ML19254D599
| ML19254D599 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 09/07/1979 |
| From: | NORTHEAST UTILITIES |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19254D597 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910290151 | |
| Download: ML19254D599 (15) | |
Text
.
MILLSTONE UNIT 2 STARTUP TEST RESULTS, CYCLE 3 Startup testing of Millstone Unit 2 for Cycle 3 was completed at 2560 Mwt on June 7,1979.
NRC approval for stretch power to 2700 Mwt was received on June 25, 1979.
Testing at this plateau was completed on July 7,1979.
Enclosed is a summary of results from Low Power Physics Testing and Power Ascension Testing. All startup tests were performed in a similar manner to initial startup.
l22l lb4 7 91020015 l r
1.
Startup Test Index 1.
CEA Syrmietry Check 2.
Regulating Groups 7 through 2 Worth 3.
Critical Boron Concentration (Reg. Groups 7 through 2) 4.
Isothermal Temperature Coef. (Reg. Groups 7 through 2) 5.
Regulating Groups 2 through 7 Overlap Worth 6.
Critical Boron Concentration (AR0) 7.
Isothermal Temperature Coef.
(AR0) 8.
Center CEA Worth (7-1) 9.
Power Distribution (50% Power) 10.
Critical Boron Ccncentration (50% Power) 11.
Power Distribution (94.8% Power) 12.
Isothermal Temperature Coefficient (100% Power) 13.
Power Coefficient (100% Power)
- 14. Power Distribution (100% Power) 15.
Critical Boron Concentration (100% Power) 16.
RCS Flow Determination (100% Power) 1221 16b
II.
SUMMARY
OF LOW POWER PHYSICS TEST A.
CRITICAL BORON CONCENTRATION (ZERO POWER)
Measured Predicted Dev AR0(I) 1221 ppm 1205 ppm
+16 ppm ARI (7-2) 888 ppm 861 ppm
+27 ppm Acceptance Criteria:
1 75 ppm.
Acceptance Criteria Met: Yes B.
INTEGRAL CEA BANK WORTHS Bank Measured Worth Predicted Worth Delta P 7
.64 %ap
.64 %Ap 0.0 %Ap 6
.25 %ap
.25 %Ap 0.0 %Ap 5
.17 %ap
.16 %Ap 0.01 %Ap 4
.88 %Ap
.95 %ap
-0.07 %Ap 3
.67 %Ap
.72 %Ap
-0.05 %Ap 2
1.15 %Ap 1.08 %Ap 0.07 %Ap Acceptance Criteria:
The greater of a) i 15% of predicted b) 1 06%Ap Acceptance Criteria Met: Yes C.
TOTAL CEA BANK WORTH Bank Measured Predicted
% Dev 7-2 (rof Individual 3.76 %Ap 3.80 %Ap
-1.06 Groups) 7-2 (Measured in
- 3. 71 %ap 3.80 %Ap
-2.43 Overlap)
Acceptance Criteria:
110% of Predicted Acceptan
,teria Met: Yes (1)
Measured CBC adjusted for Group 7 at 135 Steps to ARO.
1221 166
D.
CEA SYMMETRY CHECK Bank Max. Deviation 7
- 73c 6
- 47c 5
- 36c 4
- 87c 3
.82c 2
+.59c 1
-1.00c B
- 53c A
-1.20c Acceptance Criteria:
+1.5c deviation from group average.
[ NOTE:
This is not intended as a "go-no go" criterion but an indication of possible flur tilts during power operation.)
A,ceptance Criteria Met: Yes E.
ISOTHERMAL TEMPERATURE COEFFICIENTS Measured Predicted Delta
-4
-4 AR0
+.272X10- Ao
+.372X10 ao
-0.1X10 ao V
V V
(7 0 135 Steps)
(7 0135 Steps)
-4
-4 ARI (7-2)
.705X10-
.721X10 ao
+0.02X10 9 Ap Y
V V
Acceptance Criteria:
+.3X10-ap F
Acceptance Criteria Met: Yes F.
CENTER CEA INTEGRAL WORTH Rod Measured Worth Predicted Worth
% Dev.
7-1
.0319%ap
.0308%Ap
+3.5 Acceptance Criteria:
None 1221 167'
III.
SUMMARY
OF POWER ASCENSION TESTING A.
CORE F:')W DETERMINATION Measured _
Minimum Required (
100% Power 120.3%
117.6% Design Flow Acceptance Criteria Met:
Yes B.
POWER DISTRIBUTION Measured Tech Spec Limit Fr Fxy MLHR( } Tq T
T T
T Fr Fxy MLHR Tq (KW/FT)
(KW/FT) 50 % Power 1.536 1.641 7.21
.88%
1.776 1.776 15.6 2%
94.8% Power
- 1. 51 3 1.552 12.93
.39%
1.637 1.675 15.6 2%
100% Power 1.502 1.532 13.13
.2%
1.615 1.630 15.6 2%
Figures 1-6 (attached) represent INCA Radial Power Distribution (RPD) comparisons.
Figures 1, 2 and ' reflect INCA vs. CE prediction for 50%, 94.8%
and 100% obto.ned during power ascent.
Figures 4, 5 and 6 reflect INCA vs. ROCS prediction used in final analysis of the power distributions for 50%, 94.8% and 100%.
Comparisons are made to ROCS predictions run at conditions of power and burnup that more closely approximate the actual conditions of the core at the time the INCA distributions were obtained.
Acceptance Criteria:
T T
g,ggq are within Tech Spec Limit.
(b) Measured RPD values agree with predicted RPD values within
+ 10%.
Acceptance Criteria Met:
Yes (2)
Design flow equals 324800 gpm.
(3)Measured KW/FT plus Tech. Spec. ur. certainties.
122,1 168
C.
CRITICAL BORON CONCENTRATION Measured Predicted Dev 50% Power G) 933 ppm 948 ppm
-15 ppm 100% Power'.
(AR0) 820 ppm 851 ppm
-31 ppm Acceptance Criteria:
+ 75 ppm Acceptance Criteria Met: Yes D.
ISOTHERMAL TEMPERATURE COEFFICIENT-Measured Predicted Dev 100% Power (5)
-4
-0.15X10- ap
-0.502X10 ap
.356X10 ap F
F F
-4 Acceptance Criteria:
~+.3X10 aoT Acceptance Criteria Met: Yes E.
POWER COEFFICIENT Measured Predicted Dev 100% Power (5)
-1.17X10-4
-4 ap_
.730X10 g
-0.44X10-4 g
%Pwr
%Pwr
%Pwr
-4 Acceptance Criteria:
i.3X10 a_o
% Pwr Acceptance Criteria Met: No (4)
Measured at 94.8% adjusted to 100% ARO.
(5)
Measured at 91% adjusted to 100% ARO.
1221 169
IV.
SUMMARY
All Startup Test results met acceptance criteria and Technical Specification requirements. with the exception of the Power Coefficient measurement. The measured Power Coefficient was
-4 outside the acceptance criteria of +.3X10 Ap/%PWR. An investigation by Northeast Nuclear Energy Company and Combustion Engineering indicates that the method used in predicting the power coefficient does not include certain refinements needed to more closely simulate the measurement of the Power Coefficient.
Specifically, the prediction was calculated using 3-D ROCS with Bank 7 at 102" withdrawn and Hot Full Power conditions.
The power level changed only due to fuel temperature reactivity effects.
Xenon and moderator temperature were held at the full power conditions.
The measurement was performed starting with initial core conditions of 91% FP, 3D Xenon Equilibrium and Bank 7 at 102".
The center CEA (7-1) was inserted until a reduction of 5% FP was obtained. The change in reactivity was determined from the center CEA integral worth curve.
I221 170
An evaluation of the measurement and prediction has identified three main differences that modify the measured Power Coefficient.
First, the insertion of the center CEA modifies the power shape within the core, an effect not accounted for in the prediction. This results in a flux redistribution throughout the core.
The flux is depressed in the central region and peaks towards the periphery of the core.
The neutron importance weighting function is the highest at the center of the core and decreases towards the periphery.
This flux redistribution results in a lower effective fuel temperature and thus a more negative power coefficient.
Second, the insertion of the center CEA results in a Xenon buildup and redistribution in the region of the CEA. This poisoning effect tends to reduce the effective fuel temperature.
Thus, the predicted coefficient will become more negative due to the presence of the Xenon.
The third effect not accounted for in the predictions is the change in temperature across the core as power is reduced.
Since the Moderator Temperature Coefficient is more negative at the top of the core the overall effect is an insertion of positive reactivity as power is decreased.
122l ill
The effects described in the preceeding paragraphs have been conservatively estimated to increase the predicted Power Coefficient by a minimum of.18X10-4 ap/%PWR.
Thus the comparison of measured to predicted power coefficient is within the acceptance band.
1221 1/2
MILLSTONE UNIT 2 OCTANT
\\
INCA - 50% FP, 55 MWD /MTU, Equil. Xe & Bank 7 at 180 steps Predicted - 50% FP, 75 MWD /MTU, Equil. Xe & Bank 7 at 180 steps 33 34
.831
.700
.849
.728
-2.166
-4.000 29 30 31 32 Oct. Loc.
RPD ( INCA)
.936
.931 1.075
.757 KEY RPD (Predicted)
.919
.932 1.093
.763 PCT Diff.
1.816
-0.107
-1.674
-0.793 n5 24 25 26 27 28 f,
.722 1.159 1.303 1.181 1.068 m
.719 1.116 1.303 1.199 1.081 0.416 3.710 0.000
-1.524
-1.217 18 19 20 21 22 23
.831
.897 1.073
.900
.892 1.211 7
.810
.900 1.048
.882
.902 1.247 17 2.527
-0.334 2.330 2.000
-1.121
-2.973
.816
.818
-0.245 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 N
1.166 1.106
.841 1.244 1.174
.933 1.169 tra 1.143 1.066
.811 1.221 1.163
.958 1.205 3
1.973 3.61 7 3.567 1.849 0.937
-2.680
-3.080 1.01 2 1.043
-3.063 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
3
.627
.802
.829
.933
.912
.900 1.259
.981
.626
.786
.814
.898
.889
.909 1.302 1.033 0.159 1.995 1.809 3.751 2.522
-1.000
-3.415
-5.301
MILLSTONE UNIT 2 OCTANT INCA - 94.8% FP, 355 MWDMTU, Equil. Xe & Bank 7 at 169 Steps Predicted - 100% FP,175 MWDMTV, Equil. Xe & Bank 7 at 180 Steps 33 34
.824
.687
.845
. /15
-2.549
-4.076 Oct. Loc.
29 30 31 32 RPD (INCA)
.942
.930 1.052
.725 KEY RPD(Predicted)
.932
.931 1.066
.737
,g PCT Diff.
1.062
-0.108
-1.331
-1.655 E
[
24 25 26 27 28
.744 1.171 1.298 1.147 1.009
.753 1.131 1.288 1.169 1.034
-1.210 3.416 0.770
-1.918
-2.478 18 19 20 21 22 23
.879
.947 1.097
.912
.873 1.150
.856
.941 1.072
.898
.898 1.190 17 N
2.617 0.634 2.279 1.535
-2.864
-3.478
.768 N
.779 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
~
N 1.241 1.170
.888 1.265 1.188
.930 1.124
^
1.191 1.116
.855 1.241 1.173
.954 1.160
)
4.029 4.615 3.716 1.897 1.263
-2.581
-3.203
.953
.989 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
3
.673
.861
.880
.987
.937
.921 1.2 51
.947
.676
.837
.863
.943
.920
.927 1.278 1.003
-0.446 2.787 1.932 4.458 1.814
-0.651
-2.158
-5.913
MILLSTONE UNIT 2 OCTANT INCA - 100% FP, 700 MWDMTU, Equil. Xe & Bank 7 at 170 Steps Predicted - 100% FP,175 MWDMTU, Equil Xe & Bank 7 at 180 Steps 33 34
.829
.693
.845
.715
-1.930
-3.175 29 30 31 32 Oct. Loc.
RPD (INCA)
.939
.927 1.050
.725 KEY RPD (Predicted)
.932
.931 1.066
.737 n
5 PCT Diff.
0.745
-0.431
-1.524
-1.655 E
m 24 25 26 27 28
.748 1.166 1.296 1.145 1.005
.753 1.131 1.288 1.169 1,034
-0.668 3.002 0.617
-2.096
-2.886 18 19 20 21 22 23
.884
.952 1.097
,909 874 1.152
[
.856
.941 1.072
.898
.898 1.190 17 3.167 1.155 2.279 1.210
-2,746
-3.299 y
.766
.779 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
-1.697
)
1.237 1.173
.888 1.273 1.187
.929 1.123 1.191 1.116
.855 1.241 1.173
.954 1.160 3
3.719 4.859 3.716 2.514 1.179
-2.691
-3.295
.953
.989 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
3
-3.778
.671
.852
.882
.990
.940
.921 1.252 948
.676
.837
.863
.943
.920
.927 1.278 1.003
-0.745 1.761 2.154 4.747 2.128
-0.651
-2.077
-5.802
MILLSTONE UNIT 2 OCTANT INCA - 50% FP, 55 MWD /MTU, Equil. Xe, Bank 7 at 180 Steps ROCS - 50% FP, 55 MWD /MTU, Equil. Xe, Bank 7 at 180 Steps 33 34
.832
.702
.849
.727
-2.043
-3.561 Oct. Loc.
29 30 31 32 KEY RPD (INCA)
.936
.930 1.076
.757 RPD (RUCS)
.920
.932 1.093
.762 m
5 PCT Diff.
1.709
-0.215
-1.580
-0.661 E
m 24 25 26 27 28
.721 1.159 1.303 1.182 1.067
.719 1.116 1.303 1.200 1.084 0.277 3.710 0.000
-1.523
-1.593 18 19 20 21 22 23
.831
.897 1.072
.899
.893
.4
.809
.900 1.048
.883
.902
. 247 17 N
2 647
-0.334 2.239 1.780
-1.008
-2.718
.816 N
.817 10 11 12 13 14 15 li 1.165 1.105
.840 1.244 1.173
.932 1.169 x
1.142 1.066
.811 1.221 1.164
.958 1.206 1.974 3.529 3.452 1.84L 0.767
-2.790
-3.165 3
1.012 1.043 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
3
-3.063
.627
.801
.828
.933
.911
.900 1.259
.981
.626
.786
.814
.897
.889
.910 1.302 1.034 0.159 1.873 1.691 3.859 2.415
-1.111
-3.415
-5.403
MILLSTONE UNIT 2 OCTANT INCA - 94.8% FP, 355 NWD/MTU, Equil. Xe & Bank 7 at 169 Steps ROCS - 94.8% FP,190 MWD /MTU, Equil. Xe & Bank 7 at 169 Steps 33 34
.825
.690
.830
.708
-0.606
-2.609 Oct. Loc.
29 30 31 32 KEY RPD (INCA)
.942
.930 1.052
.725 RPD (ROCS)
.932
.928 1.061
.733 ny PCT Diff.
1.062 0.215
-0.856
-1.103 A
24 25 26 27 28
.744 1.171 1.299 1.148
- 1. 00f,
.759 1.136 1.291 1.168 1.029
-2.016 2.989 0.616
-1.742
-2.033 18 19 20 21 22 23
.879
.947 1.097
.912
.874
. 152
.863
.951 1.079
.902
.898 1.186 N
1.820
-0.422 1.641 1.096
-2.746
-2.951 17 N
~
,768
.773 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
-0.651 ss:
1.240 1.170
.887 1.265 1.187
.930 1.124 N
1.198 1.125
.863 1.249 1.175
.951 1,154 3.387 3.846 2.706 1.265 1.011
-2.258
-2,669 3
,952
.981 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
3
-3.046
.673
.861
.879
.986
.936
.920 1.250
.946
.668
.841
.870
.951
.926
.928 1.263
,997 0.743 2.323 1.024 3.550 1.068
-0.870
-1 040
-5,391
MILLST0flE UNIT 2 OCTANT INCA - 100% FP, 700 MWD /MTU, Equil. Xe & Bank 7 at 170 Steps ROCS - 100% FP, 500 MWD /MTU, Equil. Xe & Bank 7 at 170 Steps 33 34
.829
.693
.833
.707
-0.483
-2.020 Oct. Loc 29 30 31 32 n
KEY RPD (INCA)
.939
.927 1.050
.725 E
RPD (ROCS)
.937
.930 1.056
.726 PCT Diff.
0.213
-0.324
-0.571
-0.138 cn 24 25 26 27 28
.748 1.166 1.296 1.145 1.005
.768 1.139 1.287 1.160 1.018
-2.674 2.316 0.694
-1.310
-1.294 18 19 20 21 22 23
~
.884
.952 1.097
.909
.874 1.152
.875
.960 1.084
.905
.896 1.171 17 1.018
-0.840 1.185 0.440
-2.517
-1.649
.766
.763
{,
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Co 1.237 1.173
.888 1.273 1.187
.929 1.123 1.211 1.137
.873 1.252 1.175
.949 1.142 2.102 3.069 1.689 1.650 1.011
-7.153
-1.692 3
.953
.968 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
3
-1.574
.671
.852
.882
.990
.940
.921 1.252
.948
.683
.854
.883
.963
.932
.930 1.257
.589
-1.788
-0.235
-0.113 2.727 0.851
-0.977
-0.399
-4.325