ML18348A881
| ML18348A881 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 02/16/1978 |
| From: | Hoffman D Consumers Power Co |
| To: | Schwencer A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| Download: ML18348A881 (13) | |
Text
)_ ---...
consumers Power company Feoruary 6, 1978 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Att:
Mr Albert Schwencer, Chief Operating Reactors Branch No 1 US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 DOCKET 50-255 - LICENSE DPR PALISADES PLANT -
POWER INCREASE TEST REPORT
- r-~.,.
1 1' :'I:' I:
I: I_
'*,\\
.J.1.>.1 1
Amendment No 31 to the Provisional Operating License DPR-20 for the Palisades Plant r.eq_uired that the results and comparison with predictions and acceptance limits for the power increase physics tests be submitted within 90 days of completion.
The. attached report entitled, "Palisades Fower Increase to 2530 MWt Report,"
December 14, 1977, documents the test results.
All acceptance criteria and limits: were met.
Assistant Nuclear Licensing Administrator CC:
JGKeppler, USNRC
PALISADES POWER INCREASE TO 2530 MWt REPORT DECEMBER 14, 1977
A.
PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to fulfill the requirements of Paragraph 6.9.1.a of the Palisades Technical Specifications requiring a start-up report when an amendment to the license involving a planned increase in power is issued.
A description of the power increase, the physics parameters measured and plant operating parameters are described in this report.
B.
SUMMARY
OF POWER INCREASE On November 6, 1977, the procedure to increase the reactor power from 2200 MWt to 2530 MWt was begun after Amendment 31 to the Palisades Plant Technical Spe-cifications was issued.
The power increase was procedurally controlled by Special Test Procedure T-102, "Increasing Reactor Power From 2200 MWt to 2530 MWt."
The first step in increasing power, after changing the appropriate in-strument set points, was to increase the average primary coolant system tem-perature and pressure.
This, in turn, increased the steam generator secondary side pressure providing the excess flow capacity through the turbine governor valves, while maintaining the reactor inlet temperature and steam generator primary to secondary differential pressure within Technical Specifications limits.
On November 7, 1977, the power increase to 2530 MWt was started.
The power was increased to 95% power at an average rate of 1/2% per hour.
Conditions were stabilized at 95% and held until xenon equilibrium was at-tained to provide suitable conditions for performing Moderator Temperature and Power Coefficient Measurement Tests.
On November 9, 1977, T-98, Measure-ment of the Moderator Temperature Coefficient at Power" and T-101, "Measure-ment of the Power Coefficient" were performed.
The description of these tests and results are discussed in Section C.
At this point, the data from the power increase up to this point and the re-sults from T-98 and T-101 were evaluated and used in computing the 100% power final temperature and pressure for the primary coolant system of Tavg =
559.5°F and pressure= 2010 psia.
The power increase commenced again at an average rate of one-half percent power per hour until 100% power was reached on November 10, 1977.
Conditions were stabilized and alarm and controllers set points were changed for continuous operation at 2530 MWt*
The gross electric output of the unit increased from 676 MWe to 773 MWe during the time of the test.
C.
REACTOR PHYSICS MEASUREMENTS Included in the power escalation program were tests to measure the moderator temperature coefficient and power coefficient.
These were done at a nominal reactor power of 95% of 2530 MWt.
The plant was held at 95% power for ap-proximately 38 hours4.398148e-4 days <br />0.0106 hours <br />6.283069e-5 weeks <br />1.4459e-5 months <br /> to reach stable conditions prior to the actual testing.
The Moderator Temperature Coefficient Test (MTC) was performed first.
The average primary coolant temperature was lowered approximately 4°F by in-serting control rods while maintaining constant power.
The temperature was then returned to the original value by withdrawing rods.
The core reactivity changes were derived from the change in the control rod position using a
r--~-
2 calculated rod worth curve.
(See Figure 8.)
The MTC was measured to be -
1.53 x lo-4 ~p/F 0 The acceptance criteria was + 0.5 x lo-4 to - 3.5 x lo-4
~p/F 0 The predicted (by Exxon Nuclear) MTC at 95% was - 1.38 x lo-4 ~p/F 0
which is 0.15 x lo-4 ~p/F 0 more positive than the measurea MTC, which is an acceptable agreement.
The Power Coefficient Test was performed immediately after the MTC Test.
While maintaining the temperature as constant as possible, the reactor power was decreased by approximately 4% using the control rods.
The reactor power was then returned to 95%.
The reactivity change was computed by converting 0
the change in control rod position between the two power.levels to reac-tivity using Figure 8.
This measurement-of the isothermal power coefficient (approximately Doppler) was calculated to be -
.66 x lo-4 ~p/% power.
The predicted (by Exxon Nuclear) Doppler Coefficient at 95% power was -
.58 x lo-4 ~p, which is 0.08 x lo-4 more positive than the measured value.
Know-ing the MTC and Doppler Coefficient, along with the programmed rise in the average primary coolant temperature, one can calculate the power coefficient by combining the Doppler and Moderator Temperature Coefficients (in terms of
~p/% power).
The MTC, when converted into terms of ~p/% power for a 0 to 100% power temperature rise of 27.5F0 (559.5° - 532°), is -
.42 x lo-4 ~p/%
power.
Adding this to the Doppler Coefficient gives a measured Power Coef-ficient of - 1.08 x lo-4 ~p/% power.
Similarly combining Exxon Nuclear's values for MTC and Doppler gives a predicted value of.96 x lo-4 ~p/% power which is 11% below the measured value.
The acceptance criteria for Power Coefficient was - 1.0 x lo-4 ~p/% power +/- 30%, so the measured value is well within the acceptance criteria.
D.
POWER DISTRIBUTION Before, during and after the power increase, power distributions were cal-culated.
Figure I shows the normalized power distribution for a core octant
. at 2200 MWt just before the power increase and after just reaching 2530 MWt.
Also shown is the percentage change between the two powers.
The largest positive change was 1% in two "F" bundles and the largest negative change was - 1. 8% in an "E" bundle.
The acceptance criteria was bundle peaking factor for any bundle would not increase more than 10% from the 2200 MWt condition.
This acceptance criteria was met.
Figure 2 shows the Linear Heat Generation Rates (LHGR) (analogous to Fq) and bundle ROWers for operation at 2530 MWt*
The LHGR is limited by ttie Plant Technical Specifications to 14.12 kW/ft, but this limit is reduced by engineering and uncertainty factors to 11.8 kW/ft, 12.12 kW/ft and 11.76 kW/ft for D, E and F fuel, respectively.
The maximum allowed bundle power is 17.14 MW.
Figure 2 shows operation at 2530 MWt was within both these limits.
Figure 3 shows the peak pin powers (analogous to Fr) for the 28 bundles in the core octant.
The limits for peak pin power are 96.81 kW, 99.72 kW and 96.81 kW for D, E and F fuel, respectively.
Figure 3 shows none of these limits were exceeded.
3 E.
OTHER PLANT PARAMETERS The following figures-were made from data taken during the power escalation and during a plant start-up on December 12, l977.
Figure 4 shows the pro-grammed primary coolant temp~~~tll]'.'~~ from 0 to 100% power.
Figure 5 shows the gross electric output versus power.
The electric output is low by ap-proximately 18 MWe because one feed-water heater was bypassed due to a tube leak.
Figure 6 shows the decrease in steam generator secondary side pres-sure as power increases.
This figure represents an average for the two steam generators.
Figure 7 shows the governor valve position versus power for the power escalation from 2200 MWt to 2530 MWt*
Due.to difficulty in setting the controller, Governor Valve 4 lGV 4) is open before GV 1, 2 and 3 are fully open.
F.
CONCLUSIONS The power increase was performed in an orderly manner using an approved proce-dure to maintain the reactor in a safe condition.
In addition to the limits and acceptance criteria that were previously mentioned as being met, reactor vessel inlet temperatures and steam generator differential pressures were also closely monitored during and after the power increase to assure they remained within the Technical Specifications limits. All acceptance criteria were met and no operating limits were violated and an increase of approximately 100 megawatts - electric was realized from the power increase.
PALISADES PLANT Normalized Power Distributions CQNTROL ROD GROUPS CD @ @ @) Regulating
@ @Shutdown Part. Length D
- o. 5 0.5
-.6 06 03 ct
/0 D
o.834 0.828
-1.2%
r, t..___
~..-.
E D
1.081 1
1.073
-.7%
~
F E
D 0.8 o.8
-.7 08 1.074 0.952 i.271.
D 0.561 0.560
-.2%
D o.668 0.661
-1.0%
D 0.735 0.731
-.-5%
D 0.9 0.9
-.. 6 F
o.8 o.8
+.l E
1.0 1.0
-.4 02 63 57 12 13 92 88 1.067
-.6%
F l
0.894 0.895
+.1%
(1....___
D 1.157 1.160
+.2%
F 0.901 1
0.908
+.8%
0.953 1.271
+.1%
0%
E E
1.241 1
1.280 1.241 1.284 0%
+.3%
~B F
F 0.966 1.040 0.972 1.046
+.6%
+.6%
E F
1.189 1.015 1.168 1.025
-1.8%
+1.0%
~-
[]
Batch 2200 MWt Normalized Power Tape 3498 2530 MWt Normalized Power Tape 3516
% Difference FIGURE 1 F
1.055 1.062
+.7%
E 1.344
- 1. 349
+.4%
E 1.354 1.357
+.2%
11/6/77 11/10/77 j,
F 1.100 1.107
+.6%
E 1.344 1.3~2
+.6%
F 1.036 1.046
+1.0%
Center of Core
PALISADES PLANT Linear Heat Generation Rate and Bundle Power 2530 MWt Operation CONTROL ROD GROUPS CD
@ Q) @ Regulating
@ Shutdown Part Length D
~'
~
D D
8.oo 9.52 10.27 13.31 r
4
, l,___
~4 \\
'<C..)
D E
F 7.78 8.36 7.65 9.95 13.24 11.82 D
D F
E 6.41 8.85 7.11 10.05 6.94
.11.87 l 11.10
- 15.40 I
-{1.....__
CB D
F D
F 6.64
. 7.04 9.07 7.93 8.20 10.08 14.38 12.06 D
F E.
6.79 9.24 7.11 9.19 9.07 13.49
~
11.27 14.49 r-.
~i
}-
- r I
~.
E 9.89 15.76 E
F 10.05' 8.72 15.92 13.18
l.____
\\.L F
E F
8.22 10.79 I
8.68 12.97
- 16.73 13.73 F
E E
8.o 11.23 10.92 12.71 16.83 16.76
.,. ~ T
\\
F 8.12 12.97 Center* of Core
- []
Batch Type Max LHGR kW/Ft 11/10/77 Bundle Power, MW.
FIGURE 2
e PALISADES PLANT Peak Rod Power at 2530 Operation CONTROL ROD GROUPS CD
@ CID@
/
Regulating Shutdown Part Length D
~~
EJ D
D 68.7 81.4 l
, ~\\..__
[4
'I.)
D "E
F E
66.8 71.3 66.o 83.5 D
D F
E E
53.8 74.9 6o.4 86.2
'85. 9 l
~1 -
~B D
F D
F F
53.8 -
59.9 75.5 68.4 70.4 D
E F
E F
58.0 79.1 t
60.3 81.2 68.7 (3
__J )"'
I Batch Peak Rod Power, kW FIGURE 3 F
74.2 E
91.9 E
95.0 r--
(l 3
r
~
r* >-
'1
~
~
F 73.9 E
F 93.0 69.8
~ :"\\
I 3
Center of Core
PROGRAMMED P. C.S. TEMPERATURE
.VS REACTOR POWER (%OF 2530MWt)
PCS PRESSURE= 2010 psia U:.
0 560 TAVG UJ
. a:
~
a:
UJ a.
~ 550 UJ I-5201--~~--.-L.~~~-L-~~~.l--~~---L~~~~
. 0 20 40 60 80 100 REACTOR POWER (% OF 2530 MWt)
Figure 4
Q)
~
~
I 0
er:
~
0 w
~
w CJ)
CJ) 0 er:
CJ e.
e GROSS ELECTRIC PRODUCTION vs REACTOR POWER ( o/o OF 2530 MWt )
600 500 400 300
- --Note: EGA feedwater
. heater bypassed 200 0'--~~__.~~~---'-~~~-'-~~~--~~---
0 20 40 60 80 REACTOR POWER (O/o OF 2530 MWt)
Figure 5 100
_--------------------~----------STEAM.GENERATOR PRESSURE.
vs
__ REACTOR. POWER(% OF 2530 MWt).
850 en c.
I w
800 CI:
Cl)
Cl) w CI:
. 0..
CI:
~
<t:.
CI:
w z w
(.!)
~
<(
w
~
w 650
(.!) <
CI:
w
~
600 550'--~~-----'--~~-'-~~~--'-~~~---~~--
o --- - -*-.
-- 20
-40 60 80 REACTOR POWER (%OF 2530 MWt) 100 Figure 6
1
)
.... TURBINE. GOVERNOR VALVE POSITION
..... VS...
REACTOR POWER (0/6 OF 2530 MWt) 100 z
w a..
0
~ 80 I
z 0
. I-(/)
0 60 a..
w
_J
<t: >
40 o--~~--'-~~~__._~~~.__---~_._~~-----
ao 85 90 95 100 REACTOR POWER (%OF 2530 MWt)
. _________.... __ Figure 7
~
~ *;
a:
0
~
Cl 0 a:
INTEGRAL ROD WORTH CURVE GROUP-4
.15----------------------------
.10
.05 GROUP 4* POSITION llNCHES WITHDRAWN)
Figure 8