ML18039A240

Bfnp Unit 2 Cycle 10 Power Ascension Test Program Start-Up Rept, for Period 970929-1105

ML18039A240
Person / Time
Site:	Browns Ferry
Issue date:	01/15/1998
From:	TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
To:
Shared Package
ML18039A239	List: ML18039A238 ML18039A240
References
NUDOCS 9801260436
Download: ML18039A240 (24)

Text

ENCLOSURE TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT (BFN)

UNIT 2 CYCLE 10 POWER ASCENSION TEST PROGRAM (PATP)

START-'UP REPORT (SEE ATTACHED)

'P801260436 9801'L5 PDR ADQCK 05000260 P

PDR'

il il

FINAlREFUELING TEST REPORT Unit 2 Cycle 10 Dates Performed: 09-29-97 through 11-05-97 Deficiencies:

There was 1 Test Deficiency associated with FSAR acceptance criteria.

The test deficiency is discussed in the Test Results section for 0-Tl-299 and in Appendix one.

Remarks:

This report will be submitted to the NRC per the requirements of TS 6.9.1.1, Startup Report, due to the installation of fuel that has a different design.

This cycle is the first reload, (216 bundles), of GE13 fuel assemblies.

This report addresses only those tests described in FSAR chapter 13.10 Refueling Test Program. Test results indicate that BFN Unit 2 systems are capable of meeting their design functions and that power operation can be safely and efficiently continued.

Prepared By:

riginator 0- 7 Date Submitted By:

I -2g tT esponsible Supervisor Date PORC Chairman Recommend Approval: laA R1 Date +

Approved By:

Plant Manager I z- -7 Date E-2

. ~

Il

FINALREFUELING TEST REPORT UNIT 2 CYCLE 10 INTRODUCTION During the Unit 2 CYcle 9 outage 216 fresh fuel assemblies were loaded into the This is the first use of the GE 13 fuel design at'FN.

Twelve control rod blades rePlaced.

This is the erst use of General Electric's Marathon control rod blade at BFN.

No control rod drives or local power range monitors were replaced modifications comPleted during the outage include: (1) installation of Power Ran Neutron Monitoring by DCN W40116. (2) Modification of the Main Steam Relief Valve oPening logic by. DCN T40231. The signal opening the valves will come from.the existing Anticipated Transient Without Scram pressure sensors The setpont f

valve opening will remain 1105,1115, and 1125 psig. (3) Modjfjcatjon of the Reago FeedPump discharge check valves by DCN T39698. Due to past experience wth the valves not closing-during reactor feedpump trips, this modification will route air to the actuator to Prov~de more force to "bump" the valve in the closed dition (4)

Modification of the-Feedwater Heater isolation logic by DCN T39744 The feed ater and /or condensate valves will not isolate on high level. in the heaters.

extraction st~am will isolate and the moisture separator pumps willtrip and their sud valves will close which will stop flow to the high pressure heaters experiencing a h; h level.

POWER HISTORY 0

n Vessel Testi Phase I

~

ln core shuIIIjng was Performed Per 0-GOI-1SIC Fue) Movement O rafion p.

R~Mtlng. Core shuffling started on September 2g, t gg7. tttth.the first h I

1202 planned in core steps being performed. The shuffle was comp)eted 12, 1997.

~

The Open Vessel Portions of 2-Tl-299 Control Rod Drive Testi were g5o October 13 to October 17, 1997.

~

The Open Vessel portion of 2-Tl-135 Process Com uter. and Core Performa~ was performed on October 14, 1997.

E-3

il

FINALREFUELING TEST REPORT UNIT2 CYCLE 10 Heatu to 55% Power Testi Phase II

~

Following completion of all prerequisites, control rod withdrawal for plant standup commenced at 08:47 on October 18, 1997. Initial criticalitywas achieved at 12:01 on October 18, and the verlcation of core shutdown margin was performed per g~

4.3.A..1 Reactivi Mar in Test.

~

APRM calibration per 2-Tl-136 APRM Calibration was completed at 14.30 on Octobe 18, 1997. No APRM adjustment was required.

Plant heatup to rated conditions continued. Rated temperature and pressure was reached at 17:41 on October 18, 1997.

~

APRM calibration per 27t-135 was completed at 19'15 on October 15 1 gg7 Nopp~

adjustment was required.

~

The reactor mode switch was taken.to RUN at 19:45 on Octobe 18 1997

~

T ti per 0-Tl-135 Process Com uter and Core Performance begaat 21'20 Octobe 18, 1997, and was completed satisfactorily for this test plateau at 03:58 on October 19.

~

The main turbine generator was connected to the grid at 02:18 on ~g 19 1997

~

Control rad scram time testing 2-71-299 Control Rod Drive 3 stem Testi Aner Rsfusfin began at 05:31 on October 19, 1997, at 35% reactor power. Scram time testing was,completed at 15:07 an October 20. LPRM hook up verification was completed in conjunction with scram time testing.

~

Starting at 16:00 on October 20, 1997, reactor power was increased to 48% core thermal power for performance of TIP calibrations.

55% to 100% power Testi Phase.lll

~

Startjng at 06:05 On October 21, 1997, reactor power was increased to 68.5%, 2-Tl-131 Feedwater S stem Testin was completed at 14:30 on October 21.

E-4

0

FINALREFUELING TEST REPORT UNIT2 CYCLE 10

~

Starting at 17:10 on October 21, 1997, reactor power was increased.

At 20:37 on October 21 83% power was reached. Power was held at 83% forfeedwater heater work until Q6:Q8 on October 22, 1997. At that time power increase at the rate of 3QMWelhr was initiated.

~

At 15:55 on October 22, 1997, reactor power reached 96.3% of rated ~th 1Q0% ~e flow. A 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> fuel preconditioning soak was begun

~

During the 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> soak period 0-Tl-137 Core Power Distribution was ~go~ g; section was completed at 01:25 on October 23.

~

Due to system load demands power was held constant until after the morning peak on October 23. This allowed 0-Tl-135 Process Com er and Core Performance to b completed.

~

At 10:00 on October 23,1997, reactor power was reduced to about 63% at 55% core flowto perform a control rod acfjustment. At 12:45 on October 23 reactor power read ed 77.5% of rated. Fuel preconditioning at a rate of 30 Mwelhr was initiated rated power was first reached at 20:45 on October 23, 1997.

~

On October 24, 1997, 2-Tl+2, D ll Atmos re Cooli S stem was completed.

~

2-Tl-137 Core Power Distribution was completed on November 5 1997 TEST RESULTS 0-GOI-100-3C Fuel Movement 0 ations Ouri Refueli Fuel shuffle began at 19:50 on September 29. There was one planned pause during the shuffle.to do in-vessel inspections and control blade replacement The fuel shuffle continued until completion on October 12, at 14:23.

There were two significant delays during fuel shuffling. The first occurred from 12:3Q Qn September 30, to 03:30 on October 1, due to a failure of the grapple mounted camera.

The second occurred on October 12, when an ESF actuation caused water clarity problems.

E-5

Ib

FINALREFUELING TEST REPORT UNIT 2 CYCLE 10 There were two Field Changes made during the shuffle. The first field change was made to allow o-ring replacement for control rod drives 10-23 and 26-43 and LPRM 32-

25. The second field change was made to allow reseating fuel support castings for control cells 38-15 and 46-23, replacing a lower core. plate plug at location 25-50, and to continue replacement of the o-ring seal of control rod drive 26-43.

The core verification was completed at 20:30 on October 12, 1997.

All critena.were successfully demonstrated and should be considered fully acceptable in meeting the criteria of FSAR section 13.10.2.1.

2-SI-4.3.A1 Reactivi Mar in Test TKis test is perform&.ir onjunction with the initial in-sequence critical to demonst ate ~

the reactor can be made subcritical with a margin of at least 0 38% gK/K~th th control rod fullywithdrawn and at the most reactive time in core life. It also v~es th actual critical rod configuration is within 1.0% hK of the predicted critical rod figuration Rod withdrawal for reactor startup and the shutdown margin demonstration b an at 08:47 on October 18, 1997. The reactor was supercritical with a.119 second period at 12:01 October 18.

Criticality data was collected when control ~ 3019 (Rg/g ~

6) withdrawn to position 20, with a moderator temperature of 195 ~ Th foll were obtained:

1.

The unit 2 cycle10 shutdown margin was calculated to be 1 57% ~K/K ~;

requirements of technical speclcation 4 3~'I margin of 0.38% b,K/K der~ ~~n M predicted and actual critical rod configuration was determined to be 0.139% b,K. This meets th requir~nt oft~

I section 3.3.0, which requires that the difference b N n the pfedi critical rod patterns be no greater than 1.0% ~

Alltest acceptance criteria were successfully demonst ated ~ should ~

acceptable'in meeting the criteria of technical spQQfications 4 3-p 1 3 3 0 d 4 FSAR section 13.10.2.2.

There were no test deficiencies E-6

It

FINALREFUELING TEST REPORT UNIT2 CYCLE 10 0 TI 299 Control Rod Drive S stem Testin After Refueli The phase I, Open Vessel portions of 2-Tl-299 Control Rod Drive Testin were performed from October 13 through 17, 1997 with no test deficiencies noted. Allcontrol rod drives have been tested for coupling integrity and verified to have full insert and withdraw stroke tjmes between 40 to 60 seconds.

The rod position indications were also tested.

Three trol rods (46-47, 1443, and 46-1 5) were missing the - - at full in over-travel. The red background does not illuminate at position 48 for control rod 10-23. The digit nine (9) does not display for control rod 02-.27.

Work order 9709851~

was initiated to resolve the full in over travel and red bad ground problems. The digit nine missing for control rod 02-27 is a previously identified cable problem that willbe addressed by DCN T25701A. Allof these issues willbe deferred to the next refueling outage.

Phase II control rod scram time testing per 2-Tl-299 Control Rod Drive S stem Testi Mali tt bN tttt.'3t 0 l~ t9, ttt%

t p

tt was completed at 15:07 on October 20. LPRM lmok up verification was completed in conjunction with scram time testing. There was one test deficiency, LPRM1~ has both th B and C level d t~~ byp m~, R is impossible to detail~'by ~t ~~ motion à the cabling for these two detectors is correctly connected This LPRM as~mbI replaced during a future refueling outage. Since this test is Perfomed after~ reeling outage no retest tracking mechanism is needed. This deficiency has be nd~

Alltest accePtance cntena were successfully demonstrated and should be considered fully acceptable in meeting the criteria of technical specifications 4.3.Q.1.b and 4 3 C and FSAR section 13.10.2.3.

0-Tl-135 Process Com er and Core Performance Phase I was Performed during the OPEN VESSEL test plateau on October 14, 1997, at zero reactor Pressure with the reactor vessel head in place. The cycle dependent data was successfully installed and verified for Unit 2 Cycle 10.

The 3D Monicore system was successfully initialized. There are no Technical Specification or FSAR a~ptance criteria for this portion of the test.

Phase II was Performed during the HEATUP to 55% test plateau on October 18, and 19, 1997.

E-7

0 4

FINAL.REFUELING TEST REPORT UNIT2 CYCLE 10 The followingwere performed during this phase:

yerified no changes occurred to the installed BOC case since initial installation.

yerffied that the control rod position log agreed with Panel 2-9-5 indications.

3 ye~i~ that the LPRM readings log agreed with Panel 2-9-14 indications within 3 units.

Restarted 3D Monicore after the turbine generator was placed on-line.

yerified that the 3D Monicore core power and flow log and the ICS NSSS heat balance calculation of core thermal power agreed with a manual heat balance within+2%.

yerified that the 3D Monicore calculation of thermal limits for minimum critical power fatiQ (MCPR) maximum average planar linear heat generation rate (MAPLHGR), and maximum linear heat generation rate (LHGR) agreed within + 2% of a qualified backup calculation and that MCPR occurred in the same location.

phase IIIwas.performed during the 55 to 100% test plateau on October 23, 1997.

The followingwere performed during this phase:

yerified that the LPRM failure status log, LPRM deviations log, LPRM exposure

~lions log, and LPRM'exposure values log were consistent and reasonable.

2. y~~ that the 3D Monicore core power and flow log and the ICS NSSS heat balance calculation of core thermal power agreed with a manual heat balance within+2%.

3 y~~ ~t the 3D Monicore calculation of thermal limits for minimum aitical. power ratio (MCpR), maximum average planar linear. heat generation rate {MAPLHGR), and maximum linear heat generation rate (LHGR) agreed within + 2% of a qualified backup calculation and that MCPR occurred in the same location.

Alltest acceptance criteria were successl'ully demonstrated and should be considered fully accepta e in table in meeting the criteria of FSAR section 13.10.24.

There were no test deficiencies.

0-Tl-137 Core Power Distribution This test calculates the total uncertainty associated with the Tlp system power distribution and gross TIP symmetry, and verifies the proper hookup of the Tlp system.

e tern. The data from these TIP sets is compared statistically using the computer +Qgram TI137 to determine the total average TIP uncertainty.

In addition, gross Tlp spme~ and core power distribution are checked by comparing symmetric traces from the Tlp b

amining the normalized full power adjusted TIP readings.

The computer pi'ogram by examining TI137 also calculates the percent difference for each symmetric Tlp pair to determine Kany asymmetr Power Ascension Test Program.

Testing began on October 22, 1997 and was ~pfeted

0

FINALREFUELING TEST REPORT UNIT2 CYCLE 10 on November 5, 1997.

TIP sets were run with core thermal power at 93.1% power and at 99.9% power.

Sections 7..4 and 7.5 were performed. with core thermal power at 93.1% on October 22, (this run was intended to serve as the performance at greater than 55% power).

The total average Tip uncertainty for the first TIP run was determined to be 1 449%.

Gross symmetry checks were well within the acceptance criteria of 25% for all of the symmetric pairs (the largest percent difference was 3.51%).

Sections 7.6 and 7.7 were performed with the core thermal power at 99.9% on November 5, 1997 (this run was intended to serve as the performance at greater than 75% power). The total average TIP uncertainty for this TIP set was determined -to be 1.519%.

Gross symmetry checks were well within the acceptance criteria of 25% (the largest percent difference was 4.12%).

The average value of the total average TIP uncertainty from the two sucQQ~I TIP was calculated to be 1 484%, well within the acceptance cnteria of 9 0%

Alltest acceptance criteria.were successfully demonstrated and should be cosi e'er d full acceptable in meeting the criteria of FSAR section 13.10.2.5 deficiencies.

0-Tl-136 APRM Calibration Plant data was collected during reactor heatup and ascension in ~

p r ormance of &TI-136 was conducted bY the constant heatup rate method on Odob 18, core thermal. power was determined to be 0.8% of rated. No adjustments to th AP re rqulred foreis P'~o~~ of 0-Tl-136; the APRM were indicating ~or p~r ~

1.5 to 1.7%. 'The second performance of 0-Tl-136 was also on Oct~r

18. T performance was done by the bypass valve comparison method core th rmal~

determined to be 5.2%. No adjustments to the APRMs were required th indicating reactor of6.3 to 6.8%. Both performances were during the Heatup to 55%

test plateau.

Alltest acceptance criteria were successfully demonstrated and should b considered fll acceptable in meeting the criteria of FSAR section 13.10.2.6 There deficiencies.

FINALREFUELING TEST REPORT UNIT2 CYCLE 10 2-Tl-131 Feedwater Level Control-8 stem The purpose of this Feedwater Level Control System test was to verify the Ream Feedwater Pump Turbine (RFPT) and the Reactor Feedwater Control (RFWC) system are tuned proPerly to support Plant oPeratiorl. This test was performed during Phase III (55% to 100% Power) on October 21, 1997 with the reactor Power at approximately 70% of rated Start-up Bypass valve tuning was not performed due to the lack of mpjgf'aintenarce on the Startwp Bypass valve.

No testing of RFPTs 2A or 28 was Performed based on the fact that no major maintenance was performed on either RFPT control valves or c ntrol linkages.

Performance of the RFWC system tuning consisted of two major portions.

The fi consisted of introducing an approximately 50 RPM demand change to a single RFPT and observing the RFPT speed and flow response.

This was performed, on the 2C RFP T w.,th the remaining two RFPTs in automatic control.

The second portion of the FWLCS tuning was performed by introducing 4 inch level setpoint changes and evaluating the system response in both single and three element modes.

All test acceptance criteria were successfully demonstrated and should be considered fully acceptable in meeting the criteria of FSAR section 13.'}0.2.8.

~ere were no t~

deficiencies.

2-TI2 D

ell Tem ratures The purpose of this test is to venfy the ability of the drywell (DW) atmosphere ~II~

system to maintain design temperature conditions in the dryweII dnfl rQQQ~ p~~

oPeration.

The test was Performed on October 24 1997 ~ fe~gp 3290 MWth (99.9%).

Bulk Volumetric Average DW temperature was calcuiat& to be 118.45 'F, which is well below the aca~tance criteria 150'F. All test acceptam materia were successfully demonstrated and should be considered criteria of FSAR section 13.10.2.10.

There were no test deficiencies 2-Tl-130 Main Steam Pressure Control was not performed dun~ this sta~

maintenance or design changes were performed that could have signmcantly eff~ed Q performance, of the pressure control system.

E-10

0

FINALREFUELING TEST REPORT UNIT 2 CYCLE 10 2-TI-f32 Reactor Recirculation S stem was not performed during this startup as no major maintenance or design changes were performed that,could have signNcantly effected the performance of the reactor recirculation system.

CONCLUSION These test results demonstrate that 8FN Unit 2 systems are capable of meeting g

design functions and that Power operation can be safely and efficiently cotinu

0

FINALREFUELING TEST REPORT UNIT2 CYCLE 10 APPENDIX 1 Test Deficiencies Test deficiency one to 0-Tl-299 was written because proper connection of LPRM detectors 16 57 B and 16-57-C could not be verified by control rod motion. Both of these detectors are failed and bypassed in the APRM circuitry, and therefor no response to control motion is observed.

These LPRMs willremainbypassed for the duration of unit 2 cycle 10. No retest is required since this test is required to be performed after each refueling outage as stated in FSAR section-13.10.'2.3.

This willassure that the replacement detectors willbe subsequently tested.

This test deficiency has been dosed.

Allother LPRMs were verified to be properly connected.

There were no other test deficiencies.

E-12

I JL