ML19318B665

Cycle 5 Startup Test Results.

ML19318B665
Person / Time
Site:	Quad Cities
Issue date:	06/19/1980
From:	COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML19318B663	List: ML19318B662 ML19318B665
References
NUDOCS 8006270277
Download: ML19318B665 (10)

Text

T QUAD-CITIES NUCLEAR POWER STATION UNIT 2 CYCLE 5 STARTUP TEST RESULTS I

8006270277

)

l l

l TABLE OF CONTENTS Test No. Title Page, 1 Scram Timing 1 2 Shutdown Margin 3 3 Initial Critien1 4 4 TIP Reproducibility and Core Power Symmetry 5 s

. .~

I. Cont rol Rod Scram Timing Pu rpose The purpose of this test is to demonstrate the scram capability of

. all of the operable control rods in compliance with Technical Specifications 4.3.C.1 and 4.3.C.2.

Criteria A. The average scram insertion time, based on the de-energization of the scram pilot valve solenoids as time zero, of all operable control rods during reactor power operation shall be no greater than:

% INSERTED FROM AVG. SCRAM INSERTION FULLY WITHDRAWN TIMES (sec) 5 0.375 20 0.900 50 2.000 90 3.500 The average of the scram insertion times for the three fastest control rods of all groups of four rods in a two by two array shall be no greater than:

% INSERTOS FROM AVG. SCRAM INSERTION FULLY WITHDRAWN TIMES (sec) 5 0.398 20 0.954 50 2.120 90 3.800 If these times cannot be net, the reactor shall not be made supercritical; if operating the reactor shall be shutdown immediately upon determination that average scram time is deficient.

B. The maximum insertion time for 90% insertion of any operable control rod shall not exceed 7.00 seconds. If this requirement i cannot be met, the deficient control rods shall be considered inoperable, fully inserted into the core, and electrically disa rmed .

l Results and Discussion f

There were 17 7 control rods sc ram tested. The results are presented

! in Table 1.1. The maximum 90% insertion time was' 3.19 seconds for

( control rod M-12 (46-47) . Both criteria A and B were met.

l l

=, .

9 Table 1.1 Control Rod Scram Results NUMBER AVERAGE TIMES FOR % INSERTED, SEC 0F RODS 5% 20% 50% 90%

Cold a '177 0.28 0.51 .1.00 1.73

Hot 89 0.32 0.70 1.48 2.59 Hot 88 .0.31 0.69 1.46 2.56 1

(

t 4

1 l

+

'l

. I l

j l i

[ .l' l

l e G

- . - - _. - , ,w,+

II. Shutdown Margin Demonstration Purpose The purpose of this test is to demonstrate for this core loading in the most reactive condition of the operating cycle that the reactor is suberitical with the strongest control rod full out and all other rods fully inserted.

Criteria If a shutdown ma rgin of 0.40% (0.25% + R + 4B C settling penalty) cannot he demonstrated with the strongest control rod fully withdrawn, the core loading must be altered to achieve this margin. The core reactivity has been calculated to be at a maximum 4000 MWD /T into the cycle and R is given as 0.1%. The control ral B4 C settling penalty for Unit Two is 0.05%.

Results and Discussion On February 26, 1980, control rod H-10 (the rod which was calculated by General Electric to be of the highest worth) was fully withdrawn to demonstrate that the reactor would remain suberitical with the strongest rod full out. This maneuver was performed to allow cold cont rol rod testing prior to the shutdown ma rgin demons tration. The 2-rod diagonally-adjacent shutdown margin test could not be performed until ECCS systems were placed in operation allowing the reactor mode switch to be placed in STARTUP for multiple rod maneuvers.

Control Rod functional subcritical checks were performed as part of the cold scram timing and control rod friction testing. No unexpected reactivity insertions were observed when any of the 177 control rods '

were withdrawn.

General Electric provided rod worth curves for the strongest face adjacent rod (H-9) and the strongest diagonally adjacent rod (G-9) with rod H-10 full out. Both methods would have provided an adequate reactivity insertion to demonstrate the desired shutdown margin.

However, the diagonally adjacent method was chosen since rod C-9 had lower notch worths than the face adjacent rod. On April 19, 1980, a diagonally adjacent shutdown margin demonstration was successfully pe rfo rmed. Using the G.E. supplied rod worth curve for H-10 (the strongest rod) and G-9 (the strongest diagonally adjacent rod), it was determined that with H-10 at position 48 and C-9 at position 20, a moderate temperature of 151 F, and the reactor suberitical, a

~

shutdown margin of at least 0.826% a K was demonstrated. The G.E.

calculated shutdown margin with H-10 withd rawn and 68 F reactor water temperature was 2.153% A K.

G.E. 's ability to determine rod worth was demonstrated by the accuracy of their in-sequence criticality prediction. The A K dif ference between the expected critical rod pattern and the actual critical rod pattern was determined to be only 0.596% A K. The in-sequence criticality was performed on April 20, 1980.

III. Initial Critical Prediction

?urpose The purpose of this test is to demons trate General Electric's ability to calculate shutdown margin by predicting the insequence critical.

Criteria General Electric's prediction for the critical rod pattern must agree within 1% AK to actual rod pattern. A discrepancy greater than 1% AK in the non-conserva tive direction will be cause for an On-Site Review and investigation by Nuclear Fuel Services.

Results'and Discussion On April 20,1980, at 0855 hours0.0099 days <br />0.238 hours <br />0.00141 weeks <br />3.253275e-4 months <br /> the reactor was brought critical with a reactor water temperature at the time of criticality of 186 F. The A K difference between the expect ed critical rod pattern at 68 F and the actual critical rod pattern was 0.0106. The temperature ef fect was -0.00389 AK. The excess reactivity yielding the 70 second positive period was -0.000750AK. These reactivities sum to give 0.00596 AK dif ference (0.596% A K dif ference) between the expected critical rod pattern and the actual rod pattern. This is within the 1% AK required in the criteria of this test, and General Electric's ability to predict control rod worths is, therefore, successfully demo ns tra ted .

! -k-

IV. Core Power Distribution Symmetry Analysis

-Purpose The purpose of this test was to determine the negnitude of indicated core power distribution asymmetries using data (TIP traces and OD-1) collected in conjunction with the P-1 upda te.

Criteria A. The total TIP uncertainty (including ramdom noise and geometric uncertainties obtained by averaging the uncertainties for all da ta sets) mus t he less than 9%.

B. The gross check of TIP signal symmetry should yield a maximum deviation between symmetrically located pairs of less than 25%.

Results and Discussion Core power symmetry calculations were carried out based upon computer program OD-1 data runs on May 6, 1980, at 94% power, and on May 7, 1980, at 97% power. The average total TIP uncertainty from the two TIP sets was 7.696%. The random noise uncertainty was 1.587 %.

This yields a geometrical uncertainty of 7.531%. The total TIP uncertainty was well within the 9% limit.

Table 4.1 lists the symmetrical TIP pairs and their respective deviations. Figure 4.1 shows the core location of the TIP pairs and the average TIP readings. The maximum deviation between symmetrical TIP pairs was 22.878% for pair 11-34. Thus, the second criterion, mentioned above, was also met.

The method used to obtain the uncertainties consisted of calculating the average of the nodal ratio of TIP pairs by:

n 22 1 I I Rij R = 18n J1 i=5 where Rij is the ratio for the ith node of TIP pair j , there being n such pairs.

Next the standard deviation of the ratios is calculated by:

n 22 ,

(Rij - R) y _= j 1 i=

R (18n - 1)

O' y is multiplied by 100 to expresscry as a percentage of the ideal value of g of 1.0.

% <rg = crg x 100 i

by /19 in The total order TIP uncertainty to account for data being is calculated taken atby dividing 3 inch %cr interva ks and analyzed on a 6 inch nodal basis.

In order to calculate random noise uncertainty the average reading at each node for nodes 5 through 22 is calculated by:

MT NT Z E BASE (N, M, K)

BASE (K) = NT . MT M=1 N=1 where NT = number of runs per machine = 4 MT = number of machines = 5 BASE (K) = average reading at nodal level K, K = 5 through 22 The random noise is derived from the average of the nodal variances by: . _

22 MT NT - -2 h E E E BASE (N, M, K) - BASE (K)

%QPnoise = K=5 M=1 N=1 BASE (K) x 100

. 18 (NT x MT -1) .

Finally 'the TIP geonetric uncertainty can be calculated by:

2

% Fgeometric = (%& tota 1 - % & noise2 )

e 9

J

Table 4.1 CORE SYMMETRY Based on OD-l's From 5-6-80(97% power) and 5-7-80(97% power)

SYMMETRICAL TIP PAIR NUMBERS-4[E= Y -Tl ABSOLUTS 1)IFhERENCE

% = 100 x AT/ Ia + Th

% DEVIATION 2

a b ,

4 1 6 10.701 11.570 2 12 9.066 9.367 3 19 2.199 2.350 4 26 11.797 12.068 5 33 3.654 6.5 83 8 13 -2.400 2.004

9 20 10.901 10.377 10 27 1.491 1.476 11 34 21.908 22.878 15 21 16.427 13.377 16 28 24.486 21.030 17 35 0.767 0.747 18 39 0.567 0.763 23 29 15.984 12.833

', 24 36 1.274 1.305 25' 40 4.183 5.463 31 37 5.448 5.512 32 41 5.083 8.865 22 Average Deviation =

T=t 1 T 1(K) /18 8.254%

.i=5 .

9 9

I

-7

Figure 4.1 UNIT TWO POWER SYMMETRY Average BASExReadings (nodes S thro 6gh'22)

From OD-1'sion 5-6-80 and 5-7-80 s

s TIP/LPRM y

Axis of Symmetry

<a

-l 1 l l  !

$8 l e'1%8 i

e18!.O l ?l%E I

_ _l_ _ _ _' @ __ _! _ _ IW I l#l __I 5'

e_ _l_ _

l i I

!  ! I i87 i

- -, , I I l I I i _ i_ _ __ i _

.2t So

_] ,rA33 l j',3c j joy l ga ,10).53 l g 53  !.u I lA l in i- ix I 37  !

i

/i lst  !

i

,-- i i . . e i 16 i i l i i g I /I i e i __g , , , . i i i is ,

I l l i ,~ i i ,_

jQtt

'" ' _[- ~ ~ ,i. toir.r I p % !IAtJ24.K i J32.k-~l ,_ M !,i in l !so im !sa  !

l Ia l ln l i i A-l i i i i .

i 3e i.

i

. i i

i __ l,l i

,i i i i i , i 35 i i I i l i i  !  !

I I i 3' l l 92N --e%!st l i e1844 le 37 ! o114.56 ! e96!45 ! e'M.:50 33 i in el2 __lga__L_ 'n u i '22__l____lss i i l__ _ _lM i ,

_L_

_ _ l2g _ _!__

3: i i

i i

i l

i i

i i l g i

i 7 ig ii i

i i 1

. i. i.

' I i

I I _ _ e_ ___ L _

- _ i, _ __ _ , _ _

" ' ' ' i 25  ; j golp4 i gal.iq I goit.it i go2.0 l g e4 i ;g_ i la l lliu, l.M i gIts3l.ol l Its in Ii lg _ i_

, , i . . i.

n i t

i i

i i i3 ,

. /1 i. . , i 3

. i i i __

i i  !

n- 1l l l l l l l  ! _.i I le - l i .oli i gl8l.10 lglld.W_lgol!83 i p'il i ic

!c,'If%c i 17 i l 19 l Ito i ist 1 -l

.3___i . . i i i ,

16 a i

i /

/l , ., _

1 ,

i i

i i

i i

,i i

e i

i i

e a i-i g

i, s.

i i,

. l l

12 __ r_ __.__ i 29.3? G.r.1 e94.@ e%.GL l o3i_l4 L_o

\

i I l

lo 8

/ ,I i

I' e_ ' -

lA I !3 __l__ __!R _ _ _ _

lh __ L( ' '

i l .

n i i i i l

.6 l i. i. i i i. i i

'" __ i__ __ L._ __ I__ _ _ !_ _ a t C 2 c2 "Il__ l.  ; l l  ; j l

c1 03 05 07 o9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 17 32 41 434547 49 v. ;

$1. 51 55 57 .59 14

) 4 p/

O

'N .-

a -.

ENS .