ML19331D134

Results of Startup Physics Testing Program Conducted for Cycle V Operation.

ML19331D134
Person / Time
Site:	Pilgrim
Issue date:	08/18/1980
From:	Aboltin J BOSTON EDISON CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML19331D133	List: ML19331D132 ML19331D134
References
NUDOCS 8008270347
Download: ML19331D134 (12)

Text

I

.g -

?.

PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION UNIT NO. 1 DOCKET No. 50-293 RESULTS OF STARTUP PilYSICS TESTING PROGRAM CONDUCTED FOR CYCLE V OPERATION Prepared by +( t nior Reactor Engineer Reviewed by ,

C ief Technical fngineer Reviewed by ~

/ ~ 26 Assistant /tationManager Approved by Pj f et.t1 w .S.r 7 8008270 347

. Table of Contents Page I. Introduction 1 II. Pre-Heatup Tests and Data 1

• A. Reactor Core Verification J! l

. B. Shutdown Margin Checi ,' 1

. C. Control Rod Testing - 1 D '. Cold TIP Alignment 2

. E. -In-Sequence Critical 2 III. Power Ascension Tests 2 i

A. Ascension Test - Description 2

' B. Core Power Distribution and Thermal Limit Checks 2 C. Off Line Computer Program Verification 2 D. 100% RCTP Rod Pattern 2 E. 100% Power Core Thirmal Limit Checks 3 F. Core Power Symc?try and TIP Uncertainty Test 3 G. Hot TIP Alignment 3 IV. Figures and Tables Figure 1 - Initial Critical Rod Pattern Comparison 4 Figure 2 - 100% RCTP Control Rod Pattern Comparison 5 Figure 3 - Core Average Axial Power Shape 100% RCTP 6 Figure 4 - Core Symmetry Test Results 7 Table I - Hot Scram Time Results 8 Table II - Power Level Versus Core Thermal Limits 9 Table III - Core Thermal Limits at 100% RCTP 10 4

, y , - , . - - - - . . - - - - - , , - - - ,w-,, , i,,- . . . ,-m,. . . -- . ,-y - ,- . -v. . , m , -

,.,y

. e -

1. Introduction This report summarizes the results of the Startup Physics Testing program for Cycle V conducted at Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station Unit I, from April 14, 1980 up to and including the completion of the 100% power testing on July 25, 1980. 7

~

II .

• Pre-Heatup Tests

'A. ' Reactor Core Verification Reactor Core Verification was conducted by three methods. Method one required the licensed SRO to verify the serial number of the fuel assembly in the spent fuel pool prior to handling, and verification of seating and orientation of the fuel assembly after placement in the core. These checks were signed off on the fuel loading master checkoff list on an individual basis throughout the core reload. The second method of verification was conducted by members of the Reactor Engineering and Technical Staff with the use of an underwater TV camera and a video tape system. This consisted of a bundle by bundle verification of:

(a) fuel assembly serial number with the General Electric supplied reload core map, (b) fuel bundle orientation and seating, and (c) channel fastener proper installation. Verification in this manner was conducted in two ports, part one on April 4, 1980 when the entire core had been reloaded, and part two on April 14, 1980 after cell 18-11 was unloaded and reloaded. The third method of verification was conducted by a review of the video tapes taken on April 4,1980 and April 14, 1980 by the Senior Reactor Engineer and another menber of the Technical Staff who was not involved with the initial verification.

B. Shutdown Margin Check On May 14, 1980 the full core shutdown nargin check was successfully conducted by performing an In-Sequence Critical. The results indicated that the reactor core had a shutdown margin at BOC5 of 2.66% AK/K with the strongest control rod withdrawn. The Technical Specification limit is R+.25% A K/K and the value of R for Cycle 5 is 1.49%.

C. Control Rod Testing Control rod testing consisted of the following:

1) Functional and Subcritical Tests.

2) Verification of control rod coupling integrity and a check for control rod overtravel.

3) Full core control rod operability and suberiticality check.

4) Friction Testing and Timing

5) Scram timing all control rods at a reactor pressure of 950 psig. The scram time results are indicated in Table I.

D. Cold TIP Alignment A cold T1P alignment was accomplished prior to reactor startup. A Hot TIP alignaent was scheduled as one of the 100% power startup testc.

E. In-Sequence Critical k The General Electric in-sequence criticality data predicted criticality would occur when pulling the sixth rod in group three (30-23) to position

~12 with the core xenon free and a moderator temperature of 68 F. On May 14, 1980, criticality was achieved when pulling the eleventh rod in group three (22-23) to position 14. The reactor core was xenon free with a moderator temperature of 184 F and the reactor period was 185 seconds. The actual critical rod pattern, after correcting for temp-erature and period and the General Electric prediction agree within

+ 1%JiK/K. Figure 1 is a comparison of tha predicted and actual rod patterns at initial criticality.

III. Power Ascension Tests A. Power Ascension Tests - Description Some of the startup tests that were performed throughout the startop and ascension to 100% power were APRM calibrations, LRPM calibrations, Process Computer checks, Long Form heat balances, Rod sequence checks, core performance checks, jet pump calibrations, core symmetry check (TIP symmetry and TIP uncertainty), and TIP alignment checks.

B. Core Power Distribution and Thermal Limit Checks The core power distribution was monitored continuously during significant changes in rod pattern and power level. A complete power distribution measurement (using the TIP system) was performed and the process computer updated at power levels of approximately 30%, 50%, 80% and 100%. Power level, MCPR, LHGR, and MAPLHGR for the four test power levels are summarized in Table T.I along with Technical Specification limits for MCFR, LHGR, and ESP'HGR. All parameters were with Technical Specification limits.

C. Off Line Computer Program Verification The off line computer program BUCLE (Backup Core Limits Evaluation) was used to check the results of the process computer at different power levels during the startup. BUCLE used current reactor parameters to calculate fuel thermal limits. The results compared within 1% of the process computer.

D. 100% RCTP Rod Pattern At 100% power and 100% core flow, the General Electric estimated full power control rod pattern predicted that 336 notches would be inserted in the reactor core (Figure 2). In actuality, th.ere were 304 notches inserted into the core (Figure 2). The difference of 32 notches is well within the + 1% AK anomaly curve.

3-

• The General Electric predicted axial power distribution was compared to the actual 100% rod pattern axial power distribution and is represented in Figure 3. The d!fferences r.re attributed to the slightly different .

rod patterns and the fact that 100% RCTP was not obtained until about 400 MWD /T eycle exposure.

E. 100% Power Core Thermal Limit Checks k Thermal limits at 100% RCTP were compared to the General Electric predicted

, limits and acceptable results are summarized in Table III.

F. Core Power Symmetry and TIP Uncertainty Test 2

A core symmetry test was performed at 100% power using bundle powers calculated by the process computer. Figure 4 summarizes the results of the core symmetry test. A TIP uncertainty test was performed at 100%

RCTP. The results indicated the following uncertainties, i Total TIP Uncertainty - 4.266%

TIP Random Noise Uncertainty - 1.374%

TIP Geometric Uncertainty - 4.039%

i.

i These results are well within the G.E. recommendations of 9.0%.

i G. Hot TIP Alignment

.I On July 15, 1980, a hot TIP alignment was completed at 100% power and no significant deviations were discovered during the alignment process.

4 e

p., y w - . , , - - . -eai< my ~gs,,-, ~yyyg -#--.

9 . - ,.+-.__.-+.--m.ye..uas,%%9-.f7.+7-. g-.a-ar- e, - .y y-

FIGURE 1 INITIAL CRITIrAL ROD PATTERI! COMPARISON 51 48 48 48

'7 8

r. 3 12 43 48 48 48 48 48

~ 29 8

^

8 75 _48 48 48 48 48 48 48 Predicted Critical no 12 12 ,8 8 Rod Pattern 17 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 Xenon _ Free 23 8 8 12 12

'I .

U 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 5

,, 8 , 8 ,,

11 4g 4g 4g 39 49 5 12 8 i

48 48 48 7 6 10 la 13 22 26 30 34 38 42 46 50 5 12 20 28 35 '44 5' zg 4g 69 48 48 45 0 43 48 48 48 48 48

,, 9 12 -- l'

_i ,

Actual Critical 35 48 48 48 48 4R Lo '

Rod Pattern 31 48 , ,48 , , 12 , 48 Xenon Free 2^  :: , . ' '

27 184"F 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 185 Second 2'

Period

,,, 48 ,,

p 14 .6 4R

4R 19 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 15 12

,9 ,

l' ,

11 4g as Aa r.o A9 5 48 ,

48 ..

3 48 48 4R 2 6 10 14 18 22 26 30 34 38 42 46 50 A 12 20 28 36 44 Page 4

. FIGURE 2 100% CONTROL ROD PATTERN COMPARISON 51

!S

l 43 24 24 I

. . n.

$15 24 12 24 Predicted e,

100% RCTP gn , ,

Control Rod 9 ,'

12 Pattern 12 23 11 ,

I' 24 12 24 15 11 24 96 7

5  :  :

3

? 6 10 14 13 22 26 30 34 38 42 46 50 4 12 20 28 36 '44 5?

t7 45  :

O' 30 30 29

?? , -

35 30 8 30 Actual 100% RCTP e

, Control Rod 27 8 Y 8 7' ,,

37 ,

n -6 -

IS 30 8 30 I'

33  ;:  :' "

11 an an 7

5 ,

3 2 6 10 14 18 22 26 30 34 38 42 46 50 4 12 20 28 36 44 Page 5

FIGURE 3 CORE AVERACE AXIAL POWER SilAPE 100% RCTP i p --- --- ,

.j  ; , ,

Core Top >

I 3 ,. .

L '  ! ' '

--24 - - - - - - - -

l--

---

f-

I j ., ,

I p_.... . . _ _ . . __ . j p. _. . .

, , , . i i 4

.. . ,! ._._ l __. _..,i __ _ -,:!

i I L

' ' X GE.4Pred_icted -

I l i

. 3, .  ; .

I_..'

. k' .!.._f0 Actiual . ,

. 3 i,

j

! r w

4 1 e j

- . . . . _,b_ . . . . ..

i I j i . , ,

- 2 0- .

i ,  ;

. . ..._.; j i

t ._. j .. .; - _ p-. .. .. _

g. _ ,

i  ! . -

i i .

a l j  :  ! l i l 'i .- l ^ l .. i i . . .

!  ! i i j , j

= h._ . 4 _ .

i l .

! I i o .. _ . . . _ . . . .. - _ _ _ - 2_ _l _ ___ .

w t

L _;l r . .  :

. .i.

$ g _ . ._ _

, h_.4.__.4. .g._ . p ._. p._.1 i

1.g .u.L._

4-

~! <

H16 -

t. .

! l . -i . t t ._ l -

+

4 a _.__t r j l i-  ! - ' l. .

i . ;.  : j .-l- j .

1 p _.. L___.h. ._._.. ._j. _ __[,__..._ - _._ a_._. ..

_ _.._ f_a .__.h_ . .. _

i ~

--- 14

~

- - - - - - - - L Q 1 o '

O s T4 .

s 3 . 12 __- . .- _ _ _ _ _ - . _ . - - - -

)

x . . _ _ ._ _ _ -

_ _ _ . ___ .p ._ p . ____:_______u _ _ _ _

. . . - ..__.a.

10 - - - - - -- - - - - - -

1 -- - -

_ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ ..._a__ _ _ _

-g_

I: . _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ ___ .

. _. _. -_ q g L~ ' - - -

. _ _ . _ - --.-4 m. . . . . .- ._.__ - - +-s +=. -- --=.=-. . .

._._ _ _ _ =

.4_ ._ . _ . _ . - _ _ . . _ _ . . _ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - .

e-- . e e ~s.

, t e

i . !

.i i'

-. 2 - . _ . _ _ _ . . . . . .

Cor Rnt t nm

.2_ .4 .b .8 1.0 l'. 2 1.4 , _

l' 6 .

_ - . _ _ _ ._. _ _ _ _ . . . . _ - __. .~ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . ._

Relative Power

FIGURE 4 CORE SYMMETRY TEST 1998 Mwt

?

, Data from Process Computer .'

, P_rogram 0D-10 -

Bundle Power Normalized to 100

\ 0 +3 +4 +5 +3 +3 +4 +2 +1 +1 +1

-2 109 112 (115) 82 82 111 133 124 121 118 115 89 61 26

\

\ +4 ' +3 +4 +3 +2 +3 0 +1 +1

+2 -2 112 120 114 116 118 123 128 135 126 133 108 99 60 24

\

N +2 +2 +1 +3 +3 -4 -5 -5 -5 +2 112 109 127 119 124 116 126 115 118 103 110 95 60 22 i \

i \ 0 +1 +2 +3 -7 -5 -5 -6 +4 79 113 !117 119 113 127 121 97 87 111 102 88 57 20 x

. \ +1 +1 +1 0 -3 +4 +5 -4 78 113 I 122 113 123 127 125 96 87 96 100 78 54 18 l I \ I I \

+6 0 -2 -2 +5 l +5 0 108 16 119 115 126 126 139 g 125 120 104 105 92 73 47 l

l 0 -1 -2 0 +2 +5 -

129 122 118 124 118 129 111 109 99 71 53 38 14 l125 I '

l 94 95 120 111 104

-2 89

-2 84

@Tercent 12 119 l131 112 l 57 Difference x from 0-tant 119 126 l

87 k0 -2 symetric 106 110 91 79 61 10 123 l 93 41 Location 1

117 132

• 108 116 99 107 101 86 61 08 l </

114 107 115 107 96 87 71 57 42 06

_ .o; ' e~ n 4

88 97 100 93 74 69 52 kp 04 62 61 59 55 56 47 36

~

27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 Page 7

m ._. . ... . . _ . .. _ . _ - _ . _ . . .

TABLE I l r

llot Scram Time Results s

Tech. Spec. Limit Actual Time

% Scram Insertion Avg. Times (sec) .(sec)

. 10 .55 .482 30 1.275 1.006 50 2.00 1.571 90 3.50 2.737 All control rods scrammed within seven (7) seconds and there were no combinations of the three fastest control rods in a two-by-two array 4

which exceeded the Technical Specification limits.

b 6

l

}

i i

J Page 8

TABLE II Power Level Vs. Core Thermal Limits F0WER (%) MCPR LIMIT L11GR LIMIT MAPLHGR LIMIT (KW/FT) (KW/FT) (KW/FT) (KW/FT) 28.4 3.944 1.710 3.20 13.4 2.54 9.50 51.1 2.373 1.676 6.07 13.4 4.45 9.50 79.2 2.002 1.482 8.01 13.4 5.77 9.50 99.8 1.728 1.350 9.67 13.4 8.04 10.3 Page 9

TABLE III Core Thermal Limits at 100% RCTP G.E. Prediction , Pilgrim MCPR 1.730 1.728 Maximum KW/FT (MLHGR) 9.140 9.621 Total Peaking Factor 2.070 2.158 MAPRAT .740 .776 Page 10