ML20032C614
| ML20032C614 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 08/19/1981 |
| From: | ARKANSAS POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20032C610 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8111100649 | |
| Download: ML20032C614 (31) | |
Text
___ - ___
A l
o 1
l l
ARKANSAS POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNIT TWO CYCLE TWO STARTUP REPORT TO THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSICJ LICENSE NO. aPF-6 DOCKET NO. 50-368 FOR THE PERIOD ENDING AUGUST 19, 1981 1
Oddhh68 PDR j
e 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGL 1.0 Introduction 1
2.0 Precritical Tes' Summaries 2
2.1 CEA Trip Test 2
2.2 Reactor Coolant Flow Coastdown 2
3.0 Low Power Physics Test Summaries 3
3.1 Determ; nation of Critical Boron Concentration 3
3.2 CEA Syumetry Test 3
3.3 Tempr.rature Reactivity Coefficient 4
3.4 Pact-Length Control Element Assembly (PLCEA) Reactivity 5; orth 6
3
.egulating CEA Group R cetivity Worth 6
4.0 Power Escalation Test Summaries 9
4.1 Reactor Coolant Flow at 50% and 100% Full Power 9
4.2 Core Power Distribution at 50% and 100% Full Power 11 4.3 Shape Annealing Matrix (SAM) and Boundary Point Power Correlation (BPPC) Verification at 50% Full Power 22 4.4 Radial Peaking Factor and CEA Shadowing Factor Verifi-cation at 50% Full Power 24 4.5 Reactivity Coefficients at 50% and 100% Full Power 27 5.0 Conclusion 30
)
7
_=
1-1 i
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES PAGE Table 3.3-1 Isothermal Temperature Coefficient Measurement 5
Table 3.5-1 Regulating CEA Group Worths 8
Table 4.1-3 Reactor Coolant Flow at 50% and 100% Full Power 10 Table 4.2-1 Core Power Distribution at 50% Full Power 12 Table 4.2-2 Core Power Distribution at 100% Full Power 17 Table 4.3-1 Shspe Annealing Matrix (SAM) and Boundary Po'nt Tce:r Correlation Coefficients 23 Table 4.4-1 Radial Peaking Factors 25 Table 4.4-2 CEA Shadowing Factors 26 Table 4.5-1 Reactivity Coefficients at 50% and 100% Full Power 29 Figure 4.2-1(a) - 4.2-1 (d) Radial Power Distribution at 50% Full Power 13 Figure 4.2-2(a) - 4.2-2 (d) Radial Power Distribution at 100% Full Power 18 J
i
r i
e i
1.0 Introduction Post fuel load startup testing of Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 commenced June 26, 1981 with the performance of precritical tests. Low power physics testing began on June 29, 1981. On this date, cycle 2 initial criticality was achieved. Low power physics testing proceeded to completion on July 3, 1981, at which time power ascension testing commenced. The first power ascension test plateau (50% full power) was attained on July 8, 1981.
Following completion of testing at 50% full power on July 21, 1981, reactor power was raised to 100% full power and testing continued. The power escalation test program was completed on August 19, 1981.
I
i 2.0 Precritical Test Summaries 2.1 CEA Trip Test 2.1.1 Purpose The CEA trip test was performed to verify that the elapsed time between initiation of a CEA trip and 90% insertion of that CEA was <3.0 seconds.
2.1.2 Test Method Initial reactor coolant system conditions were established with T
>525 F and four reactor coolant pumps operating.
One CEA*lroup was then fully withdrawn. As each CEA in that group was dropped (by removing electrical power from the drive mechanism), the elapsed time between initiation of the trip and 90% insertion of the CEA was recorded. After completing drop time testing on one CEA group, the next CEA group was tested. Drop time testing proceeded in this manner until all designated CEA's had been tested.
2.1.3 Results and Evaluation The measured individual full length CEA drop times from a fully withdrawn position to 90% insertion were <3.0 seconds.
2.2 Reactor Coolant Flow Coastdown 2.2.1 Purpose The reactor coolant flow coastdown test was performed to verify the response time of Channel B Core Protection Calculator to a two out of four reactor coolant pump trip and flow coastdown.
2.2.2 Test Method Initial reactor coolant system conditions were established with four reactor coolant pumps running. Recording instrumentation was connected to the status contacts of two separate-loop RCP motor power supply breakers and CEDM coil monitors. With appropriate test software loaded in CPC Channel B, the two reactor coolant pumps were tripped simultaneously. The elapsed time between initiation of the pump trip and receipt of a low DNBR trip from the Core Protection Calculator was measured.
2.2.3 Results and Evaluation The measured response time of CPC Channel B to a two pump loss of flow transient was 0.24 seconds. The maximum acceptable response time is 0.80 seconds.
2
i 9
3.0 Low Power Physics Test Summaries 3.1 Determination of Critical Boron Concentration 3.1.1 Purpose The reactor coolant system boron concentration required to maintain criticality of the reactor at the beginning of cycle two under hot zero power xenon-free conditions was measured. The results of this measurement were com-pared to predictions to verify design, fabrication and proper loading of the core.
3.1.2 Test Method Criticality of the reactor was obtained by deboration of the reactor coolant system at a constant dilution rate.
All CEA's were fully withdrawn prior to deborating the RCS with the exception of regulating group 6 which was 75" withdrawn. Once criticality was achieved, the dilu-tion was terminated and the RCS boron concentration allowed to equilibrate. The critical boron concentration was cal-culated by correcting the measured equilibrium boron con-centration for deviation of CEA position from the reference CEA position for the predicted critical boron concentration.
3.1.3 Results and Evaluation The measured critical boron concentration of 1210 ppm agreed well with the predicted value of 1211 ppm.
Acceptance criteria state that the measured critical boron concentration shall be within 100 ppm of the predicted critical boren concentration 3.2 CEA Symmetry Test 3.2.1 Purpose A CEA symmetry test was performed to verify that all CEA's were coupled to their extension shafts and to verify correct loading of the core.
3.2.2 Test Method The symmetry checks were performed by inserting the reference CEA of a group to its lower electrical limit and compen-sating for the reactivity change by withdrawing CEA regu-lating group 6.
Symmetric CEA's in the group were subse-quently traded with each other and the reactivity devia-tion from the reference CEA measured. The reference CEA was finally traded for the last symmetric CEA in the group to measure reactivity drift. The adjusted deviation was cal-culated by adding the appropriate drift correction to the CEA worth deviation from the reference CEA.
CEA coupling was verified by noting a change in reactivity when a CEA was inserted.
3 J
i 3.2.3 Results and Evaluation The absolute value of adjusted' reactivity deviation for all CEA's.from their respective references.was less than the maxi-I num. acceptable value of 1.5 cents. AlllCEA's were verified to be coupled.
3.3 Temperature Reactivity Coefficient 3.3.1 Purpose The isothermal temperature coefficient (ITC) measurement was performed during low power physics. testing to verify conformance with Technical Specifications on the moderator temperature coefficient (MTC). Comparison of the measured' ITC to predictions was also performed to demonstrate proper design and fabrication of the core.
3.3.2 Test Method The isothermal temperature coefficient was measured at two CEA configurations: essentially all rods out (CEA group 6
>l30" withdrawn) and the zero power insertion limit.
At the specified CEA configuration, the test was initiated by decreasing average reactor coolant temperature by 10'F and then increasing the temperature to its initial value.
During the change in temperature, reactivity feedback was compensated for by CEA regulating group movement. This com-pensation was required to maintain reactor power within the acceptable test range. The reactivity change associated with the change in RCS average temperature was obtained from the reactivity computer and used to. calculate the ITC.
After the ITC had been measured, a predicted value of the fuel temperature coefficient was subtracted from the ITC to obtain the MTC.
3.3.3 Results and Evaluation l
Table 3.3-1 tabulates the results of the temperature reactivity coefficient measurement. All applicable acceptance criteria were met.
i 4
J
i ISOTHERMAL TEMPERATURE COEFFICIENT MEASUREMNT TABLE 3.3-1 MEASURED PREDICTED ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA (Ak/k/*F)
(Ak/k/ F)
+ 043x10 '
+.170x10 '
(a)
~
~
MTC
+.193x10 '
+.320x10
(b)
~
.409x10 '
.27x10
(a)
~
MTC
.259x10~
.120x10 (b)
~
N01ES:
~
(a) Measured value cust be within +0.3x10 Ak/k/ F of predicted value.
(b) Measured value must be less positive than +0.5x10 ' Ak/k/ F.
~
1 I
i
.f i
5
3.4 Part-Length Control Element Assembly (PLCEA) Reactivity Worth 3.4.1 Purpose This test was performed for information only. The results will be utilized in reactivity balance calculations.
3.4.2 Test Method PLCEA group reactivity worth was measured at hot zero power conditions using the boron /PLCEA swap method. This method consists of establishing a constant deboration rate in the RCS and compensating for the reactivity change by inserting the PLCEA's in incremental steps. When the PLCEA's were positioned at the point of maximum integral worth, the debor-ation was terminated.
Baration of the RCS commenced at this point, the reactivity change being compensated for by insertion of the PLCEA's to the lover group stop. This process was reversed to obtain the withdrawal acasurement of PLCEA reactivity wortb.
The reactivity change values that occurred during these measurements were obtained from the reactivity computer and were torrelated with PLCEA group position.
3.4.3 Results and Evaluation This measurement was made for information only. llence,
no quantitative acceptance criteria were applied.
3.5 Regulating CEA Group Reactivity Worth 3.5.1 Purpose The reactivity worths of the CEA regulating groups were measured primarily to verify calculations of available shutdown margic. The results of this test were compared to vendor predictions of regulating' group reactivity worth.
If sufficient agreement between predictions and measurements is demcnstrated for the regulating CEA group reactivity worths, the reactivity worth predic-tions for the shutdown CEA groups are deemed adequate.
Additionally, the measured values of regulating CEA reactivity worth are utilized for reactivity balance calculations.
6 J
= -.-
I, O
3.5.2 Test Bethod i
The regulating group reactivity worths were measured at hot zero power conditions using the boron /CEA group swap method. Reference section 3.4.2 for the test method.
i i
3.5.3 Results and Evaluation Table 3.5-1 tabulates the results of the regulating CEA group reactivity worth measurement. All applicable accep-tance criteria wera met.
r I
l 4
h 4
i 1
i
?
?
2 7
REGULATING CEA GROUP WORTHS TABLE 3.5-1 REG. CROUP NO.
MEASURED WORTH PREDICTED WORTH ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA
(%ak/k)
(%dk/k)
(%dk/k) 6 0.40 0.41
+0.10 5
0.64 0.72 10.11 4
0.43 0.38 10.10 3
1.11 1.20 10.18 2
0.61 0.61 10.10 TOTAL 3.19 3.32 10.33 8
4.0 Power Escalation Test Summaries 4.1 Reactor Coolant Flow at 50% and 100% Full Power 4.1.1 Purpose Measurement of reactor coolant flow was carried out at 50%
and 100% full power utilizing calorimetric methods. The results were used to verify the conservatism of the Core Operating Limit Supervisory System (COLSS) and the Core Protection Calculator (CPC) measurements of reactor coolant flow.
4.1.2 Test Method A calorimetric measurement of reactor coolant flow was performed at steady state conditions. After establishing initial con-ditions for test performance, reactor core AT, primary system pressure, and secondary calorimetric power were recorded.
From these state parameters, FCS mass flow was computed from the following:
m = Q/Ah where Q = Secondary calorimetric power (BTU /hr)
Ah = h
-h
= difference between hot leg and cold leg H
specifEc enthalpy (BTU /lb,)
m = RCS mass f!cwaate (lb,/hr)
The calorimetric RCS mass flow was then coepared to COLSS RCS mass flow and appropriate adjustments to COLSS flow constants were made.
CPC RCS mass flow was next compared to COLSS RCS mass flow. Adjustments to the appropriate CPC constants were made to maintain the CPC value of RCS flow conservative wich respect to the COLSS value of RCS flow.
4.1.3 Results and Evaluation Acceptance criteria applied to this test at 50% and 100% full power state that for COLSS operable, measured RCS flow must be greater than COLSS calculated RCS flow which in turn must be greater than CPC calculated RCS flow. Table 4.1-1 summarizes the results of this test.
Applicable acceptance criteria were met at 50% and 100% full power.
9 J
REACTOR COOLANT FLOW AT 50% AND 100% FULL POWER TABLE 4.1-3 TEST PLATEAU (% FULL POWER)
HEASURED FLOW (I)
COLSS FLOW (
CPC FLOW (
A B
C D
50%
113.00 112.84 112.59 112.60 112.59 112.55 100%
111.01 110.98 110.65 110.57 110.58 110.55 (1) Flow values reported in % of design mass flow.
10
4.2 Core Power Distribution at 50% and 100% Full Power 4.2.1 Purpose Steady state core power distribution was measured at 50% and 100% full power to verify core nuclear and thermal-hydraulic calculational models, thereby justi-fying use of these models for performing the cycle 2 safety analysis. This test also serves to verify accept-able operating conditions at each test plateau.
4.2.2 Test Metho1
- teady state reactor power was established at the appro-priate test plateau with equilibrium xenon.
Incore detector data was then collected and analyzed using an incore analysis computer code. Specified power distri-bution parameters were obtained from the code and com-pared to predictions to verify the acceptability of the measured power distribution.
4.2.3 Results and Evaluation Tables 4.2-1 and 4.2-2 tabulate the results of the core power distribution tests. Figures 4.2-1 and 4.2-2 depict the measured radial power distributicas at 50% and 100% full power.
All applicable acceptance criteria for this test were met.
l l
i I
i l
11 t
a
CORE POWER DISTRIBUTION AT 50% FULL POWER TABLE 4.2-1 PARAMETER MEASURED PREDICTED ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA (
RMS(
(axial) 2.328 55.000 RMS(
(radial) 3.501 15.0
(}
F 1.56 1.61
-+0.16 xy F
1.52 1.55 10.16
}
F 1.23 1.22 10.12 F
1.88 1.92 10.19
(
I (100h ) /n] !
RMS =
g i=m where h = difference bgween the predicted and measured relative g
power density for the i axial or radial node, m,n = 1,101 for the axial distribution m,n = 1,177 for the radial distribution (2)F
= Planar radial peaking factor
(
F = Integrated planar radial peaking factor
-(4)F = Core average axial peaking factor (5)F = Three dimensional power peaking factor (6) Acceptance criteria additionally state the for each assembly with a predicted relative power density >0.9, the measured relative power density (RPD) must agree with the predicted RPD to within 110% of the predicted valve.
For each assembly with a predicted RPD <0.9, the measured RPD must agree with the predicted RPD to within 115% of the predicted value.
12
RADIAL POWER DISTRIBUTION AT 50% FULL POWER FIGURE 4.2-1(a)
A B
C D
E F
G
.811 1.10 1
.7620 1.0425
-6.042
-5.182
.740 1.09 1.10 1.18 2
.7043 1.0010 1.077^
1.1210
-4.865
-8.165
-2.091
-5.000
.760
.928 1.13
.994 1.15 3
.7437
.9647 1.1391
.9678 1.1363
-2.105 3.987
.796
-2.616
-1.217
.765
.978 1.05
.929 1.26
.928 4
.7362
.9597 1.0739
.9226 1.3106
.9480
-3.791
! -1.840 2.286
.108 4.048 2.155 1.12 1.15
.931
.998
.871
.814 5
1.0947 1.1718
.9262 1.0295
.8895
.8407
-2.232 1.913
.537 3.206 2.067 3.317
.822 1.12 1.00 1.28 873 1.11
.774 6
.7880 1.1240
.9838 1.3168
.9043 1.1856
.8201
-4.136
.357
-1.600 2.891 3.551 6.847 5.943 1.10 1.18 1.15
.929
.815
.775
.809 7
1.0667 1.1509 1.1440
.9313
.85o5
.8102
.8550
-3.000
-2.458
.522
.215 2.945 4.516 5.686 X.XXX Predicted y.yyy Measured z.zzz
% Difference hRT 13
r i
RADIAL POWER DISTRIBUTION AT 50% FULL POWER FIGUKE 4.2-1(b)
H J
K L
M N
P R
1.17 1.10
.830 1.1139 1.0547
.7759 1
-4.786
-4.091
-6.506 1.20 1.18 1.12 1.13
.778 1.1860 1.1426 1.1037 1.0403
.7322 2
-1.167
-3.136
-1.429
-7.965
-5.913
.999 1.15 1.01 1.17 1.00
.787
.9765 1.1484
.9878 1.1762 1.0035
.7819 3
-2.202
.174
-2.178
.513
.400
.635 1.24
.929 1.28
.944 1.08 1.00
. 7 -^
1.2904
.9492 1.3307
.9491 1.1172 1.0199 1677 4
4.032 2.153 3.984
.530 3.426 2.000
-1.158
.810
.815
.873 1.01
.943 1.17 1.13
.8384
.8429
.8989 1.0491
.9522 1.2147 1.1226 5
3.457 3.436 2.978 3.861
.954 3.846
.619 1.03
.775 1.11
.871 1.28 1.01 1.12
.821 1.1012
.8183 1.1902
.9115 1.3407 1.0138 1.1269
.7795 6
6.893 5.548 7.207 4.650 4.766
.396
.625
-4.994 i.665
.809
.774
.814
.928 1.15 1.18 1.10 l.6906
.8517
.8085
.8380
.9360 1.1442 1.1104 1.0417 7
3.910 5.315 4.522 2.948
.862
.552
-5.932
-5.273 x.xxx Predicted NE y.yyy Measured z.zzz
% Difference 14
RADIAL POWF.R DISTRIBUTION AT 50% FULL POWER FIGURE 4.2-1(c) 1.17 l 1.20
.986 1.22
.810 1.03
.665
/
8 1.1278 1.1958
.9743 1.2774
.8412 1.0991
.7073
-3.590
.333
-1.217 4.672 3.827 6.699 6.316 1.10 1.18 1.12
.917
.814
.774
.809 9
1.0614 1.1368 1.1420
.9280
.8286
.8027
.8458
-3.545
-3.644 1.964 1.200 1.843 3.747 4.574
.821 1.12 l'.01 1.28
.871 1.11
.775 10
.7866 1.1267
.9946 1.3120
.8740 1.1676
.8030
-4.141
.625
-1.485 2.500
.344 5.225 3.613 1.13 1.17
.943 1.01
.873
.815 11 1.1080 1.1907
.9351 1.0318
.8923
.8406
-1.947 1.795
.848 2.178 2.176 3.190
.786 1.01 1.08
.944 1.28
.929 12
.7517
.9897 1.1028
.9493 1.3397
.9671
-4.326
-1.980 2.130
.530 4.688 4.090
.798 1.00 1.17 1.01 1.15 13
.7690 1.0003 1.1852 1.0019 1.1728
-3.634 0.000 1.282
.792 2.000
.778 1.13 1.12 1.18 14
.7381 1.0598 1.1295 1.1813
-5.141
-6.195
.893
.085
.834 1.10 15
.7966 1.0860
-4.436
-1.273 A
B C
C E
F G-x.xxx Predicted y.yyy Measured z.zzz
% Difference SW 15 a
RADIAL POWER DISTRIBUTION AT 50% FULL POWER FIGURE 4.2-1(d)
.543
.665 1.03
.810 1.24
.999 1.20
'1.17
.5699
.6592 1.0899
.8287 1.2763
.9811 1.1718 1.1044 8
4.972 5.113 5.825 2.346 2.903
-1.802
-2.333
-5.641
.665
.809
.775
.815
.929 1.15 A lf,18 1.10
.6828
.8406
.7985
.8260
.9257 1.1327 1.1054 1.0415 9
2.707 3.956 3.097 1.350
.323
-1.428
-6.356 e5.273 1.03
.774-1.11
~d73 1.28 1.01 1.12
.322 1.0832
.7968 1.1643
.8819 1.3135
.9885
.l.1172
.7836 10 5.146-2.972 4.865 1.031 2.656
-2.079
-2.68
-4.623
~
.810
.814
.871 1.01
.944 1.17 1.13
.8330
.8294
.8852 1.0324
.9401 1.2022 1.1138 11 2.840 1.843 1.607 2.178
.424 2.735
-1.416 1.24
.938 1.28
.943 1.09 1.01
.77S 1.2952
.9340 1.3193
.9452 1.1143 1.0230
.7656 12 4.435
.647 3.047
.212 2.202 1.287
-1.542
.999 1.15 1.01 1.18 1.02
.801
.9917 1.1507
.9881 1.1792 1.0054
.7838 13
.701
.087
-2.178
.085
-1.471
-2.122
-1.20 1.18 1.12 1.14
.792 1.2172 1.1503 1.1118 1.0518
.7371 14 1.417-
-2.542
.714
-7.719
-6.944 1.17 1.10
.821 1.1450 1.0715
.7849 15 -
-2.137
-2.545
-4.385 H
J K
L M
N P
R x.xxx Predicted y".yyy Measured z.zzz
% Difference SE l
t l
l 16 j
CORE POWER DISTRIBUTION AT 100% FULL POWER TABLE 4.2-2 PARAMETER MEASURED PREDICTED ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA RMSfdxial) 3.079 15.000 RMSffadial) 3.857 15.000 F
1.53 1.52 1 15
}
F 1.52 1.44 1 14 F
1.14 1.17 1 12 F
1.74 1.73 1 17 Note:
Superscripts refer to footnotes of Table 4.2-1 17
RADIAL POWER DISTRIBUTION AT 100% FULL POWER FIGURE 4.2-2(a)
A B
C D
E F
G
.769 1.03 1
.7305
.9943
-4.941
-3.495
.710 1.04
- 1. 06' '
l.14 2
.6797
.9495 1.0339 1.0693
-4.225
-8.654
-2.547
-6.228
.737
.902 1.11
.994 1.15 3
.7282
.9435 1.1152
.9578 1.1259
-1.221 4.656
.450
-3.622
-2.087
.734
.952 1.04
.939 1.27
.960 4
.7184
.9337 1.0680
.9391 1.3343
.9766
-2.180
-1.891 2.692 0.000 5.039 1.771 1.06 1.12
.945 1.04
.917
.870 5
1.0664 1.1527
.9341 1.0604
.9269
.8884 2.566 2.946
-1.164 1.923 1.091 2.069
.778 1.08 1.00 1.29
.918 1.17
.841 6
.7377 1.0834
.9802 1.3421
.9557 1.2653
.8963
-5.141
.278
-2.000 4.031 4.139 8.120 6.540 1.03 1.14 1.15
.961
.871
.842
.886 7
1.0144 1.1014 1.1382
.9528
.8854
.8716
.9390
-1.553
-3.421
-1.043
.832 1.607 3.563 5.982 x.xxx Predicted y.yyy Measured z.zzz
% Difference NW i
18
RADIAL POWER DISTRIBUTION AT 100% FULL POWER FIGURE 4.2-2(b) i H
J K
L M
N P
R 1.09 1.03
.786 1.0612 1.002
.7391 1
-2.661
-2.718
-5.980 1.16 1.14 1.08 1.07
.746 1.1351 1.0831 1.0491
.9726
.7033 2
-2.155
-5.000
-2.870
-9.065
-5.764 1.01 1.15 1.01 1.14
.973
.763
.9682 1.1319
.9697 1.1421
.9862
.7856 3
-4.158
-1.565
-3.960
.175 1.336 3.014 1.26
.961 1.29
.959 3.07
.972
.746 1.3204
.9722 1.3423
.9520 1.1224 1.0391
.7718 4
4.762 1.145 4.031
}
.730 4.860 6.893 3.485
.867
.871
.918 1.05
.958 1.14 1.07
.8821
.8863
.9293 1.0717
.9620 1.2107 1.1100 5
1.730 1.722 1.198 2.095
.418 6.228 3.738 1.10
.842 1.17
.917 1.29 1.01 1.08
.778 1.1923
.8893 1.2601
.9524 1.3571
.9980 1.0927
.7517 6
8.364 5.582 7.692 3.817 5.194
-1.188 1.204
-3.342
.739
.886
.841
.870
.960 1.15 1.14 1.03
.7559
.9276
.8643
.8823
.9530 1.1303 1.0562
.9940 7
2.300 4.740 2.735 1.379
.729
-1.739
-7.368
-3.495 x.xxx Predicted y.yyy Measured z.zzz
% Difference NE 19
RADIAL POWER DISTRIBUTION AT 100% FULL POWER FIGURE 4.2-2(c)
~
l 1.09 1 1.16
.996 1.24 367 1.10
.739 8
! 1.0803 1.1542
.9809 1.3112
.6S93 1.1936
.8019
-.917
.517
-1.506 5.726 2.537 8.545 8.525 1.03-1.14 1.12
.948
.870
.0'1
.886 4
9 1.0190 1.0896 1.1375
.9498
.8757
.8643
.9303
-1.068
-4.386 1.607-
.211
.690 2.735 4.966
.778 1.08-1.01 1.29
.917 1.17
.842 10
.7518 1.0954
.9925 1.3378
.9259 1.2476
.8805
-2.057 1.389
-1.683 3.721
.981 6.667 4.632 1.07 1.14
.958 1.05
.918
.871 11 1.0831 1.1716
.9422' l.0615
.9286
.8867 1.215 2.807
-1.670 1.143 1.198 1.837
.775
.983 1.07
.959 1.29
.961 12
.7339
.9601 1.0933
.9629 1.3610
.9979
-2.781
-2.340 2.150
.417 5.504 3.850
.774
.973-1.14 1.01 1.15 13
.7501
.9735
.l.1538
.9869 1.1561
-3.101
.103 1.228
-2.277
.522
.746 1.07 1.08 1.14 14
.7077
.9972 1.0774 1.1222
-5.094
-6.822
.278
-1.579
.790 1.03 15
.7600 1.0318
-3.797
.194 A
B C
D E
F G
x.xxx Predicted y.yyy Measured z.zzz
% Difference SW i
20
,,6-.
RADIAL POWER DISTRIBUTION AT 100% FULL POWER FIGURE 4.2-2 (d)
.613
.739 1.10
'l.867 1.26 1.01 1.16 1.09
.6332
.7758 1.1777 I.8866 1.3079
.9804 1.1243 1.0514 8
3.263 5.007 7.091 2 307 3.810
-2.970
-3.103
-3.578
.739
.886
.842
.871
.961 1.15 1.14 1.03
.7481
.9177
.8548
.8714
.9432 1.1212 1.0534
.9842 9
1.218 3.612 1.544
.000
-1.873
-2.522
-7.632
-4.466 1.10
.841 1.17
.918 1.29 1.01 1.08
.778 1.1729
.8717 1.2340
.9266 1.3291
.9784 1.0685
.7269 10 6.636 3.686 5.470
.980 3.023
-3.168
-1.019
-6.555
.867
.870
.917 1.05
.950 1.14 1.07
.8676
.8568
.9070 1.0521
.9374 1.1670 1.0721 11
.115
-1.494
-1.091
.190
-2.294 2.368
.187 1.26
.960 1.29
.958 1.08
.983
.746 1.3004
.9048 1.3082
.9552 1.0923
.9737
.7347 12 3.175
-5.729 1.395
.313 1.111
.916
-1.475 1.01 1.15 1.01 1.15
.990
.777
.9713 1.1129
.9588 1.1382
.9683
.7533 13
-3.861
-3.217
-5.050
-1.043
-2.222
-3.089 1.16 1.14 1.08 1.08
.760 1.1597 1.0914 1.0537
.9844
.7012 14 0.000
-4.298
-2.407
-8.889
-7.763 1.09 1.03
.778 1.0871 1.0164
.7460 15
.275
-1.359
-4.113.
H J
K L
?!
N P
R x.xxx Predicted y.yyy
?!easured z.zzz
% Difference SE 21
4.3 Shape Annealing Matrix (SAM) and Boundary Point Power Correlation (BPPC) Verification st 50% Full Power 4.3.1 Purpose Measurement of the SAM elements and BPPC constants was performed to determine acceptable values of these con-stants for a wide range of core axial power shapes.
4.3.2 Test Method The SAM elements and BPPC constants were determined from a least squares analysis of the measured excore detector readings and the corresponding power distribution deter-mined from the incore detector signals. Since these values must be representative of the range of axial power distri-butions expected throughout cycle 2, it was desirable to measure these parameters within the expected range of axial shapes. This was done by initiating an axial xenon oscilla-tion and periodically recording incore, excore and reactor state parameters during the oscillation. The incore data was analyzed using an incore analysis computer code to ob-tain third core peripheral power integrals, third core detec-tor fractional response, upper and lower third core integrals of core average power and upper and lower core boundary point powers. A least squares analysis was then performed to obtain the optimum set of SAM elements and BPPC constants character-izing the correlation between the excore detectors measured response and the corresponding incore detectors power dis-tributions. The analysis was performed for each CPC Channel, 4.3.3 Results and Evaluation Acceptance criteria for this test required that unless the measured value of each SAM element was within 15.0% of the predicted value for that element then the measured SAM must be installed in the CPC.
An identical acceptance cri-teria was applied to the BPPC constants with the exception that the level of agreement required between predicted and measured values was reduced to 13.0%.
Since this level of agreement was not obtained for the SAM elements or the BPPC constants, the measured values were installed in each CPC.
For each SAM calculated, a test value characterizing the
" goodness of fit" of each matrix was computed. Acceptable test values were obtained for eacn matrix. Hence, no further adjustments to the CPC's were necessary. Table 4.3-1 tabu-lates the results of this test.
22
I SHAPE ANNEALING MATRIX (SAM) AND BOUNDARf POINT N,EP. CC:l;EIATION COEFFICIENTS TABLE 4.3-1 CPC PREDICTED MEASURED VALUE CONSTANT PID VALUE Ch. A Ch. B Ch. C Ch. D SCll 081 17.278 8.0488 8.8933 9.2542 5.3049 lSCl2 082
-15.418
-2.5501
-3.9195
-5.0288 1.5357 lSCl3 083 2.9747
-2.1580
-1.5038
.57369
-4.0058 lSC21 084
-16.573
-2.8754
-1,8006
-3.2261
-1.2843
'SC22 085 32.478 7.5103 6.1440 8.4330 5.0860 SC23 086
-16.399
-1.9734
-1.4754
-2.6927
.84248
- SC31 087 2.2953
-2.1736
-4.0915
-3.0275
-1.0208 SC32 088
-14.053
-1.9617
.77632
.40124
-3.6210
,SC33 089 16.425 7.1297 5.9789 6.2683 7.8471 l
II) Test Value 4.808 4.925 4.841 5.066 BPPCC1 099
.13587 E-1
.86071 E-2 BPPCC2 100
.64120 E-1 32531 E-1 BPPCC3 101 14204 E-1
.90377 E-2 BPPCC4 102
.'/6890 E-1
.38131 E-1
( )No further CPC adjustments required if 3.05 Test Value $6.2 j
2.
e i
4.4 Radial Peaking Factor and CEA Shadowing Factor Verification at 50%
Full Power 4.4.1
- Purpose 1
i Performance of this test at 50% full power assured con-servatism of the radial peaking factors (RPF's) utilized b'y the CPC's and COLSS in the power distribution synthesis algorithms.
In addition,'the adequacy of the predicted CEA shadowing factors (CSF's) installed in the CPC's was
- demonstrated.
4.4.2 The performance of this test involved establishing the following CEA configurations:
l All CEA's out i
Group 6 at LEL (Lower Electrical Limit)
- Group 4 at LEL, Group 5 at 45" withdrawn (EDIL at 50%
full power).
j Group 6 at LEL, Group 5 at 48" wd., Group P at 48" wd.
Group 6 at LEL, Group P at 37.7" wd.
Group P at 37.7" wd.
i j
At each CEA configuration, incore and excore data were i
recorded. This data was analyzed to determine the planar radial peaking factors and CEA shadowing factors for i
the particular CEA configuration. Appropriate corrections were applied to the RPF and CSF multipliers (ARM i =
1 to 6;.ASM i = 2 to 7) to guarantee conservatism of the.
4 applied RPF's and to assure the adequacy of the applied CSF's.
4.4.3 Results and Evaluations Tables 4.4-1 and 4.4-2' summarize the results of the
_ radial peaking factor and CEA shadowing factor test.
All necessary adjustments to appropriate CPC and COLSS constants were made based upon measured RPF's and CSF's.
h l
l' r
I 24 i
.-.-.,,,e,.--,,,.,,
,.,y
,,.n.
,,,,,n-.,,
-.,.e,--,
-n.
s.
RADIAL PEAKING FACTORS TABLE 4.4-1 i
CEA GROUP / POSITION F
AS LEFT VALUES OF F 4
MEASURED PREDICTED CPC
-YOLSS U
1 ARO 1.5312 1.5500 1.5500 1.5500 4
6/LEL 1.6591 1.7300 1.7300 1.7300 i
6/LEL, 5/46" 1.6869 1.6400 1.6869 1.6900 l
6/LEL, 5/48", P/48" 1.6957 1.6400 1.6958 1.7000 6/LEL, P/37.7" 1.7165 1.8200 1.8200 1.8200 P/37.7" 1.5788 1.6200 1.6200 1.6200 l
N Us I
1
}
4 1 '
j c
l-I i.
I CEA SHADOWING FACTORS TABLE 4.4-2(a)
CEA GROUP /POSTION MEASURED CSF PREDICTED CSF Ch. A Ch. L Ch. C Ch. D 6/LEL 1.0096 1.0151 1.0151 1.0089 1.0500 6/LEL, 5/46"
.8645
.8705
.8692
.8695
.9200 6/LEL, 5/48", P/48"
.9229
.9401
.9323
.9415
.9800 6/LEL, P/37.7" 1.0309 1.0443 1.0405 1.0406 1.1100 P/37.7" 1.0125 1.0200 1.0144 1.0201 1.0500 TABLE 4.4-2(b)
CEA GROUP / POSITION AS-LEFT CSF VALUE I
Ch. A Ch. B Ch. C Ch. D 6/LEL 1.0096 1.0151 1.0151 1.0089 6/LEL, 5/46"
.8645
.8705
.8692
.8695 6/LEL, 5/48", P/48"
.9229
.9401
.9323
.9415 6/LEL, P/37.7" 1.0309 1.0443 1.0405 1.0406 I
P/37.7" 1.0125 1.0200 1.0144 1.02G1 1
1 1
4.5 Reacitvity Coefficients at 50% and 100% Full Power 4.5.1 Purpose Temperature reactivity coefficients were measured at 50% and 100% full power to verify that these parameters were within the range specified in Technical Specifica-tions. A power reactivity coefficient measurement was performed in conjunction with the temperature re-activity coefficient measurement at 50% full power.
In addition to verifying compliance with Technical Specifi-cations, these measurements aid in verifying proper de-sign and fabrication of the relcad core and provide an expanded data base for reactivity balance calculations.
4.5.2 Test Method Two methods were used to determine the Isothermal Temp-erature Coefficient (ITC) and Power Coefficient (PC);
one method relies upon center CEA movement while the other method does not utilize movement of the center CEA.
4.5.2.1 Reactivity Coefficient Measurement with Center CEA Movement at 50% Full Power Measurement of the Isothermal Temperature Coefficient (ITC) and Power Coefficient (PC) using center CEA move-ment was performed in two stages.
Initial conditions were established with the reactor at steady state, equilibrium xenon and CEA group 6 at 120 inches withdrawn.
The ITC portion of the test was started by initiating a small increase in turbine load. Reactor power was held essentially constant by insertion of the center CEA while reactor coolant temperature was allowed to decrease. After the system had stabilized at the new steady state conditions, data was collected and the process described above reversed. This sequence was repeated to assure data was consistent and to reduce experimental uncertainty. Following completion of this phase of the test, initial conditions were re-established for the PC portion of the test.
This phase of the measurement was initiated by decreasing turbine load while withdrawing the center CEA to maintain reactor coolant temperature constant. Reactor power was allowed to increase and stabilize at a new steady state. This process was reversed following a short data collection period at the new steady state.
The entire cycle was then repeated to assure data was consistent and to reduce experimental uncertainty.
27
/
F Data obtained from the test was reduced to obtain etwo equationsLin which the ITC and PC were indepen-dent variables. These equations were solved simul-taneously utilizing'an iterative solution technique to obtain the ITC and PC.
The Moderator Temperature Coefficient (MTC) was calculated by subtracting the predicted fuel temperature coefficient from the I
measured ITC.
4.5.2.2 Temperature Reactivity Coefficient Measurement without Center CEA Movement at 50% and 100% Full Power With the reactor at steady state, equilibrium Xenon and CEA Group 6 at.120 inches withdrawn, a small step change in the turbine control valve position was made and then adjusted to establish a new coolant inlet temperature. This change produced a small turbine load-reactor power mismatch. The temperature change 4
resulted in a reactivity feedback and a resultant power change.
The power change produced an opposite reactivity feedback and the reactor settled out at a new power and temperature condition. The cycle was then reversed by making a small step change in the turbine control valve position in the opposite direc-tion.
The ITC was calculated iteratively using the resultant power and temperature changes along with an assumed power coefficient. The Moderator Tempera-ture Coefficient (MTC) was then calculated by sub-tracting the predicted Fuel Temperature Coefficient (FTC) from the measured' Isothermal Temperature Co-efficient (ITC).
i 4.5.3 Results and Evaluation Acceptance criteria state the following:
The measured ITC,ghall agree with the predicted values a.
within +0.3 x 10 Ak/k/ F; b.
The measured power coefficient shogld agree with the predicted values within +0.3 x 10 Ak/k/% power; and The MTC shall be less positive than +0.5 x 10' c.
Ak/k/*F when reactor power is <70% of rated thermal power and less positive than 0.0 when reactor power is >70% of rated thermal power.
These criteria were met at both the 50% and 100% test plateaus. Table 4.5-1 tabulates the results of the reactivity coefficient measurements at 50% and 100%
Full Power.
28
.,ne
--,.n,-
,,,-w,.-,,,,-,,--,.m,,-
w.w,-,-n_,---.n-~w,-,--.-..--.
v -,,.,, -,., -, -, -
s
.. e C
e a REACTIVITY COEFFICIENTS AT 50% AND 100% FULL POWER TABLE 4.S-1 TEST PLATSAU PARAMETER WITH CENTER CEA MOVEMENT WITHOUT CENTER CEA MOVEMENT PREDICTED MEASURED PREDICTED MEASURED 50% Full ITC (Ap/ F)
.335x10
.250x10 '
.335x10
.356x10 '
~
~
-4
~
-4
~
-4 PC (Ap/% Power) -1.11x10
-1.03x10 '
-1.11x10 N/A
-0
-4
~
MTC (Ap/ F)
.212x10
.127x10
.212x10
.233x10~
100% Full ITC (Ap/ F)
N/A N/A
.763x10~
.853x10~
-4 PC (Ap/% Power)
N/A N/A
.951x10 N/A MTC (Ap/ F)
N/A N/A
.653x10 '
.741x10~
~
29
I' 4,,.1.
t 5.0 Conclusion The results of the Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 2 Cycle 2 reload test program g
summarized in the body of this report:
(1) Verify that the core was correctly loaded with regard to the utilized
[
fuel management plan and that there are no detectable anomalies pre-sent which would result in unsafe operation of the plant during the length of the cycle.
(2) Calculational models utilized in designing the reload core and per-
~
forming -the safety analysis for cycle 2 adequately predict core be-havior during this cycle.
The ANO-2 cycle 2 reload core was demonstrated to be properly designed, fabricated and installed. The unit can be operated in a manner that should not pose undue risk to the health and safety of the public.
O 30
_ _ _ - _ - _ - - - - - _ _ _ - - - - _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ -