ML20072J095

Ccnpp Unit 1 Cycle 12 Summary of Startup Testing

ML20072J095
Person / Time
Site:	Calvert Cliffs
Issue date:	08/19/1994
From:	Cruse C BALTIMORE GAS & ELECTRIC CO.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
NUDOCS 9408260197
Download: ML20072J095 (11)

Text

_ - - - - - - - - - - _ _ - _ _

4 CasAnt ts Il. CnusE Baltimore Gas and Electric Company Plant General Manager Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 1650 Calvert Clifs Parkway Lusby. Maryland 20657 410 $86-2200 Ext. 4 tot Excal 410 260-4101 Baltimore August 19,1994 i

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l Washington, DC 20555 ATTENTION: Document Control Desk

SUBJECT:

Calvert Cliffs Ntaicar Power Plant Unit Nos.1 & 2; Docket Nos. 50-317 & 50-318 Unit ! Cycle 12 Summary of Startyp Testing Enclosed is the Calvert Cliffs Unit 1 Cycle 12 Summary of Startup Testing required by Technical Specifications 6.9.1.1,6.9.1.2, and 6.9.1.3.

Should you have any questions regarding this matter, we will be pleased to discuss them with you. l Very truly yours, i m

_// pe l r

• 6tWL CilC/RCG/bjd Enclosure cc: D. A. Brune, Esquire J. E. Silberg, Esquire P. T. Kuo, NRC D. G. Mcdonald, Jr., NRC T. T. Martin, NRC P. R. Wilson, NRC R.1. McLean, DNR J.11. Walter, PSC e

,; yr'1P.

. r. 1 -

9408260197 940819 g PDR ADOCK 05000317 g d z m as7

/f '

l -

BALTIMORE GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY CALVERT CLIFFS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

~

UNIT 1 Docket No. 50-317 License No. OPR-53 UNIT 1 CYCLE 12 .

SUMMARY

OF STARTUP TESTING

}

x UNIsT 1 CYCLE 12

SUMMARY

OF STARTUP TESTING PAGE 2 0F 10 Introduction The Unit 1 Cycle 12 core is designed for a Full Power Operation Burnup of 20,000 to 21,200 MWD /MTU. The core loading is detailed in Table 1, and the core loading pattern is shown in Figure 1. The initial startup for Cycle 12 began with Control Element Assembly (CEA) and Control Element Drive Mechanism (CEDM) testing on April 30. Initial criticality for Cycle 12 was declared at 02:15 on May 12. Startup' testing was concluded with the variable T avg test to determine Moderator Temperature Coefficient (MTC) on June 15.

The overall startup testing evolution was conducted in two phases. The first phase was controlled by Post Startup Test Procedure 2 (PSTP-2), Initial Approach to Criticality and Low Power Physics Testing Procedure. The second phase of testing was controlled by PSTP-3, Escalation to Power Test Procedure.

Tests performed under PSTP-2 included:

CEA and CEDM Testing (using PSTP-13)

- Reactor Coolant System (RCS) Flow Verification Dual CEA Symmetry Check Critical Baron Concentration (CBC) Measurements Isothermal Temperature Coefficient (ITC) Measurement j l

CEA Group Worth Measurements Tests performed under PSTP-3 included:

Radial Power Distribution Comparisons at 30, 60, 85, and 97% Rated Thermal Power (RTP)

Core Symmetry Power Distribution Measurements at 30, 60, 85, and 97% RTP ITC and Power Coefficient (PC) Measurement at 97% RTP (Variable T

avg Test)

UNIT 1 CYCLE 12

SUMMARY

OF STARTUP TESTING PAGE 3 0F 10 Test Criteria For the individual tests in the startup evolution, the following Acceptance and Review Criteria were applied (References 2, 3, 5):

PARAMETER ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA REVIEW CRITERIA CEA Drop Time le'ss than 2.95 seconds to less than 2.75 seconds 90% insertion to 90% insertion, CEA Symmetry Check None less than 10% Tilt RCS Flow Verification

1) Core dP 6.0 - 18.2 psi 6.8 - 17.0 psi

2) Projected 370,000 - 407,200 gpm 395,577 - 407,625 gpm HFP Flow CBC 100 ppm of predicted 50 ppm of predicted CEA Worth l

1) Group Greater of 15% or Greater of 15% or 0.1% delta rho of 1 0.1% delta rho of predicted predicted  ;

2) Total 10% of predicted 10% of predicted i ITC, at 0% and 97% Within limits of MTC 0.3 x 10-4 Technicil Specification delta rho /*F of predicted PC, at 97% 0.3 x 10-4 0.2 x 10-4 delta rho /s delta rho /s of predicted of predicted l l

Power Distributions Box Powers (Interior /

Peripheral)

1) 30% RTP F T, and F I within r 15% / 20% l TNEhnical Specification of predicted (Tech. Spec.) limits

2) 60, 85, and F T, prI, and T within 10% / 15%

97% RTP TEEh. Spec.limi9s of predicted

I

- UNIT 1 CYCLE 12

SUMMARY

OF STARTUP TESTING PAGE 4 0F 10 PARAMETER ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA REVIEW CRITERIA Core Symmetry Evaluation 1

1) Box Powers Same as Power Same as Power l Di,stribution Distribution

2) Tilt ,

a) 30% RTP None 1 5%

b) 60, 85, and 5 3% 1 2%

97% RTP

3) Symmetric ICI None 10% ,

Box Powers Test Results Table 2 summarizes startup test results, while individual tests are discussed below.

CEA and CEDM Testing CEA and CEDM Testing was performed prior to initial Cycle 12 criticality with all four Reactor Coolant Pumps (RCPs) running and RCS temperature at nominal Hot Zero Power (HZP) conditions (532=F). The operability of the CEDMs was verified by checking the associated light operations for each CEDM. This was accomplished with only a few minor problems noted. These minor problems were corrected with subsequent re-verification of the operability of the affected CEDM.

The CEA drop times were measured from the full-out position to 90% and 100%

insertion. All CEAs met both the listed Acceptance and Review Criteria. The slowest CEA to 90% insertion was Group 5 CEA # 37, with a 90% insertion time of 2.49 seconds. During CEA drop time testing, RCS pressure varied between 2125 and 2277 psi, due to a leaking pressurizer relief valve. Independent calculations showed the effect of the pressure ditference from a nominal 2250 psi to be negligible.

Dual CEA Symmetry Checks The Partial Symmetry Check was performed by inserting each dual CEA in Shutdown Group C individually. For each insertion, the reactivity change was calculated. The magnitude of the reactivity change was calculated for each dual CEA, and a tilt was calculated based on these reactivity changes. For each symmetric set, the magnitude of reactivity change for each dual CEA was consistent. In addition, the largest tilt calculated was -0.096 (9.6%),

which was within the Review Criteria of 10%.

UNIT 1 CYCLE 12

SUMMARY

OF STARTUP TESTING PAGE 5 0F 10 RCS Flow Verification ]

The RCS Flow was verified at Hot Standby conditions with all four RCes running. This was done by comparing RCP delta pressures (dPs) and Core dP to values from past cycle operation. In addition, a projected Hot Full Power (HFP) value for RCS Flow was determined. The values for RCP dPs compared well with past cycles. The cor,.e dP was 11.9 psi, compared to 11.2 psi for the prevfous cycle. This value was well within Acceptance and Review Criteria.

The projected HFP RCS Flow was 399,162 gpm, based on total RCP dP. This value met both Acceptance and Review Criteria.

Critical Boron Concentration (CBC). HZP, All Rods Out (AR0)

The CBC was determined by obtaining from Chemistry the results of a RCS boron grab sample taken at conditions near AR0 and adjusting it to an AR0 condition..

The AR0 CBC was determined to be 2024 ppm, compared to a predicted value of -

2007 ppm. This value was within both Acceptance and Review Criteria.

Isothermal Temperature Coefficient (ITC), HZP AR0 The ITC was determined by decreasing and increasing RCS temperature while measuring the associated reactivity change. The measured reactivity was divided by the temperature change to arrive at a value for the ITC. The calculated ITC with Group 5 at approximately 105 inche's withdrawn was +0.44 x 10 delta rho /*F. The predicted value was +0.35 x 10 delta rho /=F. The prediction, when corrected for actual test conditions, was +0.38 x 10 delta rho /aF. The measured value met both Acceptance Criteria and Review Criteria.

CEA Group Worth Measurement The worth of each Regulating CEA was determined using the baration/ dilution method. Each individual measured group worth met the Acceptance and Review Criteria, as did the total measured group worth for all Regulating CEAs.

Radial Power Distribution Comparisons The Radial Power Distribution Comparisons were performed at 30, 60, 85, and 97% RTP testing plateaus. The power distribution calculated by CECOR at a givenpowerplateauwascomparedtotheROCSpredictedpowerdistyibution{or that power level. At each power plateau, the peaking factors, F and F xY '

and azimuthal tilt, T , were compared to their Technical Specifications limits. In all cases? the peaking factors and T were within their respective Technical Specifications limits. Inaddition,t0ecomparisonofBoxPowers, both interior and peripheral, to predicted values from ROCS fell within both Acceptance and Review Criteria. At 30% RTP, the maximum differences between actual and predicted Box Powers were 16.90% (peripheral) and -11.46%

(interior). At 60% RTP, the maximum differences were 11.60% (peripheral) and 6.60% (interior). The maximum differences at 85% RTP were 10.22% (peripheral) and -5.89% (interior). The maximum differences were 9.85% (peripheral) and

-5.22% (interior) at 97% RTP.

l UNIT 1 CYCLE 12

SUMMARY

OF STARTUP TESTING PAGE 6 0F 10 Core Symmetry Power Distribution Measurements The Core Symmetry Evaluation for Box Powers met both the Acceptance and Review Criteria as described above for the Radial Power Distribution Comparisons.

The evaluation of core tilt at each power level plateau indicated that the Acceptance Criteria were met, but the Review Criteria were not met at the 65%

and 85% power plateaus. At these plateaus, the results of core tilt were presented to the Plant Opfrations and Safety Review Committee (POSRC)r which determined that no significant effects resulted from the higher than 9xp+ :ted core tilt and that power ascension could continue. The maximum tilt at ,0% ,

RTP was 0.0404. At 60% RTP, the maximum tilt was 0.0262. At 85% RTP, the maximum tilt was 0.0258, and the maximum tilt at 97% RTP was 0.238.

The final evaluation for Core Symmetry involved comparison of symmetric Incore Instrumentation (ICI) Box Powers. This evaluation was performed by comparing symmetric ICI Box Powers, summed over all axial detector levels, to predicted ,

values as well as determining a tilt based on only that set of symmetric detectors. In all cases, the Review Criteria of 10% was met.

ITC and Power Coefficient (PC) Measurement The ITC and PC were measured at 97% RTP with Regulating Group 5 CEAs at sproximately 105 inches withdrawn. These parameters were determined by

' djusting either moderator temperature or core power while adjusting turbine a

load to maintain the unaffected parameter a The final measured value for the ITC was -0.23 x 10 deltapproximately rho /aF. Thisconstant.

value met Acceptance and Review Criteria when compared to a predicted value of

-0.28 x 10 delta rho /*F. The measured value for the PC was

-0.79 x 10 delta rho /s RTP. This value, when compared to a predicted value of -0.96 x 10 delta rho /s RTP, met Acceptance and Review Criteria.

References

1) J. E. Baum to W. J. Lippold, "Calvert Cliffs Unit 1 Cycle 12 Reload Design Report for 88 Assembly Reload Design," B-94-023, January 31, 1994.

2) PSTP-2, Initial Approach to Criticality and Low Power Physics Testing Procedure, Revision 14.

3) PSTP-3 Escalation to Power Test Procedure, Revision 16.

4) PSTP-4, Variable T avg Testing Procedure, Revision 30.

5) PSTP-13, CEDM Performance Testing, Revision 3.

Prepared by - K# Date '/ M Reviewed by Date ~7!D l

l

1 d-- , j l

UNIT 1 CYCLE 12  !

SUMMARY

OF STARTUP TESTING N +---s PAGE 7 0F 10 ,

l W Figure 1 Unit 1 Cycle 12 Core loading Pattern l

21 iWi73 IH105 1H1,62 1 Hill

. . , .-,, ., -2, ,

20 1HT4 iP013 IN0!! iP005 1N012 iP003 1N006 1P011 1H120 f-M S-M n- 20 N-90 t .20 J- M C- M s-M #-M 19 IH012 iPiO9 1N!!8 iP205 1N252 iL023 1N202 iP203 1N102 iP103 1H001

,+t9 J- 19 G-,9 t-,9 8-,9 0-,9 v t9 f - 19 S-19 4- ,9 g- 19 se 1H007 iP105 IN!!2 iP309 IN223 iP317 IN207 iP315 iN204 iP303 1N101 iP107 1W016 c-,. .

..,. ..,. ..,. e.,, ..,. -,. o s. >-,. e ,. ..,. ..,, e-,,

17 lH167 iP101 IN107 iP305 IN216 iP325 IN248 iP331 IN245 iP323 1N242 iP307 1N106 iPill 1HT3 W-17 Y + 17 T-t? 5-17 0-17 N- 17 t 17 J- t ? G- 17 *-,7 *-17 0-,7 0-17 9-11 W - 17 16 iP009 IN!!9 iP301 IN241 IN203 IN230 iP337 1N224 iP335 1N249 IN211 IN236 iP3ti IN103 iP015 G- if 8-,6 8 - ,6 0-,6 f.ee q.16 W- 16 w ,6 Y-16 T - 19 9-14 #- f 6 4-16 t -16 J- 16 15 !N009 iP201 IN218 iP321 IN251 iP341 IM005 iP347 1H002 iP343 IN233 iP327 1N220 iP207 IN005

"~ "~ '~" '- ' "~" "- ' " '~" "~ ' ' " ' "~"

14 1H159 iH143

'~"

13 iP001 IN209 iP313 IN243 iP333 1H010 iP349 IN114 iP351 iW009 'iP339 IN237 iP319 1N238 iP007 i

"" "~" '-" '-" *" "-" ~~" "" "" *" '-" '~" *" ~" *" i 22 1H164 iH158 "2- IN002 ILO28 IN206 iP329 IN225 iP345 1Nili 1Kli! 1Nii3 iP346 'N228 iP330 IN231 IL016 1N001 ^

11-

"~ "~" '- " " "'" " "" " "' '~" ' '" '" "

to 1H123 iWil2 1 9- "2- iP008 IN232 iP320 IN247 iP340 lH006 iP352 IN!!5 iP350 lH008 iP334 1N235 iP314 1N205 iP002

"-' -' '-' '-' '~' a' -' '-' s-' '-' "-' '-' '-' c -' "-'

a- 1Hid 1H19 7 IN010 iP208 IN222 iP328 1N214 iP344 lH004 iP348 lH003 iP342 IN213 iP322 IN221 iP202 IN007

.., .., ., . . , ,., .., ,.. <., ,, c-, ... .., ,, c., ,,

6 iP016 1 Nil 7 iP312 IN246 IN208 1N250 iP336 IN229 iP338 1N217 IN201 IN240 iP302 IN104 iP010 1 -6 w-6 v 81 7-6 3-fl 0-6 g-6 t-9 J-4 6-4 # -4 8 -9 &9 f-9 9-9 5 lHT2 iP112 !N110 iP308 IN239 iP324 IN244 iP332 IN234 iP326 IN215 iP306 INiO9 iP102 1H139 a-, -e , e-e e-e 4 -4

_u_ -e -e -e e-e -e -, t -e >- e 4 1H015 iP108 INil6 iP304 IN212 iP316 IN219 iP318 IN226 iP310 IN108 iP106 1H0ll u-d V-d f- d 3-d 9-d M-4 t-d J-4 04 #-4 84 0-4 C-4 3 1H014 iPiO4 iN120 iP204 IN210 iL008 IN227 iP206 INiO5 iP110 1H013 2-,

.-, .., ,-, .., ,-, L-, >., s., ,-, 1-,

2- -

1H160 1P012 IN008 iP004'1N003!P006 !N004 iP014 1HTl f-F F9 #? 4- 2 t-? J- ? G-2 8-? r-?

! IH142 iWiSO lH121 1H146 V X W V T S R N L J G F E D C B A P M K H

UNIT 1 CYCLE 12

SUMMARY

OF STARTUP TESTING PAGE 8 0F 10 Table 1 Unit 1 Cycle 12 Core Loading NUMBER OF NUMBER OF BATCH SHIM RODS ASSEMBLIES ENRICHMENT IKI 0 1 3.395 w/o ILO 0 4 4.029 w/o IMO O 16 4.062 w/o 1

IM1 12 12 4.065 w/o 1

4.065 w/o IM1 FS 12 8 2

1MT 12 4 3.886 w/o IN0 0 12 4.195 w/o I

INI 4 20 4.185 w/o 1

IN2 8 52 .

4.187 w/o IP0 0 16 4.281 w/o 3

IPl 20 12 4.278 w/o 3 I IP2 44 8 4.277 w/o 3

IP3 60 52 4.278 w/o i

i Notes 1

B4 C bearing shim rods 2

ANF Gadolinia bearing demonstration assemblies.

3 Erbium bearing shim rods l

I

. l UNIT 1 CYCLE 12

SUMMARY

OF STARTUP TESTING PAGE 9 0F 10 Table 2 Unit 1 Cycle 12 Startup Testing Results Page 1 of 2 TEST , DESCRIPTION ..

UNITS PREDICTED MEASURED CEA 90% INSERTION Slowest CEA to 90% insertion CEA # ----

37 seconds ----

2.49 INITIAL CRITICALITY .

Boron Concentration ppm ----

2019 Group 5 Position inches ----

87.75 CRITICAL BORON CONCENTRATION ARO ppm 2007 2024 Groups 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1 in ppm ,1638 1661 ISOTHERMAL TEMPERATURE COEFFICIENT HZP, Group 5 0 105" w/d x10jdeltarho/=F +0.35 +0.44 HZP, Corrected for Test x 10' delta rho / F +0.38 ----

Conditions 97%, Group 5 0 105" w/d x 10^4 delta rho / F -0.28 -0.23 POWER COEFFICIENT 97%, Group 5 0 105" w/d x 10-4 delta rho /s RTP -0.96 -0.79 CEA GROUP WORTHS Group 5  % delta rho 0.17 0.17 Group 4  % delta rho 0.65 0.64 Group 3  % delta rho 0.85 0.82 Group 2  % delta rho 1.08 1.04 Group 1  % delta rho 0.38 0.38 Total  % delta rho 3.14 3.05 1

UtilT 1 CYCLE 12 i

SUMMARY

OF STARTUP TESTIt1G \

PAGE 10 0F 10  !

Table 2 i'

Unit 1 Cycle 12 Startup Testing Results Page 2 of 2 POWER DISTRIBUTION MEASURE,HENTS PEAKit1G FACTORS 85% RTP 97% RTP 60% RTP 30% RTP 1.6129 1.6008 T 1.6200 1.6085 F

1.5504 .1.5560 T 1.6050 1.5678 F

0.0258 0.0238 0.0404 0.0262 T

4 BOX POWERS 85% RTP 97% RTP 60% RTP 30% RTP

-5.89% -5.22%

- 11. 4 6*,. +6.60%

Interior +9.85%

+11.60% +10.22%

Peripheral +16.90%

CORE SYMMETRY 85% RTP 97% RTP 60% RTP 30% RTP 2.58% 2.38%

4.04% 2.62%

Tiit

-4.30% -4.20%

- 4 60*'a -4.26%

Symmetric j Box Powers i

4 4

i

,