ML19320B489

Forwards Description of Proposed Modified Startup Physics Test Program.Revised Program Resolves NRC Concerns Re Shutdown Bank Verification,Review Criteria & Actions Needed Should Review Criteria Not Be Met

ML19320B489
Person / Time
Site:	Farley
Issue date:	07/07/1980
From:	Clayton F ALABAMA POWER CO.
To:	Schwencer A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8007140343
Download: ML19320B489 (13)

Text

e r

Alabama Power Company

.

• 600 North 18th Street Post Office Box 2641 Birmingham. Alabama 35291 Telephone 205 323-5341 F. L. CLAYTON, JR.

m Senior Vice President Alabama Power July 7, 1980 the southem eiecinc system Docket No. 50-364 Director Nuclear Reactor Regulstion U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washinggon, D.C. 20555 Attention: Mr. A. Schwencer RE: Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant - Unit 2 Modified Startup Physics Test Program Gentlemen:

Please find enclosed a description of our proposed Modified Startup Physics Test Program for Farley Unit 2. This proposal supersedes our May 28, 1980 submittal and was revised as a result of several telephone conversations with your staff. The staff was concerned regarding shutdown bank verification, review criteria, and action needed should the review criteria not be met. This enclosed program satisfactorily resolves these Concerns.

Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please do not hesitate to contact my staff.

Sincerely, b5 F. L. Clayton, Jr.

1 l

4 l

FLCJr/TNE:aw Enclosure l 1

cc: Mr. R. A. Thomas Mr. G. F. Trowbridge  ;

Mr. W. H. Bradford '

Mr. L. L. Kintner g/

s 1

)

//

l l

LIQ

O 4

• e e

0 W 9

• ..e 54W9 O

4 1

JOSEPH M. FAP1EY NUCLEAR PLANT-UNIT 2 MODIFIED STARTUP PHYSICS TEST PROGRAM O

i i

l

\

O 1

A On es e a e. m .8 go an mem a * $ 6 .e..

ENCLOSURE Response to NRC Positions on the .

Modified Startup Physics Test Program

~ ~

l. Position Shutdown banks rod worth should be verified.

Response

Shutdown banks reactivity verification will be performed utilizing the N-1 boron end point and N-1 rod worth measurements. Upon successful completion of these measurements and the control bank measurements, the shutdown banks rod worth will be verified.

2. Position The review criteria for Unit 2 should be based on Unit 1 test measure-ments. ,

V Response e ..

To demonstrate further the similarity between the first cycles of Unit 1 and Unit 2, the HZP review criteria based on Unit 1 measurement (Attachment D) will be used.

3. Position The action to be taken if the review criteria is not met should be stated.

Response

Should the results of any of the physics tests fail to meet any of the review criteria, the Plant Operations Review Committee may decide to perform additional testing. This additional testing may be a repeat of the original test that had been deleted from the Unit 2 physics testing program. In addition, the NRC Region II Resident Inspector will be noti-

fled verbally in a timely manner and a report will be sent to the NRC.

l l A

') .

i

.- L. _, .

ATTACHFIfiT A .

J. M. FARLEY UNITS 1 AND 2 INITIAL CORE DESIG4S The' main difference between Unit 1 and Unit 2 initial core designs is the location of the secondary source as shown in Figure A.1.

~

The secondary sources for Unit 1 and Unit 2 are both mounted on base plate type hold down assetblies. Each secondary source assembly in Unit 1 contains a symmetrical grouping of four secondary source rods and 12 burnable poison (BP) rods. Locations not filled with a source or BP rod contain a thimble plug. In the Unit 2 secondary source assembly, all BP locations are filled with thimble plugs, s

' ~

( -

l

. e

- .,.-D* - -

c. . .

l J. M. FARLEY SECONDARY SOURCE LOCATIONS - -

RPNM L K J H .G F EDCB A .

~

, g :

3

.. -2

.

. (1) .

3' . -

, 1

~

(2) ,. '4~

~

5 6

~

. 7 F -

8 9 .

10

., l (2) .

l2. .

(1) ,

. ~ , .l} .

y .*

[ Note: (1) Secondary source location- for Unit 1, Cycle 1. .

. . J.

- . (2) Secondary source location for Unit 2 Cycle 1. -

. s .

=, -

a

s. '

. . ~

. FIGURE A.1 .

ATTACHMENT B .

. TABLE B-1 JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT PHYSICS TEST CONDITIONALLY DELETED FOR UNIT 2 A. HOT ZERO POWER TESTS

'1. ISOTHERIML TEMPERATURE COEFFICIENT AT D+C+B IN AND D+C+B+A IN

. 2. PSEUDO-ROD EJECTION AND ASSOCIATED POWER DISTRIBUTION ,

NEASUREMENTS. "

8.. PO'JER ASCENSION ,

.1. PSEUDO-ROD EJECTION AND ASSOCIATED POWER DISTRIBUTION

~ '

MEASURDIENT AT 30% POWER.

2.~ PSEUDO-DROPPED ROD TEST (RCCA H-6) AND ASSOCIATED POWER DISTRIBUTION l'EASUREMENT AT 50% POWER.

3. POWER COEFFICIENTS.

m. 4. INTEGRAL POWER DEFECT.

.. 5. DOPPLER-ONLY POWER COEFFICIENTS.

l

l . .

TABLE B-2 JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 2 STARTUP PHYSICS TESTS A. HOT ZERO PONER TESTS

1. REACTIVITY COMPUTER CHECKOUT. . .

~

2. ISOTHERMAL TEMPERATURE COEFFICIENT AT ARO AND'D-BANK IN (ALSD D+C BANKS IN IF MTC FOR ARO IN IS > 0 PCM/0F)

~

3. ' BORON ENDPOINTS AT ARO: D-BANK IN: D+C-BANKS IN: D+C+B-BANKS IN: D+C+B+A-BANKS IN AND N-l.

4. REACTIVITY WORTHS OF ALL CONTROL ROD BANKS AND N-1.

5. C.c0N WORTH OVER THE RANGE OF CONTROL BANKS A THROUGH D PDVING DURING ROD INSERTION NID WITHDRAWAL.

6. POWER DISTRIBUTION MEASUREMENTS FOR ARO.

~ '

j- .

~

B. POWER ASCENSION TESTS

1. 30% POWER DISTRIBUTION. .

'. 2. 50% POWER DISTRIBUTION.

3. PSEUCO-DROPPED ROD TEST (RC.CA D-10) AND ASSOCIATED POWER DISTRIBUTION MEASUREMENTS AT 50% POWER.

4. INCORE/EXCORE DETECTOR CALIBRATION FLUX IMPS AT 75% POWER.

5. FLUX l%PS AT 90% AND 100% POWER (EQUILIBRIUM CONDITIONS).

e -

9 9

S

~

. . j e I

l

~

ATTACHMENT C .

JUSTIFICATION FOR TEST DELETION

1. ISOTHERf%L TEMPERATURE COEFFICIENT (ITC) WITH CONTROL BANKS D+C+B IN AND 0+C+B+A IN The Technical Specifications require that the Moderator Temperature Coefficient (MIC) for Beginning of Life (BOL), Hot Zero Power (HZP), and All Rods Out (ARO) conditions be less positive than Oak /k/0F. The MTC is obtained by taking the difference between measured ITC and the Doppler Coefficient. The modified I

program demands that ITC measurement be performed for ARO, Contro? Bank D in, and optionally for Control Banks FC in. Measurements with Bank D in and

. Banks D+C in provide data to establish control rod withdrawal limits and more i assurance that the measured ITC is indeed negative. Additional " 'fications with control banks D+C+B in and D+C+B+A in were completed during Unit 1 startup and all measured values were well within design limitation (Table C.1). Based on the meas,urements at ARD, Bank D in and optionally Banks,D+C in, which verify similarity between Units 1 and 2, ITC measurements on Unit 2 with Banks D+C+B in and Banks D+C+B+A in are not necessary.

~

~

2. PSEUDO ROD EJECTION AT HZP AND 30% POWER E~ --

The main purpose of the test is to verify the conservatism of the issumed worth of ejected rods and the associated peaking factor at HZP and at power for the ejected rod in the accident analysis. The results of Unit 1 startup tests at HZP and 30% power in Table C.1 showed that the accident analysis assumptions are conservative. By demonstrating that the Unit 2 measured pcwer distribution and control banks worth value are within design criteria, the Unit 2 physics characteristics similarity I with Unit 1 is assured; therefore, performance of these tests on Unit 2

. are not' necessary.

3. PSEUDO DROPPED ROD (H-6)

The main purpose of the test is to demonstrate that the enthalpy rise hot l channel factor (FaH) will not exceed the value that was assumed in the FSAR l

for a complete misaligned rod. The demonstration was performed twice in Unit 1 at, core locations H-6 and 0-10. Both test results verified that the peaking factor and rod worth values assumed in the accident analysis are l- -

conservative (Table C.1). The Unit 2 modified startup physics program requires that pseudo rod drop D-10 test be performed. Successful completion of HZP tests' and pseudo rod drop D-10 test will confirm the similarity of '

Unit 1 and 2 physics characteristics; therefore, pseudo dropped rod H-6 is not necessary.

4. POWER COEFFICIENT, POWER DEFECT AND DOPPLER ONLY POWER COEFFICIENT

~~

The purpose of the test is to verify the power coefficient and the Doppler-o'nly ~

power coefficient at 30, 50, 75, and 90% power, and to obtain the power defect from these tests. The fact that the Unit 2 isother=al temperature coefficient, boron end point and rod bank measurements satisfy the Unit 1 design criteria,

. confirms the similarity between Unit 1 and 2 physics characteristics. Therefore, it is not necessary to repeat these tests for Unit 2. Figure C.1 demonstrates that the Unit 1 Doppler only power coefficient measure =ents are conservative compared to the values assumed in the accident analysis.

e e

• e y- .

e

. e k

e O

m 9

e O

e O

4 9

JOSEPH H. FARLEY .

DOPPLER POWER COEFFICIENT

-20' " Upper Curve" Most Negative )

l

- Doppler Only Power Defect -1.6". ak

~

-18 .

T l

.I. .

m -16' .

k e.

a -

g -14 .

g.- 3 B 5,gOL(design, Cycle 1) -

1 g .

• Measured Best Fit Line (80L, Cycle 1) Unit 1

-12,.

b

~I s EOL(design, Cycle 1

,f N w

N 4*A  %.

o.

-10 .

s  %

8 sq%s N 8- .

%s* '%

" Lower Curve" Least Negative Doppler

-6 Only Power Defect -0.843". ak 0 20 40 60 80 100 Percent Power Level .

^

- FIGURE C.1 e

h

I i TABLE C.) .

SLDOMRY OF J. M. FARLEY UNIT 1 STARTUP PHYSICS RESULTS, DESIGN VALUES. DESIGN CRITERIA AND ACCIDENT ANALYSIS CRITERIA FOR PHYSICS TESTS CONDITIONALLY DELETED FOR UNIT 2 Test Design Value " Design Accident Analysts Test Test condition Parameter Result (Best Estimate) Criterton Cri terton

1. Isothermal Temperature Coefficient HZP Danks Dec in my -7.4 lf -8.6 lf t3 Ef '

' N/A Banks D*C'8 in my

-12.4 lf -14.1$f 23 $f Danks DeC+B'A in og -12.9l[ -13.7 lf 23 lf

2. Pseudo Rod Ejection HZP RCCA 8-8 with-

$ "* 13.0

, fj'%"I St p aI F g

6.76 13.0 N/A C/C 9114 Steps (la) g 662 pcm 683 pcm N/A (th8)x1.04785pm 1 B-8 305P RCCA 8-8 wtth-drawn all rods out. F 2.21 6.7 N/A . 7.07 C/D 9 186 Steps (Ib) 0 1

8-8 3.7 Pcm 102 pce N/A (thg)x1.04200pcm 1 FAH 1.53 1.52 11 72 N/A Pseudo Rod Drop I N *, 180 pcm 220 pcm N/A 250 pcm

. 3. 50%P ARO. RCCA H-6 In j C/D 0 225 Steps Fg 1.66 1.56 11 72 1.d 3

ff'ghhh '" I 171 pcm 180 pcm N/A 250 pcm s D-10

)- FAH 1.67 1.57 11 72 1.69

4. Power Coefficient 301 P (ap/aQ), -13.5Pcm/IP -12.6 ((fq')m P + 301 )

WA 505 P ('P/aQ)p -13.2Pcm/IP -12.2 ,

1(h)esign i I

751 P (3P/3Q) -12.6PC"/IP -11.6 ,

P 905P (38/aQ) ,-12l3 '"/IP -11.3 qt 6 . .

8 .

. i t

I

\ 8 c

TABLE C.)

Page 2

~

Test Design Value Design Accident Analysts Test Test Condition Parameter Result (Best Est{ mate) Criterton Criterton 9

5. Power Defect 0 - 1001 Power I PO 1324 pen 1360 pcs (l[D + 151)1 y

Design N/A

. , PD I (I D- 151)

6. Doppler Only Power Coefficient 301 P (88/aQ)D -12.13N/W -12.#/IP ((D/aQ) +30511 See figure C-1.

501 P -11.69PC"/IP .11.55PC"/1P (88/aQ) design ,- inferred values fall (88/aQ)D Qi within upper and lower bound 755 P (ap/aQ)0 -10.81N/p -10.70N/p

((a8/aQ)inf'gg -30tl 901 P -10.38PC"/IP -10.30PC"/IP (88/aQ)0 I

NOTE: (1) 10% uncertainty included in the design value. og - Isothermal Temperature Coefficient -

a) Design values calculated with P/L in the bottom.

1 - Integral reactivity worth (pca) b) Design and accident analyses performed at hot full power (HFP).

(2) Design and accident analyses performed at HFP. Cg - Boron Concentration Design values included 151 uncertainty, Fg - Heat flus hot channel factor (3) N-1 boron end point and M-1 rod worth tests are' deleted from this table, since these tests will be FAH- Enthalpy rise hot channel factor perfomed to verify shutdown banks.

( P)

Measured Power Coefficient at {

l 1

/ 9

, S y k

e

..o a ATTACHMENT D Review Criteria for HZP Tests Review Criteria Unit 1 Test- Measured Value Tolerance

1. Isothennal Temperature ARO -0.44 22 Coefficient (pcm/0F)

D -3.81 t2 D&C (Optianal) -7.42 t2

2. Boron End Point ARO 1344 25 (ppm)

D 1199 25 D&C 1091 25 D+C+B 902 25 D+C+B+A 794 125 N-1 603 140

%- r-

3. Control Rod Worth D 1400 1105 (Pcm)

C 1207 91 8 1976 1148 A 1296 197

. N-1 7776 389 1

4. Boron Worth ARO through A -10.68 10.80 (pcm/ ppm) Bank j l

l -

l

- ,