L-98-094, Cycle 15 Reactor Startup Physics & Replacement SG Testing Rept
| ML17229A675 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 03/27/1998 |
| From: | Mead W, Rubano M, Stall J FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| L-98-094, L-98-94, NUDOCS 9804090239 | |
| Download: ML17229A675 (51) | |
Text
J.
REGULAT RY INFORMATION DISTRIBUTIO~ SYSTEM (RIDS)
ACCESSION NBR:9804090239 DOC.DATE: 98/03/27 NOTARIZED: NO FACIL:50-335 St. Lucie Plant, Unit 1, Florida Power
& Light Co.
~ 2 UTH.NAME AUTHOR AFFILIATION MEAD,W.D.
Florida Power
& Light Co.
RUBANO,M.
Florida Power
&, Light Co.
PORRO,L.M.
Florida Power
& Light Co.
RECIP. NAME RECIPIENT AFFILIATION DOCKET ¹ 05000335
SUBJECT:
"St Lucie,Unit 1,Cycle 15 Reactor Startup Physics Replacement SG Testing Rept." W/980402 ltr.
DISTRIBUTION CODE:
IE26D COPIES RECEIVED:LTR ENCL SIZE:
~ TITLE: Startup Report/Refueling Report (per Tech Specs)
NOTES:
RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME PD2-3 PD INTERNAL: ACRS NRR/DSSA/SRXB/B EXTERNAL: NOAC COPIES LTTR ENCL 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1.
RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME GLEAVES,W E CENTER ILE 01 NRC PDR COPIES LTTR ENCL 1
1 1
1 1
l.
1 1
NOTE TO ALL "RIDS" RECIPIENTS:
PLEASE HELP US TO REDUCE WASTE. TO HAVE YOUR NAME OR ORGANIZATION REMOVED FROM DISTRIBUTION LIST OR REDUCE THE NUMBER OF COPIES RECEIVED BY YOU OR YOUR ORGANIZATION, CONTACT THE DOCUMENT CONTRO DESK (DCD)
ON EXTENSION 415-2083 TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED: LTTR 8
ENCL 8
I
Florida Power 5 Light Company,6351 S. Ocean Drive, Jensen Beach, FL34957 FPL April2, 1998 L-98-094 10 CFR 50.36'.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 Re:
St. Lucie Unit 1 Docket 50-335 C cle15 Startu Ph sicsandRe lacement Steam Generator Testin'e ort Pursuant to St. Lucie Unit 1 Technical Specification 6.9.1.1, the enclosed summary report ofplant startup and power escalation testing for Cycle 15 is hereby submitted.
Should you have any questions, please contact us.
I Very truly yours, J. A. Stall Vice President St. Lucie Plant JAS/RLD
Enclosure:
St. Lucie Unit 1, Cycle 15 Reactor Startup Physics and Replacement Steam Generator Testing Report; March 27, 1998.
CC:
Regional Administrator, Region II, USNRC Senior Resident Inspector, USNRC, St. Lucie Plant 9804090239
'it8032T PDR ADOCK 05000335 p
STARTUP-TEST REPORT
ST. LUCIEUNIT 1, CYCLE 15 REACTOR STARTUP PHYSICS AND REPLACEMENT STEAM GENERATOR TESTING REPORT
- 'ELV27198 15:22 NUCL EL JB + 84677554 N0.573 P882 St. Lucie Unit I, Cycle 15 Startup Physics Testing Report Author Walter D. Mead, Jr.
Reactor Engineerin, St. Lu Plant Author MRe Rnbano Steam Generator Replacement Project, St. Lucie Plant Lourdes M. Porro Reactor Engineering, St. Lucie Plant D
>/~~ aZ Review Carl O'Farril Nuclear
- uel, C. Ashton Pell Reactor Engineering SuPervisor, St. Lucie Plant
St. Lucie Unit 1, Cycle 15 Startup Physics Testing Report I,
II III IV V
VI VII VIII IX Introduction Cycle 15 Fuel Design CEA Drop Time Testing Approach to Criticality Zero Power Physics Testing Power Ascension Program Steam Generator Testing Summary References 4
5 6
7 8
10.
11 17.
18 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 Cycle 15 Core Loading Pattern Inverse Count Ratio Plot-Channel B Inverse Count Ratio Plot-Channel D Power Distribution - 25% Power Power Distribution - 50% Power Power Distribution - 98% Power Average RSG Differential Pressure vs. Power Comparison ofS/G Drum Pressure vs. Power Rx Vessel Differential Pressure vs. Power Measured TcoLD and THo7 vs. Expected RCP Differential Pressure vs. Flow TAvo/T~F vs. Power First Stage Pressure Comparison.
No. 4 Governor Valve Position Gross Electrical Output vs. Predicted 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
St. Lucie Unit 1, Cycle 15 Startup Physics Testing Report nt Cycle 15 Reload Sub-Batch ID Approach to Criticality CEA Group Worth Summary 34 35 36
wl
St, Lucie Unit 1, Cycle 15 Startup Physics Testing Report The purpose ofthis report is to provide a description ofthe fuel design and core load, and to summarize the startup testing performed at St. Lucie Unit 1 followingthe cycle 15 refueling and steam generator replacement outage.
The Startup testing verifies key core and plant parameters are as predicted.
The major parts ofthis testing program include:
1)
Initial criticalityfollowingrefueling, 2)
Zero power physics testing, 3)
Power ascension testing. and 4)
Replacement Steam Generator Testing This Cycle 15 Startup Report is being submitted in accordance with Technical Specification 6.9.1.1 because:
A.
The eight (8) Vessel Flux Reduction Assemblies (VFRA's) installed during the cycle 11 refueling outage were removed from service in the unit 1 reactor, and B.
The replacement ofthe original steam generators during the refueling outage may have significantly altered the thermal or hydraulic performance ofthe unit.
The test data collected during startup and summarized in this report indicates that although key thermal-hydraulic parameters exhibited some changes there was no significant impact to the performance ofthe unit. The test data satisfied all acceptance criteria and demonstrated general conformance to predicted performance.
St. Lucie Unit 1, Cycle 15 Startup Physics Testing Report ue i
The cycle 15 reload consists entirely offuel manufactured by Siemens Power Corporation (SPC).
The 217 assemblies ofthe cycle 15 core are comprised offuel from three batches.
Ofthese, 76 are fresh assemblies (8 batch T bundles not used in cycle 14, and 68 batch U assemblies),
88 are once-burned batch T assemblies, and 53 are twice-burned assemblies from batch S. Table 1
provides enrichment information for the cycle 15 reload sub-batches.
This is the ninth cycle ofoperation utilizing gadolinium in the form ofGdz03, as a burnable neutron absorber, coupled with the use ofnatural uranium-blankets at the top and bottom ofeach fuel assembly.
The entire cycle 15 fuel load, batches S, T,and U, consist ofthe debris resistant fuel assembly design. This design has long fuel rod lower end caps which provides protection against debris induced fretting in the lower end-fitting region.
The cycle 15 core map is represented in Figure 1. The assembly serial numbers and control element assembly (CEA) serial numbers are given for each core location. The most significant difference in the fuel loading pattern from the cycle 14 methodology is the replacement ofthe Vessel Fluence Reduction Assemblies (VFRA's) with twice irradiated fuel. The VFRA's were installed in the cycle 11 refueling outage to reduce the fluence at the reactor vessel welds for life extension purposes. The VFRA design utilized depleted uranium instead ofstandard reload enrichments and each ofthe four CEA guide tube finger holes was loaded with a full-length Hafnium insert to further suppress the flux at the vessel boundary.
Subsequent testing has verified the assemblies performed as designed and are no longer required. The remaining fuel is arranged in a low leakage pattern with no significant differences from the cycle 14 design.
~ 'L
St. Lucie Unit 1, Cycle 15 Startup Physics Testing Report III.
e Following the core reload and prior to the approach to criticality, CEA drop time testing was performed. The objective ofthis test is to measure the time ofinsertion from the fullywithdrawn position (upper electrical limit)to the 90% inserted position under hot, fullflowconditions. The average CEA drop time was found to be 2.26 seconds with maximum and minimum times of 2.50 seconds and 2.15 seconds, respectively. Alldrop times were within the 3.1 second requirement oftechnical specification 3.1.3.4 and the reload PC/M 97-055 requirements (Reference 7).
St. Lucie Unit 1, Cycle 15 Startup Physics Testing Report
~
~
I
~
The approach to criticalityinvolved diluting from a non-critical boron concentration of 1835 PPM to a predicted critical boron concentration of 1615 PPM. Inverse Count Rate ratio gCRR) plots were maintained during the dilution process using wide range channels B and D. Refer to Figures 2 and 3 for ICRR information. Table 2 summarizes the dilution rates and times, as well as beginning and ending boron concentrations.
Initialcriticality for St. Lucie Unit 1, Cycle 15, was achieved on January 6, 1998 at 0734 with CEA group 7 at 60 inches withdrawn and all other CEAs at the all-rods-out (ARO) position. The actual critical concentration was measured to be 1576 PPM.
0 St, Lucie Unit 1, Cycle 15 Startup Physics Testing Report V.
h To ensure that the operating characteristics ofthe cycle 15 core were consistent with the design predictions, the followingtests were performed:
- 1) Reactivity Computer Checkout;
- 2) Dual CEDM Symmetry Test;
- 3) AllRods Out Critical Boron Concentration;
- 4) Isothermal Temperature Coefficient Measurement; and
- 5) CEA Group Rod Worth Measurements.
Proper operation of the reactivity computer was verified through the performance oftwo tests.
In the first, reactor power was elevated sufficiently high to ensure maximum sensitivity ofthe reactivity measuring system and at the same time preserve adequate margin to the point of adding heat. The second test ascertains the response to a known value ofpositive or negative reactivity by measuring the values ofpositive or negative reactor periods that result. The results ofthe reactivity computer checkout were compared to the appropriate predictions supplied in the reload PC/M 97-055 (Reference 7). Satisfactory agreement was obtained.
Verification ofproper CEA latching is confirmed through the use ofa CEA symmetry test for those groups which contain dual CEAs (shutdown banks A&B). The prescribed acceptance criteria is that the reactivity measured for each dual CEA shall be within+15.0 pcm ofthe average reactivity measured for the entire group. The acceptance criterion was satisfied and it was concluded there were no unlatched CEAs in either shutdown group.
The measurement ofthe all-rods-out (ARO) critical boron concentration was performed.
The measured value was 1602.2 PPM which compared favorably with the design value of 1651 PPM (Reference 5). This was within the acceptance limits of+ 100 PPM.
The measurement ofthe isothermal temperature coefficient was performed and the resulting moderator temperature coefficient (MTC) was derived. The MTC was determined to be 2.85 pcm/'F which fell well within the acceptance criteria of+ 2.0 pcm/'F ofthe design MTC of3.38 pcm/'F (corrected).
This satisfies the Unit 1 Technical Specification which states that the MTC shall be less positive than 7.0 pcm/'F when r'eactor power is less than 70% power.
The final, section ofinterest for zero power physics testing is in the measurement ofCEA group worths. Rod worth measurements were performed using the rod swap methodology. This method involves exchanging a reference group, which is measured by the boration dilution technique, with each ofthe remaining test groups. A comparison ofthe measured and design CEA reactivity worths is provided in Table 3. The followingacceptance criteria applies to the measurements made:
1)
The measured value ofeach test group, or supergroup measured, is within+15% or+100 pcm ofits corresponding design CEA worths, whichever is greater and,
~
~
St. Lucie Unit 1, Cycle 15 Staitup Physics Testing Report 2)
The worth ofthe reference group and the total worth for all the CEA groups measured is within+ 10/0 ofthe total design worth.
Allacceptance criteria were met.
0
~
St. Lucie Unit l, Cycle 15 Startup Physics Testing Report During power ascension, the fixed incore detector system is utilized to verify that the core is loaded properly and there are no abnormalities occurring in various core parameters (core peaking factors, linear heat rate, and tilt)for power plateaus at 25%, 50%, and greater than 98%
rated thermal power. A shape annealing factor (SAF) test was performed in conjunction with the power ascension (reference 8). This test was necessitated by the replacement ofthe "A"Linear
~
Range nuclear instrument channel detector.
A summary ofthe fluxmaps at the 25%, 50% and 98% power levels is provided in figures 4, 5 &,
- 6. These flux maps are used for comparing the measured power distribution with the predicted power distribution. For the purposes ofthe power ascension, the acceptance criteria requires the RMS. value ofthe power deviation be less than or equal to 5%. In addition, for the 25% and 98%
plateaus, the individual assembly powers should be within 10% ofthe predicted power (both) and the relative power density (RPD) should be within 0.1 RPD units ofpredicted for the 25%
power case. These criteria were satisfied.
When the unit reached 98% power, a calorimetric was performed in accordance with reference 6 for the purpose ofcalculating the RCS flowrate. The RCS flowrate was determined to have been increased from 374,674 gpm (measured in cycle 14) to 407,206 gpm in cycle 15 (references 6 8c 10). This increased flowwas due to the replacement ofthe steam generators and was well in excess ofthe Technical Specification minimum of345,000 gpm.
Within seven effective fullpower days ofattaining the equilibrium value of 100% power, a hot fullpower (HFP) MTC test was performed by maintaining power constant and varying temperature.
The center CEA (7-1) was operated to permit compensation ofthe resulting reactivity changes.
The HFP MTC was measured to be -3.96 pcm/'F. This satisfied the acceptance criteria to verify compliance with Technical Specification 3.1.1.4 to have a measured MTC less negative than -28.0 pcm/'F and less positive than+2.0 pcm/'F while thermal power is greater than 70%. However the difference between measured (-3.96 pcm/'F) and predicted (-6.62 pcm/'F corrected) did not meet the internal design acceptance criteria of +2.0 pcm/'F.
Corrective actions include use ofexplicitlycalculated spectrum factors for FPL calculations of MTC at HFP using Advanced Nodal Code (ANC), and improvements to these calculations to better match the test measurements procedure. The power coefficient was not measured.
10
~
~
St. Lucie Unit I, Cycle 15 Startup Physics Testing Report VII.
er
- The original Unit 1 steam generators (OSG) were replaced with new, equivalent steam generators supplied by Babcock and Wilcox Industries, Ltd. (BWI), during the 1997 Steam Generator Replacement and Refueling Outage (SGRO). The OSGs had been gradually plugged to a level of 23.4% with a corresponding loss ofplant performance.
The return to service testing was comprised oftwo discreet types oftesting; post work testing and performance testing., Testing ofmany ofthe individual components impacted by the installation ofthe RSGs was performed and documented under the Post Maintenance Test program, Reference
- 11. Performance testing which required integrated plant conditions was performed using existing plant procedures, or specialized test procedures detailed in "Return to Service" test procedure, 1-LOI-SGRP-01. This testing served to accomplish the following:
~
To document the testing required to demonstrate the design and performance ofthe RSGs during the plant start-up.
~
To provide a vehicle to assess the status ofassociated work ensuring system and equipment readiness in support ofmode specific plant operational evolutions.
~
To collect sufficient operational data during the power ascension to provide a comprehensive baseline for evaluation ofRSG performance and to bench mark the analytical performance models for future reference.
~
To document RSG thermal performance relative to the Procurement Specification for Replacement Steam Generators, ensuring that all performance guarantees are met.
~
To determine a preliminary value for Reactor'Coolant System (RCS) flowbased on Reactor Vessel differential pressure to be used for low flowtrip set points and Tech. Spec. minimum flowin the interim period from Mode 2 through fullpower.
~
To demonstrate the capability ofthe Steam Generator Blowdown (SGB) system to pass saturated liquid at the design flowduring Hot Stand-by (HSB) operation by validating the sub-cooling margin available at the RSG blowdown nozzles with respect to design assumptions.
Performance ofthe RSGs was monitored throughout the power ascension.
The data was reviewed at each power plateau and compared with design predictions. The'design predictions, documented in Reference 15, had been developed by ABB-CE, BWI and Site Engineering.
The power plateaus were chosen to align with the normal power ascension procedure, Reference 13..
RSG parameters that were monitored included primary side differential pressure, steam pressure, secondary levels and steam and feed flows. RCS flowwas also monitored and is discussed below. The performance data is reflected in the attached graphs.
11
~
~
~
~
St. Lucie Unit 1, Cycle 15 Startup Physics Testing Report Figure 7 displays the measured primary side differential pressure at the power plateaus. 'As illustrated, average differential pressure decreased with rising power due to the effects of decreasing fluid density and primary flowwith power. The ABB-CE model predicted a measured fullpower differential pressure of25 psid at an anticipated measured flowof413,508 gpm. This compares to actual average measured differential pressure of28.5 psid at a corresponding flowof 407,206 gpm. The higher than predicted differential pressure appears consistent with the slightly lower than predicted primary flowwithin the accuracy ofthe analytical model.
Figure 8 is a comparison ofthe St. Lucie, Unit 1 (PSL-1), RSG secondary side steam pressure performance with ABB-CE and BWIpredictions and data from the Millstone, Unit 2, start-up, corrected for T Hot. Reviewing this data reveals that. the PSL-1 generators performed consistent with those ofMillstone, but below the predictions ofboth ABB-CE (-30 psi) and BWI (-16 psi).
BWI has indicated that RSG secondary pressure is expected to improve over the first operating cycle due to improved tube heat transfer. This is supported by data from an Electrical Power Research Institute (EPRI) paper, Reference 14, on steam generator thermal performance suggesting enhanced heat transfer due to tube scale build up. IfPSL-1 experiences the same improvement over tlie first operating cycle, steam pressure would be in line with the BWI estimates.
Reactor Vessel differential pressure was monitored throughout the power ascension and is shown on Figure 9. This parameter was used to determine RCS flowin Mode 3. The ABB-CEmodel predicted that indicated hot fullpower (HFP) Reactor Vessel differential pressure would be 33.9 psid at the anticipated flowof413,508 gpm. The measured differential pressure loss, 32.5 psid, using the average ofthe corresponding instrument channels is consistent with the lower than predicted RCS flow. As shown in the graph, Reactor Vessel differential pressure increases with power which is also consistent with the ABB-CE model which predicts that RCS flow decreases with increasing power.
Figure 10 shows the RCS temperatures at the various power levels. TcpLD tracked near the program TcpLD at each plateau. THpT and, consequently, d T were slightly higher than predicted, indicative ofthe lower than predicted RCS flow. Full power dT was predicted to be 45.5 'F (based on bulk THpT) compared to a measured bT of47.1'F (corrected for hot leg stratification of4.5 'F).
Reactor Coolant Pump (RCP) differential pressure data was collected during the start-up and is illustrated in Figure 11. Average RCP differential pressure at 100% power was 74.5 psid. This compares with an average predicted measured differential pressure of72.5 psid. The difference between actual and predicted aligns with the difference in measured RCS flow. The average RCP differential pressure decreased by 1.0 psid from zero to fullpower, representing an increase of 1.7 ftofpump head and agrees with the ABB-CE predicted decrease ofRCS flowwith power.
TAvp TREp and Predicted TREF are plotted on Figure 12. TAvp based on primary temperature instruments and TREF, derived from turbine first stage pressure, are used as indication ofprimary to secondary power mismatch. Normally, when the reactor has stabilized at 100% power, TREF is 12
~ ~
St. Lucie Unit 1, Cycle 15 Startup Physics Testing Report compared to TAvG and, ifnecessary, adjusted to equal TAvG. The predicted HFP TREF was 574.17
'F, based on an HFP turbine first stage pressure of562 psia, and TAvG based on predicted RCS flow. As can be seen on the graph, at conditions very close to fullpower, TAvG and TiiEF are within 1.4'F. Based on this, no adjustments to T~F were required at 100/0 power.
Turbine first stage pressure indication was monitored and is depicted in Figure 13. As already seen with the discussion ofTAvG and T~F, first stage pressure behaved as expected.
One anomaly was noted in the data taken from two instrument channels and in comparison to equivalent T~F. Pressure indication from DEH point 4050, which is fed from pressure transmitter PT-22-27, tracked consistently lower than the other indications ofthe same parameter.
This was brought to the attention ofISAAC Maintenance and work order 98003386 was issued to troubleshoot and re-calibrate this pressure channel.
This indication does not impact normal plant control or data analysis.
Due to the anticipated increase in main steam header pressure with the RSGs, the No. 4 Governor valve position was monitored to determine ifany adjustments would be required to the DEH control settings based on valve position. The No. 4 Governor valve final position was 8.9/0 open. This was consistent with the predicted open position between 0 - 10/0, Reference 15.
Changes to the DEH control settings are not expected at this time. For information, Figure 14 depicts the No. 4 governor valve positions for Cycles 13 through 15.
Gross electric output was monitored during the start-up. Figure 15 plots the measured data against the predictions.
Output lagged slightly throughout the power ascension.
Upon achieving 100'/0 power, gross electrical output was 905 MWe compared to a predicted output of907.7 MWe (this difference can be attributed to blowdown and instrument error).
RSG performance'tests are delineated in the Steam Generator Replacement Report, reference 16.
The performance testing identified in this document includes Steam Generation Rate, RCS Flow, Moisture Carryover, Feedwater Regulating System operation and Blowdown System Testing.
Allperformance requirements were documented in 1-LOI-SGRP-01 except the Moisture Carryover determination, which is addressed by 1-LOI-SGRP-02. In addition, the BWI contract included performance criteria for minimum steam pressure and maximum THoz.
The steam generation rate was required to be greater than or equal to 5.90 Mlbm/hrper steam generator at 100 lo power. Data was collected after a period ofgreater than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> at stable power levels greater than 98/0. Final performance data was collected using existing plant procedures and 1-LOI-SGRP-01. For the period ofthe test, steam generator blowdown was isolated so that the feedwater flowrate was equal to the steam generation rate. This method is used since the feedwater flowinstruments are much more accurate than the steam flow instruments.
The steam generation rate, corrected to the fullpower condition, was determined to be 5.904 and 5.954 Mlbm/hrfor steam generators 1A and 1B, respectively.
This satisfied the criteria for minimum steam generation rate.
13
~
~
St. Lucie Unit 1, Cycle 15 Startup Physics Testing Report Reactor Coolant System flowwas measured at NOP/NOT, Mode 3, conditions and again at 80/0 and 100/0 power. The Mode 3 determination was based on the historical relationship between reactor vessel differential pressure and measured flow. The 100/o power measurement is the most accurate since it is based on calorimetric power determination which is most accurate at full power. The total RCS flowwas determined to be 407,206 gpm, reference 6. This compares favorably (within 1.5/o) to the predicted flowof413,508 gpm. This value compares with a Technical Specification minimum flowof345,000 gpm and a maximum flowlimitof423,555 gpm accounting for measurement uncertainty (14,945 gpm).
The resultant RCS flowwas in large part determined by the RSG primary side differential pressure.
To ensure that the post steam generator replacement RCS flowwould meet the minimum requirements, with margin for future plugging, a maximum differential pressure of41 psid was specified.
Converting the indicated pressure loss at hot zero power (HZP) to total pressure loss and then extrapolating to the design flow, results in a design pressure loss of35 psid. As such, the unplugged RSGs meet the design specification value for maximum pressure loss of41 psid at 70,000,000 ibm/hr (370,000 gpm) at fullpower. This satisfies the requirement discussed in Section 10.6.2 ofthe Stand Alone Safety Evaluation, reference 16, to verify that RSG primary side pressure drop is within the specified values.
The lowpower feedwater regulating system, the steam bypass system and the normal steam generator level control system were monitored during plant start-up. There were no anomalies noted for these control systems associated with the new steam generators during the power ascension.
On 1/10/98, the Unit tripped from approximately 75 10 power due to problems with the turbine hydraulic control system.
During this trip, the steam generator levels responded as expected and the level control system responded without incident.
Steam Generator steam pressure was measured using permanently installed plant pressure instrumentation which taps into the generator shell between the primary separators and the secondary dryers. The RSG steam pressure was guaranteed to be greater than 885 psia at a THor less than 602'F. The guaranteed steam pressure performance as a function ofTHor is specified in the RSG Operating and Maintenance Manual. Atthe fullpower condition, with a corrected THor of 594.52 F the gual'ailteed steam'drum pressure is 827.82 psia. Comparing this to measured steam drum pressures of865.5 (S/G 1A) and 868 psia (S/G 1B), corrected to full power conditions, verifies the RSGs meet the performance guarantee.
The RCS low flowreactor trip is derived from S/G differential pressure instrumentation.
Normally, differential pressure data is collected in Mode 3 after a refueling outage and trip set points are calculated using the flowmeasurement from the previous operating cycle. Due to the significantly lower differential pressure produced by the new unplugged RSGs when compared to the plugged OSGs, an interim determination ofRCS flowwas required.
Since the flow resistance ofthe reactor vessel had not changed significantly for several cycles, measured flow could be predicted using the historical relationship between measured flowand reactor vessel differential pressure. This method produced a HZP flowmeasurement of413,026 gpm. This 14
~
~
St. Lucie Unit 1, Cycle 15 Startup Physics Testing Report t
value compared well with the ABB-CE estimate of415,862 gpm at HZP. The measured flow value was reduced for conservatism to 398,081 gpm, and this lower flowvalue was used in the derivation ofinitial RCS low flowtrip set points and the Tech. Spec. minimum flowverification values.
The next flowmeasurement was performed at the 80% power plateau in accordance with the normal calorimetric method." This measurement produced a flowof414,977 gpm. Areview of the set points determined at HZP verified that no change to set points was required and that these set points continued to be conservative.
AtHFP, the calorimetric flowdetermination was again performed and the RCS flowdetermined to be 407,206 gpm. Based on historical flowmeasurements, this number appeared low.
However, the method ofdetermining the hot leg stratification factor had changed based on information Rom ABB-CE. A 0.4 'F bias was added to the calculation ofTHoz which reduced the calculated measured flowby approximately 3,100 gpm. Since the predicted flowwas, in part, affected by the benchmarking to past flowmeasurements it is appropriate to apply this recommended bias to the predicted flowto make a valid comparison ofthe cycle 15 measured to predicted flow. The corrected predicted flowis 410,408 gpm. This compares very well to the measured flowof407,206 gpm.
Due to the conservative method ofderiving the low flowtrip set points and Tech. Spec.
Minimum S/G differential pressures, the set points continued to be conservative.
As such, no changes were required to either the low flowtrip set-points or the Tech. Spec. Minimum Flow values.
Atest ofthe Steam Generator Blowdown System was performed at Mode 3, NOP/NOT, conditions to demonstrate the amount ofsub-cooling available at the inlet to the Closed Blowdown Heat Exchanger (CBHX). The test was performed for S/G 1A only. SGB flowhad been restricted to less than 72 gpm, indicated, between Mode 3 and 25% power in order to avoid flashing in the blowdown pipes based on calculations performed by SGT with input from BWI.
Since these calculations were known to be conservative and since it is desirable to maximize blowdown capability to avoid S/G chemistry delays to plant start-up, the test was performed to demonstrate acceptable operation at the system design flowof 115 gpm per S/G in Mode 3. This corresponds to a blowdown nozzle flowof 150 gpm at steam generator conditions. The test data demonstrated that there was adequate sub-cooling available (3.8'F) at the inlet to the CBHX at the design flowof 115 gpm. Based on this result, the system flowlimitwas reestablished at the design flowfor all operating conditions.
The absence ofprimary to secondary leakage from the RSGs was verified by the Chemistry department.
Secondary sample analysis indicated that secondary activity levels remained below detectable levels throughout the power ascension 15
~
~
St. Lucie Unit 1, Cycle 15 Startup Physics Testing Report The return to service test procedure was started on 12/17/97 and was completed on 1/21/98.
There were no adverse conditions identified during the performance ofthis testing. All performance guarantees within the scope ofthe test program were satisfied.
16
~
~
St. Lucie Unit 1, Cycle 15 Startup Physics Testing Report VIII. Qmgggzy.
Compliance with the applicable Unit 1 Technical Specifications was satisfactory and all acceptance criteria were met. The test data supports a conclusion that the change in hydraulic performance due to replacement ofthe steam generators had no significant effect on neutronic behavior. The physics and thermal-hydraulic performance test data satisfied all acceptance criteria and demonstrated general conformance to predicted performance.
17
~
~
St. Lucie,Unit 1, Cycle 15 Startup Physics Testing Report 1)
"InitialCriticality, " Pre-Operational Procedure 1-3200088 2)
"Reload Startup Physics Testing, " Pre-Operational Procedure 3200091 3)
"Reactor Engineering Power Ascension Program,"
Pre-Operational Procedure 3200092
. 4)
St. Lucie Unit 1 Technical Specifications.
5)
Engineering Calculation, PSL-1FJF-97-158, Rev. 0 6)
"RCS Flow Determination By Calorimetric Procedure," St. Lucie Unit 1 Operating Procedure 1-0120051 7)
St. Lucie Unit 1 Cycle 15 Reload PC/M ¹97055 8)
"Shape Annealing Factor Test," Pre-Operational Test Procedure 3200092 9)
Condition Report 98-0148, "Moderator Temperature Coefficient Test",
Dated 1/26/98 10)
PSL-ENG-SEMS-98-008, Rev.0, "Replacement Steam Generator Return to Service Testing Summary Report."
11)
Administrative Procedure, ADM-78.01, "Post Maintenance Testing"
- 12) BWI Document, BWI-222-7698-PR-03, Thermal-Hydraulic Technical Support Documentation, Rev.01.
13)
Pre-Operational Test Procedure 3200092, "Reactor Engineering Power Ascension Program"
- 14) "Causes ofP8'R Steam Generator Thermal Performance Degradation'" presented at the Sixth EPRI PSE Nuclear Plant Performance Improvement Seminar, September 4, 1996.
- 15) Engineering Evaluation PSL-ENG-SEMS-97-054, Review ofPlant Operation with Replacement Steam Generators, Rev.1
- 16) Stand Alone Safety Evaluation, Volume 1, Steam Generator Replacement Report, Chapter 10.0, Return to Service Testing, Rev. 5.
18
~
~
St. Lucie Unit1, Cycle 15 Startup Physics Testing Report Figure 1
Cycle 15 Core Loading Pattern R
P II M
L K
J H
0 I
I I
I I
I I
I T
S S35 S48 S45 S34 F
E S39 S12 T01 U43 102 U57 U46 105 T07 S28 S53 S65 T26 137 U48 U65 92 T18 T40 302 T16 T93 136 U54 T14 82 S67 c
S63 T23 201 U61 T36 139 U11 107 T56 U18 93 T31 138 T41 T09 204 S62 s
S56 T17 81 T42 S05 U2 U21 94 T85 U31 96 U4 S02 U62 T15 142 S38 S25 U55 T35 141 U5 S07 123 T86 U32 S19 U10 S04 127 U6 T34 140 U42 S16 S36 T03 T94 143 T84 U39 F01 T80 T90 114 T47 U13 103 T53 T83 113 T70 U26 97 U66 79 T08 S33 S43 S46 S29 U56 89 U58 U51 120 T19 T33 301 T21 U27 88 T54 U15 119 T68 U23 T57 S17 T72 U37 T48 U30 109 T51 U24 99 T82 U35 F02 T60 S22 135 T67 U17 132 T89 U29 87 T46 U16 104 T50 U20 T63 S18 T92 U40 T62 U9 91 T52 U28 122 T20 T37 303 U44 90 U59 U52 121 S42 S47 S32 T04 U67 83 T69 U25 131 T91 T73 100 T49 U34 110 T55 T59 98 T87 U14 112 T65 T95 80 T02 S15 U49 T32 128 U7 S03 95 T66 U38 S24 U12 T64 S08 85 U1 T30 126 U50 S26 S37 T12 125 U63 S01 U8 U19 115 T58 U33 116 U3 S06 T43 T28 124 S55 S66 T10 203 T44 T39 130 T61 U22 106 T45 U36 118 T88 T38 129 U64 T25 205 S68 S61 T24 134 U45 T96 117 T29 304 T13 U68 133 U47 T11 101 S64 S54 S27 T06 U41 108 U60 U53 111 T05 S11 S40 S30 S41 S44 S31 Page 19
)QQ( ~ Ssearnbty ¹ yy ~ Insert ¹
~
~
t St. Lucie Unit1, Cycle 15 Startup Physics Testing Report Figure 2 Inverse Count Ratio Plot - Channel "8" Cl Ct CV Ct Ct C)
CI CI Cl IA CI IA CI Cl Cl CV O p C
tl "4 CIIll T
CI CI ED lA CI EDIll O
~0+ ye CI CI CI ED ot'I CI CI C9 o
o HHOl CVo Cl CI Page 20
~
~
t St. Lucie Unit 1, Cycle 15 Startup Physics Testing Report Figure 3 Inverse Count Ratio Plot - Channel "D" o
o CIo ID O
CI III C9 O
CI Cl 04 Cl ID III CI T
Cl Cl ID OI CI lO OO CD ID ID ED IA Cl ID CO O
880l C4 CI Cl CI Page 21
~
~
~
St. Lucie Unit1, Cycle 15 Startup Physics Testing Report Figure 4 Power Distribution -25% Power un!I X"',13 Measured:
BEACON Source 141'1041$
0S4S",",!
I ower Leuc!
'nay.
4-;"- --
Design:
'last 'IFJFal'1 44;)
I7.44'K'~A'- --
0 0
0 0
k K
4 Ia 0
I I
I I
I I
I I
WT 116 115 0250 OJ20 IU20 0241 IUI4 IUI4 OAOS L006 OAN6 02 1.9 1.9 114 rk250 rk241 0003 3A 104 L190 IL1$6 OAO4 IA 213 0211 0007 30 0.790 O.TTI 0019 112 OA20 OA09 O.el I 2.6 202 IAXO
!$66 OAC4 1.1 211 OAOO 0.7$ 0 OAI20 15 101 L130 I.IOI 1102C 110 IA50 IACO 0010 18 100 IDTO ID59 0011 0$
209 IA60 IOII 0.019 IA 199 ID10 ID33 4AII3
~IAI 20$
I.OIO IACT OAILS U
194 ID60 IDSS OANS OA 207 0.790 0.77$
IKOIS 1.9 197 1.110 IA8$IN!2 Ll 106 OAOO 039S 0.002 05 196 IAITO IA56 Ikon ID 10$
0.110 0.216 LOIN ID 195 0.7$ 0 0763
. INIT 194 0290 024 OAO6 2.1 193 L290 IU$4 OAO6 2.1 191 OJOO 0,793 OAOT 0.9 Itl I.I le IA82 OAII4 IA 190 IJ40 IJll OAO9 0.7 1st IJSO IJTC OAOI OD ISS IJ30 IJ31 a2 1$7 IDSO ID67asl7
~ID 146 IJle IJ30ael0 145 IJCO IJTIael I a9 144 143 IJ30 1.100 IJ24 IANC L006 IN14 IKS ID 1$2 0410 Ik793 Ikelr 2.1 ISI Ik190 IU$6 OAO4 IA Y
I 135 IVSO 0241 OAK8 3A Ils IL120 OD14 OAN6 I.'
IOI 0320 0314 LIO6 18 0J50 Ik242 OANS 140 OJ20 OJ 1 6 OAOI IJ ICS OAOO ODTS OAO2 05 150 O.TSO 0.77$
OANS 0.6 133 IAue I827 INI3 ID 116 IA60 IOII 0019 IJ 99 IA50 1.030 0020 1.9
$2 0400 0740 OACO 15 67 OA20 OA09 eel l 2A 52 0JIO 0J23 OAOT 30 179 0770 IKT63 OAOT 0.9 ICI IAITO IA56 OA14 ID 149 IDIO IA8$
0011 1.1 131 IDIO ID5S005 OA 115 ID30 ID33 ao03 94 IDTO ID59 OAIII
$ 1 1.120 1.101 INIC IA 66 I480 IA66 OAC4 L2 51 0740 0.771 0009 1.2 37 Ik290 0246 OAOI IA 174 1.100 IAN6 0.014 ID 163 IJ20 IJ14 aANI 14$
IJCO IJTIael I 131 IJ20 IJ30 as le 114 IDSO ID67aeI7
~U 97 IJ30 IJ31 NAOS a2
$0 IJTO IJTC AIANC 6$
IJ40 IJ31 OAK8 LT 50 1.110 IA81 OAII4 IA 16 0400 L793 OAO7 0.9 4
0290 OAN6 LI ITT I.1 10 1.107 0003 141 IJSO IJS4 aD 147 1.190 1.194 ao06 as 130 IJte IDI6 a02c ILS IDIO ID31 ae21
~IA 96 IDOO ID IS a01$
~ 1.2 79 1.190 1.19S aAK5 64 IJCO IJSS OAK5 OA lt I.IIO 1.107 0003 OD 35 1.100 IANC 0014 ID 23 LTSO Ik763 LOI7 1.1 176 IJ60 IDSS OAOS OA 161 IJOO IJIC aAIC
~U 14C IDIO ID33 a023
~IJ 129 1.150 1.169 a019
.I.T 111 IANO IAlitaol'9
~I.t 9$
1,150 I.ICIa$ 14
~1.2 7$
IDIO ID24 a014
.IA 63 IJIO IJIC BLANC ae 44 IJCO IJ54 0.006 es IJ30 IJSI 0.006 es 12 IANO IA56 OAC4 ITS 1.190 1.195 a00$
a4 160 IDIO IJ1$
AAIIS
~IA 145 IDIO ID92 AAI22
~IA 114 IJCO IJTSaels
.IA Ill I.lie 1.122 a012
~I.l 94 IJCO IJTC a016
~ID 77 IDIO IJt2 ae22
~IA 62
- ID20, IJ33ael3
~IAI 47 1.190 1.196 a006 aJ 33 IJ70 IJTIace l al 11I.II0 IA8$
OAI2 I.l 14 IDOO ID IS a01$
159 1.150 1.164ael4
.1.2 144 IJCO IJTC a014
~U 127 1.140 1.172 a011
.IAI 110 IJSO IJCSaeI5
~IJ 93 1.160 1.172 a012 76 USO IJTSarcs
~2J 41 1.150 LI69ac!9
~I.T 4C IJte IJI6
-2.0 31 IJle IJ30ael0 10 IJ60 ID5S OAOS OA ITS IDIO ID31aell
~IA 15$
IAKN IAlltaelt
~18 143 1.110 1.122 a011
~I.l 126 IJSO IJ45aeI 5
.IJ II8 IAI IAC3 a013 tl IJ40 IJ6$
a02$
~2AI 7$
I.ISO I.1 21 a011 40Ltte IAl9
-1.9 4$
IDOO ID31 a031
.1A 31 IDSO ID67ael7
~ID lt ID10 ID33ael3
.IAl IT2 IDOO ID16 a016
~1.2 1$7 1.160 U69 141 IJCO IJTS ao le
~IA 125 1.160 1,172aell
~IAI 10$
IJ40 IJCSaols 91 1.150 1,171 a021
~ID 4
IJ40 IJT6 a036
-1.9 59 I.I40 1.144 a014
~2.1 4
IJte ID15 a025
~1.9 30 IJ30 IJ32 aAO2 14 IJ60 ID59 OANI Ikl ITI 1.190 1.196 AIAO6 156 ID20 ID33asl3
~Ie 141 ID40 ID91asl1 at 124 IJSO IJ76 a026
-1.1 107 1.100 1.122 IJSO IJTS
~2.1 73 IDCO ID92 a032
-1A 51 IDOO ID24
~2.1 I.ISO 1.19$ael5
~ID 19 IJTO IJTC as 17 1.120 1.104 OAII6 IA 170 IJCO IJSI IUN4 es ISS IJIO IJIC aS 140 ID10 ID24 AIAOS aC 123 1.150 1.164 AAII~
.1.1 106 IAOO IAII9aelt
.18 1.1$ 0 1.169aelt
~I.T 71 IDOO ID33 aAC3
.2$
S7 1.190 IJICaelc 41 IJSO IJSSa00$
a4 24 IJ40 IJ31 OAN9 LT IC IA80 IACC 0024 2.2 169 I.I le 1.107 LOkl OD 154 IJ70 IJSS LOIS IJ 139 IJOO 1.19$
OAK5 OA 121 IDOO ID15aors
~ I.'2 105 IDIO ID31 a021
.IA 44 IJIO ID 16
~SAI Tl 1.1$0 1.194ael6
~IA
$6 IJSO IJ54aoel 41 1.100 1.107 AI,6 17 1.110 IA81 INIS IA IS 0790 ILTTIINI9 1A 164 1.110 IA82 0024 1$
1$3 IJSO IJ31 0019 IS 134 IJte IJTC IN14 1.1 121 IJ40 IJ32 OAXN 104 IDSO IJ47 as IT
-ID 47 IJ30 IJ30 OANO OAI 70 IJTO IJTIaeel al 55 IJ20 IJ4 AIAOI 1.100 IAO6 lk014 ID 14 Ik290 021C 0004 IA 167 OJOO 0.771 0029 152 LIOO IAXiC 0034 Ll 137 L130 I.IOI'20 IDSO IDS9 0.011 15 103 ID30 ID33 a2 16 ID60 IDSS OANS OA 69 I.IIO IA8$
0012 1.1 54 IANO IA56 IN14 1.2 lt 0740 0743 OAIIT Ll 2$
0290 0244 OAN6 2.1 166 0J30 0J23 OAOT 3AI ISI OA20 L409 0011 LC 136 0410 LTSO 0030 3.7 119 IANO IACO rkelo 102 IArle IN!I IN19 LT
$5 IA50 IAI27 IN23 1.1 ILTTS INI5 Ia
$3 OAI0 IV9$
OAI12 1.9 1$
IV10 IVI6 OAOI ID 134 OJ42 31
~DO 43 I ~
~ eoa I ~
Ice
~D34 LlI4
~ eea I.'
LLee L141 OAK8 36
~I Ia ea 13 0220 LSIC OAOI ID 11 OAI0 OD9$
OAII1 1.9 II Ik790 ILTTS OAII5 18 Ie 9
IA50 IAXO IACT IAIII 0023 OAlt IJ IA50 IACO IN20 18 7
0400 0,740 0020 2$
6 OA20 OA09 ON!I IA 5
IV23 OANT RMS Deviation:
1.57%
4 3
1 I
L250 IV10 OD20 IL50 L41 IV14 OJ14 0242 NX8 OAN6 OAOC MXI 3A 18 18 SJ Page 22 Key.
OK ueeeeeec cecal o Della 0 Ouk
sl ~
~
~
St. Lucie Unit 1, Cycle 15 Startup Physics Testing Report Figure 5 Power Distribution - 50% Power unll MeMured:
BEACON Source,lal '01099$ '074Sp Powtflbvol
'CL're,T ti';tl:,'oronCone.
IT433~ 2;.~;.~
'esIgn:
PSI" IFJF477146" R
O N
II L
K 4
H 0
I I
I I
I I
I 217 II6 TI5 11 ~
LLKO, 0310 OD10 IL250 L24$
1U1 IU1 IL147 M02 OANO OAKN LOOI IN IN M
ID I
N l93 0290 L293
!$0 179 L110 L7$0 0223 0.774 a003 0AN6
~IA OJ 204 ODOO IU94 OAN6 lb It1 IDIO IUOS LANS OA ITS l.leo IA81 OAN$
0.7 II3 OD30 0230 MOO 0.0 203 MOO ILTSIReit IA l91 I.II0 IA8$
Obli I.I I77 I.II0 I.II2 4AN2 4.2 2D OA20 OAIT OAN3 0.7 202 IA80 IAITO IN20 IJ l90 IJ40 IJ30 able OJ 176 1.260 IJSS OAK5 Ill L$00 IL7$5 INIS l.9 201 2120 LI01 O.el 4 LC 1$9 IDTO IJTI4bel al ITS l.190 I.193 a003 210 lb40 IAKN OJI 2 IJ 200 ID50 ID4$
OANS I$$
ID20 IJ25 a4 I74 IDOO ID09 4AN9 aT 209 IA50 lAOS M12 I.I l99 IDIO ID IT 4ANT I$7 ID40 ID534JD
~IAI ID IDIO IDD4JI 3
.IAI 240 Ib30 IAI2$
OANS es Its ID40 ID42 a002 4.1 l$6 IJ20 ID22 172 IDOO ID09 4AN9 4.7 a8 12710 0.7$ 0 OAKN lke ltl I.100 IANT OD ISS IJ40 IJ66 4S Ill 1.190 I.I94 4AKH 206 LAI0 OA06 OAN4 20 l94 IAITO IJCIMot l$4 ID20 IDD alXU a2 ITO IDCO IJSI OAN6 OS 205 L210 IL223 4AN3
~IA l9S 0.7$ 0 L774 MOC OJ I$3 I.IOO IA82 M0$
0.7 l69 I.II0 1.111 4.2 l94 IL290 lk293
~IAI I$1 Ll le OJ05 OANS OA 16$
1.110 IAI9$
IN11 lAI I4I 0300 R294 OAN6 lb ICT 0JOO IL7$1 OJI 9 1A l66 IU30 L230 OAKN Ob DS IL250 IU47 M03 1.2 Ils OD30 OD10MI0 I0I L330 LI20 INIO 3AI l6S OAI0 OA06 L404 IAl l50 0.7$0 0.7$0 OANO 0.0 l33 IJIO IAI1S OAII5 IA I16 IJCO lb3$
OJ21 1.1 99 IA50 IJ2$
M22 Ll
$1 L$00 Ik74S OOI5 I.'9 67 OA30 OAI7 0013 3AI 51 IL230 IL230 OANO Ob l64 IAKJ lb6laeel 4.1 l49 I.IOO IA87 RANI IU I31 ID40 ID41 a001 al IIS ID10 IDl7 OAKkl OJ 9$
IJCO IJ4$
OAIIS I.I
$ 1I.lie 1.102 Leis IA 46 IA80 IAITO OAKN IJ 51 ILTSI 0.019 2A 37 IUOO Ik294 OAN6 163 IJ20 ID2l a003 a2 14S ID50 IJ664JI4
~ID lll ID10 ID21 4AN2 114 ID40 ID53 a013
~IAI tl ID30 IJ2$
LANS OA
$0 IJTO IDTI 4ANI al 6S IJ40 ID30 LOI0 OJ 50 I.IIO IA8$
INI1 I.I 36 0320 OJOS INI5 IJ 24 ODOO IL293 OANT 2D 162 ID50 IJS4 4ANI 4D 147 I.lie 1.194 4b14
~I.2 130 IJte ID494bl9
-IS ll3 IJOO ID234JD
~IJ 96 IDOO IJ09ao8 at 79 1.190 I.I93 4AKO 64 IJ40 IJSS M05 OA
~9 I,I le 1.111 a001 3$
I.II0 IA81 Ikel4 IA D
0.790 IL774 OAII6 20 13 OD30 LTD OANT 3AI l61 IDOO IBISaol$
~ID 146 IDIO ID1$4bl4
~IA 119 I.ISO I.I694JI 9
~ 1.7 I11 IJI0 IAI23 4AI13
-ID I.ICO 1.164 7$
IDIO LSD4JI3
~IAl 63 IDIO IJIS 4AN5 a4 41 IDCO IJSI OAN6 OS 3I IDIO ID13 MOT OA 22 IANO IJ61 LOI'9 IJ 11 OAI0 OA06 OAX4 IAl l60 IDIO IDD4JI 3
~IAl 145 IDTO ID$44bl4
.Ib 12$
IJCO IJTS4JIS
~ID III 1.120 I.114 94 IJCO IJ734JD 77 IDTO ID$44bl4
~Ib 42 IDIO ID2$4JIS
~IA 47 I.1to 1.14 D
IJCO IJCC 11 I.IIO IA87 OAI3 I.2 II 0.790 ILTIO eblo ID I59 I.ICO I.ICI I44 IDCO ID734JD
~20
!17 I.ITO I.I71 4.2 IIO IDCO IJCS t3 1.170 1.172 76 ID60 IDTS4JI 5
~ID 41 LISO 1.169aolt
~ 1.7 46 ID90 ID09 4.0 I9
~IS 12 IJ20 IJ22 a002 a2 20 IDIO ID42 4AN2 al leIbis IJ25MI5 IA I54 Ibl0 IAI13 4.Oil
~ID 141 1.120 I.124 l26 IDCO IJCS 4.005 l09 IAkl IJ3$
t2 ID50 IJ6$
4AIIS
~IJ I.IIO 1,1144bf4
~ID 60 IANO IAI13 4b23
-2D ID00 IJD
-IJ 31 ID40 ID534JI3
~IAl l9 IDIO ID l 7 t
I450 IJ3$
0.012 I.I IST I.ICO 1.169 a009 w
142 IDCO IJT5 4J IS
~1.1 l25 I.ITO 1.172a002 a2 IOS IJ50 IJ4$
a01$
~IJ tl I.ISO 1.1714JI1
.IAI 4
ID50 IJ73
.IJ 59 I.ISO I.IC4ael4
~ID 44 ID90 IJ094bl9
-IS 30 ID20 ID25 4ANS a4 Is ID50 ISIS OANS OA 4Ible IAI4IND ID l56 ID20 ID1$
4AKN 4A l41 IDTO ID$44bl4
~IAI l4 IJCO IJ73ael3
.Ib IOT I.IIO 1.1244bl4
~ID IDSO IDTS
.2AI 73 ID60 ID$4 4J14
.IJ IJOO IJ21
~IJ 43I.lte I.193 4J03 19 IJTO IDTI4JOI al ITI.lie I.102 LOIS IA 7
L$00 0.74S O.OI$
1.9 15$
IJIO IDIS 4ANS a4 140 IDIO IDD 4AII3 Le 123 I.ISO 1.164 106 IANO IJ21 4b23
~1D 1.150 1.1694bl'9
.1.7 72 IJI 0 ID2$aels
~IA 57 IDOO ID IS4b!5
~23 41 IJSO ID55 aOOS a4 2$
IJ30 ID30 OJ00 0.0 IC IA80 Ibis OAI20 IJ 6
OA20 OAI7 OANl 0.7 1$4 IJCO IJ5$
IL005 OA 139 1.190 1.193 4.003 121 IDOO IJ09 a7 10$
IDOO IJ234b11
~IJ IJte ID094bl'I
~IS TlI.lie 1.1944bl4
~IJ SC ID50 41 I.I le I.Ill 4002 a1 17 I.IIO IA8$
LOI1 I.I IS IL790 0.7$ 1 LOI8 I.l 5
L230 L230 Ikeoe OAI I$3 ID40 IJ30 Ob le OJ I3$
ID$0 IDTI OAX8 0.7 lll ID30 IJ25 MOS OA I4 ID40 IDD 4AII3
~IAl
$7 IJ20 IJ11 4.2 70 IJCO IDCC SS IJ20 I JD'003 a'2 I.IOO IA81 OANS 0.7 lks le OJOS MOS OA l4 L300 R294 OAN6 IAl IS2 IA80 IJ70 M20 IJ 137 1.120 1.102 LOIS IA 110 IJ40 IJ4$
OAIIS I,I Iel ID10 IDIT OAKO IL1 l4 IDSO ID42 OANS ILC 6t I.II0 IA87 O.OD 1.2
$4 IAITO Ib61 OAN9 OJ L7$0 0.774 OAN6 OJ 25 R290 L293 4AKKI
~ 1.0 l51 OA30 OAI7 OAID 30 136 0JOO 0.7$ S ILOI5 Ib Ilt IA50 IAI1$
IL012 1.1 l02 IJCO IJ3$
L022 1.1
$$Ibis IAI2$
LOIS IA 6$
0.790 IkT$0 O.OI0 ID 53 IL410 OA06 OANI IAI 3$
L210 0223 a003
.IA 134 R250 OJ4$
OAXO OJ IU30 IU20 OJI0 3b I00 R330 IU20 Obis 3b IL250 IL247 MOI RMS Deviation:
1.16%
4 I
lk250 OJ20 0310 0.250 lk247 IU20 0320 IL244 eb03 OAXN 0000 OAKI2 ID OAI Le OJ Page 23 Koy.
OK lleewrtl Oosloo oaks n KKL
St. Lucie Unit 1, Cycle 15 Startup Physics Testing Report Figure 7 Average RSG (A & B) Differential Pressure vs Power 29.8 29.6 29.4 29.2 CL 29 G
CO 28.8 28.6 28.4 28.2 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Power, %
60'0%
80%
90%
100%
Page 25
905 St. Lucie Unit 1, Cycle 15 Startup Physics Testing Report Figure 8 Comparison of S/G Drum Pressure vs Power 900 895 890
~ 885 o.
880 N
E 2O g
875 870
@r 8
~ M
-X ~
BB 865 860 855 0
25 50 Power, %
75.
100
~pBL % ABB Estimate - - <<e - -Millstone (Correotad) ->S- - BlM Estimate Page 26
41 St. Lu'cie Unit 1, Cycle 15 Startup Physics Testing Report Figure 9 Rx Vessel Differential Pressure vs Power 39 37
'0 Q
o.2 35 O
W PDI-1124W 4- - PDI-1124X
~ PDI-1124Y
-- X --PDI-1124Z
~Averege (AllFour)
~Averege (X,Y,Z) 33 31 29 0%
10%
~
20%
30%
40%
50 Power,%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Page 27
St. Lucie Unit 1, Cycle 15 Startup Physics Testing Report Figure 10 INeasured T Cold and T Hot vs Expected 600 590 580 p) 570 CL E
I-co 560 Measured T Cold
Expected T Cold Corrected T Hot
Expected T Hot 550 540 530 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Power,%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Page 28
St. Lucie Unit 1, Cycle 15 Startup Physics Testing Report Figure 11 RCP Differential Pressure vs Flow 84 83 82 80 o.
79 o.Oo:
78
+RCP dP (Avg) 76 75 74 370 375 380 385 390 395 400 405 410 415 RCS Flow, thousand gpm Page 29
~
~
St. Lucie Unit 1, Cycle 15 Startup Physics Testing Report Figure 12 TAvg/TRef vs Power 575 570 565 560 IL 555 I-550 r
r 540 535 20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Power,%
70 80%
90%
100%
~ - W - -TAvg &- T Ref~T Ref (Predicted)
Page 30
St. Lucie Unit 1, Cycle 15 Startup Physics Testing Report Figure 13 First Stage Pressure Comparison 600.0 500.0 err r 400.0 C5 L
300.0 O.
200.0 rr r
~ rrr r
~ rw
~ rw 100.0 0.0 21.86 48.69 Power, %
74.14 99.81 M-FS press (T Refj -re- - FS press (power) ee FS press (Messured)
Page 31
25 St. Lucie Unit 1, Cycle 15 Startup Physics Testing Report Figure 14 No. 4 Governor Vaive Position 20 Cyde 14 Cyde 14 15 10 Cyde 15 Cyde 13 Cyde 13 Cyde 13 Cyde 13 Cyde 13 0
1/14/98 10/3/97 8/5/97 4/22/96 Date 3/15/95 1/6/95 12/29/94 12/14/94 Page 32
St. Lucie Unit 1, Cycle 15 Startup Physics Testing Report Figure 15 Gross Electrical Output vs Predicted 1000 900 800 700 600 500 0
400 200 20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Power,%
70%
80%
90%
100%
&Gross Etetdicel Output ~predicted Page 33
~
~
~
~
St. Lucie Unit 1, Cycle 15 Startup Physics Testing Report Table 1 Cycle 15 Reload Sub-Batch ID*
Sub-Batch Sl S2 S3 S4 S5 T4 T5 Ul U2 U3 U4 U5 U6 Number ofAssemblies 12 12.
12 20 16 12 40 32 16 Enrichment 3.9 3.88 3.81 3.78 3.79 4.45 4.45 4.45 4.45 4.45 4.10 4.10 4.45 4.45 4.45 4.45
'Reference 7 34
s
~
~
St. Lucie Unit 1, Cycle 15 Startup Physics Testing Report Table 2 Approach to Criticality DilutionRate 132 gpm SS gpm 44 gpm InitialBoron Concentration 1835 1765 1665 Final Boron Concentration 1765 1665 1576 DilutionTime (minutes) 19 66 154 35
~
~
St. Lucie Unit 1, Cycle 15 Startup Physics Testing Report Table 3 CEA Group Worth Summary CEA Group Reference Group A 5 '
3 Ec4 Total Measured Worth (pcm) 811.32 417.29 595.07 670.02 716.94 710.91 725.98
- 4647.53 Design
- Worth (pcm) 786.00 408.00 562.00 661.00 718.00 719.00 737.00 4591.00 Percent Difference
-3.12
-2.23
-5.56
-1;35 0.15 1.14 1.52
-1.22
- Reference 5.
Percent difference = (Measured-Design)/(Measured)
- 100 36
C ~