ML20032B830
| ML20032B830 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Maine Yankee |
| Issue date: | 10/23/1980 |
| From: | Maine Yankee |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20032B828 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8111060417 | |
| Download: ML20032B830 (12) | |
Text
.
MAINE YANKEE CYCE 6 STARTUP TEST REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION TITLE 1
Critical Boron Concentration 2
CEA Bank Worths 3
Ejected CEA Worth 4
Isothermal Temperature Coe fficient at HZP 5
CEA Drop Times 6
INCA Tilt Monitoring 7
Isothermal Temperature Coe fficient at 50% Power 8
Power Dis tribution Measurements 9
CEA Guide Tube Wear 10 CEA Wear TABLE 1
Startup Test Acceptance Criteria 2
Startup Test Measurement and Predictions FIGURE 1
Power Distribution Measured vs. Predicted at 50% Power 2
Power Distribution Measured vs. Predicted at HFP 1
0111060417 801023 PDR ADOCK 05000309
\\
PDR P
MAINE YANKEE OYCLE 6 Startup Test Report Maine Yankee initiated system heatup for Cycle 6 on July 9,1981 after reloading the core in basic accordance with the loading pattern documented in Proposed Change No. 84 (Reference 1) and its supplements. The s tartup tests (acceptanco criteria outlined in Reference 2) were performed from July 12 to July 25, 1981, the latter the completion date for 50% power testing.
The plant is currently restricted to approximately 97% power due to a back end loading problem with the low pressure turbine. The startup tests performed were subject to the acceptance criteria in Reference 2, as given in Table 1.
Each of the following tests is detailed below with the results compared t a those predicted in Table 2.
In these comparisons the nominal measured value i s compared to the calculated value, the latter corrected for any difference between the measurement and calculational conditions.
1.
Critical Boron Concentration The approach to criticality began en July 9,1981 by withdrawal of all CEA's except Bank 5.
A dilution was initiated with Bank 5 partially inserted until the reactor was critical. A final ARO critical boron concentration of 1153 ppm was established, compared to the predicted value of 1197 ppm.
The deviation of 44 ppm was within the acceptance criteria of + 1%Ap (approximately + 95 ppm). A rodded critical condition was established with Banks 5 through 1 (the regulating banks) inserted.
A final critical boron concentration of 881 ppm was achieved, compared to a predicted value of 908 ppm.
The deviation for the rodded case between measurement and prediction was 27 ppm.
2-
1 2.
CEA Bank Worths The CEA worth of all the regulating Banks 5 through 1 in the non-overlap conditions were measured via a reactivity computer.
The individual bank worths are given in Table 2.
The total worth of Banks 5-1 was measured as 3.050%Ap compared to a predicted worth of 3.076%Ap. The difference from the predicted, which is +0.9% of the total measured worth, is within the acceptance criteria of +10.0% nominal in total worth.
l l
3.
Ejected CEA Worth The worth of the mos t limiting near full power ejected CEA was measured at the zero power condition. The ejected CEA is a Bank 5 (2 full strength finger) CEA neasured from the Banks 5+4 inserted configuration.
The single CEA 1 'd a measured worth of 0.072%Ap compared to a predicted worth of 0.083%Ap, which is within the acceptance criteria of measured worth no more than 15% nominal greater than predicted worth.
4.
Isothercal Temperature Coe fficient at HZP The ITC was measured at the ARO and Banks 5-1 inserted conditions at
-4 o
zero power. As given in Table 2, a measured ARO ITC of +0.31(10 j p) was obtained, compared to a predicted value of +0.07(10~ Ap/ F).
The i
diff erence of -0.24(10~ Ap/ F) was within the acceptance criteria of
-4
+0.50(10 Ap/ F) for the ARO case.
'l 3
5.
CEA Drop Times The measured drop times for 90% insertion for each individual CEA was performed from the hot zero power condition. The values were compared to the Technical Specification limit of 2.70 seconds. All CEA's achieved 90% insertion within 2.66 seconds.
The average time of insertion was l,
2.13 seconds with a standard deviation of 0.14 seconds.
6.
INCA Tilt Monitoring, INCA incore (as well as excore) tilt was monitored at least each 5% in core power during power escalation up to 30% power. Due to computer pr oblems, INCA tilt monitoring data was unavailable for power levels from 33%-49%. As a result of discussions with the NRC (Reference 3), t il t behavior was monitored by observing changes in the RPS excore detector indications for the 33%-49% power level range. Excore readings were recorded at leas t every 3% power interval and deviation in readings remained less than 1% between any two quadrants from 33% to 49% power.
The INCA tilt near 50% power was 2.2%, within the acceptance criteria of 3.0%.
7.
Isothermal Temperature Coe fficient at 50% Power The ITC was measured at the near 50% power condition. A measured value o f -0.18(10- Ap / F) was obtained. The predicted value of
-4
-0.45(10
/ F) was in deviation from the measured value by
~0
-0.27(10 AP/ F).
The measured and calculated ITC values reflect an ARO equilibrium boron concentration of 961 ppm.
4
8.
Power Distribution Measurements Power distribution measurements via INCA were performed during power esc ala tion. The equilibrium power distribution measured near 50% power is compared to the predicted power distribution in Figure 1.
The comparison shows excellent agreement, well within the acceptance criteria of +10% for each individual assembly. The maximum deviation which occurs is 5.6% with a deviation of 2.3% in the limiting assembly.
A near full power comparison of power distributions at approximately 500 MWD /MTU is presented in Figure 2.
Excellent agreement is witnessed again with a deviation of 2.9% in the limiting assembly.
9.
CEA Guide Tube Wear Twenty Combus tion Engineering (three cycle resident) and four Exxon Nuclear Company (one cycle residence) fuel assemblies were examined for CEA guide tube sleeve wear using eddy current tes t equipment. No detectable CEA guide tubt sleeve wear was found during the examination.
The approximate threshold of wear detectability in sleeves is 3 mils distributed over 90 degrees in the expanded region of the sleeve, and 3 mils over 180 degrees in the unexpanded region of the sleeve. These results are formally documented in Reference 4.
i l
I 5
10.
CEA Wear Nineteen Control Element Assemblies (CFA's) were measured for wear using a profilometer device at the end of Cycle 5 (Reference 5).
CEA wear i
occurs due to vibrations in the upper region of the fuel assembly guide t
p os t.
Sixteen (16) CEA's examined were from suspected high wear locations based on previous guide tube wear measurement results. The remaining three (3) CEA's examined were from Control Bank 5, the lead power maneuvering bank.
(
i Based on the profilometry measurement results and assuming a linear relationship between wear depth and cycle operating time, fourteen (14) of the nineteen (19) CEA's hcve remaining lifetimes in excess of four (4) opera ting cycles. Of the remaining five (5) CEA's, the most worn CEA has j
a minimum lifetime of approximately two (2) operating cycles.
The three (3) CEA's from Control Bank 5 exhibited negligible wear. These results l
are documented in Re ference 5.
6 1
Re ferences 1)
R. H. Groce letter to NRC, " Maine Yankee Proposed Change No. 84",
April 28, 1981.
2)
MYAPC letter to USNRC, FMY 81-93, June 19, 1981,
Subject:
Cycle 6 Startup Physics Tes ting.
3)
W. J. Metevia letter to USNRC, FMY 81-110, July 24, 1981.
4)
R. C. Jacques le t ter to E. C. Wood, MYC-81-102, October 14, 1981,
Subject:
5)
Combus tion Engineering report NPSD-162-P, CEA Frofilometry Measurements from the Maine Yankee EOC-5 Re fueling Outage, Augus t 1981 (Proprietary).
7
Table 1 Maine Yankee Cycle 6 Startup Test Acceptance Criteria Measurement Conditions Criteria 1.
Critical Boron Hot zero power, near Measurement within Concentration all rods out
+1%Ap of predisied value 2.
CEA Bank Worths Hot zero power, CEA Total worth within +10%
Banks 1+2+3+4+5 in the of the predicted value non-overlap condition 3.
CEA Bank Worths Hot zero power, CEA If the criteria in Banks A+B+C+1+2+3+4+5 Measurement (2) is not met, in the non-overla p the total worth of all CEA condition banks must be within + 10%
of the predicted value.
4.
Ejected CEA Worth Hot zero power, pre-Ejected CEA worth no more ejection CEA banks than 15% greater than the inserted for measurement predicted value.
o f the mos t limiting near full power ejected CEA.
5.
Isothernal Hot zero power, near Mea sureme nt -with in -
Temperature all r od s ou t
+ 0.5 x 10-4Ap/ F of Coe ffic i ant predicted value 6.
Control Rod Drop Operating temperature, Drop times no grea ter than insertion to 90%
2.70 seconds.
7.
Radial Power At or slightly below Each assembly average Dis tribu tion 50% power, near all power within +10% o f rod s ou t predicted value.
8.
INCA Tilt 5-48% ra ted power,
Tilt trends to less Monitoring for nea r all r od s ou t, tilt than 3.0% for greater S ymme try is monitored at 5%
than 50% power operc tion.
Verification power intervals 8
l 4
Table 2 r
Maine Yankee Cycle 6 Startup Test ; Measurements and Predictions Item Units Measurement Prediction Devia tion Criteria 1.
Critical boron concentra tion ppm ARO 1153 1197
+44
+1%ap(+95 ppm)
Banks 5-1 881 908
+27 2.
CEA Bank Worths
% ap 5
0.448 0.446
-0.5%
4 O.259 0.257
-0.8%
3 0.769 0.766
-0.45 2
0.864 0.890
+3.0%
1 0.710 0.717
+1.0%
Total 5-1 3.050 3.076
+0.9%
+10%
j 3.
Ejected CEA Worth 5+4+ Ejected 5 (2 finger)
%Ap O.07; 0.083
-15.3%
< +15%
4.
Isothermal Temperature 10-4Apjo; Coe fficient at HZP ARO
+0.31
+0.07
-0.24
+0.50 Banks 5-1
-0.71
-0.83
-0.22 5.
CEA Drop Times seconds 2.13 average less th an 2.6% worst 2.70 seconds 9
Table 2 (Continued)
Maine Yankee Cycle 6 Startup Test M asurements and Predictions Item Units Measu remen t Prediction Devia tion Criteria 6.
INCA Tilt Monitoring
% Incore Percent Rated Power Tilt 3.0 5.8 5.6 5.3 10.6 3.8 13.4 3.0 0.4 7.4 7.5 3.9 17.0 2.9 21.6 3.0 23.0 2.6 26.2 2.6 28.8 2.5 32.8 2.5 i
- 33-49 49.2 2.2
<3.0 7.
Isothermal Temperature 10-439 joy Coe f f ic ien t Near 50%
Power ARO
-0.18
-0.45
-0.27 See discuss ion in Section 6 l
i 10 t
s.
I Figure 1 i
i Maine Yankee Cycle 6,
Cycle Burnup Distribution by Assembly INCA versus Predicted BOC,.ARO, Equilibrium Conditions near.50% Power 2
Assembly Type and INCA Location K-0 8
K-0 21 INCA at 47% Power, 48 MWD /MTU 0.592-0.752
~
Predicted at 50% Power, 50 MWD /MTU 0.577 0.734 Percent Difference
-2.5
-2.4 K-0 15 K-0 31 K-0 11 1-0 25 K-8 4
0.593 0.848 1.033 0.842 1.017 0.603 0.875 1.045 0.815 0.984 1.7 3.2 1.2
-3.2
-3.2 K-0 16 K-8 33 I-0 13 J-8 28 K-8 7
I-0 20 l'
O.703 0.956 0.911 1.139 1.146 0.915 0.712 0.982 0.945 1.148 1.124 0.884 1.3 2.7 3.7 0.8
-2.0
-3.4 K-4 34 J-8 14 I-0 30 J-0 10 I-4 24 J-8 3
1.081 1.068 1.031 1.227 0.991 1.001 1.108 1.085 1.055 1.279 0.972 1.006 2.5 1.6 2.3 4.2
-1.9 0.5 I-0 32 J-0 12 1-0 27 J-0 6
I-0 19 1.094 1.258*
1.125 1.172 0.974 1.109 1.287*
1.133 1.166 0.959
-1.4 2.3 0.7
-0.5
-1.5 J-4 29 J-0 9
I-4 23 J-0 2
1.240 1.161 0.977 1.153 1.245 1.146 0.938 1.137 0.4
-1.3
-4.0
-1.4 I-4 26 J-0 5
I-4 18 1.007 1.110 0.988 0.967 1.104 0.946
-4.0
-0.5
-4.3
- Maximum 1 pin I-0 22 J-0 1
1.052 1.218 Octant Loca t ion 12 1.031 1.199 Measu red 1.405
-2.0
-1.6 Predicted 1.434 Difference 2.1%
E-16 17 1.092 Percent Difference:
NCA
-5.6 11
Figure 2 Maine Yankee Cycle 6 Assembly Rela tive Power Densities INCA versus Predicted BOC, ARO, Equilibrium Conditions near HFP Assembly Type and INCA Location.
K-0 8
K-0 21 INCA at 95% Power, 504 MND/MT 0.591 0.751 Predicted at 100% Power, 500 MWD /MT.
0.554 0.701 Percent Difference
-6.3
-6.7 K-0 15 K-0 31 K-0 11 I-0 25 K-8 4
0.595 0.846 1.021 0. 84 1 1.018 0.575 0.831 0.996 0.796 0.958
-3.4
-1.8
-2.4
-5.4
-5.9 K-0 16 K-8 33 1- 0 13 J-8 28 K-8 7
I-0 20 0.699 0.957 0.915 1.134 1.151 0.923 O.680 0.948 0.922 1.128 1.114 0.892
-2.7
-0.9 0.8
-0.5
-3.2
-3.4 K-4 34 J-8 14 I-0 30 J-0 10 I-4 24 J-8 3
1.079 1.069 1.026 1.213 0.996 1.024 1.064 1.070 1.046 1.265 0.990 1.038
-1.4 L.1 1.9 4.1
-0.6 1.4 I-J 32 J-0 12 I-0 27 J-0 6
I-0 19 1.086 61.240 1.117 1.177 0.986 j
1.103 61.280*
1.115 1.192 0.998 1.6 3.2
-0.2 1.3 1.2 J-4 29 J-O 9 I-4 23:J-0 2
1.227 1.153 0.983 1.164 I
1.263 1.178 0.986 1.185 2.9 2.2 03 1.8 I-4 26 J-0 5
I-4 18 1.010 1.125 0.999 0~:'^t : '
1.018 1.162 1.009
^ ' '..
I' O.8 3.3 1.0 b EO, Maximum 1 pin gg '
1.064 1.231*
I-0 22 J-0 1
Octant Loca tion 1
12 1.094 1.267 Measured 1.398 1.384 2.8 2.9 Predicted 1.397 1.426 Difference
-0.1%
3.0%
E-16 17 1.103 Pred - INCA 1.113 Percent Difference:
x 100 INCA 12 l