ML11216A229
| ML11216A229 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Summer  |
| Issue date: | 12/02/2008 |
| From: | NRC/HR/ADHRTD/RTTB-PWR |
| To: | |
| References | |
| Download: ML11216A229 (36) | |
Text
V.C. Summer Inadvertent Criticality 1
y Section 7.2
- Briefly discuss the V.C. Summer startup accident.
- Explain the causes of the accident.
Learning Objectives 2
- Explain the safety implications of the accident.
- Explain what procedural limitations and administrative controls should have prevented this accident.
=
Background===
- 3-loop W plant in South Carolina.
- Commercial operation began 1982.
- In Feb 1985 the plant had been 3
- In Feb. 1985, the plant had been operating intermittently.
- 2/28/85, during a startup, the Rx tripped due to unexpected criticality.
- The plant had been operating intermittently during the previous month.
- ECP was 168 steps on control bank D.
Summary of Event (Section 7.2.1) 4 p
- SS directed trainee to w/draw rods to 100 steps on control bank D.
- The trainee only watched rod positions while withdrawing control banks.
- When power reached P-6, SS blocked SR Summary of Event (continued - 1 )
5 high flux trip.
- Rx tripped w/ CB-D @ 76 steps.
- Rx tripped on high positive flux rate.
- When Rx tripped, power was ~ 6%.
- 16 - 17 dpm Startup rate (SUR).
Causes (Section 7.2.2)
- Failure to Follow Procedures.
- Incorrect Calculation of the Estimated Critical Rod Position (ECRP).
6
(
)
- Inadequate Training / Experience Level of Trainee.
- Inadequate Supervision of Trainee by Shift Supervisor (an SRO).
Failure to Follow Procedures
- Licensed Operator (the SS) responsible for the S/U failed to monitor excore NIs for indications of criticality when positive 7
reactivity was being added (as required by procedures).
- The SS blocked the SR reactor trip when P-6 permissive was received w/o noticing the rate at which power was increasing.
Incorrect Calculation of the ECP
- The calculation (power block method) for predicting Xe and Sm reactivity worth can produce significant errors when the Rx had recently been operating at widely varying power Xe Sm 8
recently been operating at widely varying power levels. Rx had been critical 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> before S/U.
The calculation used MOL Rod Worth Curves rather than BOL curves. The licensees procedure lacked guidance regarding when to change to the MOL Rod Worth Curves.
Inadequate Training /
Experience Level of Trainee.
- Trainee had no prior plant or simulator startup experience.
- Trainee did not know the indications for a 9
critical Rx.
Trainee did not know that procedures required the excore NIs should be monitored for indications of criticality any time positive reactivity is being added to the core.
Critical
Inadequate Supervision of Trainee
- SS was responsible for:
- the Rx S/U (bringing the Rx critical),
- the startup activities for the entire control 10 p
room staff as well as S/U activities, and
- supervision of trainee.
Consequences
- Rx tripped w/ CB D @ 76 steps.
- Rx tripped on high positive flux rate.
- When Rx tripped power was ~ 6%
11 When Rx tripped, power was 6%.
- 16 - 17 dpm SUR.
- Rx was critical w/ CB D @ ~ 40 steps.
- No fuel damage.
Safety Implications (Section 7.2.3)
- Uncontrolled rod withdrawal while subcritical was an analyzed event in FSAR.
- FSAR assumed reactivity addition rate of 12 105 pcm/sec. Actual was 10 pcm/sec.
- FSAR assumed trip on high flux low setpoint (35% @ Summer) rather that high positive flux rate.
Safety Implications (Continued)
- No fuel or cladding damage.
- DNBR remained above limit.
- Rods were > RIL when critical 13 Rods were > RIL when critical.
Procedural Limitations & Administrative Controls that Should Have Prevented the Inadvertent Criticality.
- Operators monitoring excore NIs for indications of criticality when positive reactivity was being added.
14
- Operators anticipating criticality whenever positive reactivity is being added.
Procedural Limitations & Administrative Controls that Should Have Prevented the Inadvertent Criticality. (cont-1)
- Proper supervision of trainee by licensed operators.
- Adequate training / experience of trainee 15 q
g p
prior to performing tasks.
Procedural Limitations & Administrative Controls that Should Have Prevented the Inadvertent Criticality (cont-2)
- Procedural guidance stating that the accuracy of the ECRP calculation is limited when the Rx had recently been 16 operating at widely varying power levels.
- Procedural guidance for changing to MOL rod worth curves from BOL curves.
Corrective Actions
- Procedural inadequacies addressed.
- Inverse multiplication plots used for subsequent startups 17 q
p
- to predict criticality
- to verify accuracy of ECP.
- A quick review of inverse multiplication plots.
Subcritical Reactor
- The equation for Keff does not account for source neutrons because the number of neutrons are insignificant when compared to the number of fission 18 when compared to the number of fission neutrons in a critical reactor.
K of neutrons in this generation of neutrons in the previous generation K
N N
effective eff
=
=
0
Subcritical Multiplication
- Definition: the increase in neutron population in a subcritical reactor.
- The population increase is caused by the 19 y
addition of positive reactivity.
- Adding fuel during refueling evolutions.
- Withdrawal of control rods
- Boron concentration dilution.
Equilibrium Neutron Level in a Subcritical Reactor CR S
=
(
)
1 20 ff
(
)
CR: Count Rate (total neutron level in counts per second).
S: source neutron level in counts per second.
Keff must be < 1.
Subcritical Multiplication Factor
- If we add positive reactivity, Keff gets closer to 1 and Rx is closer to being critical.
CR S
S CR Keff 1
1 1
1 1
1
=
=
(
)
21 K
CR S
K S
CR K
But S S
eff ff eff eff 1
2 2
2 2
2 2
1 2
1 1
1
=
=
=
(
)
(
)
(
)
(
)
A Little Algebra CR S
K S
CR K
CR S
K S
CR K
eff eff ff eff 1
1 1
1 1
1 2
2 2
2 2
2 1
1 1
1
=
=
=
=
(
)
(
)
(
)
(
)
22 K
But S S
So CR K
CR K
or CR CR K
K eff eff eff eff eff 2
1 2
1 1
2 2
2 1
1 2
1 1
1 1
1
=
=
=
(
)
(
)
(
)
(
)
(
)
Subcritical Multiplication Factor (M)
M K
K eff
=
(
)
(
)
1 1
1 23 K
M CR CR eff
=
(
)
1 2
2 1
Plots M
K K
CR eff eff
=
(
)
(
)
1 1
1 2
2 24 Keff M
As + reactivity is added, Keff 2 approaches 1.
M approaches infinity. Can not plot it.
1.0 M
CR CR
=
2 1
Plots (continued) 1 M
1.0 M
K K
CR eff eff
=
(
)
(
)
1 1
1 2
2 25 Keff M
As + reactivity is added, Keff 2 approaches 1.
1/M approaches zero.
1.0 M
CR CR
=
2 1
Example of 1/M Data RCCA CR 1/M A@0 18 1.00 A@131 20 0 90 26 A@131 20 0.90 B@131 31 0.58 C@118 55 0.33
1/M Plot 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 27 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 A@0 A@131 B@131 C@118 D@130
Reactivity Management Problems TABLE 7.2-1 Incorrect ECRPs Date 5/11/85 Plant V.C. Summer Primary Cause Incorrect ECRP, went critical below the RIL, inverse multiplication plot failed to identify error.
28 5/17/85 8/23/84 5/12/84 10/31/84 5/15/85 McGuire 2 Turkey Point 3 Turkey Point 3 Turkey Point 4 Turkey Point 3 u p ca o p o a ed o de y e o Incorrect ECRP, went critical below the RIL, error caused by incorrect Xenon worth program.
Incorrect ECRP, went critical 85 steps below ECRP, calculation error.
Incorrect ECRP, went critical 145 steps below ECRP, calculation error.
Unable to achieve criticality, calculation error resulted in improper boron addition to RCS.
Incorrect ECRP, used wrong RCS temperature in calculation (525°F vs. 535°F)
Recent Problems
- Fitzpatrick (BWR-4) 3/1997 @ 100%.
- Performing rod coupling check.
- RO looked at wrong position indication for 29 g p selected rod.
- Selected rod at mid-plane
- Withdrew rod until auto rod block at 101%.
Recent Problems (continued - 1)
- Zion (4-loop W ) 2/1997. Rx shutdown to Mode 3 in progress due to CS pump LCO expired.
30
- RO continuously inserted rods (~ 4 minutes) until < POAH.
- Rods below RIL.
- Rx went subcritical.
- Operator withdrew rods (~ 2 minutes) to restore power to POAH.
Recent Problems (continued - 2)
- Beaver Valley (3-loop W) 3/1996.
- Shutdown in progress.
- Concurrent rod drop testing in progress.
31 p
g p
g
- RO withdrew rods trying to maintain no-load Tave.
- 0.95 SUR occurred.
- Briefly discuss the V.C. Summer startup accident.
- Explain the causes of the accident.
Review Learning Objectives Obj-2 32
- Explain the safety implications of the accident.
- Explain what procedural limitations and administrative controls should have prevented this accident.
Obj-3 Obj-4
Questions?
33
Equivalent Power for Xe Calculations 34
Equivalent Power for Sm Calculations 35
Indications that the Rx is Critical
- Increasing neutron population.
- Constant, positive startup rate.
- No reactivity addition:
36
- no rod motion.
- no change in boron concentration.