View source for LD-84-060, Forwards Minor Mods to CESSAR Chapter 14 to Facilitate Improved Testing Procedure.Changes Only Affect Tests Performed After Fuel Loading & Do Not Affect NRC Requirements.Mods Will Be Incorporated Into Amend to CESSAR

{{Adams
| number = ML20093M415
| issue date = 10/16/1984
| title = Forwards Minor Mods to CESSAR Chapter 14 to Facilitate Improved Testing Procedure.Changes Only Affect Tests Performed After Fuel Loading & Do Not Affect NRC Requirements.Mods Will Be Incorporated Into Amend to CESSAR
| author name = Scherer A
| author affiliation = ABB COMBUSTION ENGINEERING NUCLEAR FUEL (FORMERLY
| addressee name = Eisenhut D
| addressee affiliation = NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION (NRR)
| docket = 05000470
| license number = 
| contact person = 
| document report number = LD-84-060, LD-84-60, NUDOCS 8410220115
| document type = CORRESPONDENCE-LETTERS, INCOMING CORRESPONDENCE, VENDOR/MANUFACTURER TO NRC
| page count = 33
}}

=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:--
p C-E Power Cystems                 Tel. 203/688-1911 I        Combustion Engineenng. Inc.       Telex: 99297 l
1000 Prospect Hill Road                                                         ,
Windsor, Con.iecticut 06095 l
POWER M SYSTEMS STN 50-470F                                             October 16, 1984 LD-84-060 Mr. Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.           20555

==Subject:==
CESSAR Startup Testing

==Dear Mr. Eisenhut:==

During preparation for startup of the first System 80" plant, C-E has noted minor modifications which could be made to CESSAR Chapter 14 to facilitate an improved testing procedure. These changes affect only tests performed after fuel loading and do not in any way affect CESSAR's compliance with NRC requirements. These changes, along with a description of each change, are provided in the attachment for NRC review. These changes will be incorporated in a subsequent amendment to CESSAR.
If you have any questions or comments, feel free to call me or Mr. T. J.
Collier of my staf f at (203) 285-5215.
Very truly yours, COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC.
                                                                       - - - =
AI E. T herer Director Nuclear Licensing AES:las Attach.
cc: K. Eccleston (USNRC Project Manager) h$k A$        , O
              ^                                                                      QM 4

q   m. ,
8:
LDESCRIPTION 0F~                                                          LD-84-060 MODIFICATIONS TO                                                         Attachment CHAPTER 14 0F CESSAR-F.                                                  Page 1
            ,14.2.7.1.1:    RG 1.68, AppendixT A, Section B.1.c' (page 14.2-5)
Deleting the cold (260 F) partial flow Ct:A drops .is consistent with experience
            -in previous startups, which showed that the hot, full-flow drops were more
           ' limiting. Low temperature criticality is allowed orly on first-of-a-kind plants,' and then only-for short periods of time under close supervision. CEA
            .insertability at cold conditions is still demonstrated during post-core hot functional testing, providing assurance that the CEAs can be tripped, if necessary.
14.2.10.1:    Initial Fuel Loading (page 14.2-7a)
The containment evacuation alarm described in the deleted material will not be provided, nor is there any requirement for such a device. Should a situation exist requiring evacuation, the operator could (in the case of Palo Verde is
         . . required to) utilize the site public address system and the plant evacuation
         ' alarm. As stated in this section, audible count rate. indicators w e ll be provided in containment.
14.2.12.3.1: PCHFT Controlling Document (page 14.2-69) r
            . Item 2.1 reflects the possibility that some of the pre-core tests may be E            postponed to, or rerun during, the post-core hot functional testing. The other changes reflect how the instrumentation is to be_ calibrated.
           -14.2.12.3.4: Post-Core CEDM Performance (page 14.2-72)
The-test method is updated to reflect the fact that no cold drops are to be
           -performed. Verification of position indication and alarms is not temperature or schedule dependent and can be accomplished at any time, as the change reflects. The change to the required data reflects the fact that the RCS conditions are only a concern 'for this test during the rod drops.
14.2.12.4.2: CEA Symetry and Coupling Test (pages 14.2-77a,14.2-78)
The CEA coupling test is deleted because of a difference in the System 80 design and previous C-E designs. In previous C-E designs, CEAs and extension shafts were uncoupled during each refueling outage (CEAs remained in the core). In the System _80 design, CEAs and extension shafts are not uncoupled (CEAs are withdrawn into the upper guide structure).

y X
i SDESCRIPTION' 0F-                                                          LD-84-060 MODIFICATIONS T0                                                         Attachment
          ' CHAPTER 14 0F CESSAR-F                                                   Page 2 14.2.12.4.4:- Shutdown an'd ' Regulating CEA Group Worts Tests (page 14.2-79)
          ; Testing on the fi.rst-of-a-kind plant has been modified to perform the net
          ' shutdown measurement at low temperature (approximately 320 F) rather than at HZP conditions. This change is advantageous for the following reasons:
:(1) The measurement provides direct verification of the net shutdown worth at relatively cold conditions (shutdown margin following a cooldown).
This measurement can be readily done on the (1rst-of-a-kind unit where a low temperature test _ program is performed.
(2) L'ess RCS boron dilution is required.
(3)~ Potential cooldown events during testing while in a highly rodded configuration would have less of a consequence.
The remaining information; e.g., CEA group worths, obtained with the revised measurement approach is essentially equivalent to that obtained with the -
original test approach. For follow-on plants, the net shutdown measurement is to be performed at 565*F, since low temperature testing is not performed.
14.2.12.4.7: Pseudo Dropped and Ejected CEA Worth Test (page 14.2-83)
The wording is changed to provide flexibility in the testing methodology.       The measurements of CEA worths via dilution (CEA insertion), boration (CEA withdrawal) or CEA compensation provide equivalent information. The test method 1s reworded to clarify the conditions at which testing will bg performed.
14.2.12.5.3: Unit Load Transient Test (page 14.2-87)
The test method is updated to reflect the conditions unaer which the test will
          ,be conducted, including the limiting factors.
14.2.12.5.4: Control Systems Checkout Test (pages 14.2-87,14.2-88)
The test method is reworded to clarify the conditions at whiich testing will be performed. Feedwater temperature is added to the list of monitored parameters
           '(4.1.7). The acceptance criteria are renrded to clarify the criteria to be used for evaluating steady. state performance and transient responses.
:14.2.12.5.6: Turbine Trip (pages 14.2-89, 14.2-89a )               '
           -The Turbine Trip Test and the Unit Load Rejection Test lead to essentially the same plant response. Rather than perform redundant tests, the turbine trip l-          test will be performed with the Reactor Power Cutback System (RPCS) not in-service while the unit load rejection test is performed with the RPCS in-

7 19           -
LDESCRIPTION OFL.                                                          LD-84-060 JMODIFICATIONS TO        .                                                  Attachment cCHAPTER 14 0F CESSAR-F                                                    Page'3
: service.: LThelData Required:section is reworded to specify the parameters to be evaluated-against acceptance criteria. Additional key parameters are to be
: monitored,to provide supplemental information-but are not evaluated against
:: specific acceptance-criteria. The Acceptance Criteria section is' reworded to specify the method;to be used for evaluating the parameters against which acceptance criteria are applied. Since non-safety parameters monitored during the test:are not evaluated against specific acceptance criteria, .the second
    <                             Lsentence is eliminated..
114.2.12.5.7: Unit Load Rejection -Test (pages 14.2-90, 14.2-90a , 14.2-91)
                                  'Thisitest will be performed with.the RPCS in operation.      The summary is
                                  . reworded .in a manner similar to the Turbine Trip Test.
1
                                  '14.2.12.5.11: Xenon Oscillation Control (PLCEA) Test (pages 14.2-93,14.2-94) p F                                  The. initial . conditions .for the test are revised to allow this test to be
                   .               performed atiorcabove 50% power. The prerequisite that testing at the 80%
                                  -plateau be completed is not. required. The acceptance criteria is reworded to Jeliminate the phrase "throughout-core life", since this requirement cannot be-demonstrated directly from the test results. The test data, in conjunction with design analyses, demonstrates that xenon oscillations are readily controllable throughout life. .
114.2.12.5.12: " Ejected" CEA Test (page 14.2-95) 14.2.15.5.13: " Dropped" CEA. Test (page 14.2-96)
The rewording of. the. acceptance criteria clarifies the procedure to be used for evaluating'the test results. The rewording does not change'the intended acceptance criteria.
14.2.12.5.14: Steady State Core Performance Test (pages 14.2-96,14.,2-97)
The objective is reworded to coincide with the primary reason for performing
        ,                          theitest.= Objective 1.1 is deleted since specific acceptance criteria are not zapplied for this purpose. The Test Method and Data Required sections are
                                  -reworded to more clearly specify the way the test will be ~ performed.
Acceptance Criteria :5.1.is not required as .the:COLSS and'CPC. systems adequately monitor DNBR and LPD limits during power escalation. Acceptance Criteria 5.2 is reworded to specify:that core. peaking factors are also evaluated against specific facceptance criteria.
L)v I
n i

y p: v + -
D              -
w&                                   '
l _.-
Y. M p.f y r             -
   ,        x        ,
                               ; DESCRIPTION OF                                                          - . LD-84-060
        # . o                 lMDDIFICATIONS'TOL      . .
                                                                                                          , ' Attachment
       ;                         CHAPTER ^14 0F CESSAR-F                     ,,
                                                                                                             -Page 4
                                                   ;,                >v    .
l i'                             >'i                               a   .
g                        J14.2.12.5.15: Intercomparison' of PPS[CPC an'd PMS Inputs' (page 14.2-99)-
The rewording reflects the proper' terminology for this parameter,- i.e., the temperature shadowing factor. - This measurement -is planned for both first-of-a-J                               kind 'and follow-on units, so- the asterisked footnote is deleted.
                              .1412112.5.17: Main and Emergency Feedwater Systems Test' (page 14.2-99a)
                              ;This. page was' missing from Amendment 9, February 27. 1984.
14.2.12.5.18: CPC Verification -(page 14.2-101)
                         ' .Incore-' detector maps (Section 4.5)' are not required for this test so this
                              , requirement:is-deleted.- The Acceptance Criteria section ~is reworded to clarify the procedure for applying the criteria.
14.2.'12.5.19: 15 team Bypass Valve Capacity Test (pages 14.2-101, 14.2-102)-
The test' description is: altered to reflect capacity testing of each ADV and
                              - SBCS ' valve individu' ally. Individual valve capacities-are re the valve capacities assumed in Chapter 15 (Safety Analysis)           quired to show that are conservative.
Prerequisites'are changed to delete the requirement for automatic SBCS '
                                    ~
                              . operation, because individual valve modulation (open 'and close) is not possible in automatic control.
i''
                             ' Table 14.2-1: Low Power Physics' Tests The table'is modified to be consistent with the revised test summaries
                          ~ (described above).
Table 14.2-2: Power Ascension Test I
                             -The table is modified to be consistent'with the test summaries and to reflect the planned testing approach. -The footnote on the coefficient measurements is added to clarify that the test is performed with CEA movement and must be performed at.a. power level which allows the required CEA motion based on margin considerations.
R-                          -Table '14.2 Physics (Steady State) Test Acceptance Criteria The acceptance criteria for net shutdown worth, and dropped anu ejected CEA
                          '. worths, were inadvertently omitted. These are added in this amendment.
Dropped and ejected CEA worths, and power distribution comparisons, are not
                              . required on follow-on units. This' change makes Table 14.2-7 consistent with Tables 14.2-l ' and 14.2-2. Other addtions are added for clarification and do not affect the established acceptance criteria.
4 P

r w
MODIFICATIONS TO CHAPTER 14 0F CESSAR-F

l
                                                                                                                   \
14.2.5         REVIEW, EVALUATION, AND APPROVAL OF TEST RESULTS                                    ; !
The development of administrative procedures for review, evaluation and approval of test results is the responsibility of the Applicant. Advice                                I and consultation will be provided by Combustion Engineering as appropriate.
Test results shall be recorded as perinanent plant records.
14.2.6         TEST RECORDS An official copy of each completed test procedure, including all required                             I supplemental data, exceptions, conclusions and approval signatures shall be maintair.ed in accordance with the Applicant' administrative controls.
14.2.7         CONFORMANCE OF INITIAL TEST PROGRAMS WITH REGULATORY GUIDES AND INDUSTRY STANDARDS The intent of the following Regulatory Guides will be followed with the noted differences.                                                                                    ,
14.2.7.1         Reg. Guide 1.68 Initial Test Programs for Water-Cooled Reactor Power Plants (Revision 0, 11/73).
The following exceptions and/or clarifications address only significant differences between the System 80 test pregram and the applicable regulatory position. Minor terminology differences, testing not applicable to the                       c_ . .
plant design, and testing that is part of required surveillance tests will not be addressed.      Reference is made to the applicable portion of Regulatory Guide 1.68 (Revision 0, 11/73).
14.2.7.1.1         Reference Appendix A, Section B.I.c.
This section suggests that rod drop times be measured for all control element assemblies (CEAs) at hot and cold full-flow and no-flow conditions, i           The CESSAR CEA drop-time testing is consistent with the recommendations of the regulatory guide; however, tests which do not provide meaningful data will be deleted. As outlined in test sunnary 14.2.12.3.4, the CEA drop                                 ,
time testing will consist of:
a.) One drop of each CEA :: ::'f. 1 '       -  ;;. :::2' '' : .. _ _ . . _T. : _ . . . [              !
cr ? : :^_: :_2_;.^. ,~ ,.! ...." at hot, full-flow conditions.K b.) Those CEAs falling outside the two-sigma limit for similar CEAs will be dropped three additional times.
c.) Hot no flow scram insertion rod drops will not be perforined for System 80 reactors. C-E has demonstrated that rod drop times under full-flow conditions are more limiting than the drop times under conditions of no-flow.
d.)         r    drop f4ne M At 2Wf /4han was efr*mindi/ sinee p                                       t                                  be e
w
                  ;, ,,,g4,,,j,pf      w y rysn ,. 2$                       gpeMafdinw~.           m d4 6wp wpya<<htQ.        A                  4 (na,

one temporary channel and one permanent channel will be equipped with audible count rate indicators in two locatiane. +==an*>ey in the containment                                                                               '
and permanent in the main control room. Q. re t r r e tia- - 9 is c-" ':d 0; ": e;c ;.;;;; .;id; : 7 nu;;;- r :rt:!: _i'' ; ::^ r M: n
      ' i n ^. 6 iim LL . , y. ; ; ; L , L ,...:.t n' ' - - - "                                                        ^ --- + 4 - i~u r -+4aa
         ' ";;5 rn-t nt;           d., ;,,, ' L '.;; 1;;;i c.; g:--+ 61 Continuous area radiation monitoring will be provided during fuel handling
     . and fuel loading operations. Permanently installed radiation monitors display radiation levels in the main control room and will be monitored by licensed operators.
Fuel assemblies, together with inserted components, will be placed in the reactor vessel one at a time according to a previously established and approved sequence which was developed to provide reliable core monitoring with minimum possibility of core mechanical damage. The initial fuel loading procedure will include detailed instructions which will prescribe successive movements of each fuel assembly from its initial position in the storage racks to its final position in the core. The procedures will establish a system and a requirement for verification of each fuel assembly movement prior to proceeding with the next assembly Multiple checks will be made for fuel assembly and inserted component serial numbers at successive transfer points to guard against possible inadvertent exchanges or substitutio                                                                               l At least two fuel assemblies containing neutron sources will be placed into the core at appropriate specified points in the initial fuel loading procedure to ensure a neutron population large enough for adequate monitoring of the core. As each fuel assembly is loaded, at least two separate inverse count rate plots will be maintained to ensure that the extrapolated inverse count rate ratio behaves as would be expected. In addition, nuclear instrumentation will be monitored to ensure that the "just loaded" fuel assembly does not excessively increase the count rate. The results of each loading step will be reviewed and evaluated before the next prescribed step is started.
14.2.10.1.1               Safe Loading Criteria
   ?
Criteria for the safe loading of fuel require that loading operations stop immediately if:
a.) The neutron count rate from either temporary nuclear channel unexpectedly doubles during any single loading step, excluding anticipated change due to detector and/or source movement or spatial effects (i.e., fuel assembly coupling source with a detector), or b.) The neutron count race on any individual nuclear channel increases by a factor of five during any single loading step, excluding anticipated changes due to detector and/or source movement or spatial effects (i.e., fuel assembly coupiing source with a detector).                                                                                                   !
i 14.2-7a l
1

14.2.12.3                    Postcore Hot Functional Tests
(
14.2.12.3.1                       Postcore Hot Functional Test Controlling Document 1.0         OBJECTIVE To demonstrate the proper integrated operation of plant primary, secondary, and auxiliary systems with fuel loaded in the core.
2.0         PREREQUISITES 2.1         All precore hot functional testing has been completed,4r ufudu/.                   l 2.2         Fuel loading has been completed.
2.3         All permanently installed instrumentation on syst, ems to be tested            '
is available and calibrated,la nucdance 9/4 rechn/c.se sf,c,fe<. 4'us end test' pecu Ans.
2.4         All necessary test instrumentation is available and calibrateds/e.
Acm/ ext w/M neJ>&M spxifvcaHm- aJ6st frecch+er, 2.5         All cabling between the CEDM's and the CEDM control system is connected.
2.6         Steam generators are in wet layup in accordance with the NSSS chemistry manual.
2.7         RCS has been borated to the proper concentration.
3.0         TEST METHOD 3.1         Specify plant conditions and coordinate the execution of the related postcore hot functional test appendices.
4.0         DATA REQUIRED 4.1         As specified by the individual postcore hot functional test appendices.
5.0         ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 5.1         Integrated operation of the primary, secondary, and related auxiliary systems is in accordance with the CESSAR descriptions.
5.2         As specified by the individual postcore hot functional test appendices.
f.
14.2-69

14.2.12.3.4                             Postcore Control Element Drive Mechanism Performance
   . 1.0         OBJECTIVE 1.1         To demonstrate the proper operation of the CEDM's and CEA's under HOT SHUTDOWN and Hot, Zero Power conditions.
1.2         To verify proper operation of the CEA position indicating system
              . and alarms.
1.3         To measure CEA drop times.
2.0         PREREQUISITES 2.1         The CEDMCS precore performance test has been completed.
2.2         All test instrumentation is available and calibrated.
2.3         Plant Monitoring System is operational.
2.4         The CEDM cooling system is operational.
2.5         CEDM coil resistances have been measured.
3.0         TEST METHOD 3.1         Perform the following at HOT SHUTDOWN conditions:                                                                                              -
3.1.1       Withdraw and insert each CEA
                                                                                            $*.        wY_ _.Bfr;;*T"ti:
_                    . _ . - -g
                                                                                                                                                     *NW*
_i . iMice44+ner-anom. lam O.l.2       "r--        -
: :-f :::-d 1::; tir: f:r :::' E '
4;*;*       fe- fem three eddiG:.xl -::eer: :ste ef dre-;- t%'er es ' e?
i~                  1:.. . ^:".'                                 f.'.1!.., ..^.,ide tk t . si,..; 1i;ft fer e!=4ie-- CE?':.
3.2         Perform the following at hot, zero power conditions:
Withdraw and insert each CEA                                                        Je __-     {ypp                            f CCbM oyetAN+,, Mdication.
3.2.1                                                                               h veu'-                         c.w:i ti .. .                 s-
                    - ' - w=
3.2.2       Measure and record drop time for each CEA.
3.2.3       Perform three measurements of drop time for each of those CEA's falling outside the two-sigma limit for similar CEA's.
3'                                                                                    f Mrfm f4 fe//ows,.; af                                                9     M:
4.0         DATA REQUIRED                                              y,y,f w f 4 ff , , w A ,f , ,f c a ,4 cf g M ,' k 4.1         CEA drop time.                                                            bN                                                     #"
* 4.2         RCS te x                          -
rt>.ureAnd.g        r                 pkssure$/c 8/m M' Nd d i w ca. o 4.3         CEA posi on and alarm indications.                                                                                                                    g 14.2-72
                  .   . - . . . . - . . . . - . _ . . , . . . - . . .             .. ..- -    .__m-___._..,__..__.,.__.,_-...,_.,,_,_m...

e-"
14.2.12.4.2                                                 CEA Symmetry               -d
                                                                                                                                 " 7 Tes t**                                                                      l 1.0                                 OBJECTIVE 1.1                                 To demonstrate that no loading or fabrication errors that result in measurable CEA worth asymmetries have occurred.
                     ++                                    ,_ >____.._ ._ ______                                __._12__
_,     .__L    er. ._ ,..                 2_,
                                                                                                                                                                                      .. __m.,_
4 N--                   AL_             .E2                _E    _E           1_ J $9          1A                     _93
__A                _                   .m          AL _ _ _                    1     E -       ?i %        L. _ _       ,_        _
                                                                                                                                                                                                             .m TV3            ...w                      y ,w           .s   u                                                                                                          . . rs .J s ia , e i n _ v ar_ n iar s_                 5            7 . . . . W8sI b       bl.E     bVUp5 5 p .y b . 5 E b M .B    WT 5 5 5        wb ywu       6 .             ww
___J2.2___            . _;                   __&___           _L__e_                L.              _r___2
                                                                                                                                                    .211
                           . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..                       .L..
                                                                                                         .         , , . . . . . . . , . . . . .       .. . ..        y.        . .. ...         _ A.                  .
                           =====                        =              u,    9e_                  _la_         __1.        mL_
                           .,v ., . .                   . o,
_ _ e#                                       ..__m_           .L__L        .. Efree                (,    . . . p a m,, A 14.2-77a

    ~
2.0         PREREQUISITES 2.1         The reactivity computer is in operation.
2.2         The reactor is critical at the desired conditions with the con-trolling CEA group partially inserted and in manual control.
3.0          TEST METHOD W             CES C: ;1'n; CP.::k 0"JT """TCC""           " fir;t :f :-kind")
;-      g             ) enlartaA PCA fe i ne y+ aA gsf j;j 7t1           g; 7;j.;;; ; ;;;}}
nanstium cametivitu incartian and than it withAcaya, 3.^. 2      St:; '.. l .1 i; , e er e ted fe. U,.  ... ;.,J . v ' Li.s ZA;.
3.M        -CEA Symmetry Test (hot, zero power conditions - 565*F, 2250 psia) 3     1     _The first CEA of a symmetric group is fully inserted with all remaining CEAs withdrawn except the controlling group, which is                                       ,
positioned for zero reactivity.
1 3./. 2     - The inserted CEA is withdrawn while another CEA in the symmetric group is inserted and the differences in worth (net reactivity) of the CEAs is determined from the reactivity computer.
        - 3. 3     The remainder of the CEAs in the symmetric group are sequentially swapped until the relative worths of each CEA in the symmetric                                    ;
group has been determined.                   -                                                 ~
              $                            1        1 3.f. 4 -    Repeat steps 3.7.1 - 3.2.3 for the remainder of the groups.
        '4.0          DATA REQUIRED                                                        .
4.1          Conditions of the measurement.
4.1.1        RCS ;emperature.
4.1.2        Pressurizer pressure.
4.1.3        Boron concentration.
4.2          Time dependent data.
4.2.1        CEA position.
4.2.2       -Reactivity computer traces.
5.0         ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 5.1         The relative worth of symmetric CEAs are within the acceptance criteria specified in Table 14.2-7.
A $7$ d AC)=[Aw         w   wA AC^d[ A .
14.2-78

14.2.12.4.4                  Shutdown and Regulating CEA Group Worth Test                                                                                                         l
. 1.0            OBJECTIVE                                                                                                                                                               ,
                                                                                                                                                                                             )
1.1            To determine regulating-(i.-2 _ % = iF L ) and shutdown CEA group worths necessary to demonstrate shutdown margin (i.e. , wortti of all CEA's less the highest worth CEA).
1.2           .To demonstrate that the shutdown margin is adequate.
2.0            PREREQUISITES 2.1             The reactor is critical.
2.2             The reactivity computer is operating.
: 3. 0           TEST METHOD A 320*F                                                                                                    Ave SWTbowp 3.1           NOT=4HtR00WMMMit0NS measurement of regulating,CEA groups down to the _                                           d-: p-:--              - -- E     i -- - - ---            ~M of-a-kind" p'lant only).5                                                      N 8T          N,.h*'3
                                                                                                                     . i i ..i C* M'E'''W%
_ . _ ; ( for " fi rst-3.1.1          The CEA group worths will be measured by dilution /boration of the RCS.
3.2             Hot, zero power measurement of regulating - CEA groups?                                                                                                            l 3.2.1          The CEA group worths will be measured by dilution /boration of the RCS.
3.2.2          Where dilution /boration is not feasible, worths may be determined by CEA drop and/or by use of alternate CEA configurations.
4.0            DATA REQUIRED 4.1             Conditions of the measurement.
4.1.1           RCS temperature.
4.1.2           Pressurizer pressure.
4.1.3         -CEA configuration.
4.1.4           Baron concentration.
4.2       -
Time dependant information.
4.? 1           Reactivity variation (strip chart).
4.2.2           CEA positions.
y 09 *Foi.t              o op"o psTs                                                Tus.               WT %Htivb moo w w ua.m pJT V5                                                        -
M DE.           W M *F-                                                                                                                                                       . , , ,
14.2-80

,  ,[          14.2.12.4.7-                             Pseudo Dropped and Ejected CEA Worth Test *
  ~k           1.0            OBJECTIVE 1.1          -To measure the worth of the " dropped" CEA.
1.2            To measure the worth of the " ejected" CEA from the zero power dependent insertion limit (ZPDIL).
E.0             PREREQUISITES 2.1            Reactor critical at hot, zero power conditions with appropriate
,                             CEA configurations.
2.2             The reactivity computer is in operation.
3.0             TEST METHOD 3.1            Pseudo worstL" dropped" CEA measurement 3.1.1           The pseudo worst and next worst " dropped" CEA worths are established on the basis of predictions and verified during the symmetry check, cfrvff.l 3.1.2           TheworthsoftheworstandnextworstfEAsarethenmeasuredby beoew dilution /berafim an//cr CEAcompr,y,tk.
(          3.2             Pseudo worst " dropped" PLCEA and worst " dropped" PLCEA subgroup measurement.
3.2.1           The pseudo worst " dropped" PLCEA and worst " dropped" PLCEA subgroups
    -                         are established by prediction.
3.2.2           The worths of the worst single PLCEA and PLCEA subgroup are measured by boron dilution /boration and/or CEA compensation.
3.3             Pseuva worst " ejected" CEA measurement 3.3.1           The worth of the pseudo worst " ejected" CEA is established by means of a prediction.                                       ,gg,j a 3.3.2.          Theworthsoftheworstandnextworst[CEAsaremeasuredby i
                                                 **/ h$i
                                                  ~
bb bsW5hls Elkpam & 2h4 CEA 4.0             DAT                EQ$JNI 4.1             Conditions of the measurement 4.1.1         .RCS temperature
            . *This test will be perfonned only on the "first-of-a-kind" plant.
14.2g83

2.2         The RRS. FWCS, SBCS, RPCS, and the pressurizer level and pressure control systems are in automatic operation.
3.0         TEST METHOD                                     g ,g off,,,/ p & M                            l 3.1         Load increases and decreases (steps and ramps) in accordance with the C-E Fuel Pre-conditioning Guidelines will be performed at power                           l levels in the 96 to M M rangse be&: M  2f_ith    ;;ir g'weranje, c M.    ; i- tb 00 0; 20 t; 0^~ r _ . L.J .\       f 4.0         DATA REQUIRED 4.1         Time dependent data.
4.1.1       Pressurizer level and pressure.
4.1.2       RCS temperatures.
4.1.3       CEA position.
4.1.4       Power level and demand.
4.1.5       Steam generator levels and pressures.
4.1.6       Feedwater and steam flow.
4.1.7       Feedwater temperature.
5.0        ACCEPTANCE U ITERIA 5.1        The stap and ramp transients demonstrate that the plant performs load changes allowed by C-E's Fuel Pre-conditioning Guidelines and data has been taken that will demonstrate the plant's ability to meet unit load swing design transients.
14.2.12.5.4          Control Systems Checkout Test i       1.0         OBJECTIVE l       1.1         To demonstrate that the automatic control systems operate satis-
[                   factorily during steady-state and transient conditions.
i l       2.0         PREREQUISITES 2.1         The reactor is oporating at the desired conditions.
2.2         The RRS, FWCS, SBCS, RPCS, and the pressurizer level and pressure controls are in automatic operation.
       - 3.0        TEST METHOD sth l-      3.1         The performance of the control systems during              _ , _ . . ._.
                                                                                          . . .Q.
                                                                                                . . shde
                                                                                                    , -   s.J += 4
!        c,,,/;&s 4eeee4enee :M t:f; will be monitored to demonstrate that the systems are operating satisfactorily.
14.2-87

4.0        DATA REQUIRED 4.1        Time dependent data.
4.1.1      Pressurizer level and pressure.
4.1.2      RCS temperatures.
4.1.3      CEA position.
4.1.4      Power level and demand.
      -4.1.5      Steam generator levels and pressures.
4.1.6      Feedwater and steam flow.
: 4. c.1     FeeAwa%-te q vet u.
5.0        ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 5.1        The control systems maintain the reactor power, RCS temperature, pressurizer pressure and level, and steam generator levels and d
pressureswithintheircontrolbandsduring4eWesteab<=stateand
                               - - + pu a ,J a cqJ4. q r-5EW:, M e,,d%< M ney m'4 % :.+
: y.         .
14.2.12.5.5        Reactor Coolant and Secondary Chemistry and Radiochemistry Test 1.0       OBJECTIVE 1.1      To conduct chemistry tests at various power levels with the intent of gathering corrosion data and determining activity buildup.
1.2      To verify proper operation of the process radiation monitor.
1.3      To verify the adequacy of sampling arid analysis procedures.
2.0       PREREQUISITES 2.1       The reactor is stable at the desired power level.
2.2       Sampling systems for the RCS and CVCS are operable.
t 3.0       TEST METHOD 3.1       Samples will be collected from the RCS i.nd secondary system at various power levels and analyzed in the laboratory using applicable sampling and analysis procedures.
3.2       Samples will be collected at the process radiation monitor at various power levels, analyzed in the laboratory,'and compared with the process radiation monitor to verify proper operation.
14.2-88

4.0       DATA REQUIRED                                                                                    ,
            '4.1       Conditions of the measurement.
4.1.1     Power.
4.1.2     RCS temperature.
4.1.3     Boron cencentration.
4.1.4     Core average burnup.
4.2       Samples for measurement of gross activities and/or isotopic activities.
5.0       ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 5.1       Measured activity levels are within their limits.
5.2       The process radiation monitors agree with the laboratory analyses within measurement uncertainties.
5.3       Procedures for semple collection and analysis are verified.
_      14.2.12.5.6                          Turbine Trip Test I
(        1.0       OBJECTIVE 1.1       To demonstrate that the plant responds and is controlled as designed following a 100% turbine trip ald ,s Arc 5 4'-.f
* v44-                           l 2.0       PREREQUISITES 2.1       The reactor is operating above 95% power.
2.2       The SBCS, FWCS, RRS, M and pressurizer pressure and level control systems are in automatic operation.
LS        W R!ct & t M Aan A. osdaf Sev4.s.
3.0       TEST METHOD 3.1   .
The turbine i~s tripped.
3.2       The plant behavior is monitored to assure that the RRS, SBCS,                              g FWCS, pts, and pressurizer pressure and level control systems                              i maint)aintheNSSSwithinoperatinglimits.
4.0       DATA REQUIRED 4.1       Power level prior to trip.
ne            e4*                  $5d
    .        4.2       The folio ng4 parameters are monitored                         A throughout the transient.
14.2-89

4.2.1                   Pressurizer pressure, level.:..d :; n,,                                                                      'h 2                                                       .
7St. Lag                                                                                                                                                   '
                                                                                                                                                                                                        ?
      - 4.2.2                  RCS Ategeraturet,--' ; :: r :.
4.2.3                   SG pressures .d !:::',
<      >e a                    cae         -s-__                            ..a u.a..                           .....
                                  -- ----                 n ~. - a _.--
                                                                                                                                          ~
g                        e-_1..s..
                               - - - . , - . .          .j g.
r__- g : .._.. , . . .
                                                                                                                              ..__.j  _ _ _,_ :_,,,-,,__,,,,,=_,g, I
A @ t                  e             -_. ._
                                ,--.7.-.- e a a =                  s                                  a . . .                     sg a-- - ; : e-;
:- . - : w                         . . .. v,,,.
        ...                    ame        ___1_______                          __2          r.r a --. :sem.
n...........                        .... ...                ,.. . . . ..
p ,y 9:s                    w A Q p ~* l'''~
Anni-                                                      4 1
t 1
14.2-89a
             - , -,----n---vr-              -,-m    - , , . , ,-,        ,v     ,-n_-.m           -nmm,,w--,,,.,.          .-.. _ -w,                    ---+--n,,._      n ---n,,_a-   v__,w,,w._n-

5.0       ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 5.1       The test will be evaluated against single valued acceptance limits for those safety parameters which approach a safety limit. in-
_.-7___,_.__..-                        _ , _ , _ . _ _ _ . _ _
_.._g..__._, =                       _ _ .
               ..__........7.......                               ... .. .....,_... .. .. ,...                                              ...___.
14.2.12.5.7            Unit Load Rejection Test 1.0       OBJECTIVE pla,duspm/s andh untededor de.tym/
t the !.T 7 1.1 To demonstrate                                                                              ' se
                                                                                                             ^^~n ;k..               e. . .;. . :....
fo/4wa,p      a /00:4 tha/ sed refeEr.....         e.      M A M.s                   . ..a:,,
2.0       PREREQUISITES 2.1       The reactor is operating above 95% power.                                                                                                              .
CcbMcs, 2.2       The SBCS, FWCS, RRS, RPCS, and pressurizer pressure and level control are in automatic operation.
3.0       TEST METHOD 3.1       A breaker (s) is tripped so as to subject the turbine to the maximum credible overspeed condition.
CEVfCS, 3.2       The plant behavior is monitored to assure that the RRS, SBCS, RPCS, FWCS, and pressurizer pressure and level control systems maintain the monitored parameters.
4.0       DATA REQUIRED i
4.1       Plant condition pr,ior,to trip.                                                     /g g earf syce t   erthru 4.2       Thefollowing} parameter                        remonitoredlthroughoutthetransient.
4.2.1     Pressurizerpressure,hevel:nf;;:,"n.                                     ,
Wei 147 4.2.2     RCS[temperaturecd;;;;;.;.
t 4.2.3     SGpressuref:d';.;'.
4.5       NidiE'E l.Ee} p'N N h 5 fN A E h & b'>uf {sv A w N i Y
* h i
14.2-90
                                             . + , . _ , , , .            , . , _ _ _ , _ _ , - - , _         ___.,_, ,..__,, ,_,_, __ ., ,                ____ ,_, _     _,

:C3*
(.                                                                                    _ ., _ .                   _ ,__
m                                                   - . __ __
: m. . .  -                                     ='.-. p *... , . . . . .s . . _ _ .
2                  1 >               -, _ _
r.....-....                        . . . . ..                     .
I 4
t I'
14.2-90a

f.
b 5.0           ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 5.1           The test will be evaluated against single valued acceptance limits for those safety parameters which approach a safety limit. 4c-
                       ;dditi:n, th; ti : d: pendent RCC t ;;;r:tur; :nd prc::;r: :: a:11
:: SC 1 ":!: :-d pr:::;r:: ri'' 5: ::;;r:d t: : p::t:d ::i;;;.
14.2.12.5.8             Shutdown from Outside the Control Room Test 1.0           OBJECTIVE l.1           To demonstrate that the plant can be maintained in HOT STANDBY from outside the control room following a reactor trip.
2.0           PREREQUISITES 2.1           The reactor is operating at > 10% of rated power.
l        2.2           The capability to cooldown on the shutdown cooling systems has been demonstrated during pre and post core hot functional tests.
2.3           The remote shutdown panel instrumentation is operating properly.
2.4           The communication systems between the control room and remote shutdown location has been demonstrated to be operational.
2.5           The remote shutdown instrumentation controls and systems have been preoperationally tested.
3.0           TEST METHOD 3.1           The operating crew evacuates the control room (standby crew remains in the control room).
3.2           The reactor is tripped from outside the control room.
3.3            The reactor is brought to HOT STANDBY by the operating crew from outside the control room and is maintained in this condition for                                                                        -
at least 30 minutes.
4.0            DATA REQUIRED 4.1            Time dependent data.                                                                                                                     -
I.
14.2-91
                                                                                                 )
r
           - - . - -      -       , , - - ~,  ,-- , , --  ,- ..,a-- , - - - -   --m- - , - - , - - - - , - , ,,.__---,_m,   , - . , ,   ,,n,-~n,,,__gy-a,-y,-,-

i 2.2         Results of the radiation surveys perforced at zero power conditions
{,
are available.
3.0         TEST METHOD 3.1        Measure gamma and neutron dose rates at 20, 50, 80 and 100% power levels.
4.0         DATA REQUIRED 4.1         Power le' vel.
4.2         Gamma dose rates in the accessible locations.
4.3-        Neutron dose rates in the accessible locations.
5.0        ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 5.1         Accessible areas and occupancy times during power operation have been defined.
14.2.12.5.11          Xenon Oscillation Control (PLCEA) Test
* 1.0        OBJECTIVE 1.1        To demonstrate a technique for damping xenon oscillations.
2.0         PREREQUISITES t:t          T-- _ : , _ _ ^ ^^' , _ . _ : ':: i::r :rgleted,
: 2. 2' I                       yA L w The reactor is J --,.       ' - "y~ ' , ;:1. Sc7, tw .
:: ' t' :;_ ' ' 't : nemee
                       ;r.d th; "LC:f; '.;;,;;d, 2.7 8       The COLSS and'the incore detector system are in operation.
3.0         TEST METHOD 3.1         A free oscillation is establised.
3.2         The PLCEA's/or CEA's are used to dampen the oscillation.
4.0          DATA REQUIRED 4.1 -       Reactor conditions.
4.1.1       Power level.
* 4.1.2       Boron concentration.
            *This test will be perfortned only on the "first-of-a-kind" plant.
14.2-93

l 4.1.3     RCS temperatures.
9 4.1.4     Burnup.
l
     .4.1.5     CEA posit. ion.
4.2       Time. dependent data.
4.2.1     Incore detector maps.
4.2.2     Excore detector information.
4.2.3     PLCEA's and CEA position.
5.0       ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 5.1       The technique necessary to damp xenon oscillations t' : ;hrut re e_
                &+4e using the PLCEAs and/or CEA's has been demonstrated.                             i 14.2.12.5.12         " Ejected" CEA Test
* 1.0       OBJECTIVE 1.1       To determine the power distribution associated with the pseudo CEA ejection from the full power dependent insertion limit (FPDIL)
CEA configuration.
2.0       PREREQUISITES 2.1       Testing at 80% power has been-completed.
2.2       The reactor is at approximately 50% power with equilibrium conditions and with the CEAs at the FPDIL.
     .2.3       The incore detector system is in operation.
3.0       TEST METHOD 3.1       The " worst" case CEA (selected by calculation) is fully withdrawn.
3.2       Incore detector maps are taken before and after withdrawal of the static " ejected" CEA.
3.3       The next worst " ejected" CEA is withdrawn while inserting the previous CEA.
3.4       An incore detector map is taken.
3.5       The CEAs are returned to normal configuration.
     *This test will be performed only on the "first-of-a-kind" plant.                                        *'
14.2- 94

4.0       DATA REQUIRED r     4.1       Conditions of the measurement.
4.1.1     Boron concentration.
4.1.2     Burnup.
4.2       Time dependent data.
4.2.1     Power.
4.2.2      Incore and excore detector readings.                                     .
4.2.3     RCS temperature.
4.2.4     CEA position.
5.1 I
                         -- : -_. : _    ::h:t_:t:
                                           ._d        ::;;n:h,:
A r: within the acceptance band specified in Table 14.2-7.cf t i ; fec .,:c.-:1;ci.7 c,e c .;1 : _ J
                      ;;r;dicted .ei .m.
14.2.12.5.13        Dropped CEA Test
* 1.0       OBJECTIVE
    '                 To determine the power distribution resulting from a " dropped" 1.1 CEA.
2.0       PREREQUISITES 1
2.1       Testing at 80% power has been completed.
2.2       The reactor is at approximately 50% power with equilibrium conditions for the desired CEA configuration.
2.3       The incore detector system is in operation.
t           3.0       TEST METHOD 3.1       A full length CEA is selected, based on calculations, which will best verify the dropped rod assumptions used in the, safety analyses.
3.1.1     TheselectedCEAisrapidlyinsertedtotheful1[po tion.
3.1.2     The CEA remains inserted for a preselected time.
3.1.3     Excore and incore instrument signals are recorded before and after the CEA insertion.
            *This test will be performed only on the "first-of-a-kind" plant.
14.2-95

3.2        PLCEA
  . 3.2.1      The PLCEA, selected as prescribed in 3.1.1, is rapidly inserted to the full-in position.
3.2.2      The PLCEA rer.ains inserted for a preselected time.
3.2.3      Excore and incore instrument signals are recored before and after the CEA insertion.
4.0        DATA REQUIRED 4.1        Condition of the measurement.
4.1.1      Boron concentration.
4.1.2      Burnup.
4.2        Time dependent data.
4.2.1      Power.
4.2.2      Incore and excore detector readings.
4.2.3      RCS temperatures.
4.2.4      CEA position.                                                                                               .
5.0        ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA                                         .
                                                                                  , 4 ,j A g c_
5.1 N4Xw.donuA w : . W.
                            .,_.......-......,._............-._,...-..-r.__......-
W                 .,             . . _ . .
within the acceptance ww4 eese specified in Table 14.2-7.
M 14.2.12.5.14               Steady State Core Performance Test 1.0        OBJECTIVE
       ''.        Te erfter HSSS :nd ov:r:l' plant perfer-ence :nd e t:blish e-date bate for future ;; .
1.gl       To determine core power distributions using incore instrumentation.
2.0        PREREQUISITES 2.1        The reactor is operating at the desired power level and CEA configuration with equilibrium Xe.
2.2        The incore instrumentation system is in operation.
14.2-96

(
3.0        TEST METHOD                                                                                                                                   g                                                 -
3.1        Selected plant computer outputsp CPC outputs :-f ::                                                                                             ': ' :'r "-- '
3.2        Reactor power is determined by performing a heat balance.
3.3        The core power distribution is obtained using the incore detectors.
4.0        DATA REQUIRED 4.1        Conditions of the test.
4.1.1      Reactor power.
4.1.2      CEA positions.
4.1.3      Boron concentration.
4.1.4      Core average burnup.
4.1.5      Selected plant computer outputs and CPC outputs.
         $r%k       L .. L J ...... ; :...^.._......^.                                                    ...di.....
4.1. yd    Incore detector maps.
_                                                                                                                                                                                                               l 5.0        ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 4Pk         ^ J:i:
::: !::: Lu;z :: i:L-1 ?: h -j z i ^3                                                                   ; l e t + e-_- + -j - + i --         '^,     -
___??,l?. ~_~?'
                                                                   $_                                              b?Y 7.____,
5.Il       Agreement between the predicted and measured power distributions within the acceptance criteria specified in Table 14.2-7.
Andccnf4tNg &% Mr.
14.2.12.5.15              Intercomparison of PPS, Core Protection Calculator (CPC),
,                                   and PMS Inputs 1.0       OBJECTIVE 1.1       To verify that process variable inputs / outputs of the PPS, the CPCs, the PMS, and the console instruments are consistent.
2.0        PREREQUISITES 2.1        The plant is operating at the desired conditions.
2.2        All CPCs and CEACs, and the PMS are operable.
0 14.2-97 l
t

I e
  ;        3.0     TE_ST METHOD t.
3.1     Planar radial peaking factors are verified for various CEA configura-tions by comparison of the CPC values with values measured with the incore detector system.
3.2     The CEA shadowing factors are verified by comparing excore detector responses for various CEA configurations with the unrodded excore responses.
3.3     The shape annealing factors are measured by comparing incore power distributions and excore detector responses during a free Xe oscillation.
tha6L
           $3.4    The temperature -- - ''y; factors are verified by comparing core power and excore detector responses for various RCS temperatures.
4.0     DATA REQUIRED 4.1     Conditions of the measurement.
4.1.1   Power.
4.1.2   Burnup.
_   4.2     Time dependent data.
4.2.1   Incore and excore detector readings.
4.2.2   CEA position.
4.2.3   RCS temperatures.
: 5. 0    ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA                      .
5.1     Measured radial peaking factors determined from incore flux maps are no higher chan the corresponding values used in the CPCs.
5Arb' The CEA shadowing factors, and temperature ---- '' y, factors used 5.2 in the CPCs agree within the acceptance criteria specified in the CPC test require:nents."
5.3     The shape annealing matrix have been measured and the boundary point p.ower correlation constants used in the CPCs are within the limits specified t,y the test requirements.**
h te n      '' L. F, c+=rd &-4 & t M "'' t f e H ad" M
[o.
CEN-235(V
           **As specified in the appropriate revisions or supplements of N 14.2-99

   '14..2 12..5 17                   Main and Emergency Feedwater Systems Test                                                                                                    ,
  ~ 1s 0        OBJECTIVE 1.1         To demonstrate that the operation of the main feedwater and emergency feedwater systems during Hot Standby, Startup and other nonnal                                                                                                7 operations, transients, and plant trips is satisfactory.
l t
t f
Amendment No. 7 March 31, 1982
( uhsQ m a & A J A s , F % 2.zistv) 14.2-99a

7 ..
4.0       DATA REQUIRED                  ,
{
4.1       Reactor power.
4.2       CEA positions.
I 4.3       Boron concentration.
4.4       Specified CPC inputs, outputs, and constants, h          5 :: : f;t::t; -- _ ; : .                                                           ,
5.0       ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA c&b The values of DNBR and LPD ;tt;in;d y-              ..; th cc:-A!=? s.3
: a. , s . . . . . a s . a.cu e,e,.,s.
CPCs are r!th'- th:
5.1                                                                            ._s_,..
                             .......... ..     ...s.  . .
w w m w g w a a w a . -
14.2.12.5.19          Steam Bypass Valve Capacity Test 1.0       OBJECTIVE
                                                                                                      .e4 1.1       To demonstrate that the maximum steam flow capacity of 2 :' ; h atmospheric steam dump valvne upstream of the main steam isolation valves is less than that assumed for the safety analysis.
1.2 pA .sth             W To measure the capacity ofath: != ::;::2., valve rd : : :. th:
a.4'#dp 4
(.             g4        g capacity ^_        '.k-F...g.i.                  ;4444 2.0       w A~ M k PREREQUISITES
                                                     = 3 #~~.        f 2.1       The reactor power is > 15% full power.
6           "': : ^-0 5 -- 15 iarautomatb+,etion a-i-4: 1 ,c:='4agas m esademoen l
2.)
* Control systems are in automatic where applicable.
ofu~f 2.g 3     The operation of the atmospheric steam dauer, turbine by pass and shutdown cooling system have been demonstrated as part of the HOT FUNCTIONAL testing.
3.0        TEST METHOD 3.h        The individual steam flows through each of the atmospheric dump valves upsteam of the MSIVs are measured.
y      sua                                       k 3.2        The capacitMw of eedee4ed steam bypass valveWsee-measured.
4.0        DATA REQUIRED 4.1        Reactor power.
4.2        RCS temperatures.
            ~
14.2-101 u

      -4.3       Pressurizer pressure.                                                   E '-
4.4       Steam generator levels and pressure.
4.5       Steam dump and bypass valve positions.
5.0       ACCEPT /.NCE CRITERIA 5.1       The capacities of the individual steam dump valves are less than the values used in the safet upMy n 4 q%y analysisM p4h A r4 Mau w                   N7       M*e'$:,NN            '"va U"b. A 14.2.12.5.20         Incore betector Test 1.0       OBJECTIVE                                                             ,
1.1       To verify conversion of the fixed incore detector signals to voltages for input to the plant computer.
1.2       To collect baseline performance data for the movable incore detector system.
2.0        PREREQUISITES 2.1        The reactor is at the specified power level and conditior.s.           ]'
2.2       The plant computer is operable.
2.3       The incore detector system is operable.
3.0       TEST METHOD 3.1        Fixed incore detector signal verification.
3.1.1      Amplifier output signals are measured based on test input signals.
3.1.2     Group symmetric instrument signals are measured.
3.2        Data is recorded from the movable incore detectors during core traverses.
4.0        DATA REQUIRED 4.1        Reactor power.
4.2        CEA position.
1 14.2-102

n
: f. '
TABLE 14.2-1 LOW POWER PHYSICS TESTS 0
Test Title                   First-of-a-kind
* Follow-On Units *
* l Low Power 8tological. Snield                  320*F/565'F             565'F Survey Test
           **CEA W Syseetry                              9Whell565'F             565'F Test Isothermal Temperature Cuefficient            320'F-565'F             $65'F Test Regulating CEA Group Worth Test               320*F & 565'F           $65'F 0
Shutdown CEA Group Worth Test                                          565 F Differential Boron Worth Test                 320*F & 565'F           565'F Critical Boron Concentration Test             320*F-565*              565'F Pseudo Dropped and Ejected CEA                565'F                   N/A
(       Worth Test
* An expanded test program is conducted for the "first-of-a-kind" in order to validate the design, the design methods, and the safety analysis assumptions.
           " Or th; " fir;t ef e kir. " pi;;,; th; OCA ;;.plir,; chu k is perfern d et 20^"T, 2-d t' CEA ty r :trj in t i: ;;rf;ca d t 505"F.                      .
           **O R educed testing is contingent upon the demonstration that " Follow-On" the First-Of-A Kind plant through plantsbehaveinanidenticcimanner%riagiveninTable14.2-7.
conformance with the Acceptance Crite
     ~'
M V
I

                                   ,        TABLE 14.2-2 (Sheet 1 of 2)
POWER ASCENSION TEST Test Title                        First-of-a-Kind
* Follow-On Units **      l Natural Circulation Test                         *** 1 80%               N/A Variable Tavg (Isothermal Temperature "                                                         l Coefficient & Power Coefficient) Test 20, 50, 80, 100%                   50 & 100%
Se                    50,1oo 9.
Unit Load Transient Test                        6> In 9.                 -
Control Systems Checkout Test                                     ia,50,809,/097.                 50, 80%                l RCS and Secondary Chemistry and Radiochemistry Test                         20, 50, 80, 100%         20, 50, 80, 100%
Turbine Trip Test                                100%                    100%
Unit Load Rejection Test                        east 100%              geser.100%
l Shutdown from Outside the Control Room Test                               1 10%                    1 10%
Loss of Offsite Power Test                      1 10%                    1 10%
Biological Shield Survey Test                   20, 50, 80, 100%         20, 50, 80, 100%
I Xenon Oscillation Control Test                  W h507                   N/A th Dropped CEA TEST                                Post 138%                N/A l
M
     " Ejected"CEATest                               Post 300%                N/A l
Steady-State Core Performance Test                                            20, 50, 80, 100%         20, 50, 80, 100%
Intercomparison of PPS, CPC and Process Computer Inputs                     20, 50, 80, 100%         20, 50, 80, 100%
20, 50*f e , M Verification of CPC Power Distribution Related Constants                  M,M 20 50$44                 -                                   :
* An Expanded test program is conducted for the "first-of-a-kind" in order to validate the design, the design methods, and the safety analysis assumptions.
      ** Reduced testing is contin ent upon the demonstration that " Follow-On"                      l plants behave in an ident cal manner as the "First-of-a-Kind" plant                         ,
through conformance with the acceptance criteria given in Table 14.2-7.                    ,
,    *** Initial Power Level sees h *<rs h j'. M. w                 u M WM u                .A-s<. u L N 4 r     p          y .p m .v' jf]m.WO
                      ' 'ro y        daA

CESSAR Tabla 14.2-7 PHYSICS (STEADY STATE) TEST ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA TDLEf4*WJ l
Parameter First-of-a-kind                                  Follow-on Plant                '
LPTT Symmetry Test i11/24                                         1 1 1/2 4 i           CEA Group Worths                                                                                    + 15% or .1% ap                                i 10% or .05% ap i &        1~e4el. VerKCoefficient Temperature     (AM Sheddw)                                                                         he$".*9
                                                                                                                 + .5 x 10 ap/*F                      fe      " ' *
* 4                 l
                                                                                                                                                                 +.3     10   ap/*F Critical toren Concentration                                                                         1 100 ppe                                      + 50 ppe toren Worth i
                                                                                                                 + 15 p                                         + 10 pps/% ap W Ep M W ms                                                                               h as *pe/% apA . I " # ..
i           ,APr                                                                                               -
                                                                                                                                   *h w M                           M                        I 1
j           Power Distribution                                                                                      6                 .
                                                                                                                                                             .o     6
                                                                                                             ,,ANSgS%                                                                        I j              (Radial and Axial)                                                                                                                               IW4Sf3%*
Peaking Factors (Fxy,FR,Fv1.Fq)                                                                     i 10%                                           + 7.5%*
j           Temperature Coefficient                                                                              + .5 x 10 -4 Ap/*F                            1 3 x 10
                                                                                                                                                                           ~4 Ap/*F
;           Power Coefficient                                                                                   + .2 x 10 -4 ap/% power                                    ~4 I                                                                                                                                                              + .2 x 10      ap/% power Pseudo Ejected CEA pur 8 j             (2D Power DensitygComparison)
                                                                                                                + 20%
M8//                         I i           Dropped CEA             gNF88 (20 Power DensitygComparison)
                                                                                                               + . 2**"                                       g#[g                         1 4
at 50% power and above w        -     __
;                    _- . - - - - - - .. , ....                                         ,_,r-     - - , . _ , _ ,
                                                                                                          % ~~W
                      &$ C                                            pgNO_ gpp MER                                                                                                        '
x
                      $ N * 's 2, 3 - - - Ar (7o^ fst wundu ac s oes                                                               c e 4 ssorsesetI /~ c*se- en ne< o~s cert h                                                                                           fpr A X/4 L /*L A N h ,As sde*//*/*f/n7f),
b
!           V                                                                                                  rU J
_    _                                  _                   _     _ _          ,_               _}}