ML051300340
| ML051300340 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Kewaunee  |
| Issue date: | 05/02/2005 |
| From: | Lambert C Nuclear Management Co |
| To: | Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NRC-05-054 | |
| Download: ML051300340 (8) | |
Text
tS NM Committed to Nudlear~xe Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant Operated by Nuclear Management Company, LLC May 2, 2005 NRC-05-054 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, D.C. 20555 Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant Docket 50-305 License No. DPR-43 Cycle 27 Startup Report In accordance with our practice of reporting the results of physics tests, enclosed is the Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant Cycle 27 Startup Report.
Craig W.Lan Site Vice President, Kewa Nuclear Power Plant Nuclear Management Company, LLC Enclosure (1) cc:
Administrator, Region Ill, USNRC Project Manager, Kewaunee, USNRC Resident Inspector, Kewaunee, USNRC Public Service Commission of Wisconsin 71: !; 6--
N490 Highway 42. Kewaunee, Wisconsin 54216-9511 Telephone: 920.388.2560
ENCLOSURE 1 CYCLE 27 STARTUP REPORT INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of the physics tests performed during startup of the Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant (KNPP) Cycle 27. The core design and reload safety evaluation were performed by Westinghouse using approved methods. The results of the physics tests were compared to analytical results to confirm calculated safety margins. No corrective actions were required.
FUEL ASSEMBLIES The KNPP reactor core consists of 121 fuel assemblies of 14 x 14 design:
- Forty-four (44) new Westinghouse 422V+ fuel assemblies containing U0 2 rods.
Thirty-six (36) are enriched to 4.6 weight percent U235, and eight (8) are enriched to 4.92 weight percent U235.
- Forty-four (44) partially depleted Westinghouse 422V+ fuel assemblies.
- One (1) Westinghouse 422V+ fuel assembly containing U02 rods enriched to 3.3 weight percent U235
- Thirty-two (32) partially depleted FRA-ANP heavy fuel assemblies.
RCCA BANK MEASUREMENTS During Cycle 27 startup the worth of all control rods were measured using the reactivity computer using the Westinghouse Dynamic Rod Worth methodology. The table below provides a summary of the RCCA Worth data:
RCCA Bank A
B C
D SA SB TOTAL Measured Worth (PCM) 855.8 582.1 770.9 762.8 577.9 590.1 4139.6 Predicted Worth (PCM) 857.3 574.9 729.7 733.0 566.9 563.1 4024.9 Difference (PCM)
-1.5 7.2 41.2 29.8 11.0 27.0 Percent Difference
-0.2 1.3 5.6 4.1 1.9 4.8 114.7 2.8 Page 1 of 7
SHUTDOWN MARGIN EVALUATION Prior to power escalation a shutdown margin evaluation was made to verify the existence of core shutdown capability. The minimum shutdown margins at beginning of cycle (BOC) and at end of cycle (EOC) are presented in the Table below:
RCCA Bank Worths (PCM)
4672 6620 N-1 (Worst Stuck Rod) 3960 5430 Less 10.0 Percent 400 540 Sub Total 3560 4890 Total Requirements (Including 1950 3270 Uncertainties)
Shutdown Margin 1610 1620 Required Shutdown Margin 1542 1542 A 10.0 percent uncertainty in the calculation of total rod worth is accounted for in the shutdown margin analyses. Since the measured total rod worth result is within the acceptable range compared to the predicted value, the analysis is conservative and no additional evaluations are required.
BORON ENDPOINTS AND BORON WORTH MEASUREMENTS
- 1. Boron Endpoints Criticality was achieved by dilution with Bank D near All Rods Out (ARO). Boron concentration was allowed to stabilize. The critical boron concentration for the ARO core configuration was then determined by boron endpoint measurement. The results indicated a measured to predicted difference of 21 PPM for the ARO core condition.
The acceptance criterion on the ARO boron endpoint is +100 PPM; thus, the boron endpoint comparison is considered acceptable. The table below summarizes the RCCA Bank Endpoint measurements:
RCCA Bank Measured Endpoint Predicted Configuration (PPM)
Endpoint (PPM)
Difference (PPM)
All Rods Out 2225 2204 21 Page 2 of 7
- 2. Differential Boron Worth The differential boron worth was not calculated for Cycle 27. The reference bank was not measured by dilution. Dynamic Rod Worth Measurements is being used to determine rod worths. There is no requirement or acceptance criterion for determination of the Differential Boron Worth. The boron endpoint measurement described above is adequate to determine if the differential boron worth assumption in the model is accurate.
ISOTHERMAL TEMPERATURE COEFFICIENT The measurement of the isothermal temperature coefficient was accomplished by monitoring reactivity while cooling down and heating up the reactor by manual control of the steam dump valves. The temperature change, reactivity change, and the temperature coefficient were obtained from the reactivity computer temperature coefficient analysis results.
Core conditions at the time of the measurement were Bank D slightly inserted, all other RCCA banks full out. These conditions approximate the Hot Zero Power (HZP), ARO core condition, which yields the most conservative (least negative) isothermal temperature coefficient measurement. -The review criterion of +3 PCM/0F was met. The Isothermal Temperature Coefficient (ITC) data is presented below:
Cooldown Tave Bank D Boron 545.3 °F -
190 Steps 2214 ppm Measured ITC (PCMI/F)
-2.03 Predicted ITC
. (PCM/°F)
-2.69 Difference (PCM/°F) 0.66 Heat Up Tave Bank D Boron 546.7 0 F 190 Steps 2214 ppm Measured ITC (PCM/0F)
-2.58 Predicted ITC (PCM/0F)
-2.69 Difference (PCM/0F) 0.11 Page 3 of 7
POWER DISTRIBUTION
- 1. Summary of Power Distribution Criteria Power distribution predictions are verified through data recorded using the incore detector system and processed through the INCORE computer code. The computer code calculates Hot Channel Factors Under'Equilibrium Conditions (FoEQ) and Nuclear Enthalpy Rise Hot Channel Factor (FAHN), which are limited by technical specifications.
These parameters are defined as the acceptance criteria on a flux map.
The review criterion for measurement is that the percent differences of the normalized reaction rate integrals of symmetric thimbles do not exceed 10 percent at low power physics test conditions and 6 percent at equilibrium conditions.
The review criterion for the prediction is that the standard deviation of the percent differences between measured and predicted reaction rate integrals does not exceed 5 percent.
The review criteria for the INCORE calculated quadrant powers are that the quadrant tilt is less than 4 percent at low power physics test'conditions and less than 2 percent at equilibrium conditions.
A summary of the review criteria is presented in Table 1.
- 2. Power Distribution Measurements Comparisons of measured to predicted power distributions for the flux maps are exhibited in the Tables below.
- Table 2 contains the startup and flux map chronology.
- Table 3 identifies flux map peak FHN and minimum margin F020 for Westinghouse 422V+ fuel.
These tables address acceptance criteria by verifying that technical specification limits are not exceeded. The Cycle 27 startup flux maps met all acceptance criteria.
Page 4 of 7
Table 1 Verification of Review Criteria Flux Map 2701 2702 2703 (a) Maximum Percent Difference 2.9 3.6 3.4 3.5 (b) Standard Deviation (c) Percent Max.
Quadrant Tilt 2.29 1.28 2.09 1.41 2.76 1.73 2704 2.29 1.58 2705 2.8 2.35 1.44 (a)
Maximum Percent Difference between symmetric thimbles for measured reaction rate integrals. From INCORE edit C-DRR, maximum positive value. Review criterion is 10 percent at low power. Review criterion is 6 percent at equilibrium power.
(b)
Standard Deviation of the percent difference between measured and predicted reaction rate integrals. From INCORE edit C-DRR at the bottom. Review criterion is 5 percent.
(c)
Percent Maximum Quadrant Tilt from normalized calculated quadrant powers.
From INCORE edit E-SUM, maximum positive value. Review criteria are 4 percent at low power and 2 percent at equilibrium power.
Page 5 of 7
Table 2 Flux Map Chronology and Reactor Characteristics Percent Boron D Rods Exposure Map Date Power Xenon PPM Steps MDW/MTU 2701 12/05/04 28.9 EQ 1927 154 15 2702 12/07/04 48.4 EQ 1729 163 40 2703 12/11/04 89.4 EQ 1669 209 147 2704 12/15/04 100.0 EQ 1506 226 262 2705 12/16/04 99.9 EQ 1485 226 349 Page 6 of 7
F Table 3 Verification of Acceptance Criteria for Westinghouse 422V+ Fuel
'lux Map Core Location FDHN Limit 2701 1-11 (DE) 1.61 2.06 2702 1-11 (DE) 1.60 1.96 2703 L-7 (JD) 1.59 1.75 2704 L-7 (JD) 1.59 1.70 2705 L-7 (JD) 1.59 1.70 Flux Map 2701 2702 2703 2704 2705 Core Location G-12 (DE), 26 L-7 (JD), 26 L-7 (XX), 23 L-7 (XX), 36 L-7 (XX), 37 FQEQ 2.33 2.29.
2.07 2.11 2.10 Limit 4.56 4.56 2.52 2.30 2.30 Page 7,of 7