ML19254D298

Summary of Startup Testing for Fourth Cycle.

ML19254D298
Person / Time
Site:	Calvert Cliffs
Issue date:	10/15/1979
From:	BALTIMORE GAS & ELECTRIC CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML19254D297	List: ML19254D296 ML19254D298
References
NUDOCS 7910230560
Download: ML19254D298 (8)

Text

.

BALTIM0RE GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY CALVERT CLIFFS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNIT 1 Docket No. 50-317 License No. DPR-53

SUMMARY

OF STARTUP TESTING FOR FOURTH CYCLE 1195 t54 7 9102 3 0.5 (C

SUMMARY

OF STARTUP TESTING FOR CALVERT CLIFFS UNIT ONE CYCLE FOUR I. The following tests were conducted for the Startup of Calvert Cliffs Unit One for Cycle Four. All tests were conducted in a manner similar to initial startup (Ref. 1).

A. CEDM/CEA Perfonnance Test B. RCS Flow Verification C. Initial Criticality D. CEA Synnetry Check E. Critical Boron C ncen+ ration Measurements F. Isothermal Temp 1rature Coefficient Measurements G. Group Rod Worth Measurements H. Power Coefficient Measurements I. Power Distribution Measurements II. The results of these tests and comparison with predictions are as follows:

A. The proper functioning of the CEDM's and CEA position indication was verified through insertion and withdrawal of CEA's. All trippable CEA's reached a 90% insertion in less than 3.1 seconds at hot, full flow conditions. The slowest CEA (59) reached 90% -

insertion in 2.45 seconds.

B. Reactor Coolant System flow was verified to be consistent with previous testing.

C. Initial Criticality was achieved at 1324 ppm Boron with CEA Group-5 at 68" withdrawn. Predicted value was 1318 ppm.

D. The CEA Symmetry Check verified that all CEA's were attached to their extension shafts. An evaluation of the quantitative reactivity change for dual CEA's yielded an azimuthal tilt estimate of < 4%.

Acceptance Limit was < 10%.

E. Critical Baron Measurements - Table 1.

1195 355

Summary of Startup Testing Calvert Cliffs U-1, 4/c Page 2 F. Isothermal Temperature Coefficients - Table 2.

G. CEA Group Worth Measurements - Table 3.

H. Power Coefficient Measurements - Table 2.

I. Power Dist. ioution Measurements - Table 4.

III. All test results were within acceptance limits, except that for the local power distribution measurement made at the 50% power test plateau.

The agreement between predicted and measured radial bec, power distribu-tions met the acceptance criteria of : 10% ( 15% for peripheral assembliesj with the exception of octant assemblies 1 and 2 (Figure 1),

where the differences are 10.8% and 11.7% respectively. These differences are the result of several effects relating to the predicted power distributions. The most significant of these effects are:

1. A slight reactivity bias in the calculation of highly irradiated fuel relative to fresh fuel. This causes an underprediction of the power in the core center.

2. Approximations made in the detailed description of the center test assembly. These would cause an underprediction of the power in the core center.

3. Assumptions made in generating the in-core detector coefficients.

The coefficients are generated under assumed full power conditions and tend to be less accurate at lower power levels. These effects cause the indicated measured power at the core center to be slighcly higher.

All of the assemblies in the full power case (Figure 2) fall within the acceptance criteria. The differences between measurement and prediction observed here are due primarily to the effects described above.

These disparities in the agreement between predicted and measured local power distributions do not obviate the validity of the safety analysis.

1195 356

TABLE 1 CRITICAL BORON MEASUREMENTS Measured Predicted All Rods Out, 532 F 1342 ppm 1345 135 ppm CEA Group 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 1102 ppm 1104 110 ppm TABLE 2 ISOTHERMAL TEMPERATURE COEFFICIENTS AND POWER COEFFICIENTS ITC Measured Predicted

-4 U Zero Power, CEA Group 5 + .36 x 10-4ac/ F + .49 .3 x 10 &/ F at 105" Withdrawn U

50% Power, CEA Group 5 + .19 x 10-4ac/ F + .24 .3 x 10-4e/ F at 105" Withdrawn 100% Power, CEA Group 5 U

.45 x 10-4ao/ F - .27 e .3 x 10-4ap/ F at 105" Withdrawn POWER COEFFICIENT 50% Power, CEA Group 5 -1.08 x 10-4ac/% - .91 .2 x 10-4e/%

at 105" Withdrawn

-4 100% Power, CEA Group 5 .89 x 10-4ao/T - .72 : .2 x 10 ac/%

at 105" Withdrawn i i95 357

TABLE 3 CEA GROUP WORTH MEASUREMENTS Measured (%ae) Predicted (%Ao)

Group 5 .550 .586 .088 Group 4 .176 .167 .025 Group 3 .592 .589 .088 Group 2 .460 .451 .068 Group 1 .7E8 .855 .128 TOTAL 2.567 2.648 .265 TABLE 4 POWER DISTRIBUTION MEASUREMENTS Measured Acceptance Limits 50% 100% 50% 100%

F 1.63 1.50 1 1.826 1 1.660 pT 1.48 1.45 < 1.713 < 1.585 r

T .004 .004 1 0.030 1 0.030 q

Radial Box See See Measurement varies from Power Figure 1 Figure 2 prediction by less than Distribution 10% (115% for fuel assemblies on core periphery).

1195 358

FIGURE 1 17 Calvert Cliffs Unit 1 *693 *892 Cycle 4. 50% Power Comparison of Measured .700 .904 Versus -1.3

.0 Predicted Radial Box Power Distribution 32 28 23 16 8

.733 1.007 1.107 1.105 1.028

. .762 1.052 1.180 1.122 1.074

-3.8 -4.3 -6.2 -1.5 -4.3 34 31 27 22 15 7

.797 1.206 1.253 1.032 .890 1.130

.838 1.253 1.268 1.048 .881 1.155

-4.9 -3.8 -1.2 , -1.6 1.0 -2.2 33 30 26 21 14 6 1.134 1.103 1.061 1.243 .946 .967 1.193 1.110 1.060 1.247 .910 .923

-4.9 .6 .1 .3 4.0 4.8 29 25 20 13 5 1.025 1.031 .944 1.011 .888 1.047 .994 .917 .974 .843

-2.1 3.7 2.9 3.8 5.3 24 19 12 4

.954 1.097 .812 1.053

.944 1.069 .796 .995 1.0 2.6 2.0 5.8 18 11 3

.854 1.086 .844

.820 1.018 .790 4.1 6.7 6.8 Measured 50%, 13.4 MWD /T 10

.984 1.089 Predicted 50%, 13.4 MWD /T

.910 .975

% Diff Measured - Predicted x '.00 Predicted 8.1 11.7 1

.614

.554

)k b )b/

FIGURE 2 Calvert Cliffs Unit 1 17

• 672 9

• 854 Cycle 4, 100% Power Comparison of Measured .665 .859 Versus 1~1 -6 Predicted Radial Box Power l Distributicn 32 28 23 16 8

.695 .954 1.068 1.085 1.043

.717 .980 1.109 1.084 1.057

-3.1 -2.7 -3.7 .1 -1,3 34 31 27 22 15 7

.791 1.165 1.197 1.007 .901 1.228

.816 1.193 1.203 1.023 .898 1.212

-3.1 -2.3 .5- -1.6 .3 1.3 33 30 26 21 14 6 1.173 1.078 1.042 1.246 .960 .992 1.205 1.098 1.049 1.233 .939 .966

-2.7 -1.8 .7 1.1 2.2 2.7 29 25 20 13 5 1.032 1.041 .952 1.031 .905 1.056 1.012 .943 1.011 .888

-2.3 2,9 1.0 2.0 1.7

~

24 19 12 4

.969 1.123 .844 1.095

.973 1.103 .845 1.047

.4 1.8 .1 4.8 18 11 3

.878 1.125 .881

.869 1.077 .853 1.0 4.5 3.3 Measured 99.6%, 1043 MWD /T 10 1.035 1.163 Predicted 99.6%, 1043 MWD /T

.985 1.068 i Diff Measured - Predicted x 100 Predicted 5.1 8.9 1

.734

.687 6.8 119S 360

REFERENCES

1. Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1, Startuo Test Report, August 29, 1975.

1195 361