that the Baron concentration versus time U i

S

'd

_~

I I Page 6

_Then, using both reactivity measurements and recorded positions ,of the CRA groups versus Boron concentration, the reactivity worth versus CRA Group position was determined.

3.3.3 Results and Evaluation The predicted.and measured control rod group worths are

, tabulated in Table 3-4. The individual CRA group worths measured were within the acceptance criterion range of 1 15% of the predicted values and the total Group 5, 6 and 7 worths were well within the i 10%

acceptance criterion.

3.4 EJECTED ROD WORTH MEASUREMENT 3.4.1 Purpose The purpose of this test was to determine the reactivity worth of the worst case ejected control rod as specified by the Cycle 3 Reload Report, to verify its worth is less than 1.0% AK/K at Hot Zero Power and that it is within acceptable agreement with the value predicted by the fuel vendor.

3.4.2 Test Method InitialconditionswereestabfishedwiththeReactor critical at approximately 10 amps, Regulating Groups  ;

at approximatelj 0% wd, Group 8 at its maximum worth  !

and Boron concentration at equilibrium. The initial '

(steady state) Boron concentration of the RCS was determined by sampling. Then, using the predicted ejected rod worth the amount of Boron addition required to bring the worst case ejected rod, Control Rod 6-6, to 100% withdrawn was determined.

BorationwasingtiatedandtheReactorwasmaintained critical at 10 amps by withdrawal of Rod 6-6.

Frequent. sampling of the Reactor Coolant System (RCS) and Makeup Tank (MU) during boration was done

)

so that Boron concentration versus time would be known. The rods were fully withdrawn and additional reactivity l compensation was made by withdrawal of Group 5. When steady state Boron concentration was re-established,  ;

Control Rod 6-6 was returned to 0% wd by using Group 5 withdrawal for reactivity compgnsation. The reactor was maintained critical at 10 amps during the swap.

The other three rods quadrant-wise symmetric with 6-6

- were also swapped for comparison.

m .

(- . (.

Page 7 "

~

.Using reactivity measurements, the differential Boron

~

worth, and.the position of control rods-involved, the worst case ejected rod worth was determined.

- 3.4.3 3esults and Evaluation The measured worth of the worst case ejected rod, Control Rod 6-6, compared acceptably with the predicted value' and its. worth met the' acceptance criterion of < l.0% AK/K.

The test results are tabulated in Table 3-5.

/

1 F

'S

- ~ w a -- hy -n.- - -- e, ---o- .- v---

9 TABLE 3-1 CRITICAL-BORON CONCENTRATION AT HOT ZERO POWER VENDOR IN-HOUSE MEASURED PREDICTED PREDICTED CONDITION VALUE VALUE VALUE All Rods Out. 1351 ppmB 1358 ppmB 1361 ppmB 1

Rods Inserted ^

(Group 8 @ 37.5% w/d) 1067 ppmB 1048 ppmB 1050 ppmB TABLE 3-2 MODERATOR TEMPERATURE COEFFICIENT AT HOT ZERO POWER.

MEASURED VALUE VENDOR PREDICTED IN-HOUSE PREDICTED CONDITION REACTIVITY CALCULATOR VALUE VALUE -

~

All Rods Out 0.179 X 10~ AK/K*F -0.017 X 10 AK/K'F N/A

~

Rods Inserted -0.685 X 10 'AK/K'F -0.668 X 10~ AK/K*F -0.40 X 10~ AK/K'F m

TABLE 3-3 MODERATOR COEFFICIENT EXTRAPOLATED TO 95%FP 6

CONDITION COEFFICIENT All Rods'Out -0.121 X 10 4 Ak/k/ F Rods Inserted -0.98 X 10 4 Ak/k/*F

TABLE 3-4 .

CONTROL ROD REACTIVITY WORTHS ~ '

.4. .

< CRA VENDOR IN-HOUSE

• MEASURED WORTH  % ERROR BETWEEN .

GROUP PREDICTED WORTH PREDICTED VALUE-(%AK/K) ' MEASURED & VENDOR

(%AK/K) -

(%6K/K) PREDICTED VALUES 5' l.02 1.02 1.05 0.0 6 1.03 0.97 L.98'  :-5.83 7 0.69 .m.

0.70 0.73 1.45 8 0.44 0.40 0.43 -9.09 Total 5-7 2.67 2.69 2.76 0.75' TABLE 3-5 EJECTED CONTROL ROD WORTH -

MEASURED VALUE CRA/ CORE GRID BORON SWAP PREDICTED VENDOR % ERROR BETWEEN R0D SWAP VALUE MEASURED & VENDOR t

PREDICTED VALUES ^

6-6/N-4 .78%AK/K 0.79%AK/K BORON SWAP ROD SWAP 0.64%AK/K -17.95 -18.99 6-4/N-12 N/A 0.67%AK/K 0.64%AK/K N/A - 4.48 6-2/D-12 N/A 0.72%AK/K 0.64%AK/K N/A .-11.I1 6-8/D-4 N/A 0.70%AK/K 0.64*/aK/K o N/A -8.57

( ( Pegn 8 POWER ASCENSION TEST SUMMARIES

-4.0 CORE PORER DISTRIBUTION TEST 4.1 Purpose The objective o2 the Core Power Distribution Test was to measure the power distribution of the reactor core at the power plateaus of 407, 75% and 100% full power during power escalation . .

in order to verify that the DNBR, LHR, quadrant power tilt, and power peaking factors did not exceed allowable limits.

The limits placed on the measured parameters were as follows:

i) The maximum linear heat rate, LHR, in the core is less than the LOCA limit per Technical Specifications for the axial location of the peak. When testing at a power level below rated power, the maximum LHR when extrapolated to rated power must also meet this criterion.

ii) The minimum DNER must be greater than 1.30 at rated power conditions and when extrapolated to rated power conditions. 4 iii) The quadrapt power tilt must not exceed the value allowed in the Technical Specifications.

iv) The highest measured radial and total power peaking factors shall not exceed the highest predicted peaks by more than 5% and 7.5% at the 75% and 100% power plateaus, respectively(8% and 12% at the 40% power plateau). The acceptance criteria for the power peaking factors is a comparison of highest predicted to highest measured and not a grid-to- grid comparison.

These acceptance criteria are established to verify'that core nuclear and thermal hydraulic calculational models are conserva-tive with respect to measured conditions thereby verifying the acceptability of data from these models for input to safety analysis. The acceptance criteria also serve to verify acceptable operating conditions at each test plateau and eventually at rated power conditions.

4.2 Test Method Equilibrium conditions were established at 75% and 100% FP ensuring that Xenon was in three-dimensional equilibrium

(equilibrium Xenon was not required for the 40% tests) with no APSR motion and minimal power fluctuations and/or controlling rod group motion. The-incore monitoring system and the plant computer were used for data collection and analysis.

m

( Page 9

(

4.3 Results and Evaluation

'A summary of the test results is given in Table 4-1. This table indicates that all measured DNBR's were greater than the 1.30 minimum, all linear heat rates were less than the Technical Specification LOCA limit, Figure 3.5.2.4,- (Attachment A) and all quadrant tilts were below the Technical Spec # ~ cation limits. The measured and total power peaking factors wer thin the acceptance criteria.

Figure 4-1 shows the core grid /Self Powered Neutron Detector (SPND) string correlation for the core locations used to measure the radial and total power peaking factors. The results of the power distri-bution measuremencs are tabulated in Figures 4-2 and 4-3 for the 40% FP plateau, Figures 4-4 and 4-5 for the 75% FP plateau, and in Figures 4-6 and 4-7 for the 100% FP plateau. These figures indicate that the predicted power peaking factors are.in good agreement with measured values. All measured peaking factors were within acceptance criteria limits.

4.4 Conclusions Measured DNBR's, Linear Heat Rates, and Quadrant Tilts verified that the core can be operated at rated power without exceeding Technical Specifications or ECCS LOCA power distribution criteria.

The measured power distributions verified the predicted distributions and the largest radial and total peaking factors were within the acceptance criteria.

The measured DNBR and Linear Heat Rates verified that the Reactor

• Protection System setpoints are sufficient to protect the core against' exceeding DNBR or maximum linear heat rate limits and that Technical Specification Figure 3.5.2-3 limits are sufficient to protect against exceeding the LOCA limit heat rate.

d

( , (

TABLE 4-1

SUMMARY

OF RESULTS DATE 4/23/78 4/26/78 5/3/78 TIME 1437 1410 1352 Power Level (Nominal %)- 40 75 100 Group'l-5 (%w/d) 100 100 100 Group 6 -(S.w'/d) 88.3 90.8 91.7 Group 7 (%w/d) 15.0 15.4 13.1 Group 8 (%w/d) 27.0 20.2 13.5 Core Burnup (EFPD) 0.9 2.6 9.2 Boron Concentration (ppmB) 1088 863 795 Axial Imbalance (%FP) -1.2 -1.0 -0.9

. Max Quadrant Pwr Tilt (%) +1.52 +1.38 +1.02 (Incore Detectors)

- DNBR 8.74 4.32 2.96 LHR 5.31 9.42 12.65 Max Measured Radial Pwr Peak 1.444 1.424 1.413 Max Measured Total Pwr- Peak 3 1.707 1.717 1.752 Max Peak Measured At Core Grid / Level- E-ll/6 N-8/4 N-8/4 Max Predicted Radial Pwr Peak 1.411 1.387 1.369

' Max Predicted Total Pwr Peak- 1.651 1.613 1.641 Max Total Peak Predicted at Core Grid K-9 N-8 N-8 Percent Error

• Max Radial Peak -2.29 -2.60 -3.11

. Percent Error

• Max Total Peak -3.28 -6.06 -6.34 Equilibrium Xenon NO YES, 3-D YES, 3-D-

• Percent Error = Predicted-Measured X 100%

Measured i

L &

f. .

c (

FIGURE 4-1 CORE SPND STRING / CORE GRID CROSS REFERENCE H-8 H-9 F-8 H-5' N-8 H-13 B-8 H-1 l' 2. 4 10 14 21 30 37 G-9 F-7 E-9 K-12 C-9 B-7 R-7 3 6' 5 20 29 31 45

• h * *

• L-6 M-10 D-10 C-10 P-6 R-10 12 17 27 28 44 46 E-11 D-5 0-5 M-14 26 33 42 49 N-4 0-12 D-14 41 48 51 l

C-13 i 52 l

X-X CORE GRID LOCATION XX DETECTOR NUMBER l

l l

• The radial and total peaking factors at these core. locations were

- calculated using the average' readings from all detectors symmetric

l. .to this location.

l l-L m , _

n

. COMPARISON OF PREDICIED AND CAIfULAT' E D SITADY StBTE TorAL

- PFAXLIU.vER DISI BUTION AT : 40 % FP, EQUILIBR( . XI2DN Measurement Conditions.

Cor, trol Rod' Group Positions ' Core Power Level' 41.1 %FP

. Gps 1-4 100 % wd Boron Concentration 1088 ppm Gp 5 100 % wd - Core Burnup 0.9 EFPD Gp - 6. 88.3 .% wd Axial Imbalance -1.2  % FP Gp. '7 15. 0 ~. % wd Max Quadrant Tilt 1.52 %

Gp 8 27.0 %'wd I X.XXX Predicted Values X.XXX Measured Values Core

'Centerlines 1.007 1.221 1.046 1.164 1.651 0.971 0.524 0.833 1.096 1.310 1.101 1.148 1.686 0.845 0.560 0.715 1.22 1 1.658 1.031 1.346 1.202 1.141 0.971 0.950 1.310 1.561 1.093 1.298 1.186 1.043 0.976 0.822 1.046 1.031 0.675 1.404 1.369 1.228 1.634 0.911 l 1.101 1 093 0.852 1.546 1.410 1.230,1.504. 0.758

! 1.164 1.346 1.404 1.556 1.485 1.273 1.392'

~

1.148 1.298 1.546 1.707 1.480 1.222 1.322

! 1.651 1.202 1.369 1.485 1.567 1.350 0.957 1.686 1.186 1.410 1.480 1.562 1.339 0.979 7

3.971 1.141 1 . 2 28 1.273 1.350 1.064 3.845 1.043 1.230 1.227 1.339 0.982 3.524 0.971 1.634 1.392 0.957 3.560 0.976-1.504 1.322 0.979 3.833 0.950 0.911

, , \ uadrant Q

i 3.715 ,0.822 0.758 Centerline FIGURE 4-2 L .

. CCGPAPdSON 'OF PIEDICrED AND CAlfULAT'ED SIT 7JW STATE RELATIVE RADIAL POWT2 DISF; .UTION AT ~40  % FP, IXUILIBRI( XEtDN Measurement Conditions Control Pod Group Positions Core Power Level 41.1 %FP Cps 1-4 100 % wd Doron ConcentrationM ppn

% ud . Core Burnup 0.9 EFPD Gp 5 FC  % FP Gp' _6- V3 % wd Axial Imbalance -1.2 Gp 7 ~15. 0 _% wd Max Quadrant Tilt 1. 52 _ %

Gp .8 27.0_ % wd X.XXX Predicted Values X.XXX i Measured Values Core Centerlines O'.8'54 1.034 0.878 1.007 L . 411- 0.839 3.474 ).687 -

0.986 1.093 0.923 1.004 1 .477 n . 7 5 /. B. 60 1 % 6' l.034 1.408 0.901 1.152 1.010 0.965 3.824 ).777 1.093 1.343 0 929 1.118_ 3.978 0.909 0.836_ldll_

0.878 0.901 0.604 1.180 1.038 1.033 1.323 3.736 0.923 0.929 0.668 1.267 1.071 1.057. 1.271 1.640 1.007 1.152 1.180 1.331 1.233 1.007 1.104 1.004 1.118 1.267 1.444 1.256 1.052 1.076 _

l.411 1.010 1.038 1.233 1.244 1.078 3.758 1.427 0.978 1.071 1.256 L.292 1.106 3.809 0.839 0.965 1.033 1.007 L.078 3.843 0.754 0.909 1.057 1.052 L.106 3.815s 0.474 0.824 1.323 1.104 3.756 0.460 0.836 1.271'l.076 3.809

'.687 0.777 0.736 0

Quadrant

, Centerline 0.596.0.711 0.640 0

FIGURE 4-3 b

. 2

' CCFPARICON OF PIT.DICTED AND CAICUIATSD SI'"hDY b 'P"'2 'IUPAL PEAK IUJER DISI .XJrION AT 75 '  %' FP, EQL. ',IB . XENON Measurement Conditions Controf Rod Group Positions Core Power Level 75.7 tFP -

Gps 1-4 100 % wd Boron Concentration 863 pIxn Up 5 100  % wd Core Burnup 2. 6 EFPD Gp 6 90.8 % wd Axial Imbalance -1.0 % FP Gp 7 15.4 ' % wd Max Quadrant Tilt 1.38 %

Gp 8 20.2 % wd X.XXX- Predicted Values X.XXX Measured Values

' Core Centerlines f.do2 1.198 1.049 1.169 1.613 0.975 0.526 0.848 1 044 1 104 1.19'1 1_146 1_717 n R4R O_577 171.

1.198 1.609 1.038 1.339 1.185 1.127 0.959 0.959 1.30s 1.549 1.070 1.317 1.159 1.052 0.950 0.823 1.045. l.038 0.667 1.371 1.342 1.194 1.579 0.915 1.123 1.070 0.870 1.524 1.389 1.235 1.484 1.767 14169 1.339 1.371 1.548 1.450 1.221 1.357 1.146 1.317 1.524 1.713 1.535 1.221 1.280 1.613 1.185 1.342 1.450 1.502 1.320 0.955 1.717 1.159 1.389 1.535 1.558 1.339 0.921 0.975 1.127 1.194 1.221 1.320 1.055 0.848 1.052 1.235 1.221 1.339 0.967s .

O.526 0.959 1.579 1.357 1 055 0.577. 0.S50 1.484 1.280 0.291 N '

'O.848 0.959 0.915

, Quadrant 0.740, 0.823 0.767 Centerline FIGURE 4-4 b . j

~

COMPARISO[' 'F PREDICTED Ato CMTED Sly

• STATE PEI1sTIVE

,, PADIAL IbdR DISTRIBUTION AT 75  % FP, IAUILIBRIG4 XEBON Measurement Conditions Control Rod Group Positions Core PoWor I4 vel 75.7 %FP Gps 1-4:100 % wd Baron Concentration 863 ppn Gp 5 100  % ud Core Burnup 2.6 EFlV Gp 6 90.8 % ud Axial Imbalance -1.0  % FP

.Gp -7 15.4 -% wd Max Quadrant Tilt 1.38 %

Gp 8 20.2 % wd' X.XXX Predicted Values X.XXX Measured Values Core-Centerlines .

O'.862 1.028 0.883 1.008 1.387 0.845 0.485 0.706 0.995 1.111 0.941 1.009 1.410 0.766 0.473 0.613 1.028 1.380 0.904 1.150 1.011 0.970 0.830 0.790 1.111 1.333 0.942 1.124 0.982 0.914 0.843 0.715 0.883 0.904 0.613 1.177 1.040 1.031 1.301 0.74 6 0.941 0.942 0.683 1.277 1.091 1.053 1.252 0.642 1.008 1.150 1.177 1.321 1.227 1.006 1.095 1.009 1.124 1.277 1.424 1.258 1.048 1.072 1.387 1.011 1.040 1.227 1.240 1.080 0.769 1.410 0.092 1.091 1.258 1.287 1.104 0.756 0.845 0.970 1.031 1.006 1.080 0.852 0.766 0.914 1.053 1.048 7.104 0.811s 0.485 0.830 1.301 1.095 3.769 0.473 0.843 1.252 1.072 0.756 O.706 0.790 0.746

, \ uadrant Q

0 413,0.715 0,642 Centerline l

~

FIGURE 4-5 l

l

e _ .- .

2 COPARIfni OF PREDICIED AND CAICUIRrhD STEADY STA'PE 'IUTAL

- TJd.-EUdER DISI .3UTION AT :100 -- % FP, I:QUILIBRI~ XDD1 Measurement Conditions Control 11od Group Positions Coro Power Level 99.6 tFP Gps 1-4 ' 100  % wd ,

Boron Concentration W ppn

% wd Core Durnup 9. 2 - EFPD Gp 5 100 Cp 6 91.7 % wd Axial Imbalance -W %FP-Max Quadrant Tilt 1.02 %

.Gp 7: 13.1 *. % wd GP 8 13.5 % wd X.XXX Predicted Values X.XXX Measured Values 6

Core Centerlines 1.dO2 1.194 1.059 1.196 1.641 1.006 0.544 ).867 _

l.108 1.291 1.114 1.161 1.752 0.876 0.569 3.754 1.194 1.601 1.052 1.380 1.247 1.169 3.989 ).975 1.291 1.537 1.050. 1.338 1.190 1.078 E974 3.848 1.059 1.052 0.693 1.448 1.436 1.254 1.563 ).926 1.114 1.050 0.842 1.561- 1.530 1. 261 1.499 ).781 1.196 1.380 1.448 1.616 1.527 1.246 1.354 1.161 1.338 1.561 1.741 1.550 1.257 1.309_

l.641 1.247 1 436 1.527 1.548 1.345 3.973 1.752 1.190 1.530 1.550 1.613 1.389 3.939 1.006 1.169 1.254 1.246 L.345 1.076 0.b76 1.078 1.261 1.257 L.389 0.965s 0.544 0.989 1.563 1.354 ).973 0.569 3.974 1.499 1.309 3.939 O.867 0.975 0.926 Quadrant Centerline 0.754 ,O.848 0.781 6

FIGURE 4- 6

v-

• COMPARISO:  ? PREDICITD AND CAICUIATED SI'E( STATE RI2ATIVE

. PADIAL IOadR DISTRIBUTION AT 100 % FP, Er UILIl3RILM XDON Measurement Conditions Control Pod Group Positions Core Power Level 99.6 tFP Gps 1-4 100 % wd Doron Concentration 795 ppm

^

Cp 5 100 % wd Core Burnup 9.2 ITPD Cp 6, 91.7 % wd Axial Imbalance -0.9. % FP Gp 7 13.1 % wa Max Quadrant Tilt- 1.02 %

Gp -8 13.5 % wd .

-X.XXX Predicted Values X.XXX Measured Values Core Centerlines 0.875 1.016 0.878 1.002 1.369 0.847 0.492 0.720 0.999 1.116 0.947 1.014 1.37910.778 0.475 0.615 1.016 1.353 0.898 1.142 1.008 0.972 0.837 0.802 l'.116 1.321 0.945 1.124 0.983 0.919 0.847 0.718 0.878 0.898 0.614 1.172 1.041 1.031 1.295 0.757 0.947 0.945 0.683 1.273 1.0 J 1.051 1.239 0.647 1.002 1.142 1.172 1.313 L.224 1.009 1.096 1.014 1.124 1.273 1.413 1.158 1.045 1.076 1.369 1.008 1.041 1.224 1.241 1.086 0.780 1.379 0.983 1.093 1.258 1.288 1.105 0.758 0.847 0.972 1.031 1.009 1.086 0.861 0.778 0.919 1.051 1.045 1.105 0.811s 0.492 0.837 1.295 1.096 D.780 0.475 0.847 1.239 1.076 0.758 '

O./20 0.802 0.757

, Qaadrant

, O.C15, 0.718 0,647 Centerline i

FIGURE 4-7 4

g .

l Pags 10

~ ^

(

5.0' POWER IMBALANCE DETECTOR CORRELATION TEST 5.1 Purpose The Power Imbalance Detector Correlation test determined the relationship between out-of-core detector and incore detector measured imbalance.

5.2 Test Method Imbalance measurements were made to determine the acceptability Prior to of the out-of-core detectors to detect imbalance.

testing, the delta flux imbalance' amplifier gain setting was-adjusted to obtain an expected out-of-core to incore slope of 1.08 to allow for uncertainty in predicting the amplifier gain necessary to obtain the required out-of-core to incore slope of 1.00. The measurements were made by obtaining various core imbalance conditions at 75%FP while at equilibrium Xenon conditions by adjusting the axial power shaping rod positions.

From this data, plots of incore imbalance versus out-of-core imbalance were maintained and the slope was determined.

5.3 Results and Conclusions

~

The relationship between out-of-core imbalance and incore imbalance was found to be linear with a slope of 1.10.

This value would assure the RPS trip limits resulting from imbalance indications would be conservative since the RPS indication is' from out-of-core detectors.

(

k Page 11.

4 6.d DETERMINATION OF REACTIVITY COEFFICIENTS AT POWER 6.1 ' Purpose -

The purpose of this test was to measure the moderator temperature coefficient and power doppler coefficient at full power and to compare the results with predicted values.

Acceptance criteria coefficient be'more for the test negative were than thatX thg(power

-0.55 10 doppler AK/K)/%FP, and that the moderator temperature coefficient measured at power operating conditions be non positive above 95% FP.

6.2 Test Method The moderator temperature coefficient at power operating condi-tions was measured by varying T using the.T setpoint controller on the Reactor Deman8" Station and mS1ntaining constant power with the ICS in automatic. The corresponding contral rod motion is related to the reactivity change which is used tn determine the moderator temperature coefficient.

The power dorp]er coefficient is measured by varying Reactor power using the Integrated Control System Unit Load Demand (ICS ULD) station and recording the corresponding control rod motion. The corresponding control rod motion is related to reactivity change which is used to determine the power doppler coefficient.

The control rod reactivity worth was determined by a differential control rod worth measurement with an on-line reactivity calculator.

'esults and Evaluation The results of the reactivity coefficients test are summarized in Table 6-1.

The power doppler coefficient at full power was below the maximum acceptable value. The moderator temperature coefficient was well below the'non positive limit. ,

6.4 Conclusion The measured values of all reactivity coefficients were within the ac_- , table limits. The' acceptance criteria of this test were met in full without deficiencies.

w 4

m . _ . , ,

r:;

~

(- (:

s TABLE 6-1 .

?- .

SUMMARY

OF MEASURED AND PREDICTED REACTIVITY COEFF'ICIENTS AT 10 I

PARAMETER 6 91.7 Control Rod Assembly.

Group (% Withdrawn) 7 13.1 8 13.5 Boron Concentration (ppmB) 795

~

Measured -0.956 X 10 '

' Vendor -4 Predicted -1.430 X 10 Moderator Temperature Coefficient In-House '

Predicted -0.84'2 X 10~

AK/K F

Measured -0.893 X 10~ ,

Power Doppler Vendor -4 Predicted -1.23 X 10 Coefficient aK/K In-house

% Full Power Predicted N/A Measured -0.791 X 10-4 Moderator Coefficient Vendor Predicted -1.29 X 10-4 aK/K In-house "F Predicted N/A SN

-w, n

t-

]- Pags 12

(. '(

. 7.d CONCLUSION

The results an'd conclusions summarized.in the body of this report

~ demonstrate'that the Arkansas Nuclear one Unit 1 Cycle 3 reload has been properly; designed and the unit can be operated in a manner that will'not endanger the health'and safety of the publ!c.

a O

r-o

,,r.,t

', .. ,, [ '

(-

ATTACHMENT A 12 10 C

J 8 h a

o 3

8 6 a 8

u.

. _ g 3

^- -

4 E

u.]_

3 2 l

)

i l

0 12 l 20 18 16 14 Allowable Peak Linear Heat Rate, kW/ft

ARVAfl5A5 POWER & LIGHT COMPAtlY LOCA LIMITED MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE FIG. NO.

ARKAt!SAS NUCLEAR Of1E-UtilT-~ l LillE/.R llEAT RATE 3.5.2.4 l

48e l l

.' Amendmerit No. . 21 ,

,/.

(

(

. e i

i ARKANSAS POWER & LIGH h POST OFFICE BOX 551 UTTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72203 (501) 371-4000 July 7, 1978 1-078-2 e.

Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation ATTN: Mr. Robert W. Reid, Chief -

Operating Reactors Branch #4  ;-

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission .

Washington, D. C. 20555 . _ . ,

,; - - - l

Subject:

Arkansas Power G Light Company Arkansas Nuclear One-Unit I l Docket No. 50-313 License No. DPR-51 Cycle 3 Startup Test Report (File: 0520.2)

Gentlemen:

Per our letter of March 20, 1978 we now submit our Startup Test Report for Cycle 3 of Arkansas Nuclear One-Unit 1.

Very truly yours,

-,/ -

,/

j' cr2 a Daniel H. Williams Manager, Licensing DiiW: ERG:dr Attachment ,

^

':: C;;;, .

L b MEMBER MIDOLE SOUTH UTIUTIES SYSTEM