ML20011F514

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Quad-Cities Nuclear Power Station Unit 1 Cycle 11 Startup Test Results. W/900226 Ltr
ML20011F514
Person / Time
Site: Quad Cities Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 02/26/1990
From: Stols R
COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO.
To: Murley T
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 9003060168
Download: ML20011F514 (11)
v • d • e


Text

y. +

l ... ..

. . ", _ g, . * '

p L

1

~f.--

Commonwealth E!.' son-.

1400 Opus Pisce *

~*

i

._ Downers Grove, Illinois 60515 d7Av}.

4: 'r February 26, 1990:

.Dr. Thomas E. Murley. Director

~0ffice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington _DC 20555'

Subject:

Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station Summary Startup Test Report Unit 1 Cycle 11-NRC Docket No. 50-254 Dr. Murley Enclosed for your information and use is the Quad Cities Sta, tion Unit 11 Cycle 11 Startup Test Summary Report. This report is submitted in accordance with the Quad' Cities Technica1' Specification. .

Please address any questions concerning this topic to this office.

Very truly yours, 4

/ . '/

l '

R. Stols Nuclear Licensing Administrator j

cc: A.B. Davis t

.R.L. Higgins - Senior Resident-Inspector, Quad Cities j

L. 01shan - Project Manager, NRR  ;

i i

4.

/Imw:0719T k l jr

$8030IOobk b $4 y ,

,3 41 - * -- - - - -

tr f 1-^ ( .

. . ' I .?

l- p t. , f,'

I

  • I'

. 4l e 'h.

f ,

e ,

I k' .

k u

y .

s

,'~ h h.

E

{

.L t

-QUAD-CITIES NUCLEAR POWER STATION .;

UNIT 1 CYCLE 11 ,

STARTUP TEST RESULTS I a

r ,

h

.k 1

6 ll  ;;

I i

i l

l 0034H/0062Z l

l

~

v; - , t; ,

.. r.

( ...

i. ,

g -/

t t i s

TABLE OF CONTENTS Test No. Title Page

-1 Scram Timing 1.

2 Shutdown Margin 3' 3

.q 3 Initial Critical 4 4 TIP Reproducibility and 1 Core Power Symmetry 4~

i I

s  !

' f ,o' ,'

s

)

0034H/0062Z

.j

-n j

C 4

h i 1.- Control Rod Scram Tisina-

, -Purpose [

6 The purpose of this-test is to demonstrate the scram capability of '1 of q

_the operable control rcds in compliance with Technical Specification >-

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 at time zero, of all operable control _ rods.

In the reactor power operation condition shall be no greater than: '

% INSERTED FROM AVG SCRAM INSERTION  !

FULLY WITHDRAWN TIMES (sec) 5 0.375 20 0.900 50 2.00 90 3.50 The average of the scram' insertion times for the three fastest control rods of all groups of four control rods in a two by two array shall be no. greater than:

% INSERTED FROM AVG. SCRAM INSERTION FULLY WITHDRAWN TIMES (sec) 5 0.398 20 0.954 50 2.12 90 3.80

-If these times _cannot be met, 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 scram insertion time for 90% insertion of any operable control rod shall not exceed 7.00 seconds. If this requirement cannot be met,-the deficient control rods shall be considered inoperable, fully inserted into the core, and electrically disarmed.

Results and Discussion h All 177 control-rods were scram tested. The results are presented in_ Table

1. The maximum 90% insertion' time was 3.27 seconds for control rod G-9 (26-35). Both criteria A and B were met.

0034H/0062Z VT y c- .

c- .

t

t.  ;

I I

i' Table 1.

Control Rod Scram Results NUMBER REACTOR AVERAGE TIMES FOR % INSERTED, SEC

  • OF RODS CONDITIONS- 5% 20% 50% 90%

177 Hot 0.29 0.67 1,44 2.54 t

?

eP 0034H/0062Z l iv

{*y a.s 7 i

G

m. ,

I

2. ~ Shutdown Margin Demonstration and Control Rod Functional Checks ]

j

-Purpose-The purpose of this test is to demonstrate for this core loading in the j most reactive condition during the operating cycle, that the reactor is '

subcritical with the strongest control rod full out and all other rods fully inserted.

Criteria I

-If a shutdown margin of 0.857% AK (-0.25% ( R + B 4 C settling penalty)-

cannot be 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 3000 MHd/ST into the cycle and R is given as 0.567%'AK. The control rod B4 C settling penalty for Unit One 6 is 0.04% AK.

Results and Discussion On October 22, 1989, control rods H-3 and H-13 were fully withdrawn one at a time to demonstrate that the reactor would remain subcritical with the strongest rod out. This maneuver was performed on two different control rods since GE determined from their strongest rod calculation that these two: rods have equivalent worths'with control cell 38-35 unloaded.- Cor, trol F cell' 38-35 was unloaded during- the maneuver due to loading difficulties t with this cell. On October 27, 1989, control cell 38-35 was loaded and control rod H-13 was fully withdrawn. This rod was calculated by GE to have the highest worth with the core fully loaded.- The strongest rod out maneuver was performed to allow single contrcl rod withdrawals for CRD testing.

Control Rod functional subcritical checks were performed as part of control rod friction testing. No unexpected reactivity insertions were observed L when any of the 177 control rods were withdrawn. >

j' General Electric provided rod worth information for the two strongest E diagonally adjacent rods G-12 and G-14 with rod H-13 full out. This method L provided an adequate reactivity insertion to demonstrate the desired

! shutdown margin. On November 20, 1989, a diagonally adjacent shutdown I

margin demonstration was successfully performed. Using the G.E. supplied rod worth for-H-13 (the strongest rod) and diagonally adjacent rods G-12 and G-14, it was determined that with H-13 at position 48, G-12 at position 48, and G-14 at position 12, a moderator- temperature of 160*F, and the

p. reactor subcritical, a shutdown margin of 1.316% AK was demonstrated, The G.E. calculated shutdown margin with H-13 withdrawn and 68'F reactor water temperature was 2.149% AK at the beginning of cycle 11.

At approximately 3000 MHd/ST into cycle 11 a minimum calculated shutdown L margin of 1.582% AK will occur with H-13 fully withdrawn.

0034H/0062Z t

~

y{

,n j ,

G.E.'s ability to determine rod worth was demonstrated by the accuracy.

of'their inksequence criticality prediction. The'AK difference between

, the_ expected critical rod pattern and the actual critical rod pattern'was determined to be_0.154% AK, This initial critical demonstrated that: the actual shutdown margin at the beginning of cycle 11 was 2.303% AK and r

-1.736% AK at 3000 mwd /ST into cycle 11.

3. Initial Critical Prediction .

Purpose ,

The purpose of this test is to demonstrate General Electric's ability to I calculate control rod worths and 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 will be cause for.an On-Site Review and investigation by Nuclear Fuel '

Services.

Results and Discussion On November 23, 1989, at 2300 hours0.0266 days <br />0.639 hours <br />0.0038 weeks <br />8.7515e-4 months <br /> the reactor was broughtLcritical with reactor water temperature at the time of criticality of 174*F. The AK difference between the expected critical rod pattern at 68'F and the actual critical rod pattern at 174*F was 0.0038 from rod worth tables supplied by General Electric. The temperature effect was -0.0018 AK from General Electric supplied corrections. The excess reactivity yielding the 124 second positive period was 0.00046 AK, These reactivities result in a 0.00154 AK difference (0.154% AK) 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 t control rod worth is, therefore, successfully demonstrated.

4. Core Power Distribution Symmetry Analysis Purpose The purpose of this test was to determine the magnitude of indicated core power distribution asymmetries using data (TIP traces and 00-1) collected

-in conjunction with the CMC update.

Criteria A. The total TIP uncertainty (including random noise and geometric-uncertainties obtained by averaging the uncertainties for all data sets) must be less than 9%.

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

0034H/0062Z

,~ .

  1. ,Results and Discussion s
  • Core power. symmetry calculations were performed based 'upon computer program:

[ .00-1 data: runs on December 5, 1989, and January 9. 1990, both at 95.0%

power. The average total TIP uncertainty from the two TIP sets was'

.4.740%. The random noise uncertainty was 1.399%. This yields'a geometrical uncertainty of 4.528%. The total'TIP uncertainty was well within the 9% limit.

. Table 2 lists the symmetrical TIP pairs and their respective average deviations. Figure-1 shows the core location of the TIP. pairs and the average TIP readings. The maximum deviation between symmetrical TIP pairs was 17.64%lfor pair 32-41. Thus, the second criterion, mentioned above, was also met.'-

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

~ ~

n -22 1 -I I- Rij .

_R - 18n- j-1 1-5.

- - a where Rij is the ratio for the Ith node of TIP pair j, there being n such l pairs, where n 18. {

i Next the standard deviation of the ratios is calculated by:

'n

~

22  !

I I (Rij - R)2 1/2 o_= 1-1 i=5 R

418n - 1) .

oR is multiplied by 100 to express oR as a percentage of the ideal ll value of oR of 1.0. j i

% og - oR x 100 j The total TIP uncertainty is calculated by dividing % og by / 2 in

. order to account for data being taken at 3 inch intervais and analyzed on a  ;

6 inch nodal basis. -

i , i j In order to calculate random noise uncertainty the average reading at each l node for nodes 5 through 22 is calculated by: U MT- NT I I I BASE (N, M, K)  !

BASE (K) - NT x MT M N-1 l l

l- _ -1 _

i p where NT = number of runs per machine - 5 L MT = number of machines - 5 l' BASE (K) = average reading at nodal level K, j K - 5 through 22 ~

i 0034H/0062Z  !

s g:w; i

j 'i

  • .- e. .,

r i. .

. 4 6 r

n The random noise is derived from'the average of the nodal variances by:

~

-s 22 MT NT 2 1/2 '

I E- I BASE (N M. K) - BASE (K)

%o noise - K-5 M1 N 1- ,

BASE (K) ,

x 100 18 (NT x-MT -1) -

Finally the TIP geometric uncertainty'can be calculated by:  ;

% o geometric - (% o total 2 - % o noise 2)l/2. ,

k

.' [

,l l

i l

l l

l l

l l

0034H/0062Z )

d- s- 3 -

i

-,.~

Table 2 -

CORE SYMMETRY-Based on 00-l's from 12-05-89 and 01-09-90 (95.0% power)

SYMMETRICAL TIP AVERAGE PAIR NUMBERS ABSOLUTE DIFFERENCE  % DEVIATION- t a-b T= Ta - Tb  % .100 X -T/((Ta + Tb )/2) 4 1-6 .3.44 4.97 ,

2-12; 0.98 0.99 '

3-15 1.09 1.14 4-26 1.29 1 47 5-33 4.71 11.27 .

8-13 1.40 1.40-9-20 1.18 1.11 10-27 3.35 3.40 11-34 1.39 1.53-21 7.40 7.52 16-28 0.64 0.60 17-35 4.24 4.38 1 18 0.34 0.55 ^

23 0.93 0.96 24-36 8.81 8.39 25-40 .3.37 5.38 .;

31-37 1.86 2.07 32-41 8.29 17.64 22 Average Deviation - 4.15 .

Tj- E T)(K) -/18 i-5 0034H/0062Z . :--_u ____:_ _ _____- _ _ _-___- _ ___- - - - - ___-_.

T& .. .

l

,  ; , u. i

  • u

+

. FIGURE 1

o i ~,a ; que cmas UNIT ONE

- i , i. .

-* _i _. __i _ __ _l_ __ _i_ .__L I p- I $4.i23 51.l13 N _ .!

60.26,39l _ _ _

l

'40

___._____1__. l 4

. . l_ . TIP/LPRM w-O_ __

"i I l l l l l L ' '/ sy - try I a 76j0' 14j;14 8949(1 94d69g i109j40d 89.

3(

_ _l 331 1 34l l 351* l- 36l-..__. 17. _. __l [l l l I I I I I  ! th l l 66 i 'i th i

_. _ _ i.. l l_ _ -

_ _ _ _ __ i ' _ _ _._ii_ _

_ _1_ _. __t_ . 1_ _ _ _' _.

h- .l

88. l30 9 64 8 7 o M]6.!58o -

97.129 l 97.[56 l 90.161  ! d4' ' 4o -

    • J- le261 1 271 l_ m___ l_ _o _ ' _ 30!_ _.l_oall 22I _. I sl_

8 l l 1: I I I I I I I o o -

  1. 1 I I I i I L '/ I I - I _ L. __ l_ _I__

86 l 9 5.!38e l 106.!56 e ,l

, 9435

>M)4.!71 d l 10035 l 60.!86 I_

L i i

1 91 i i

201 .I ni_ i L2l_i

_! o1 23 1 i

24L __l i

o_1 25 i i l . i. i i, l i l i i.

o_t__

" I i l i l I _ I _'._ L_o l _ _ _ l I _.L __ L. _.l__ _ !__

1 as I 99.l76 99.l45 i100.101 101.l98  ! 107.!2g l 98.l93 160.60m 'l

_I_gt_2_ _ _ l_gul a ____

l _I __i_41_ _I_ ,n.l_ l 1 61 1 1 71 ,

isi i i m-i i

i l-i i

I l3 i I I l i

l i

l I

i i

I 3

i I

i I

i l

a 7IE,t i 104.125 99.190 ' 91.I3

>l l l o ! 105.!51o 1 130 i I E u- --

! 6I i 7I I 8I I 9! __l__ 101 i i l Ul i t- i i i . i i a l .i i

,io i u

i+e l , I l

i I

ei 4 1 I i I j

z/ 67:56 t_ __ l

,1

9g l 1 2l 96.l47, l l .J. L.

B 7.'01 i 4!

l g, !

__ [_ 5 l " l  ! I I I I

/ ._ i_. .. l_. _. L.

,/ _

a l__! l.. ! I I i i

i 01 03 05 07- 09 11 13 15 17 19 al 23 25 srf 99 31 33 36 N 39 h1 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 l'

e LMut IAeaties (Intter Laticatee W anehian) BBSe Average g

' O uses smeesta (common loestten ter all m == mi==e)

String No.

O nn 14estions -

O " 3**** * *** UNIT ONE POWER SYMMETRY AVERAGE BASE READINGS

  1. sewee tmentions (NODE 5-22)

BASED ON OD-l's from 12-5-89 (95.0% power) 1-9-90 (95.0% power)

L

.- - .

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20011F514&oldid=2472424"