ML20057A624

Core Xviii Startup Physics Test Rept

ML20057A624
Person / Time
Site:	Haddam Neck File:Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co icon.png
Issue date:	08/31/1993
From:	Borg R, Stetz J, Stoddard J CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
NUDOCS 9309150059
Download: ML20057A624 (29)

Text

-

i

~

CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATO M IC POWER COMPANY i

HADDAM NECK PLANT 362 INJUN HOLLOW ROAD

• EAST HAMPTON. CT 06424-3099 September 8,1993 Re:

Technical Specification 6.9.1 Docket No. 50-213 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Sir:

i Haddam Neck Plant Cvele 18 Startun Physics Test Report l

In accordance with Section 6.9.1 of the IIaddam Neck Plant Technical Specifications Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company (CYAPCO) hereby submits the Startup Physics Test Report for Cycle 18 operation for the Haddam Neck Plant.

This report is being submitted within 90 days following completion of the startup test program.

Should you have any questions related to this submittal. please contact me.

Very truly yours,

[

ohn P. Stetz I

Vice President-Haddam Neck l

i JPS/bom cc:

Regional Administrator. Region 1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 William Raymond Sr. Resident Inspector Connecticut Yankee 140051 i

S. Claffey j

J. Guerci i

h i

I.

9 f

e ~s e 241 9309150059 930831 PDR ADOCK 05000213 isi 4

P pon gg O

i(

l CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY HADDAM NECK PLANT k

i i

CORE XVIII STARTUP PHYSICS TEST REPORT August 1993 l

l l

f.

Prepared by:

' J. E. Stoddard, fr., Reactor Engineer Approved by:

'/

R. E. Borg,/in ~ eering Supervisor d ##

Reviewed by:

C. J. Gladding, Engineering ganager l

l

)

i

i I

t r

l l

TABLE OF CONTENTS t

4 W

1.

Introduction................................................................................... 1 I

r 2.

Control Rod Drop Tune Measurements.................................................... 2 3.

New Core Initial Approach to Criticality................................................... 5 j

4.

All Rods Out Critical Boron Concentration.............................................6

{

5.

Isothermal Temperature Coefficient Measurements...................................... 8

\\

6.

Control Rod Bank Reactivity Worth Measurement......................................10 j

J 7.

Rodded Critical Boron Concentration..................................................... 12 8.

Differential Boron Worth................................................................... 13 9.

Thirty Percent Power Flux Map........................................................... 15

10. Eighty Percent Power Flux Maps.......................................................... 17

11. One Hundred Percent Power Flux Map................................................... 21

12. Reactor Coolant System Flow Test........................................................ 23 i

i i

i 1

i l

l

-c p

n

i d

LIST OF TABLES i

Iable Eagc 1.

Co ntrol Rod Drop Tune Measurements.................................................... 4 l

)

i 2.

Delayed Neutron Fractions.................................................................. 7 l

f f

3.

Co n trol Rod B ank Wo rths.................................................................. 11 l

4.

Differential Boron Worth................................................................... 14 j

5.

Summary of Results from 30% Power Flux Map CY-XVIII-1-526...................16 4

6.

Summary of Results from 80% Power Flux Map CY-XVIII-2-527...................18 7.

Summary of Results from 80% Power Flux Map CY-XVIII-3-528.................19 8.

Summary of Results from 80% Power Flux Map CY-XVIII-4-529................. 20 d

9.

Summary of Results from 100% Power Flux Map CY-XVIII-6-531............... 22 l

10. RCS Lo op Flow Tes t Re sults............................................................... 25 l

i i

l F

i l

l l

)

i i

1 j

i

~ -

r

I'.

INTRODUCTION

'Dils report documents the Connecticut Yankee Core XVIII Startup Physics Test program.

The testing sequence was completed as follows:

Initialcriticality July 18,1993 Zero power testing completed July 19,1993 Turbine phased to grid July 20,1993 30 % power flux map completed July 22,1993 80% power flux maps completed July 25,1993 100% power flux map completed July 27,1993 RCS flow test completed July 29,1993 The Cycle 18 core loa ^t;is as follows: a fresh feed batch consisting of 52 Zircaloy clad fuel assemblies of which 40 assemblies, Batch 20A (3.9 w/o), are loaded on the core periphery.

Also loaded on the core periphery are four twice bumed Batch 18A stainless steel clad fuel assemblies (4.0 w/o). The remaining 12 fresh feed assemblies, Batch 20B (3.6 w/o),32 once bumed Batch 19A Zircaloy clad fuel assemblies (3.90 w/o),16 once burned Batch 19B Zircaloy clad fuel assemblies (3.60 w/o),4 twice burned Batch 17B stainless steel (4.0 w/o) and 48 twice bumed Batch 18A stainless steel fuel assemblics (4.0 w/o) are loaded in the core l

interior. A twice burned Batch 16C stainless steel clad fuel assembly (4.0 w/o) is loaded in the center of the core.

All startup physics test acceptance criteria were met. All requirements of the Technical Specifications were fulfilled.

t l

l I

l l

l Page 1 of 25

2'.

CONTROL ROD DROP TMIE MEASUREMENTS Objective The purpose of the control rod drop time measurements is to measure at operating temperature and pressure the time for each of the 45 control rods to travel from a fully withdrawn position to a fully inserted position.

License Recuirements l

l Technical Specification 4.1.3.4 requires that the drop time for each control rod be detemiined each refueling.

Procedure l

l He rod position detector primary coilinputs for an entire bank am connected to a Hewlett-l Packard Multiprogrammer computer system. He bank is dropped using the main control 1

board manual scram button. Pushing the scram button also triggers the computer system to l

initiate data collection. He coil output voltage signals, which are a function of control rod velocity, are sampled by the computer system at one millisecond intervals for 3.5 seconds.

Rese data are then analyzed by a computer code which determines the time elapsed until the control rod strikes bottom. Two graphs depicting the drop are also pmduced from the voltage signal for each rod.

A backup method is nvailable which uses a high speed recording oscillograph. The backup method is necessary for two reasons: 1) in the event that the computer system is unavailable for any reason, and 2) to retest any questionable rods. The backup method was not required.

BUMlis All 45 control rods traveled from a fully withdrawn position to a fully inserted position in 2.05 seconds or less, satisfying the Technical Specification requirement of 2.5 seconds with 4 loops in service and 2.45 seconds with 3 loops in service. He measurements were performed on July 15,1993 for Banks C, D, and A widi 3 loops in operation and on July 16,1993 for Bank B with 4 loops in operation. The nominal RCS pressure was 2010 psig and the RCS temperature was at least 525'F. He maximum drop time was 2.05 seconds (rod #'s 30 & 32 Page 2 of 25

of Bank B and rod #14 of Bank C) and the minimum drop time was 1.91 seconds (rod #5 of Bank A).

'Ihe average drop time was 1.99 seconds; the standard deviation was 0.038 seconds. Data are -

f presentedin Table 1.

i i

i l

t h

i i

1 k

i i

l i

Page 3 of 25

i l

TABLE 1 l

l CentrolRod Drop Time Measumments Rod No.

Hank Core Location Drop Time (sec) 1 A

H8 1.96

)

2 A

K8 1.94 l

3 A

H6 1.93 4

A F8 1.93 5

A H10 1.91 6

D K6 1.96-7 D

F6 1.96 l

8 D

F10 1.96 l

9 D

K10 1.93 10 B

M8 2.04 11 B

H4 2.01 12 B

D8 2.03 13 B

H12 2.03 14 C

M6 2.05 1

15 C

K4 1.98 l

16 C

F4 2.01

~

17 C

D6 1.98 18 C

D10 2.01 19 C

F12 1.98 1

20 C

K12 1.97 I

21 C

M10 2.03 1

22 A

N7 2.01 23 A

J3 1.96 i

24 A

G3 1.99 l

25 A

C7 2.02 26 A

C9 2.00 27 A

G13 1.95 28 A

J13 1.95 29 A

N9 1.97 i

30 B

M4 2.05 l

l 31 B

D4 2.04 32 B

D12 2.05 33 B

M12 2.04 34 D

N5 2.03 35 D

L3 2.01 36 D

E3 1.98 37 D

C5 2.04 38 D

C11 2.01 39 D

E13 1.98 40 D

L13 1.98 41 D

N11 1.98 42 A

P8 2.01 1

43 A

H2 1 94 44 A

B8 1.99 45 A

H14 1.94 Page 4 of 25

3'.

NEW CORE INITIAL APPROACII TO CRITICALITY Objective 1

l ne objective of the new core initial critical approach is to provide a safe and efficient means for achieving the initial criticality.

License Recuirements None i

Procedure i

At hot zero power conditions, the reactor coolant system (RCS) boron concentration is first l

reduced from the refueling boron concentration to approximately 450 ppm above the predicted l

C/D/A @320 and B @200 critical baron concentration. 1/M plots are maintained throughout f

the approach to criticality. After the initial dilution, control rod Banks C, D and A are fully l

l withdrawn and Bank B is withdrawn to 200 steps. The final approach to criticality is then i

made by additional RCS dilution and shimming of Bank B after the initial dilution has been l

terminated.

Results Core XVIII initial boron concentration at het conditions was approximately 2420 ppm.

Control rod Banks C, D, and A were then withdrawn to 320 steps and Bank B withdrawn to 200 steps. Criticality was achieved at 04:3f on July 18,1993 by adding approximately 14,850 gallons of demineralized water. The critical conditions were 537.1 *F, Bank B at 229 steps, and 1782 ppm boron. The corrected critical boron concentration with Bank B at 200 steps and 535 *F is 1770 ppm boron. The pxdicted boron concentration with Bank B at 200 steps is 1781 ppm. The difference of 11 ppm between the corrected test data and the predicted critical boren concentration is well within the acceptance criteria of 100 ppm.

Page 5 of 25 -

i

5.

ALL RODS OUT CRITICAL BORON CONCENTRATION I

i i

Obieciyr i

The objective is to measure the all rods out critical boron concentration at hot zero power conditions.

License Requirements l

Technical Specifications 4.1.1.1 and 4.1.1.4 require verification of adequate shutdown margin prior to exceeding five percent power following a refueling. This test provides information used to verify core design and thus, adequate shutdowm margin.

Procedure l

l Bank B controls rods are borated to 290 steps. The remaining control rod banks are all fully withdmwn. Critic:d boron concentration is measured. The worth of Bank B from 290 to 320 steps.neasured using a reactivity computer and the result is used to conect the critical boron i

conc utration with bank B at 290 steps to the all rods out condition.

e Results i

The all rods out critical boron concentration was 1809 ppm at 535*F. The predicted hot zero power boron concentration was 1813 ppm. The difference of 4 ppm between the predicted and measured critical boron concentratiom : well within the 100 ppm acceptance criteria.

l l

Reactivite Computer l

Nuclear Instrumentation System power range channel 1 upper and lower fission chambers were used as inputs to the reactivity computer together with the hot zero power delayed neutron fmetions for all zem power tests. Reactor coolant temperature and pressurizer level were also input to the reactivity computer. The reactivity computer was calibrated against several stable reactor periods varying from 50 seconds to 400 seconds. The all rods out, hot zero power beta fmetions are lis'ed in Table 2.

i l

l' age 6 of 25

TABLE 2 Delayed Neutron Fractions at 0 EFPD, ARO, HZP

-1 i

Group Beta. eff Lambda. Sec i

1 2.070E-4 1.280E-2 i

2 1.286E-3 3.150E ~2 j

3 1.162E-3 1.206E-1 4

2.493E-3 3.213E-1 5

9.070E-4 1.401E+0 6

2.210E-4 3.873E40 -

Beta (Total) = 6.276E-3 Relative Importance (I) = 0.970 Beta EFeche = 6.088E-3 l

l 1

i Page 7 of 25

l l

S.

ISOTIIERMAL TEMPERATURE COEFFICIENT MEASUREMENTS Objective l

The objective of these measurements is (1) to detennine the isothermal temperature coefficient (ITC) for the new com at hot zero power conditions at two control rod configur tions and (2) correct the ITC data at AROAIZP to AROAIZP/BOL, AROAIFP/BOL and AROAIFP/EOL moderator temperature coefficients (MTC) for verification of the Technical Specifications limits.

l License Reculmments l

Technical Specifications, Section 4.1.1.5, " Moderator Temperature Coefficient," requires that the temperature coefficient be detennined for a new core.

Procedure Hot zero powerjust critical conditions are established. The reactor coolant temperature is reduced and then increased by approximately 5'F using the atmospheric steam dump. The l

reactivity computer calculates the reactivity change due to the change in temperature and displays reactivity as a function of temperature during the cooldown and heatup on an X-Y plotter. Tempemture coefficients are obtained at the ARO and a rodded control rod bank configuration.

Results Five isotherrnal temperature coefficient measurements were obtained at the ARO configuration. He average measured isothermal temperature coefficient was +1.12 pedF.

The predicted value is 40.38 pcWF. The difference of 0.74 pcWF between the measured and predicted temperature coefficients is well within the acceptance criteria of 4 pcm/*F. This result was then extrapolated to determine the HZP BOL, HFP BOL and HFP DOL moderator temperature coefficients.

He extrapolated HZP BOL MTC was +3.12 pcmfF. The predicted value is +2.33 pen /F.

The Technical Specification requirement that the HZP BOL MTC shall be less positive than

+5.0 perrfF is met.

Page 8 of 25

The extrapolated HFP BOL MTC was -3.15 pcWF. The predicted value is -3.89 pcWF.

'lhe Technical Specification requirement that the HFP BOL M Hil be less positive than 0.0 pcWF ie met.

The extrapolated HFP EOL MTC was -26.49 pcWF. The pmdicted value is -27.23 pcWF.

The Technical Specification requirement that the HFP EOL MTC shall be less negative than

-32.0 pcWF is met.

Four isothermal temperature coefficient measumments were obtained at hot zero power with Banks A, B, and D fully indhed and Bank C fully withdrawn. The average measured isothermal temperature coef Scient was -10.35 pcWF. The predicted value is -9.86 pcWF.

The difference of-0.49 penr'F between the measured and predicted temperatum coefficients is within the acceptance criteria of 4 pcWF.

1 Page 9 of 25 l

6.

CONTROL ROD BANK REACTIVITY WORTII MEASUREMENTS Obiective The objective of this test is to measure the differential and integral mactivity wonhs of control rod Banks B, A, and D.

l License Reauirements Technical Specification 4.1.1.1 and 4.1.1.4 require verification of adequate shutdown margin l

prict to exceeding five pement power following a refueling. His test provides information used to verify core design and thus, adequate shutdown margin.

l Pmeedure l

l l

At hot zem power, control rod banks are inserted into the core in small increments using the normal sequence for operating bank insenion. Control Banks B and A as well as shutdown l

Bank D were measured. The rate ofinsertion is governed by a mactor coolant dilution established by adding demineralized water to the RCS at approximately 35 gpm. The l

mactivity of the com is continuously calculated and displayed on a strip chart by the reactivity computer. The strip chan is then analyzed to determine the rextivity worth of each contml rod bank movement.

Results He measured and predicted values for control rod bank worth are presented in Table 3. The total rod worth measured was 3.12% greater than the predicted worth. He results are well within the acceptance criteria of 15% for an individual control rod bank and the 10% criteria for total measured wonh.

l I

l L

f Page 10 of 25

TABLE 3 Control Rod Bank Worths Control Rod Bank Measured Wonh. PCM Predicted Worth. PCM

% Deviation B

-824.5

-800

-2.97 A

-1791.5

-1785

-0.36 D

-2459.5*

-2332

+5.18 Total

-5075.5

-4917

-3.12

% Deviation = Predicted Measured x 100 Measured

• Bank D rod worth was independently reduced following compledon of stanup physics testing. The measured wonh of Bank D was determined to be -2419 pcm. At that time it was determined that the Bank D rod worth was originally ovenstimated, how:ver, since the acceptance criteria were met, that data was not changed. For the purpose of benchmarking the neutronics models used by the core designer, the reevaluated data will be used since it better repmsents the actual worth of Bank D.

I l

i Page 11 of 25 l

"I.

RODDED CRITICAL BORON CONCENTRATION Obiective The objective is to measure the rodded critical boron concentmtion at hot zero power

- i conditions.

i License Reouimments i

None

+

Procedure j

I Bank C controls rods are fully withdrawn. The remaining controlrod banks are all fully l

l s

insened. Critical boron concentration is measured.

1 Results l

1 l

t l

The rodded critical boron concentration was 1206 ppm at 535*F. The pmdicted hot zero

~

power boron concentration is 1199 ppm. The difference of 7 ppm between the pmdicted and measumd critical boron concentrations is well within the 100 ppm acceptance criteria.

t 1

i t

?

l l

l i

i 1

Page 12 of 25 l-Y

q

)

I i

i 8.

DIFFERENTIAL BORON WORTII Objective 1

The objective of this test is to measure the reactivity wonh of the soluble poison in terms of

)

Pem/ppnt l

t License Recuirements None j

Procedum t

i Reactor coolant and pmssurizer boron samples are taken and analyzed at the equilibrium ARO

)

and Banks B, A, and D insened configurations. He critical boron concentrations are corrected for temperature and rod configuration. The differential boron wonh is calculated by dividing the measured bank worth by the change in boron concentration.

-1

-)

Results Table 4 presents the data of the predicted and conectedjust critical boron concentration for the l

ARO and rodded configurations, the predicted and measured total reactivity wonh of Banks B, A, and D and differential boron wonh. The measured differential boron wonh was 4.87 %

greater than predicted.

i

'I i

l

- Page 13 of 25

,m

~

i TABLE 4 Differential Boron Wenh Measured Predicted ARO/HZP criticalboron (ppm) 1809 1813 I

l Rodded HZP critical boron (ppm)

(Banks B, A, D insened) 1206 1199 Boron Difference (ppm) 603 614 l

Bank worth (pem)

(Sum of B, A, D)

-5075.5

-4917 Differential boron worth (pcm/ ppm)

-8.42

-8.01 i

)

l I

l l

i Page 14 of 25

i 9.

TIIIRTY PERCENT POWER FLUX MAP t

Obiective l

~

The objective of the nominal 30% power flux map is to detemdne if any gmss neutron flux -

abnormalities exist.

i License Requirements I

i None

- i I

Procedure One flux map is taken using the incore flux mapping system and evaluated using the INCORE -

computer code.

Results i

The results of the flux map demonstrated that the core power distribution is as predicted. A

{

summary of the results is shown in Table 5.

- i

)

i

' l i

Page 15 of 25 i

T T

w

TABLE 5 l

Summary of Results from 30%

Power Flux Map CY-XVIII-1-526 Power - 31%, Bumup - 12.2 mwd /Mtu (9.6 EFPH), Boron - 1578 ppm, Bank B.- 257 steps i

i Core Peaks I

Adiusted kW/ft

. F-delta-H l

i Measured Limit Measured Limit r

3.87 14.50 1.58 1.93 i

i i

Incore Ouadrant PowerTilt Measured Limit 1.0225 l 1.0121

...-I N/A 0.9955 1 0.9699 Core Averace Axial Offset 2.256 %

l l

Page 16 of 25 1

i

10.

EIGIITY PERCENT POWER FLUX MAPS Objective

• Ihe objective of the three 80% power flux maps is to confirm the predicted core power distribution and to establish the incore/excore axial offset correlation.

License Requirements Technical Specifications 4.2.2 and 4.2.3 require that the linear heat generation rate and enthalpy rise hot channel factor be determined from incere measurements and evaluated before exceedmg 80% of rated power. Additionally, the excore/incore axial offset calibration must be performed prior to exceeding 80% power.

Procedure Three flux maps are performed at approximately 80% power. A new incore/excore axial offset correlation is established based on these three maps. The axial offset indication is calibrated and the power distribution parameters are evaluated prior to increasing power from 80% to 100%.

Results The results of the 80% power flux maps produced power distributions were within the Technical Specification limits and compared well with predicted values with the exception of a slight tilt,1.9%,in quadrant 2. Upon determination of the slight tilt, the fuel supplier was contacted to investigate the possibility of a fuel rod misloading. After notif cation fmm the fuel supplier that their records did not indicate any problems, a special test to verify control rod / drive shaft coupling at power was performed. Based on these evaluations and of the 80%

power flux maps, power was increased to 100%. A summary of the results is shown in l

Tables 6,7, and 8.

1 l

[

Page 17 of 25

\\

TABLE 6 Summary of Results From 80%

Power Flux Map CY-XVIII-2-527 Power -80.5%, Burnup - 47.44 mwd /Mtu (37.4 EFPH), Baron - 1419 ppm, Bank B - 310 steps l

i l

l Core Peaks Adjusted kW/ft F-delta-H Measured Limit Measured Limit 9.41 14.50 1.55 1.70 t

Incore Ouadrant Power Tilt Measured Limit 1.0196 l 1.0081 1-1.02 0.9953 1 0.9770 Core Average Axial Offset 4.01 %

i Page 18 cf 25

l j

TABLE 7 i

Sununary of Results from 80%

Power Flux Map CY-XVIII-3-528 i

Power -80.6%, Burnup - 72.1 mwd /Mtu (56.8 EFPH), Boron - 1390 pprn, Bank B - 283 steps i

t Core Peaks Adiusted kW/ft F-delta-H Measured LitEl Measured Limit 9.51 14.50 1.54 1.70 i

Incore Ouadrant Power Tilt Measured Limit i

1.0196 1 1.0069

-l 1.02 0.9966 1 0.9769 Core Average Axial Offset 3.075 %

j I

i b

[

Page 19 of 25 4

TABLE 8 l

Summary of Results from 80%

Power Flux Map CY-XVIII-4-529 Powc r - 81.3%, Bumup - 72.09 mwd /Mtu (56.8 EFPH), Boron - 1385 ppm, Bank B - 264 steps l

l i

i l

Core Peaks i

Adiusted kW/ft F-delta-H Measured Limit Measured Limil l

l 9.79 14.5 1.541 1.70 i

Incore Ouadrant PowerTilt Measured Limit 1.0199 1 1.0089 1 ------

1.02 0.9958 1 0.9755 1

I l

l Core Average Axial Offset

-1.733 %

Page 20 of 25 l

t l

l

[

=

ONE IIUNDRED PERCENT POWER FLUX MAP l

4 l

11.

l l

l Objective The objective of the 100% power flux map is to confirm the pmdicted com power distdbution l

parameters and to verify the excore/incore axial offset correlation determined at 80% power.

License Requirements Technical Specifications 4.2.2 mquires that the linear heat generation rate be evaluated based on incore measurements at rated power following each mfueling outage.

Procedure A flux map is taken at full power. Excore readings are also taken during the flux maps. After the evaluation of the flux map, the excore/mcore axial offset correlation is verified.

l Results An incore flux map was performed at 100% power. Data generated by this flux map were used in the evaluation of the excore/mcore correlation. Allincore msults were within the Technical Specification limits. A summary of the results is shovm in Table 9.

1 l

Page 21 of 25

TABLE 9 Summary of Results from 100%

Power Flux Map CY-XVIII-5-531 Power - 98.1%, Burnup -139.6 mwd /Mtu (109.9 EFPH), Boron - 1356 ppm, Bank B - 312 steps i

Core Peaks Adiusted kW/ft F-delta-H Measured Limil Measured Limil 11.18 14.50 1.53 1.60 Incore Ouadrant Power Tilt Measured Limil 1.0184 l 1.0048 l

1.02 0.9982 1 0.9785 Core Average Axial Offset 2.391 %

Page 22 of 25

12.

REACTOR COOLANT SYSTEM FLOW TEST Obiective ne purpose of the reactor coolant system flow test is to measure the total vessel flow rate (including core bypass flow) at approximately 100% power operating conditions. A precision heat balance was used and the results were corrected for all measurement uncertainties. The results of this test provide flow constants used for shiftly RCS flow surveillance.

License Requirements Technical Specification 4.2.5.2 requires that the reactor coolant system flow rate be determined by a heat balance within 7 EFPD of achieving 100% rated thermal power after each refueling outage.

Procedum A precision heat balance was established for each loop using the steam generators as the control volumes. He following parameters were measured or calculated:

reactor coolant system pressure hotleg temperatures coldleg temperatures

=

feedwater temperatures e

feedwater flow rates feedwater pressure steam generatorpressures Since steam generator blowdown error was not considered in the flow uncenainty, blowdown was isolated during the period of data ac luisition. The above data were used to calculate the following time averaged parameters for :ach of the fourloops: steam generator heat transfer rate, primary coolant enthalpy change and cold leg specific volume. The hot leg temperatures were corrected for stratification effects by using empirically derived worst case stratification l

values. He 4 loop test was conducted at 1795 MWth,563 *F average coolant temperature l

and 2019 psig average coolant pressum.

l l

l Page 23 of 25 i

An uncertainty analysis was performed in 1986 for this measurement in accordance with NUREG/CR-3659,"A Mathematical Model for Assessing the Uncertainties of Instrumentation Measurements for Power and Flow of PWR Reactors." The analysis considered the effects of all sources of uncertainty in each instrumentation loop which was used. The uncertainty calculations were updated in 1989. He flow uncertainty value for the I

four loop configuration was established to be 2.982% of the nominal flow rate,4.281% for the threeloop configuration.

Results He best estimate reactor coolant system flow rate was determined to be 269,974 gpm.

Corrected for measurement uncertainties, the flow rate was established to be 2.61,924 gpm.

l This flow rate is 15,924 gpm (6.47%) greater than the minimum value of 246,000 gpm, as required by Technical Specification 4.2.5.2. Maximum thermal power (within errrent average coolant temperature limits) was reached at approximately 5 EFPD. The reactor coolant system l

flow testing was completed at approximately 7 EFPD, thus the flow test was conducted 2 EFPD after approximately 100% rated thermal power operation was achieved. The flow test data is summarized in Table 10.

l l

j l

'l i

l I

'I Page 24 of 25 I

• L TABLE 10 Reactor Coolant System Flow Test Results Stratification 1&R2 AT(*F)

Correction (*F)

Flow Rate (GPhD 1

46.20

+ 0.35 69,442 2

44.40

+ 0.35 65,832 t

3 46.20

+ 0.46 68,473 4

44.90

+ 0.85 66,227 Total RCS Loop Flow Rate:

269,974 gpm 2.982 % Uncertainty Penalty:

8,050 gpm Minimum Guaranteed Flow Rate:

261,924 gpm 1

i l

l j

1 l

i Page 23 of 25 j

.