ML17229A675
| 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 DOCKET ¹ FACIL:50-335 St. Lucie Plant, Unit 1, Florida Power & Light Co. 05000335
~
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
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 COPIES RECIPIENT COPIES ID CODE/NAME LTTR ENCL ID CODE/NAME LTTR ENCL PD2-3 PD 1 1 GLEAVES,W 1 1 INTERNAL: ACRS 1 1 E CENTER 1 1 NRR/DSSA/SRXB/B 1 1 ILE 01 1 l.
EXTERNAL: NOAC 1 1. NRC PDR 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 April 2, 1998 L-98-094 FPL 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 of plant 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 PDR an FPL Group company
STARTUP- TEST REPORT
ST. LUCIE UNIT 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 D >/~~ aZ Lourdes M. Porro Reactor Engineering, St. Lucie Plant 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, Introduction 4 II Cycle 15 Fuel Design 5 III CEA Drop Time Testing 6 IV Approach to Criticality 7 V Zero Power Physics Testing 8 VI Power Ascension Program 10.
VII Steam Generator Testing 11 VIII Summary 17.
IX References 18 1 Cycle 15 Core Loading Pattern 19 2 Inverse Count Ratio Plot- Channel B 20 3 Inverse Count Ratio Plot- Channel D 21 4 Power Distribution - 25% Power 22 5 Power Distribution - 50% Power 23 6 Power Distribution - 98% Power 24 7 Average RSG Differential Pressure vs. Power 25 8 Comparison of S/G Drum Pressure vs. Power 26 9 Rx Vessel Differential Pressure vs. Power 27 10 Measured TcoLD and THo7 vs. Expected 28 11 RCP Differential Pressure vs. Flow 29 12 TAvo/T~F vs. Power 30 13 First Stage Pressure Comparison. 31 14 No. 4 Governor Valve Position 32 15 Gross Electrical Output vs. Predicted 33
St. Lucie Unit 1, Cycle 15 Startup Physics Testing Report nt Cycle 15 Reload Sub-Batch ID 34 Approach to Criticality 35 CEA Group Worth Summary 36
wl St, Lucie Unit 1, Cycle 15 Startup Physics Testing Report The purpose of this report is to provide a description of the fuel design and core load, and to summarize the startup testing performed at St. Lucie Unit 1 following the cycle 15 refueling and steam generator replacement outage. The Startup testing verifies key core and plant parameters are as predicted. The major parts of this testing program include:
- 1) Initial criticality following refueling,
- 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 of the original steam generators during the refueling outage may have significantly altered the thermal or hydraulic performance of the 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 of the 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 of fuel manufactured by Siemens Power Corporation (SPC).
The 217 assemblies of the cycle 15 core are comprised of fuel from three batches. Of these, 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 of operation utilizing gadolinium in the form of Gdz03, as a burnable neutron absorber, coupled with the use of natural uranium-blankets at the top and bottom of each fuel assembly. The entire cycle 15 fuel load, batches S, T,and U, consist of the 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 of the 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 of standard reload enrichments and each of the 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 of this test is to measure the time of insertion from the fully withdrawn position (upper electrical limit) to the 90% inserted position under hot, full flow conditions. 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. All drop times were within the 3.1 second requirement of technical 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 criticality involved 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.
Initial criticality 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.
St, Lucie Unit 1, Cycle 15 0
Startup Physics Testing Report V. h To ensure that the operating characteristics of the cycle 15 core were consistent with the design predictions, the following tests were performed:
- 1) Reactivity Computer Checkout;
- 2) Dual CEDM Symmetry Test;
- 3) All Rods 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 of two tests.
In the first, reactor power was elevated sufficiently high to ensure maximum sensitivity of the 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 of positive or negative reactivity by measuring the values of positive or negative reactor periods that result. The results of the reactivity computer checkout were compared to the appropriate predictions supplied in the reload PC/M 97-055 (Reference 7). Satisfactory agreement was obtained.
Verification of proper CEA latching is confirmed through the use of a 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 of the 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 of the 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 of the 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 of the design MTC of 3.38 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 of interest for zero power physics testing is in the measurement of CEA 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 of the remaining test groups. A comparison of the measured and design CEA reactivity worths is provided in Table 3. The following acceptance criteria applies to the measurements made:
- 1) . The measured value of each test group, or supergroup measured, is within+15% or+100 pcm of its corresponding design CEA worths, whichever is greater and,
~ ..
St. Lucie Unit 1, Cycle Staitup Physics Testing Report 15
~
- 2) The worth of the reference group and the total worth for all the CEA groups measured is within+ 10/0 of the total design worth.
All acceptance 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 of the "A"Linear ~
Range nuclear instrument channel detector.
A summary of the flux maps 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 of the power ascension, the acceptance criteria requires the RMS. value of the 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% of the predicted power (both) and the relative power density (RPD) should be within 0.1 RPD units of predicted 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 of calculating the RCS flow rate. The RCS flow rate 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 flow was due to the replacement of the steam generators and was well in excess of the Technical Specification minimum of 345,000 gpm.
Within seven effective full power days of attaining the equilibrium value of 100% power, a hot full power (HFP) MTC test was performed by maintaining power constant and varying temperature. The center CEA (7-1) was operated to permit compensation of the 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 of explicitly calculated 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 of plant performance.
The return to service testing was comprised of two discreet types of testing; post work testing .
and performance testing., Testing of many of the individual components impacted by the installation of the 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 of the RSGs during the plant start-up.
~ To provide a vehicle to assess the status of associated work ensuring system and equipment readiness in support of mode specific plant operational evolutions.
~ To collect sufficient operational data during the power ascension to provide a comprehensive baseline for evaluation of RSG 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) flow based on Reactor Vessel differential pressure to be used for low flow trip set points and Tech. Spec. minimum flow in the interim period from Mode 2 through full power.
~ To demonstrate the capability of the Steam Generator Blowdown (SGB) system to pass saturated liquid at the design flow during Hot Stand-by (HSB) operation by validating the sub-cooling margin available at the RSG blowdown nozzles with respect to design assumptions.
Performance of the 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 flow was also monitored and is discussed below. The performance data is reflected in the attached graphs.
11
~ ~
~ St. Lucie
.. Unit 1, Cycle Startup Physics Testing Report 15
~
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 flow with power. The ABB-CE model predicted a measured full power differential pressure of 25 psid at an anticipated measured flow of 413,508 gpm. This compares to actual average measured differential pressure of 28.5 psid at a corresponding flow of 407,206 gpm. The higher than predicted differential pressure appears consistent with the slightly lower than predicted primary flow within the accuracy of the analytical model.
Figure 8 is a comparison of the St. Lucie, Unit 1 (PSL-1), RSG secondary side steam pressure .
performance with ABB-CE and BWI predictions 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 of Millstone, but below the predictions of both 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 flow in Mode 3. The ABB-CE model predicted that indicated hot full power (HFP) Reactor Vessel differential pressure would be 33.9 psid at the anticipated flow of 413,508 gpm. The measured differential pressure loss, 32.5 psid, using the average of the 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 of the lower than predicted RCS flow. Full power dT was predicted to be 45.5 'F (based on bulk THpT) compared to a measured bT of 47.1'F (corrected for hot leg stratification of 4.5 '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 of 72.5 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 full power, representing an increase of 1.7 ft of pump head and agrees with the ABB-CE predicted decrease of RCS flow with 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 of primary 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 if compared to TAvG and, necessary, adjusted to equal TAvG. The predicted HFP TREF was 574.17
'F, based on an HFP turbine first stage pressure of 562 psia, and TAvG based on predicted RCS flow. As can be seen on the graph, at conditions very close to full power, 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 of TAvG 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 of the same parameter. This was brought to the attention of ISAAC 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 of 907.7 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/hr per steam generator at 100 lo power. Data was collected after a period of greater 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 of the test, steam generator blowdown was isolated so that the feedwater flow rate was equal to the steam generation rate. This method is used since the feedwater flow instruments are much more accurate than the steam flow instruments. The steam generation rate, corrected to the full power condition, was determined to be 5.904 and 5.954 Mlbm/hr for 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 flow was 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 flow was determined to be 407,206 gpm, reference 6. This compares favorably (within 1.5/o) to the predicted flow of 413,508 gpm. This value compares with a Technical Specification minimum flow of 345,000 gpm and a maximum flow limit of 423,555 gpm accounting for measurement uncertainty (14,945 gpm).
The resultant RCS flow was in large part determined by the RSG primary side differential pressure. To ensure that the post steam generator replacement RCS flow would meet the minimum requirements, with margin for future plugging, a maximum differential pressure of 41 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 of 35 psid. As such, the unplugged RSGs meet the design specification value for maximum pressure loss of 41 psid at 70,000,000 ibm/hr (370,000 gpm) at full power. This satisfies the requirement discussed in Section 10.6.2 of the Stand Alone Safety Evaluation, reference 16, to verify that RSG primary side pressure drop is within the specified values.
The low power 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 of THor is specified in the RSG Operating and Maintenance Manual . At the full power 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 of 865.5 (S/G 1A) and 868 psia (S/G 1B), corrected to full power conditions, verifies the RSGs meet the performance guarantee.
The RCS low flow reactor 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 flow measurement 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 of RCS flow was required. Since the flow resistance of the reactor vessel had not changed significantly for several cycles, measured flow could be predicted using the historical relationship between measured flow and reactor vessel differential pressure. This method produced a HZP flow measurement of 413,026 gpm. This 14
~ ~
St. Lucie Unit 1, Cycle 15 Startup Physics Testing Report t
value compared well with the ABB-CE estimate of 415,862 gpm at HZP. The measured flow value was reduced for conservatism to 398,081 gpm, and this lower flow value was used in the derivation of initial RCS low flow trip set points and the Tech. Spec. minimum flow verification values.
The next flow measurement was performed at the 80% power plateau in accordance with the normal calorimetric method." This measurement produced a flow of 414,977 gpm. A review 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.
At HFP, the calorimetric flow determination was again performed and the RCS flow determined to be 407,206 gpm. Based on historical flow measurements, this number appeared low.
However, the method of determining the hot leg stratification factor had changed based on information Rom ABB-CE. A 0.4 'F bias was added to the calculation of THoz which reduced the calculated measured flow by approximately 3,100 gpm. Since the predicted flow was, in part, affected by the benchmarking to past flow measurements it is appropriate to apply this recommended bias to the predicted flow to make a valid comparison of the cycle 15 measured to predicted flow. The corrected predicted flow is 410,408 gpm. This compares very well to the measured flow of 407,206 gpm.
Due to the conservative method of deriving the low flow trip 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 flow trip set-points or the Tech. Spec. Minimum Flow values.
A test of the Steam Generator Blowdown System was performed at Mode 3, NOP/NOT, conditions to demonstrate the amount of sub-cooling available at the inlet to the Closed Blowdown Heat Exchanger (CBHX). The test was performed for S/G 1A only. SGB flow had 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 flow of 115 gpm per S/G in Mode 3. This corresponds to a blowdown nozzle flow of 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 flow of 115 gpm. Based on this result, the system flow limit was reestablished at the design flow for all operating conditions.
The absence of primary 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 of this testing. All performance guarantees within the scope of the 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 of the 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) "Initial Criticality, " 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 of Plant 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 U57 U46 T07 S28 S53 102 105 S65 T26 U48 U65 T18 T40 T16 T93 U54 T14 S67 c 137 92 302 136 82 S63 T23 U61 T36 U11 T56 U18 T31 T41 T09 S62 s 201 139 107 93 138 204 S56 T17 T42 S05 U2 U21 T85 U31 U4 S02 U62 T15 S38 81 94 96 142 S25 U55 T35 U5 S07 T86 U32 S19 U10 S04 U6 T34 U42 S16 141 123 127 140 T03 T94 T84 U39 T80 T90 T47 U13 T53 T83 T70 U26 U66 T08 143 F01 114 103 113 97 79 S36 S33 U56 T19 U27 T68 U23 T48 U24 T60 U17 T46 U20 T63 U9 T20 U44 89 88 99 132 91 90 S43 S42 U58 T33 T54 T57 S17 U30 T82 S22 T89 U16 S18 T92 T52 T37 U59 301 109 135 104 303 S46 S47 U51 T21 U15 T72 U37 T51 U35 T67 U29 T50 U40 T62 U28 U52 120 119 F02 87 122 121 S29 S32 T04 U67 T69 U25 T91 T73 T49 U34 T55 T59 T87 U14 T65 T95 T02 83 131 100 110 98 112 80 S15 U49 T32 U7 S03 T66 U38 S24 U12 T64 S08 U1 T30 U50 S26 128 95 85 126 S37 T12 U63 S01 U8 U19 T58 U33 U3 S06 T43 T28 S55 125 115 116 124 S66 T10 T44 T39 T61 U22 T45 U36 T88 T38 U64 T25 S68 203 130 106 118 129 205 S61 T24 U45 T96 T29 T13 U68 U47 T11 S64 134 117 304 133 101 S54 S27 T06 U41 U60 U53 T05 S11 S40 108 111 S30 S41 S44 S31 Page 19
)QQ(
yy
~
~ Ssearnbty Insert ¹
¹
~ ~
St. Lucie Unit1, Cycle 15 Startup Physics Testing Report t
Figure 2 Inverse Count Ratio Plot - Channel "8" t'I Cl CV C)
Ct Ct Ct CI CI Cl IA CI IA CI Cl Cl CV CI Ill O p C T tl "4 CI CI ED lA CI ED Ill O
~ 0 CI
+ ye CI CI ED o
CI CI C9 o CV Cl o o CI HHOl Page 20
~ ~
St. Lucie Unit 1, Cycle 15 Startup Physics Testing Report Figure 3 t
Inverse Count Ratio Plot - Channel "D" o CI o o ID O
CI III C9 O
CI Cl 04 Cl ID III CI T
Cl Cl ID OI CI lO O
ED IA o C4 Cl CI CI 880l Page 21
~ ~
~
St. Lucie Unit1, Cycle 15 Startup Physics Testing Report Figure 4 Power Distribution -25% Power un!I X"',13 Measured: BEACON Design:
Source 141'1041$ 0S4S",",!
'last 'IFJFal'1 44;)
I ower Leuc! 'nay. 4-;"- ".",!
I7.44'K'~A'- -- 0 0 I
0 I
0 I
k I
K I
4 I
Ia I
0 I
WT 116 115 114 0250 OJ20 IU20 rk250 0241 IUI 4 IUI4 rk241 OAOS L006 OAN6 0003 02 1.9 1.9 3A 213 112 211 110 209 20$ 207 106 10$
OA20 OAOO IA50 IA60 I.OIO 0.790 OAOO 0.110 0211 OA09 0.7$ 0 IACO IOI I IACT 0.77$ 039S 0.216 0007 O.el I OAI20 0010 0.019 OAILS IKOIS 0.002 LOIN 30 2.6 15 18 IA U 1.9 05 ID 104 202 101 100 199 194 197 196 195 194 L190 0.790 IAXO L130 IDTO ID10 ID60 1.110 IAITO 0.7$ 0 0290 IL1$6 O.TTI !$66 I.IOI ID59 ID33 IDSS IA8$ IA56 0763 024 OAO4 0019 OAC4 1102C 0011 4AII3 OANS IN!2 Ikon . INIT OAO6 IA 1.1 0$ ~ I AI OA Ll ID 2.1 193 191 Itl 190 1st ISS 1$ 7 146 145 144 143 1$ 2 ISI L290 OJOO I.I le IJ40 I JSO I J30 IDSO IJle IJCO I J30 1.100 0410 Ik190 IU$4 0,793 IA82 I Jll I JTC I J31 I D67 I J30 I JTI I J24 IANC Ik793 IU$6 OAO6 OAOT OAII4 OAO9 OAOI asl7 ael0 ael I L006 IN14 Ikelr OAO4 2.1 0.9 IA 0.7 OD a2 ~ ID a9 IKS ID 2.1 IA 140 179 174 ITT 176 ITS 14 ITS IT2 IT I 170 169 164 167 166 OJ20 0770 1.100 I.1 10 I J60 1.190 IDOO IDIO IDOO 1.190 I JCO I.I le 1.110 OJOO 0J30 OJ 1 6 IKT63 IAN6 1.107 IDSS 1.195 ID IS ID31 ID16 1.196 I JSI 1.107 IA82 0.771 0J23 OAOI OAOT 0.014 0003 OAOS a00$ a01$ aell a016 AIAO6 IUN4 LOkl 0024 0029 OAOT IJ 0.9 ID OA a4 ~ IA ~ 1.2 es OD 1$ 3AI ICS ICI 163 141 161 160 159 15$ 1$ 7 156 ISS 154 1$3 152 ISI OAOO IAITO I J20 IJSO I JOO IDIO 1.150 IAKN 1.160 ID20 IJIO I J70 I JSO LIOO OA20 ODTS IA56 IJ14 I JS4 I JIC I J1$ 1.164 IAllt U69 ID33 IJIC I JSS I J31 IAXiC L409 OAO2 OA14 aANI aAIC AAIIS ael4 aelt asl3 LOIS 0019 0034 0011 05 ID aD ~ U ~ IA .1.2 ~ 18 ~ Ie aS IJ IS Ll LC Y 150 149 14$ 147 14C 145 144 143 141 141 140 139 134 137 136 O.TSO IDIO I JCO 1.190 IDIO IDIO I JCO 1.110 I JCO ID40 ID10 I JOO I Jte L130 0410 ~ I I 0.77$ IA8$ I JTI 1.194 ID33 ID92 I JTC 1.122 IJTS ID91 ID24 1.19$ I JTC LTSO OANS 0011 ael I ao06 a023 AAI22 a014 a011 ao le asl1 AIAOS OAK5 IN14 I.IOI'20 0030 135 0.6 1.1 as ~ IJ ~ IA ~ U ~ I.l ~ IA at aC OA 1.1 3.7 134 IVSO Ia 0241 133 131 131 130 129 114 127 126 125 124 123 121 121 119 OJ42 OAK8 IAue IDIO IJ20 I Jte 1.150 IJCO 1.140 I JSO 1.160 IJSO 1.150 IDOO I J40 IDSO IANO 3A I 827 ID5S IJ30 IDI6 1.169 I JTS 1.172 I J45 1,172 I J76 1.164 ID15 IJ32 IDS9 IACO 31 INI3 005 as le a02c a019 aels a011 aeI 5 aell a026 AAII~ aors OAXN 0.011 rkelo Ils ID OA .I.T .IA .IAI .I J ~ IAI -1.1 .1.1 ~ I.'2 15 IL120 ~ DO OD14 116 115 114 I LS 111 Ill 110 II8 10$ 107 106 105 104 103 102 43 I ~
OAN6 IA60 ID30 IDSO IDIO IANO I.lie IJSO IAI I J40 1.100 IAOO IDIO IDSO ID30 I Arle ~ eoa I.' IOII ID33 ID67 ID31 I Alit 1.122 IJCS IAC3 I JCS 1.122 IAII9 ID31 IJ47 ID33 IN!I I~
0019 ao03 aeI7 ae21 aol'9 a012 aeI5 a013 aols aelt a021 as IT IN19 IOI IJ ~ U ~ IA ~ I.t ~ I.l ~ IJ .18 .I A -ID a2 LT Ice 0320 ~ D34 ea 0314 99 94 97 96 9$ 94 93 tl 91 44 47 16 $5 LlI 4 LIO6 IA50 IDTO I J30 IDOO 1,150 IJCO 1.160 I J40 1.150 I JSO 1.1$ 0 IJIO I J30 ID60 IA50 ~ eea 18 1.030 ID59 I J31 ID IS I.ICI I JTC 1.172 I J6$ 1,171 I JTS 1.169 ID 16 I J30 IDSS IAI27 I.'
0020 OAIII NAOS a01$ a$ 14 a016 a012 a02$ a021 aelt OANO OANS IN23 1.9 a2 ~ 1.2 ~ 1.2 ~ ID ~ 2AI ~ ID ~ 2.1 ~ I.T ~ SAI OAI OA 1.1 0J50 LLee Ik242 $2 $1 $0 79 7$ 77 76 7$ 4 73 71 Tl 70 69 L141 OANS 0400 1.120 I JTO 1.190 IDIO IDIO USO I.ISO I J40 IDCO IDOO 1.1$0 I JTO I.I IO OAK8 0740 1.101 I JTC 1.19S ID24 I Jt2 IJTS I.1 21 I JT6 ID92 ID33 1.194 I JTI IA8$ ILTTS 36 OACO INIC AIANC aAK5 a014 ae22 arcs a011 a036 a032 aAC3 ael6 aeel 0012 INI5 15 IA .IA ~ IA ~ 2J -1.9 -1A .2$ ~ IA al 1.1 Ia 67 66 6$ 64 63 62 41 40 59 51 S7 $6 55 54 $3 OA20 I 480 I J40 IJCO I JIO ID20, 1.150 Ltte I.I40 IDOO 1.190 I JSO IJ20 IANO OAI0 OA09 IA66 I J31 IJSS I JIC I J33 LI69 IAl9 1.144 ID24 IJIC IJ54 I J4 IA56 IV9$
eel l OAC4 OAK8 OAK5 BLANC ael3 ac!9 a014 aelc aoel AIAOI IN14 OAI12 2A L2 LT OA ae ~ I AI ~ I.T -1.9 ~ 2.1 ~ 2.1 1.2 1.9 52 51 50 lt 44 47 4C 4$ 4 41 41 lt 1$
0 JIO 0740 1.110 I.I IO IJCO 1.190 IJte IDOO I Jte I.ISO I JSO 1.100 1.100 0740 IV10 0J23 0.771 IA81 1.107 I J54 1.196 I JI6 ID31 ID15 1.19$ I JSS 1.107 IAO6 0743 IVI6 OAOT 0009 OAII4 0003 0.006 a006 a031 a025 ael5 a00$ lk014 OAIIT OAOI 30 1.2 IA OD es aJ -2.0 .1A ~ 1.9 ~ ID a4 AI,6 ID Ll ID 37 16 35 33 31 31 30 19 24 17 2$
Ik290 0400 1.100 I J30 I J70 IJle IDSO I J30 I JTO IJ40 1.110 0290 0246 L793 IANC IJSI I JTI I J30 ID67 IJ32 I JTC IJ31 IA81 0244 OAOI OAO7 0014 0.006 ace l ael0 ael7 aAO2 OAN9 INIS OAN6 IA 0.9 ID es al ~ ID as LT IA 2.1 4 23 12 11 10 lt 14 17 IC IS 14 0290 LTSO IANO I.II 0 I J60 ID10 I J60 1.120 IA80 0790 Ik290 Ik763 IA56 IA8$ I D5S ID33 I D59 1.104 IACC ILTTI 021C OAN6 LOI7 OAC4 OAI2 OAOS ael3 OANI OAII6 0024 INI9 0004 LI 1.1 I.l OA .I Al Ikl IA 2.2 1A IA 13 11 II Ie 9 7 6 5 0220 OAI0 Ik790 IA50 IAXO IA50 0400 OA20 LSIC OD9$ ILTTS I ACT I AIII IACO 0,740 OA09 IV23 OAOI OAII1 OAII5 0023 OAlt IN20 0020 ON!I OANT ID 1.9 18 IJ 18 2$ IA 4 3 1 I L250 IV10 OD20 IL50 L41 IV14 OJ14 0242 NX8 OAN6 OAOC MXI 3A 18 18 SJ RMS Deviation: 1.57%
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
'01099$ '074Sp'esIgn:
MeMured: BEACON Source,lal Powtflbvol 'CL're,T PSI" IFJF477146" I
ti';tl:,'oronCone.
N IT433~ 2;.~;.~ R O N II L K 4 H 0 I I I I I I I 217 II 6 TI5 11 ~
LLKO, 0310 OD10 IL250 L24$ 1U1 IU1 IL147 M02 OANO OAKN LOOI IN IN M ID II3 2D Ill 210 209 240 a8 206 205 OD30 OA20 L$00 lb40 IA50 Ib30 12710 LAI 0 L210 0230 OAIT IL7$5 IAKN lAOS IAI2$ 0.7$ 0 OA06 IL223 MOO OAN3 INIS OJI 2 M12 OANS OAKN OAN4 4AN3 0.0 0.7 l.9 IJ I.I es lke 20 ~ IA 204 203 202 201 200 l99 Its ltl l94 l9S l94 ODOO MOO IA80 2120 ID50 IDIO ID40 I.100 IAITO 0.7$ 0 IL290 IU94 ILTSI IAITO LI01 ID4$ ID IT ID42 I ANT IJCI L774 lk293 OAN6 Reit IN20 O.el 4 OANS 4ANT a002 Mot MOC lb IA IJ LC 4.1 OD OJ ~ I AI l93 It1 l91 l90 1$ 9 I$$ I$7 l$6 ISS l$4 I$3 I$1 I4 I 0290 IDIO I.II 0 IJ40 IDTO ID20 ID40 IJ20 I J40 I D20 I.IOO Ll le 0300 L293 IUOS IA8$ I J30 I JTI IJ25 ID53 ID22 I J66 IDD IA82 OJ05 R294 LANS Obli able 4bel 4JD alXU M0$ OANS OAN6 OA I.I OJ al a4 ~ IAI 4S a2 0.7 OA lb
!$0 179 ITS I 77 176 ITS I74 ID 172 Ill ITO l69 16$ ICT l66 L110 L7$ 0 l.leo I.II 0 1.260 l.190 IDOO IDIO IDOO 1.190 IDCO I.II 0 1.110 0JOO IU30 0223 0.774 IA81 I.II 2 I JSS I.193 ID09 IDD ID09 I.I94 IJSI 1.111 IAI9$ IL7$ 1 L230 a003 0AN6 OAN$ 4AN2 OAK5 a003 4AN9 4JI 3 4AN9 4AKH OAN6 IN11 OJI 9 OAKN
~ IA OJ 0.7 4.2 aT .IAI 4.7 OS 4.2 lAI 1A Ob l6S l64 163 162 l61 l60 I 59 I 54 IST l56 15$ 1$ 4 I$3 IS2 l51 OAI0 IAKJ I J20 ID50 IDOO IDIO I.ICO Ibl0 I.ICO ID20 IJIO I JCO ID40 IA80 OA30 OA06 lb6l ID2l I JS4 IBIS IDD I.ICI IAI13 1.169 ID1$ IDIS I J5$ I J30 I J70 OAI7 L404 aeel a003 4ANI aol$ 4JI 3 4.Oil a009 4AKN 4ANS IL005 Ob le M20 OAID I Al 4.1 a2 4D ~ ID ~ I Al ~ ID w 4A a4 OA OJ IJ 30 l50 l49 14S 147 146 145 I44 141 142 l41 140 139 I3$ 137 136 0.7$ 0 I.IOO ID50 I.lie IDIO IDTO IDCO 1.120 IDCO IDTO IDIO 1.190 ID$0 1.120 0 JOO 0.7$ 0 IA87 I J66 1.194 ID1$ ID$4 I D73 I.124 I JT5 ID$4 IDD 1.193 IDTI 1.102 0.7$ S OANO RANI 4JI4 4b14 4bl4 4bl4 4JD 4J IS 4bl4 4AII3 4.003 OAX8 LOIS ILOI5 DS 0.0 IU ~ ID ~ I.2 ~ IA .Ib ~ 20 ~ 1.1 ~ IAI Le 0.7 IA Ib 134 IL250 R250 IU47 l33 I 31 lll 130 119 12$ !17 l26 l25 l4 123 121 lll 110 I lt OJ4$
M03 I JIO ID40 ID10 I Jte I.ISO I JCO I.ITO IDCO I.ITO I JCO I.ISO IDOO ID30 I J40 IA50 OAXO 1.2 IAI1S ID41 ID21 ID49 I.I69 I JTS I.I71 IJCS 1.172 IJ73 1.164 I J09 I J25 I J4$ IAI1$ OJ OAII5 a001 4AN2 4bl9 4JI 9 4JIS 4.005 a002 ael3 MOS OAIIS IL012 Ils IA al -IS ~ 1.7 ~ ID 4.2 a2 .Ib a7 OA I,I 1.1 OD30 IU30 OD10 I16 IIS 114 ll3 I11 III IIO l09 I OS IOT 106 10$ I4 I el l02 IU20 MI0 I JCO ID10 I D40 I JOO IJI0 1.120 IDCO IAkl IJ50 I.IIO IANO IDOO ID40 ID10 I JCO OJI0 lb3$ I Dl 7 ID53 ID23 IAI23 I.114 I JCS I J3$ I J4$ 1.124 I J21 I J23 IDD IDIT I J3$ 3b OJ21 OAKkl a013 4JD 4AI13 a01$ 4bl4 4b23 4b11 4AII3 OAKO L022 I0 I 1.1 OJ ~ IAI ~ IJ -ID ~ IJ ~ ID ~ 1D ~ IJ ~ I Al IL1 1.1 I 00 L330 R330 LI20 99 9$ tl 96 94 t3 t2 tl $$ $7 l4 $$ IU20 INIO IA50 I JCO ID30 IDOO I.ICO IJCO 1.170 ID50 I.ISO IDSO 1.150 I Jte I J20 IDSO Ibis Obis 3AI I J2$ I J4$ IJ2$ I J09 1.164 IJ73 1.172 I J6$ 1.171 IDTS 1.169 ID09 I J11 ID42 IAI2$ 3b M22 OAIIS LANS ao8 4JD 4AIIS 4JI1 4bl'9 4bl'I OANS LOIS Ll I.I OA at ~ IJ .IAI .2AI .1.7 ~ IS 4.2 ILC IA IL250
$1 $1 $0 79 7$ 77 76 4 73 72 Tl 70 6t 6$ IL247 L$00 I.lie IJTO 1.190 IDIO IDTO ID60 I.IIO ID50 ID60 I JI 0 I.lie IJCO I.II 0 0.790 MOI Ik74S 1.102 IDTI I.I93 LSD ID$4 IDTS 1,114 I J73 ID$4 ID2$ 1.194 IDCC IA87 IkT$0 OOI5 Leis 4ANI 4AKO 4JI3 4bl4 4JI 5 4bf4 4J14 aels 4bl4 O.OD O.OI0 I.'9 IA al ~ I Al ~ Ib ~ ID ~ ID .I J .I J ~ IA ~ IJ 1.2 ID 67 46 6S 64 63 42 41 60 59 57 SC SS $4 53 OA30 IA80 IJ40 I J40 IDIO IDIO LISO IANO I.ISO I JOO IDOO ID50 IJ20 IAITO IL410 OAI7 IAITO I D30 IJSS I JIS ID2$ 1.169 IAI13 I.IC4 I J21 ID IS I JD'003 Ib61 OA06 0013 OAKN LOI0 M05 4AN5 4JIS aolt 4b23 ael4 4b!5 OAN9 OANI 3AI IJ OJ OA a4 ~ IA ~ 1.7 -2D ~ ID ~ IJ ~ 23 a'2 OJ IAI 51 51 50 ~9 41 47 46 44 43 41 41 3$
IL230 I.IIO I,I le IDCO I.1 to ID90 ID00 ID90 I.lte I JSO I.I le I.IOO L7$ 0 L210 IL230 ILTSI IA8$ 1.111 I JSI 1.14 ID09 I JD IJ09 I.193 ID55 I.Ill IA81 0.774 0223 OANO 0.019 INI1 a001 OAN6 4.0 I 9 4bl9 4J03 aOOS 4002 OANS OAN6 a003 Ob 2A I.I OS ~ IS -I J -IS a4 a1 0.7 OJ .IA 37 36 3$ 3I D 12 31 30 19 2$ 17 25 IUOO 0320 I.II 0 IDIO IJCO IJ20 ID40 ID20 IJTO I J30 I.IIO lks le R290 Ik294 OJOS IA81 ID13 I JCC IJ22 ID53 ID25 IDTI ID30 IA8$ OJOS L293 OAN6 INI5 Ikel4 MOT a002 4JI3 4ANS 4JOI OJ00 LOI1 MOS 4AKKI IJ IA OA a2 ~ I Al a4 al 0.0 I.I OA ~ 1.0 24 D 22 11 20 l9 Is IT IC IS l4 ODOO 0.790 IANO I.I IO IDIO IDIO ID50 I.lie IA80 IL790 L300 IL293 IL774 I J61 IA87 ID42 ID l7 ISIS I.102 Ibis 0.7$ 1 R294 OANT OAII6 LOI'9 OAI3 4AN2 OANS LOIS OAI20 LOI8 OAN6 2D 20 IJ I.2 al OA IA IJ I.l IAl 13 11 II le t 4 7 6 5 OD30 OAI0 0.790 Ibis I 450 Ible L$00 OA20 L230 LTD OA06 ILTIO I J25 I J3$ IAI4 0.74S OAI7 L230 OANT OAX4 eblo MI5 0.012 IND O.OI$ OANl Ikeoe 3AI I Al ID IA I. I ID 1.9 0.7 OAI 4 I lk250 OJ20 0310 0.250 lk247 IU20 0320 IL244 eb03 OAXN 0000 OAKI2 ID OAI Le OJ RMS Deviation: 1.16%
Koy.
Page 23 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% 60'0% 80% 90% 100%
Power, %
Page 25
St. Lucie Unit 1, Cycle 15 Startup Physics Testing Report Figure 8 Comparison of S/G Drum Pressure vs Power 905 900 895 890
@r
~ 885 8
N
- o. 880 E
2 O M
~
g 875 -X ~
870 '
BB 865 860 855 0 25 50 75. 100 Power, %
~pBL % ABB Estimate - - <<e - -Millstone (Correotad) ->S- - BlM Estimate Page 26
St. Lu'cie Unit 1, Cycle 15 Startup Physics Testing Report Figure 9 Rx Vessel Differential Pressure vs Power 41 39 37 W PDI-1124W 4- - PDI-1124X
'0 ~ PDI-1124Y Q
o.
-- X --PDI-1124Z 2O 35
~Averege (All Four)
~Averege (X,Y,Z) 33 31 29 0% 10% ~ 20% 30% 40% 50 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Power,%
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 Measured T Cold Expected T Cold CL E
I-co 560 Corrected T Hot Expected T Hot 550 540 530 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Power,%
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 +RCP dP (Avg) o.
O o:
78 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/T Ref vs Power 575 570 565 560 IL r r
555 I-550 540 535 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70 80% 90% 100%
Power,%
~ - 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 err r 500.0 400.0 r
r C5
~
rr r
L 300.0 r O. ~
rw r
200.0 rw
~
100.0 0.0 21.86 48.69 74.14 99.81 Power, %
M- FS press (T Refj -re- - FS press (power) press (Messured) ee FS Page 31
St. Lucie Unit 1, Cycle 15 Startup Physics Testing Report Figure 14 No. 4 Governor Vaive Position 25 Cyde 14 20 Cyde 14 15 Cyde 13 Cyde 13 Cyde 13 Cyde 13 Cyde 13 10 Cyde 15 0
1/14/98 10/3/97 8/5/97 4/22/96 3/15/95 1/6/95 12/29/94 12/14/94 Date 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% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Power,%
& 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 Number of Assemblies Enrichment Sl 12 3.9 S2 3.88 S3 12. 3.81 S4 12 3.78 S5 3.79 4.45 20 4.45 16 4.45 T4 12 4.45 T5 40 4.45 Ul 4.10 U2 32 4.10 U3 16 4.45 U4 4.45 U5 4.45 U6 4.45
'Reference 7 34
s ~
~ St. Lucie Unit 1, Cycle 15 Startup Physics Testing Report Table 2 Approach to Criticality Dilution Rate Initial Boron Final Boron Dilution Time Concentration Concentration (minutes) 132 gpm 1835 1765 19 SS gpm 1765 1665 66 44 gpm 1665 1576 154 35
~ ..
St. Lucie Unit 1, Cycle Startup Physics Testing Report 15
~
Table 3 CEA Group Worth Summary CEA Group Measured Worth Design
- Worth Percent Difference (pcm) (pcm)
Reference Group A 811.32 786.00 -3.12 417.29 408.00 -2.23 595.07 562.00 -5.56 5 ' 670.02 661.00 -1;35 716.94 718.00 0.15 710.91 719.00 1.14 3 Ec4 725.98 737.00 1.52 Total -
4647.53 4591.00 -1.22
- Reference 5.
Percent difference = (Measured-Design)/(Measured) *100 36
C ~