ML18054A552
| ML18054A552 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 01/31/1989 |
| From: | Firsch R, Hollowell T, Packard G CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8902240324 | |
| Download: ML18054A552 (18) | |
Text
. J ~
CYCLE 8 STARTUP PHYSICS TEST REPORT JANUARY 1989 Prepared by Reviewed by )
{ ?oJL.{2
-0*~~
MI0586-0010A-OP03
- 3*;s()*::**::*4 ')*-,.-, - -- *.....
. -....,_ '*- *::*;;' 4 '-"-)( i*-* 1 7 PDF" F.. "\\
t-i.UUCt::: o:::;ocic)*-:*r-r::-
.... ~....... _,
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Section 1
Introduction 1
Section 2
ARO HZP Critical Boron Concentration 2
Section 3
Control Rod Group Worths 3
Section 4
ARO Moderator Temperature Coefficient 4
Section 5
Differential Soluble Boron Worth 5
Section 6
Flux Symmetry Measurement At ~ 30% Reactor Power 7
Section 7
Intermediate Power Level Power Distribution Measurement 9
Section 8
- Power Distribution Measurement at 90 to 100% Reactor Power 11 Section 9
Critical Boron Concentration at 90 to 100% Reactor Power 12 Section 10 Conclusion 13 Section 11 References 14 MI0586-0010A-OP03
1 Section 1 - Introduction This report presents the results of startup physics testing performed at the beginning of Cycle 8 at the Palisades Nuclear Power Plant.
The scope of Cycle 8 startup physics testing was equivalent to the previous cycle's startup physics testing.
Testing was performed in accordance with an approved procedure, Reference 1.
Measured values were compared to predicted values to ascertain whether or not review and acceptance criteria were violated.
Predicted values were obtained from Reference 2, except for predicted assembly powers which were obtained from INCA's XTG.
Review and acceptance criteria that were used are consistent with Reference 3 with the following two changes:
- 1.
The acceptance criterion for the measured Moderator Temperature Coefficient was expanded to also apply to Hot Zero Power.
This change was made to implement References 4 and 5, Amendment 118.
- 2.
The review criteria for power distribution measurements at 40 to 50% and 90 to 100% reactor power were revised to cover low power assemblies.
This change was made due to the implementation of a low leakage core in Cycle 8.
This report provides measured values, predicted values, and review and acceptance criteria for the following testing that was performed:
A.
ARO HZP Critical Boron Concentration B.
Control Rod Group Worths C.
ARO Moderator Temperature Coefficient D.
Differential Soluble Boron Worth E.
Flux Symmetry Measurement at ~ 30% Reactor Power F.
Power Distribution Measurement at 40 to 50% Reactor Power G.
Power Distribution Measurement at 90 to 100% Reactor Power H.
Critical Boron Concentration at 90 to 100% Reactor Power MI0586-0010A-OP03
2 Section 2 -
ARO HZP Critical Boron Concentration The all rods out (ARO) hot zero power (HZP) critical boron concentration was determined by obtaining a boron concentration with ARO, except Group B which was near its ARO configuration.
The residual worth of Group B was then measured on the reactivity computer and this was correlated to a change in boron concentration via the reciprocal boron worth.
The boron concentration with Group B at approximately the ARO configuration was added to the residual worth boron concentration and this result is presented in Table 1.
Review and acceptance criteria were not exceeded.
TABLE 1 Results of ARO HZP Critical Boron Concentration Measured Predicted Difference 1348 ppm 1332 ppm 16 ppm Review Criterion:
Measured value within 50 ppm of predicted.
Acceptance Criterion:
None MI0586-0010A-OP03
3 Section 3 - Control Rod Group Worths The worths of all regulating rod groups (1, 2, 3 and 4) and both shutdown rod groups (A and B) were measured utilizing the control rod group swap technique as described in Reference 7.
The highest worth group, Group B, was measured by diluting the primary coolant system at a constant rate, 50 gpm, and trading positive reactivity due to dilution with negative reactivity due to rod insertion.
Group B was then withdrawn and Group 4 was fully inserted, with the reactor at a just critical condition at the beginning and end of the swap process.
The resulting position of Group B after this group swap is called the measured critical position (MCP).
The MCP is adjusted to consider temperature change, boron change, initial reactivity and final reactivity.
The measured worth of group 4 was then determined utilizing a reactivity balance equation and the previously determined Group B measurements obtained by dilution.
The predicted worth of group 4 was also determined utilizing a reactivity balance equation, the adjusted MCP value, and the data provided in Reference 2~
This same technique was utilized to obtain values for groups 3, 2, 1 and A.
Results are presented in Table 2.
Review and acceptance criteria were not exceeded.
TABLE 2 Results of Control Rod Group Worths Group Measured % ~p Predicted % ~p
% Deviation
% ~p Deviation A
1.078 1.124 4.27 0.046 B
1.153 1.142
-0.91
-0.011 1
0.972 0.892
-8.23
-0.080 2
0.392 0.432 10.2 0.040 3
0.920 0.811
-11.8
-0.109 4
0.341 0.374 9.68 0.033 4+3+2+l+A+B 4.856 4.775
-1.67
-0.081 Review Criteria:
Individual group within +/- 15% or +/- 0.15%~p of predicted, whichever is greater.
Additionally, Group B should be within +/- 10% of predicted.
Sum of all groups within
+/- 10% of predicted.
Acceptance Criterion:
Sum of all groups within +/- 10% of predicted.
MI0586-0010A-OP03
4 Section 4 -
ARO Moderator Temperature Coefficient The moderator temperature coefficient (MTC) was determined at essentially the all rods out (ARO) configuration by measuring reactivity changes while cooling or heating the.primary coolant system.
From the reactivity and temperature changes, an isothermal temperature coefficient (ITC) was determined from which the MTC was extracted using the relationship ITC = MTC + doppler.
The doppler coefficient was provided by Reference 2 and has a value of -1.66 X l0- 5~p/°F.
This HZP ARO MTC value was extrapolated to full power using the technique given in the o~iginal version of Reference 5, prior to the changes made November 15, 1988 by Amendment Number 118.
The predicted HZP ARO MTC value was obtained from Reference 2 for the actual boron concentration in the primary coolant system during the testing. Results are presented in Table 3.
Review and acceptance criteria were not exceeded.
TABLE 3 Results of MTC Measurement Measured
-5 3.11Xl0
~p/°F Predicted 2.86Xl0-5~p/°F Difference
-5 0~25Xl0
~p/°F Measured Value Extrapolated to Full Power
(-0.32+/-l)Xl0-5~p/°F Review Criterion:
Measured value within +/-5Xl0-5~p/°F of predicted.
Acceptance Criterion:
Measured value between 5Xl0-5~p/°F and -35Xl0-5~p/oF.
MI0586-0010A-OP03
5 Se~tion 5 - Differential Soluble Boron Worth The differential soluble boron worth was determined from the boron concentration at two end points and the reactivity difference between the end points.
The two end points used in this test were: 1) ARO, except Group B which was near its ARO configuration, an~ 2) ARO, except Group B which was near its fully inserted configuration.
The predicted value was obtained from Figure 5.13 of Reference 2.
Results are presented in Table 4.
The review criterion was exceeded by 3.1 ppm/%~p. Exceeding the review criterion by this small amount was determined to be acceptable based on results of testing from previous cycles.
The acceptance criterion was not exceeded.
Based on test results from Cycles 4 through 7, predicted values for differen-tial soluble boron worth,have consistently been higher than measured values by 5 to 11 ppm/%~p.
Measured values for differential soluble boron worth for Cycles 4, 5 and 6 were all in the range of 91.7 to 92.7 ppm/%~p. The boron end points used during each of these three cycle startup tests were the same: 1) essentially ARO and,
- 2) Groups 1, 2, 3 and 4 inserted.
Measured values of 98.4 ppm/%~p for Cycle 7 and 88.6 ppm/%~p for Cycle 8 were both derived using the following boron end points: 1) essentially ARO and,
- 2) ARO except the Reference Group which was near its fully inserted configura-tion.
The changes in reactivity and boron for Cycle 7 and Cycle 8 measured differ-ential soluble boron worth determinations are smaller than those used during Cycles 4, 5 and 6.
Therefore, measured results for differential soluble boron worth during Cycle 7 and 8 testing would be expected to have less accuracy than previous cycles primarily due to the greater impact of uncertainties associated with boron sampling results.
A subsequent evaluation has determined that the Cycle 8 predicted value should have been biased approximately 7 ppm/%~p lower than what is depicted in Table 4.
When this bias is applied, the review criterion is met.
Possible improvements in the area of differential soluble boron worth prior to next cycle's startup testing is being pursued and tracked by Reference 8.
MI0586-0010A-OP03
_I
6 TABLE 4 Results of Differential Soluble Boron Worth Measured Predicted Difference 88.6 ppm/%t.p 10 6
- 7 ppm/ %t.p 18.1 ppm/%t.p Review Criterion:
Measured value within 15 ppm/%t.p of predicted.
Acceptance Criterion:
Measured value less than 125 ppm/%t.p.
MI0586-0010A-OP03
7 Section 6 - Flux Symmetry Measurement at ~ 30% Reactor Power Power distribution information was obtained from the computer routine INCA which uses incore detector readings to evaluate power distribution parameters.
The INCA output also provides predicted assembly powers from a XTG computer run.
The initial
~ 30% power test results showed the measured assembly powers at three octant locations exceeded the review criterion of +/- 10% from the predicted values.
An evaluation was performed and concluded it was acceptable to proceed to 50% power for the intermediate power level power distribution measurements.
The ~ 30% power test results overall showed evidence of core symmetry which verified proper core loading.
A check to verify proper core loading is the primary purpose of the ~ 30% power test.
The initial 40 to 50% power testing (Section 7 of this report) also experienced problems meeting the power distribution. review criteria.
Due to these problems, the physics vendor reviewed W prime calculations that are used in converting the incore de.tector signal to a detector power value.
As a result of this review, an error was found and corrected (see Reference 8).
The corrected W prime library was generated and installed prior to exceeding 93% reactor power.
The
~ 30% and 40 to 50% power testing INCA cases were rerun using the corrected W prime library.
Table 5 provides the results of the rerun INCA case using the initial data obtained at approximately 28 percent reactor power and using the corrected W prime library.
The review criterion for measured assembly power to be within +/- 10% of predicted was exceeded slightly for octant Location 1 (10.46% difference as shown in Table 5).
Exceeding the review criterion by this small amount is acceptable, as the overall agreement between symmetric detectors and between measured and pre-dicted powers is good and provides evidence of proper core loading.
MI0586-0010A-OP03
TABLE 5 Flux Symmetry at ~ 30% Reactor Power A.
XY normalized power from 1ncore detectors B.
XTG predicted power
- c. ( Item B -1 ) X 100 = Percent difference Item A 8
D.
Percent deviation between the highest and lowest incore flux measurement in symmetric locations.
"NA" implies no symmetric detectors exist.
center of core A.
B.
- c.
D.
.i, 1.003 1.108 10.46%
N/A A.
B.
- c.
D.
1~345 1.430 6.26%
0.62%
1.245 1.343 7.87%
0.68%
A.
B.
- c.
D.
Review Criteria:
1.352 1.056 1.347 1.356 1.270 0.346 1.419 1.089 1.332 1.303 1.180 0.340 4.93%
3.03%
-1.10%
-3.96%
-7.14%
-1. 70%
2.78%
N/A N/A 2.84%
N/A N/A 1.006 1.218 1.022 1.244 1.289 0.796 1.076 1.286 1.028 1.214 1.162 0.745 6.97%
5.54%
.o.61%
-2.44%
-9.81%
-6.40%
0.35%
N/A N/A N/A 6.14%
N/A 1.057 0.908 1.184 0.933 1.014 0.618 1.146 0.952 1.171 0.917 0.948 0.574 8.43%
4.87%
-1.13%
-1. 73%
-6.52%
-7.13%
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A A.
0.989 0.884 1.162 0.505 B.
1.015 0.887 1.135 0.507
- c.
2.68%
0.35%
-2.26%
0.38%
D.
1.42%
N/A 2.41%
N/A A.
1.003 0.825 0.171 B.
l.Oll 0.822 0.173
- c.
0.78%
-0.31%
1.28%
D.
3.39%
N/A N/A Percent deviation (Item D) between symmetric locations within 10%. Measured assembly power within +/- 10% of predicted, if measured relative power ~ 0.9.
Acceptance Criterion: None MI0586-0010A-OP03
9 Section 7 - Intermediate Power Level Power Distribution Measurement The initial 40 to 50% power test results showed three areas where review criteria were exceeded.
These were:
- 1.
Octant Location 14 exceeded the +/-10% review criterion for predicted to measured power difference.
- 2.
Octant Location 8 exceeded the +/-15% review criterion for predicted to measured power difference.
- 3.
Core wide deviations between measured and predicted assembly powers on an RMS basis exceeded the ~ 5% review criterion.
An evaluation on the above was performed and concluded it was acceptable to proceed to full rated power.
Increased core monitoring was implemented during the initial power escalation to full power to ensure that the Technical Spec-ifications power distribution limits were being met.
Item 1 above only exceeded the review criterion by 0.59%.
Items 2 and 3 above were somewhat expected due to the addition of the low power Batch H partial shield assemblies which were new to the core for Cycle 8.
From initial XTG comparisons between the CPCo and physics vendor models, it was.anticipated that for the Batch H partial shield assemblies measured*values could deviate from predicted values by as much as 25 to 50% relative power.
As noted in Section 6, an error in the W prime library was found and was corrected prior to exceeding 93% reactor power.
Table 6 provides the results of the rerun INCA case using the initial data obtained at approximately 50% reactor power and using the corrected W prime library.
All review and acceptance criteria were met.
MI0586-0010A-OP03
10 TABLE 6 Power Distribution Measurement at 40 to 50% Reactor Power A.
Quadrant Power Tilt (%)
-0.12 0.08 0.12
-0.08 (from incores)
Quad 1 Quad 2 Quad 3 Quad 4 B.
XY normalized power from in cores
- c.
XTG predicted power D.
Percent deviation
=
( Item c -1 ) x 100 Item B E.
Assembly power RMS deviation = 3.50%
B.
1.033 1.373
- c.
1.079 1.385 D.
4.50%
0.90%
B.
1.272
- c.
1.307 D.
2.78%
B.
- c.
D.
Review Criteria:
1.381 1.076 1.350 1.345 1.264 0.348 1.384 1.078 1.318 1.292 1.185 0.350
.0.22%
0.24%
-2.40%
-3.98%
-6.32%
0.56%
1.033 1.229 1.021 1.242 1.258 0.791 1.063 1.275 1.027 1.215 1.173 0.763 2.88%
- 3.74%
0.55%
-2.18%
-6. 77%
-3.54%
1.093 0.922 1.169 0.924 0.997 0.616 1.139 0.954 1.175 0.930 0.970 0.594 4.20%
3.47%
0.56%
0.62%
-2.68%
-3.55%
B.
0.980 0.871 1.127 0.505
- c.
1.013 0.893 1.151 0.527 D.
3.41%
2.45%
2.07%
4.31%
B.
0.977 0.810 0.171
- c.
1.018 0.840 0.182 D.
4.21%
- 3. 77%
6.64%
- 1.
Quadrant power tilt ~ 3%.
- 2.
Measured assembly power within +/- 10% of predicted, if measured relative power > 0.9. Measured assembly power within +/- 15% of predicted, if measured relative power ~ 0.9 and ~0.45. Difference between measured and predicted relative power within +/- 0.07 relative power, if measured relative power < 0.45.
- 3.
Core wide deviations between measured and predicted assembly powers on an RMS basis ~ 5%.
Acceptance Criteria: Power distribution Technical Specifications are met.
MI0586-0010A-OP03
11 Section 8 - Power Distribution Measurement at 90 to 100% Reactor Power Table 7 provides the results of the INCA output from data obtained at approxi-mately 96.8 percent reactor power.
Review and acceptance criteria were not exceeded.
A.
B.
- c.
D.
E.
B.
- c.
D.
TABLE 7 Power Distribution Measurements at 90 to 100% Reactor Power Quadrant Power Tilt (%)
0.11 0.21
-0.11
-0.21 (from incores)
Quad 1 Quad 2 Quad 3 Quad 4 XY normalized power from incores XTG predicted power Percent deviation
=
( Item c -1 ) x 100 Item B Assembly power RMS deviation = 2.64 %
1.032
- 1. 352 1.368 1.075 1.313 1.295 1.221 0.343 1.058 1.347 1.354 1.070 1.293
- 1. 259 1.160
- o. 351 2.57%
-0.32%
-1.02%
-0.49%
-1.49%
-2.75%
-5.00%
2.34%
B.
1.261 1.046 1.239 1.019 1.218 1.211 0.759
- c.
1.278 1.057 1.267 1.025 1.199 1.152 0.751 D.
1.38%
1.10%
2.30%
0.54%
-1. 58%
-4.88%
-1. 05%
B.
1.117 0.965 1.174 0.936 0.982 0.603
- c.
1.146 0.978 1.193 0.939 0.969 0.590 D.
.2.53%
1.36%
1.58%
0.32%
-1.35%
-2.19%
B.
1.059 0.932 1.151 0.517
- c.
1.080 0.951 1.167 0.544 D.
- 1. 95%
2.01%
1.40%
5.20%
B.
1.049 0.840 0.184
- c.
1.084 0.868 0.194 D.
3.35%
3.40%
- 5. 77%
Review Criteria:
- 1.
Quadrant power tilt ~ 3%.
- 2.
Measured assembly power within +/- 10% of predicted, if measured relative power > 0.9. Measured assembly power within +/- 15% of predicted, if measured relative power ~ 0.9 and ~ 0.45.
Difference between measured and predicted relative power within +/- 0.07 relative power, if measured relative power < 0.45.
- 3.
Core wide deviations between measured and predicted assembly powers on an RMS basis ~ 5%.
Acceptance Criteria:
Power distribution Technical Specifications are met.
MI0586-0010A-OP03
12 Section 9 - Critical Boron Concentration at 90 to 100% Reactor Power Boron concentration was measured at 96.4% reactor power.
The measured value was corrected to a 100% value utilizing data provided in Reference 2.
The correction to a 100% value considered xenon and power defect differences.
The corrected 100% value is provided in Table 8.
Review and acceptance criteria were not exceeded.
TABLE 8 100% Critical Boron Concentration, ARO Measured Predicted Difference 915 ppm 905 ppm 10 ppm Review Criterion:
Measured value within 50 ppm of predicted.
Acceptance Criterion: None, however, Technical Specifications limit applies to total reactivity anomalies.
MI0586-0010A-OP03
13 Section 10 - Conclusions Startup physics testing was conducted at the beginning of Cycle 8 with full power testing completed on January 6, 1989.
The testing determined and compared to calculated results various core parameters such as:
A.
Boron Concentrations B.
Control Rod Group Worths C.
Differential Soluble Boron Worth D.
Moderator Temperature Coefficient E.
Assembly Power An error in W prime calculations was discovered due to a follow up on exceeding power distribution review criteria.
Once the W prime library was corrected, review criteria were met for all power distribution checks, except for one minor case as noted in Section 6.
A deficiency in the predicted value for differential soluble boron worth was discovered due to a follow up on exceeding the review criterion for measured to be within 1Sppm/%~p of predicted. After accounting for the deficiency, the review criterion for differential soluble boron worth is met.
Besides the two areas noted above, review criteria were met.
Follow up in the two areas noted above is being performed by Reference 8.
Acceptance criteria were met for all parameters.
MI0586-0010A-OP03
14 Section 11 - References
- 1.
Palisades Nuclear Plant Special Test Procedure T-191 Revision 1, "Startup Physics Test Program".
- 2.
"Pali sades Cycle 8 Startup and Operations Report, 11 ANF-88-16l(P) Advanced Nuclear Fuels Corporation, October, 1988.
- 3. Letter from Consumers Power, J L Kuemin to Director Nuclear Reactor Regulation, "Palisades Plant - Physics Test Program," December 20,.1985.
- 4.
Palisades Plant Technical Specifications, Section 4.20.1.
- 5.
Palisades Plant Technical Specifications, Section 3.12.
- 6.
Palisades Plant Technical Specifications, Section 6.9.la.
- 7.
"Control Rod Bank Swap," PWR:015:85, Exxon Nuclear Company.
- 8.
Deviation Report D-PAL-88-244, "Review Criteria Exceeded During Cycle 8 Startup Physics Test Program."
MI0586-0010A-OP03
__J
consumers Power POWE RI Nii MIC.HlliAN'S PROGRESS General Offices: 1945 West Parnall Road,Jackson,.MI 49201*(517)788-0550 February 17, 1989 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 DOCKET 50-255 - LICENSE DPR PALISADES PLANT -
CYCLE 8 STARTUP PHYSICS TEST REPORT For Cycle 8 operation a low leakage core was implemented by the installation of 16 fuel assemblies containing four rows of stainless steel rods in each assembly as approved by the NRG in Amendment 118 to the Palisades Operating License dated November 15, 1988.
The installation of these fuel assemblies can be considered installation of fuel that has a different design, therefore, the attached Cycle 8 Startup Physics Test Report is being submitted in accordance with Palisades.Technical Specification 6.9.1.a.
Senior Licensing Analyst CC Administrator, Region III, NRG NRG Resident Inspector - Palisades Attachment OC0289-0048-NL04 A CMS' ENERGY COMPANY IJool
~ '
OC0289-0048-NL04 ATTACHMENT Consumers Power Company Palisades Plant Docket 50-255 CYCLE 8 STARTUP PHYSICS TEST REPORT February 17, 1989 16 Pages