ML20049H626
| ML20049H626 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png |
| Issue date: | 02/25/1982 |
| From: | VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORP. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20049H624 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8203030379 | |
| Download: ML20049H626 (14) | |
Text
s
_JL.
o STARTUP TEST REPORT VERMONT YANKEE CYCLE 9
==
Introduction:==
Vermont Yankee Cycle 9 initial startup commenced on December 1,1981 following a 6-week outage for annual refueling and maintenance related activities.
No fuel sipping transpired.
The core loading for Cycle 9 consisted of:
12 8x8 8D274 Reinserts from cycle 6 60 8x8R 8DPB289 Reinserts from cycle 6 96 P8x8R P8DPB289 Reinserts from cycle 7 80 P8x8R P8DPB289 Reinserts from cycle 8 120 P8x8R P8DPB289 Non-irradiated assemblies An as loaded cycle 9 core map is included as Figure I.
Details of the cycle 9 core loading are contained in the Yankee Atomic Electric Company document YAEC-1275, " Vermont Yankee Cycle 9 Core Performance Analysis, August 1981".
Shutdown margin testing was performed satisfactorily on November 16, 1981 and on November 25, 1981. An in-sequence critical was performed satisfactorily November 26, 1981.
Startup commenced December 1, 1981 and steady state full power conditions were reached December 14, 1981.
Control rod coupling verification was performed satisfactorily for all 89 control rods on November 14, and 15, 1981.
Control rod scram testing was performed satisfactorily for all 89 control rods on November 28, 1981.
The final as loaded core loading was verified correct by Vermont Yankee and Yankee Atomic Electric personnel on November 21, 1981.
Core Verification:
The final core loading was verified correct on November 21, 1981.
Three separate criteria were checked:
1.
Proper bundle orientation was verified by checking channel fastener orientation and assuring that fastener orientation agreed with that shown in Figure II.
8203030379 8202g5 PDR ADOCK 05000271 P
pyg
r.
2.
Proper bundle seating aas verified by following Vermont Yankee Procedure VYOP 1411.
3.
Proper core loading was verified by checking the serial number of each bundle through the use of a video camera.
This verification was recorded on video tape and was later independently reviewed and reverified to agree with the licensed core loading of Figure I.
Process Computer Data Checks:
Process computer data shuffling checks were completed November 28, 1981. These checks included various manual and computer checks of the new data constants. A check for consistency of the data was also performed by Yankee Atomic Electric Company and found to be satisfactory.
Shutdown Margin Testing Shutdown margin tests were performed on November 16, 1981 and November 25, 1981. Two types of tests were performed, a suberitical shutdown margin demonstration and a local critical shutdown margin measurement.
The suberitical shutdown margin testing was performed on November 16, 1981 by withdrawing the analytically determined strongest rod to the full out position and then withdrawing a diagonally adjacent margin rod for which a rod worth curve had been calculated. A shutdown margin of at least 0.87% AK/K was demonstrated.
The reactor remained subcritical through the test, thereby satisfying the Tech. Spec. requirement to demonstrate a shutdown margin of 0.69% AK/K.
As this core loading is designed for a 15-month cycle, it is considerably more reactive than previous core loadings.
For cycle 9 this additional reactivity was enough to facilitate the performance of a two rod critical using diagonally adjacent control rods.
I On November 25, 1981 the analytically determined highest worth control rod was fully withdrawn and a diagonally adjacent rod, for which a rod worth curve had been supplied, was withdrawn until the reactor was brought critical. Accounting for the excess reaced.vity associated with the period the reactor shutdown margin was calcu:.ated to be 1.28% AK.
l In-Sequence Critical Sequence 9-A-1 was used to perform the in-sequence critical test.
t l
l l
On November 26, 1981 control rods were withdrawn in-sequence until criticality was attained.
Criticality was achieved on the 8th rod in group 2 (18-15) at notch position 12.
The moderator temperature was 96*F.
1 The actual critical rod pattern and the YAEC prediction agreed within +1% dK/K.
Figure III shows the actual predicted and 11% AK/K critical rol patterns.
Rod Scram Testing All 89 control rods were scram tested satisfactorily on November 28, 1981. All insertion times were within the limits defined in the Vermont Yankee Technical Specifications.
Results of the testing are presented in Table IA.
In accordance with Technical Specifications Section 4.3.C.2, scram time information available for scrams occurring since the trans-mittal of the previous startup test report is also included in Tables IA and IB.
All insertion times were within the limits defined in the Vermont Yankee Technical Specifications.
All scram time information was evaluated to ensure that proper drive performance is being maintained.
No degradation of drive per-formance is noticeable.
Thermal Hydraulic Limits and Power Distribution Core Maximum Fraction of Critical Power (CMFCP), Core Maximum Fraction of Limiting Power Density (CMFLPD), Maximum Average Planar Linear Heat Generation Rate ratio to its limit (MAPRAT) and the ratio of CMFLPD to the Fraction of Rated power (CMFLPD/FRP) were all checked daily during the startup using the process computer.
All checks of core thermal limits were within the limits specified in Technical Specifications.
The results of the Backup Core Limits Evaluation (BUCLE) program were compared to results of the process computer for the same. core conditions. The results were essentially identical as can be seen in Table II.
The process computer power distribution was updated twelve (12) times using the TIP system during the ascent to full power.
The results of these updates are presented in Table III.
The LPRM's were calibrated two (2) times in conjunction with TIP sets 621 and 630. The TIP's and LPRM's were both functionally tested and found to operate satisfactorily.
The process computer power distribution update performed January 5, 1982 (TIP 640) was used as a basis for comparison with an offline calculation performed using the Yankee Atomic Electric Company nodal code SIMULATE.
For the power distribution of January 5,1982 the SIMULATE core average axial power distribution was compared to that calculated by the plant process computer; comparisons are shown in Table IV.
A comparison was also performed between SIMULATE and process computer peak radial powers; comparisons are shown in Table V.
f.
TIP Reproducibility and TIP Symmetry TIP system reproducibility was checked in conjunction with the power distribution update performed Januarv 5, 1982. All three TIP system traces were reproducible to within 2.38%.
The A-1 sequence used as the initial control rod sequence varied significantly from an eigth core symmetric pattern with octant symmetric rod locations at notch position 26 and 40.
Due to this large control rod pattern asymmetry, calculation of a total TIP uncertainty from actual TIP traces would not be meaningful.
Therefore, the total TIP uncertainty was calculated using synthetic traces from a SIMULATE case at the same conditions as calibration 640, but with control rods at core location 18-11 and 10-19, as well as their symmetric counterparts, set to position 32.
These synthetic traces were pointwise adjusted by SIMULATE using the ratio of the actual TIP 640 traces to the synthetic SIMULATE TIP 640 traces.
By using these pointwise adjustment ratios it is possible to estimate what the actual TIP traces for the symmetric pattern would be.
The resulting total TIP uncertainty for this case was 1.46 percent.
It should be noted that this total TIP uncertainty is approximately half that seen in the best previous uncertainty calculations.
This decrease in total TIP uncertainty can be attributed to the installation of Gamma TIP's.
The results of the TIP uncertainty test as shown in Table VI are well below the 8.7% acceptance criteria.
l 4
I
)
i.
7 FIGURE I VERMONT YANKEE Cycle 9 Fusi Loading u lu u ! u LJ l LJ 70651 B732 P23sP236 B7397112 u u su us u usu u g,7_2 0)41P2517221IQ)pl18DJTMi.)
t 40 U I I'J 1018DU W'D3%Bl.3s 3119 I
BJ331173) 121M42 07J I,017FiQQ.7 lliDQS i
I usus u uu u nu ulu u lu u r ulu I u tu g
38 P21}P219 20611P207g065 G934.P199 P20gG93IZ%6IJOB 20t ' 22df.212.O O G94 l
I I
u i u i u u jC975 P260 lB712 3.
u iu uiu us u uiu u iu u
u u r u 1,Z0741C96 2070 B711P259 G9741Z069 :9621Z073 l
R C930 DJ]B.]UI R$
LJ q LJ LJ l LJ uI u LJ i LJ LJ lu
- .J
- LJ u ' LJ LJ I LJ LJ I LJ 3'
B719P227 0811C942?191IC96 085f H02]P2031 20g024lZO86C967 P1 94} kn92P d 2 P
3 u su uiu uiu ulu u lu u iu u
BJ18 HJ2) 1,.09,dQ37210%j uju u 2
I 3
P243kO89 Gj9f f.;}j ;2J4_l4Q9) G9Z3 I09.y 0 15P.254 G9 Eta 9Q. 241 3a u iu iu uiu uiu uiu u iu uiu uiu ui u u p 'u 8729tZ101P239 105 tH011 Z109H003 Z113C950 Z117 211g951!Z114 H004 211y01? '106PMn N 1L7.10 1
I 28 u'u u iu uluutu uiu u iu utu u'u u u'u tJ u 'u 711dI121 C9821:125 G958i2129 C99dZ133 H019k918 B728 B7}1 291jYH.Q2Q, UM O23R13 GS$3 l
51_26_lGj81 Z1227U1 LJ l LJ u Iu uI LJ LJi LJ uIu u ILJ u8u LJ LJ ul LJ Li LJ ILJ B71dP267 Z922C986 926lH015 2930C99 9347091 P195lP19 7101!Z935 C999 931 016 Zy7G987 tz923 268B713 LJ 8u u l LJ W l LJ ulu LJ I LJ LJ ILJ LJ lu LJ ' LJ LJI u LJ tJ LJ LJ P263Z938 C938P247 B720lP215 B724Z942 B 71J P2J),,
I Bl G 5J U E22.4hl,$ Z9A3B221
'B22,1 >248Ma 293.9
_64,,
2 22 LJ
'M LJ I U LJ l LJ U t LJ LJ ILJ u ILJ LJ lu LJ l u LJ LJ LJ lu LJ lu P2692940 C940P249 B758tP217 B753Z944 763P225 B762 B765 P2261B764 Z945b7$$f218 B759?250 h9412941 1
6?%
20 LJ ' LJ U LJ LJ I LJ LJ l LJ LJ iLJ,LJ ILJ LJ l LJ LJ l 1.J u l LJ LJ LJ u B766U719 Z924 988 h928 H017 2932p1001 2936P1,25_ P197IP198 713_1Q37 H002t9,,3 Q1812y29 CJ8J LUJ2Q 7pt, 93 W fu u lLJ LJ l LJ LJ t LJ LJ ILJ u lu LJ lu LJ l LJ
'u 1.J lJ 712L2123 C9841212 960tZ131 C996Z13 0211t920 B748 B75 9,21H022 2136b997 1gfC961Z128C98
_24 26 1
I u ILJ IU LJ I LJ U l LJ UIU UILJ IU UI U LJ ' LJ U LJ l LJ 16 B749 lZ,1,031 P24Q0]IH01,3 211310_05 Z115b9_52_Z119IZ120 C95} Q11 H.,,90.9) Z,1UQ U_IUQS E2s2Z10s. 2,2jd i
LJ lLJ_,, u i LJ LJ l u u I LJ LJ ILJ LJ l LJ 2006lLJu I u lu !u LJ 14 P245l2091 921 9801Z0998756 R761 I
C95 25t%C993 ZO92P246
, u D lP;$7 C956lZO95 gu ' Zinn m i LJ LJ W, LJ LJ LJ LJ LJ i LJ LJ ILJ iu u t,u 12 8757lP229ZO83lC944 P19K968 ZO87; L746
-~
b Ib u lb
[.J 1
0 d~ ~ IJ i u-- ~J li-d ii.J-P205lP206 L747".088 C969 P194 G945ZO84 P230B760 I.J it J 1 u uIu t i 10 B767lP2 97612071 C9642075 9321 ZO79 B 7411 74 080C933 Z076 C96 072G977 P262B768 8
f I
08
!.J I.J lu
!.J 1.J u
I.J I.J LJ u
1.J u
1.J f I.J C948P213fP221 ZO6JP2_09 1
2067 p_936P201 P_g0,,2 gjl?Ypfd P.2 1964 22 1
P.214.2,i,2 u
LJ u I LJ LJ ILJ u tu LJ ' LJ LJ ILJ u!u 06 B740lB745 P233rr044 G972l ZO59!t009 IH010 Z060b973 T045 P234 B74dB743 l
04 LJ LJ lLJ l u lu uI LJ lu t
I B733IT0361P2537040 T041 P254YO37 'B 754 0
I 7115 B744 P237 IP238 B747D123 01 03 05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 1
g LPRM LOCATION (COMMON LOCATION FOR ALL TIP MACHINES) 43 Q 12 2 LOCATION (LETTER INDICATES 39 TIP MACHINE)
@ IRM LOCATION 31 A Su LOCATION
$ SOURCE LOCATION 23 19 15 11 7
3 R.E.F. 054-6 2 6 10 14 18 22 26 30 34 38 42
Figure II s
305 4
i I
i l
L
+.
i 1
I
/
,v!
i J
t L..
+
1
,h.
I N
/
\\
E v
\\
. 4
/
- O l
Boss
?
-)7 g \\
~
~
k' Control
[
e
)
Rcc l
~ ~ ~ -
?
Channel Fastener k
f' r
j t
u
\\ /
s'
.w c
l 4'
il' I
,Y' Id i
i
' Id Lif ting --
- A l-\\,
G l
l Bail 5' ll 1'
t ]4 T /
i [
(
t L
1.
.T q
/dI.
el
,f l l
.s 3
e G
G W
,q 4
..d
f FIGURE III CRZ TICAL ROD C0feFIGURATIOM COMPARIS0ra 1III II I
II l+s l
II el
+e l+el 4el 39 l
l 35 l
l I
I I
I
+s 3'
le i
4e 27
+8l l
l l
l l43 l
23
+g l
4g l+g fo l
+7 III I
I Iil i
II I
I 49 l03 l l
l l
l l4$l l4g l 4g 15 i IIl l
Il 1,
l93 l
l 4gl 4.g 4p l4g 07 l
l 03
-1% A k/k Predicted Critical Pattern 02 06 10 14 18 22 26 30 34 38 42 02 05 10 14 18 22 26 30 34 38 42 43 1
+8
+8 48 48 39 48
+8 48
+8 35 48 48l 48
+8l 31
+8k 18 l
27
+2
+8 48 48 48
+8 23 48
+8
+3 42 48 48 19
+8
+8 06
+9 15 48 18
+8 11 fg fg fgl l4gl 07 4g fg 9g ggl II o3
+1% ok/k Actual Critical Pattern i
4
-e
r TABLE 1A CONTROL R0D SCRAM TESTING RESULTS Scram #107 November 28, 1981 Mean Time for % Insertion 4.51%
25.34%
46.18%
87.84%
Measured time (sec) 0.342 0.879 1.432 2.570 Tech. Spec. Limit (sec) 0.358 0.912 1.468 2.686 Maximum 87.84% insertion time = 3.024 sec.
Tech. Spec. limit for slowest 87.84% insertion time = 7 sec.
Slowest 2x2 Array for % Insertion 4.51%
25.34%
46.18%
87.84%
Measured time (sec) 0.376 0.912 1.4773 2.616 Tech. Spec. limit (sec) 0.379 0.967 1.556 2.848 Scram #106 October 16, 1981 Mean Time for % Insertion 4.51%
25.34%
46.18%
87.84%
Measured time (sec) 0.258 0.768 1.297 2.372 Tech. Spec. Limit (sec) 0.358 1.096 1.860 3.419 Maximum 87.84% insertion time = 2.938 sec.
Tech. Spec. limit for slowest 87.84% insertion time = 7 sec.
Slowest 2x2 Array for % Insertion 4.51%
25.34%
46.18%
87.84%
Measured time (sec) 0.283 0.848 1.432 2.576 Tech. Spec. Limit (sec) 0.379 1.164 1.971 3.624
TABLE IB Scram #105 May 11, 1981 Mean Time for % Insertion 4.51%
25.34%
46.18%
87.84%
Measured time (sec) 0.298 0.816 1.345 2.419 Tech. Spec. Liait (sec) 0.358 1.096 1.860 3.419 Maximum 87.84% insertion time = 2.938 sec.
j Tech. Spec. Limit for slowest 87.84% insertion time = 7 sec.
Slowest 2x2 Array for % Insertion 4.51%
25.34%
46.18%
87.84%
Measured time (sec) 0.323 0.895 1.460 2.577 Tech. Spec. Limit (sec) 0.379 1.164 1.971 3.624 1
e 1
i 1
-. _, - ~ -
(
TABLE Il COMPARISON OF BUCLE AND PROCESS COMPUTER THERMAL LIMITS CALCULATION Parameter Bucle Process Computer CMFCP*
0.386 0.386 Location 23-26 23-26 CMFLPD*
0.268 0.268 Location 23-26-16 23-26-16 MAPRAT*
0.249 0.249 Location 23-26-16 23-26-16
- Tech. Spec. Limit = 1.000 i
l I
l 1
I
)
TABLE III POWER DISTRIBUTION MEASUREMENTS - CYCLE 9 STARTUP DECEMBER 3, 1981 - DECEMBER 14, 1981 Date Power %
Core Flow %
CMFLPD*
CMFCP*
MAPRAT*
12/3/81 25.6 31.3 0.298 0.409 0.277 12/4/81 24.1 31.3 0.268 0.386 0.249 1
12/4/81 49.6 32.5 0.530 0.713 0.506 12/7/81 47.1 34.6 0.494 0.655 0.465 12/8/81 57.0 50.3 0.476 0.645 0.471 12/8/81 59.5 50.0 0.605 0.688 0.567 12/9/81 73.3 59.1 0.633 0.743 0.625 12/9/81 63.1 44.3 0.632 0.764 0.623 12/10/81 72.0 47.1 0.705 0.857 0.695 12/10/81 77.7 51.1 0.736 0.878 0.724 12/10/81 81.4 55.3 0.742 0.879 0.731 2
12/14/81 99.7 93.3 0.825 0.834 0.858
- Tech. Spec. Limit = 1.000 1
i l
1 i
i i.
i i
(
TABLE IV COMPARISON OF SIMULATE AND DIRECT FROM TRACES AVERAGE AXIAL DISTRIBUTION Direct From SDKULATE Traces 24
.4219
.3141 23
.6015
.5216 22
.7692
.6924 21
.8730
.8255 20
.9652
.9245 19 1.0452
.9931 18 1.0621 1.0328 17 1.0372 1.0411 16 1.0761 1.0523 15 1.0838 1.0670 14 1.0617 1.0814 13 1.0904 1.0939 12 1.1111 1.1001 11 1.0788 1.0931 10 1.0776 1.1032 9
1.1259 1.1296 8
1.1548 1.1667 7
1.1585 1.2091 6
1.2078 1.2486 5
1.2242 1.2662 4
1.1576 1.2304 l
3 1.0684 1.1537 l
2
.9105 1.0025 l
1
.6378
.6571 l
l l
L
I I
TABLE V COMPARISON OF 10 HIGHEST RFLATIVE RADIAL POWERS Location Simulate Plant 19-22 1.229 1.278 21-20 1.225 1.271 11-22 1.353 1.360 13-18 1.227 1.306 13-16 1.286 1.311 21-12 1.259 1.266 15-14 1.259 1.279 13-14 1.279 1.272 11-14 1.339 1.310 13-12 1.320 1.303
TABLE VI TOTAL TIP UNCERTAINTY Case Rod Pattern Power (%)
Core Flow (%)
Uncertainty Simulate 32 99.97 94.92 1.46 TIP 640 14 32
)