ML20082F490

Cycle 9 Startup Rept

ML20082F490
Person / Time
Site:	Calvert Cliffs
Issue date:	08/02/1991
From:	Creel G BALTIMORE GAS & ELECTRIC CO.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
NUDOCS 9108140322
Download: ML20082F490 (10)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

BALTIMORE GAS AMD ELECTRIC i

+

CHARLES CENTER e P.O. BOX 1475

• BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21203-1475 GEORGE C. CREEL U*c7.'El '.'c', August 8,1991 (JOd 260-4 4 5 %

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 A'ITENTION: Document Control Desk

SUBJECT:

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Unit Nos.1 & 2; Docket Nos. 50-317 & 50-318 Unit 2 Cycle 9 S'artun Report Gentlemen:

Per Technical Specification Sections 6.9.1.1,6.9.1.2, and 6.9.1.3, please find attached the required Unit 2 Cycle 9 Startup Report. This report details the results of the recent Cycle 9 startup following refueling. As required by Technical Specification Section 6.9.1.2, this report summarizes the results of Physics Testing and Power Escalation Testing as described in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report.

Should you have any further questions regarding this matter, we will be pleased to discuss them with you.

Very truly yours, i

/

)

GCC/GLD/bjd s

Attachment ec: D. A. Brune, Esquire J. E. Silberg, Esquire R. A. Capra, NRC D. G. Mcdonald, Jr., NRC T. T. Martin, NRC L E. Nicholson, NRC R. I. McLean, DNR J. ll. Walter, PSC

()

>1.:o14. m m m I FDR fido, n irwa r: 1 :- ,

P ~ ~ ~ ' ht 58 ((]g

'It

t

/

RALTIMORE GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY CALVERT CLIFFS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNIT 2 Docket No. 50-318 License No. DPR-62 UNIT 2 CYCLE 9

$UMMARY OF STARTUP TESTING

4 4 UN!Y 2 CYCLE 9

SUMMARY

OF STARTUP TESTING PAGE 2 0F 9 Introduction-The Unit 2 Cycle 9 core is designed for a full Power Operation burnup of 19,400 to 20,650 MWD /MTV. The core loading is detailed in Table 1 and shown on Figure ~1. The initial start up for Cycle 9, including Cont *ol Element Drive Met anism (CEDM) and Control Element Assembly (CEA) Testing, occurred over-the ,,eriod from April 8, 1991 to May 19, 1991. Initial criticality was achieved on April 28, 1991 at 15:25.

The testing during this time was conducted in two phases. The first phase, controlled by procedure PSTP-2 Revision 12, was Initial Criticality and Low Power Physics Testing. The second phase, controlled by procedure PSTP-3 Revision 13, was Power Escalation Testing to essentially 100% Rated Thermal Power (RTP).

Initial Criticality and Low Power Physics Testing included the following tests:=

CEDM and CEA Testing Reactor Coolant System flow Verification

(:

CEA Insertion-and Partial CEA Symmetry Check Critical Boron Concentration (CBC)

Isothermal Temperature Coefficient (ITC)

CEA Group Worth Measurement Power Escalation Testing consisted of the following:

~

Radial Power Distribution Comparison at 30, 60, 85 and 97% RTP Core Symmetry Power Distribution-Measurements at 30, 60, 85 and 97% RTP, ITC and Power Coefficient (PC) Measurement at 97% RTP CBC Measurement at 97% RTP For each individual test during start up, the follow;ng Acceptance and Review Criteria were applied (Reference 1):

PARAMETER ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA REVIEW CRITERIA CEA Drop Time 3.1 seconds to 90 % 3.1-seconds to 90%

insertion insertion CEA Symmetry Check none < 10% Tilt

. UNIT 2 CYCLE 9

SUMMARY

OF STARTUP TESTING PAGE 3 0F 9 PARAMETER ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA REVIEW CRITERIA RCS Flow Verification Core DP 6.0 - 18.2 psi 6.8 - 17.0 psi Pro.jected Flow 389,025 - 407,850 gpm 395,201 - 404,639 gpm (based on total RCP DP)

CBC 100 ppm 50 ppm of predicted of predicted CEA Worth

1) Group Greater of il5% or Greater of 115% or i0.1% delta rho i0.1% delta rho of predicted of predicted

2) Total 10% 10%

of predicted of predicted ITC 0% and 97% RTP Within limits of 0.3 x 10-4 MTC Tech. Spec. delta rho / 0F of predicted PC, 97% RTP 0.3 x 10~4 i0.2 x 10-4 delta rho /% power delta rho /% power of predicted of predicted Power Distribution Box Powers (Interior /

Peripheral)

1) 30% RTP F T. FrT and T within 15% / 20%

Te!h. Spec. Limits of predicted

2) 60, 85 and 97% RTP F T i fr T

and T within 10% / 15%

Te5h. Spec. Limits of predicted Core Symmetry Evaluation

1) Box Powers same as Power same as Power Distribut!on Distribution

2) Tilt a) 30% RTP none 5%

b) 60,85 and 97% RTP i3% 2%

3) Symmetric ICI Box Powers none 10%

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _____________-________________-___D

UN)i 2 CYCLE 9 4

SUMMARY

OF STARTUP TESTING PAGE 4 0F 9 Table 2 summarizes the resuits of testing and the individual testing results are discussed below.

((D} Led CEA Tes11a2 CEDM and CEA Testing was erformed prior to initial criticality with the Reactor Coolant System (RCS) temperkture at nominal Hot Zero Power (HZP) conditions and four Reactor Coolant PuW (RCP) runninn. CEDM operation was verified by checking the associated lig1t operation for each CEDH. This was accom)11shed with only minor problems noted. These problems were corrected and tie CEDM operation for the affected mechanisms re verified.

The CEA drop times were measured from the full out post a to 90% and 100%

insertion. All CEt drop times met the associated Accep w .e and Review Criteria. The sicwest CEA to 90% insertion was CEA reo with an insertion time of 2.50 seconds.

CEA Insertion and Partial CEA Symtin Cht_Cli The CEA Insertion Check was performed to ensure o ch single CEA was coupled to its respective drive mechanism. This was done by inserting the 7A and observing a reactivity change. F r each single CEA, a reactivity change was wen.

The Partial Symmetry check was performed by inserting each dual CEA in Grou) C indivirtually, measuring the reactivity change, comparing the magnitude of tie reactivity change for each dual rod and calculating a tilt bued on the reactivity changes. For each symmetric set, the magnitude of reactivity change for each dual rod was consistent. In addition, the maximum calculated tilt was 0.055(5.5%). This was well within the Review Criteria of 110%.

Ralflow verification The ACS Flow was verif ted at Hot Standby conditions with all P. cps running by comparing RCP delta pressures (DP) and Core DP to past cycle operation. in addition, a projected HFP RCS Flow was determined. The values of RCP DP compared well with past cycles us did the core DP. The measured core DP was 13.78 psi. The value from the previous cycle was 14.1 psi, lhe measured value for Cycle 9 fell within both the Acceptence and Review Criteria.

The projected HFP RCS Flew, based on total RCP DP, was 404,039 gpm. This value met both the Acceptance and Review Criteria.

Critical Boron Concentration (CBC). HZP. All Rods Out (ARQ1 The CBC was determined by obtaining a RCS boron chemistry sample taken near ARO conditions and adjusting it to the ARO value. The CBC was deterniined to be 1801 ppm, compared to a predicted value of 1830 ppm. The difference of 29 ppm "as well within both Acceptance and Review Criteria.

_ ___ _ _ _ _ _ - _. O

UNil a CYCll 9 SUNHARY CT STARTU' r'$ TING PAGE S OF 9 I n thermal Temperaturt Coefficient (ITC) M The ITC was determined by decreasing and increasing RCS temperature while

• neasuring the associated reactivity change. The measured reactivity was then divided by the temperature change to arrive at a value for ITC. The calculated v

+0.304x10"gluewithGroup5atapproximately105"withdrawnwas 0

The predicted value at these conditions was deltarhoff.

40.36 x 10'4 delta rho / F. This measured value met both the Acceptance and Review Criteria.

CEA Group Worth Measurement The worth of each Regulating CEA group was determined using the boration/ dilution method. Each individual measured group worth met the Acceptance Criteria of within 115% of predicted, with Group 5 agreeing well and Groups 1 through 4 being about 10% lower than predicted. However, the preliminary result for measured Total CEA Group Worth was not within the Acceptance Criteria ef 110% of predicted. Based on this preliminary evaluation, the decision war made to measure the worth of Shutdown CEA Group C, as specified in PSTP 2. The final data reduction for Total CEA Group Worth (Group 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5) fell slightly within the 110% criterion.

The measured worth of Shutdown CEA Group C was within the Acceptance Criteria of 115% of predicted. However, when included in the Total CEA Group Worth, this value fell outside the Acceptance Criteria (110%) by approximately 0.5%.

ABB/ Combustion Engineering was contacted to determine the impact of lower than predicted CEA worths on the safety analysis. Their investigation indicated that the impact was not significant for Unit 2 Cycle 9 operation. As required by PSTP-2, these test results, as well as all the test results from PSTP-2 and PSTP 3, were reviewed and accepted by the Plant Operations and Safety Review Committee (POSRC).

Radial Power Distribution CotDarison The Radial Power Distribution Comparison was performed at 30, 60, 85 and 97%

kTP testing plateaus by comparing the power distribution output from CECOR to the ROCS predicted power distrigution f r thtd power level. At each power level, the peaking factors, fxy and Fr9 , and core tilt, T q, were well within the limits described in the Technical Specifications. In addition, the comparison of Box Powers, both interior and peripheral, to predicted values from ROCS fell well within the Review Criteria. At 30% RTP, the maximum difference between actual and predicted Box Power was 8.64%. At 60% RTP, the maximum differeace was 8.90%. The maximum differer.ce at 85% RTP was 7.81%

and, at 97% RTP, 7.40%.

Sore Symmetry Power Distribution Measurements The Core Symmetry Evaluation for Box Powers met both the Review and Acceptance Criteria as described above. The evaluation of core tilt at each power level

showed that the required Review and Acceptance Criteria were met. The .naximum tilt at 30% RTP was 0.0157. At 60% RTP, the measured tilt was 0.0089. The I

l

UNIT 2 CYCLE 9

SUMMARY

OF STARTUP TESTING PAGE 6 0F S tilt had decreased to 0.0069 at 85% RTP and further dropped to 0.0049 at 97%

RTP.

The final evaluation for Core Symnietry involved comparison of symmetric Incore Instrumentation (101) Box Powers. This evaluation was performed by comparing symmetric 101 Box Powers to predicted values as well as determining a tilt based on only that set of symmetric detectors, in all cases, at each power level, the Review Criteria of i10% was met.

ITC and Power Cg_ efficient (PCI Measurement The ITC and PC were measured at 97% RTP with Group 5 CEAs at approximately

, 105 " withdrawn. These parameters were determined by adjusting either moderator temperature or core power while adjusting turbine load to maintain the unaffected parameter. The measured values were then compared to predicted valuestoverifyAcgeplanceandReviewCriteria. The final measured vall.o for 0

ITC was 0.'9 x 10' de Thir is compared to a predicted value of 0.22 x 10 4 deltarho/}tarho/F.

F. This measured value is well within the ifmits of the Acceptance and Review Criteria.

ThemeasuredvalueforPCwas-g.85x10'4 delta rho /% power, while tne predicted value was -0.90 x 10' delta rho /% power. Again, this measured value was well within both Acceptance and Review Criteria.

CBC Megg iqment at 97% BIf The CBC determined by a RCS boron chemistry sample at 97% RTP with Group $

CEAs at approximately 105" withdrawn was 1336 ppm. This is compared to a predicted value of 1371 ppm, a difference of 35 ppm. This difference met both the Acceptance and Review Criteria.

Referens.gi

1) Mr. G. C. Creel (BG&Ei to USNRC, "Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plt.nt, Unit No. 21 Docket NL. .) 318. Request for Amendment, Unit 2 Ninth Cycle License Applicatirn", February 7, ' *s9.

Prepared by _ Y ~7[ e Date T f/

/

//

Reviewed by k Date _8/2/91

__ _i_ _ o

UNIT 2 CYCLE 9

SUMMARY

OF STARTUP TESTING PAGE 7 0F 9 a' l Figure 1 Unit 2 Cycle 9 Core Loading i

E

(* J L N f1 "m N &S 14 M M f.

W i 880 bbi 815 8,86 .

. r .  ;

i ... ... ,.m .. .m

2J 2L 2K 2L 2K 2L 2K 2L 2J l ,8 026 005 006 101 til 119 003 011 001 2 y "2J 2E' '$'K 2E~

N [K YK 2f 016 115 Y 2J 022 3 g 3

012 105 008 301 224 139 217 323 '

db 2E' $L 22' d'L 2I N YK f TJ~

2J 1.9.91M 3,.0 5 2.!6 29.1 zg, 2g 2,9? 3,11 1,2,1  ;,11 1(4 s

.f!3 2J 2K 2L 2J 2L 2K 2L 2J 2J 2L 2K 2L 2J 2L 2K 005 8

8 024 205 115 018 103 211 0 00 ,u_ aa_ a a ..31 T 3. .a-133 _107

t. tx

, _ .. 2 1.13 1.19 T.1. i_r_, x 2J 2L 2K~

2L 2K 2L 2J 2L 2K 2L 2K 2L 2K 2L s l '

QQS Q,Q2 3pp OQ JQ gg, JA7, 2p() y 1,,Q M5 402 J9l 310 2h7 O

^ 2; r r

$. .h.0 .$b5m$54 _.k ha. m 3$k3 _m_ 157 m._ Tis i.b.71.1.2 $.b.3b. 5.4

,y b5.9$b.l$f.i $b. 9

$b3 7 o,, , .

-g 159 lb5 152 lh1 15s ib3 ff7 . . . , _ b.i.9 f .h. 3 $.f.2- f..b.3 ,o '

bk.7 $ .hl

,, i.b.. . . m. m am_ . . . . .m_ . - _

003 ti f.f0 $..b.4 b.b.5 bh..3 k_b4 hk._6 .bb2 f.5.4_,.hf9 h.k.5 b.8.9h.27

.hf0 f.41 -

ff3

_.,_ 7 og ,,

hb fh4 $k8

l. 13 b4 _1 4 42 0 ff.2 b.b4 m hh6 .

_.. 2_.m_ $..b.6

. f.h.7h.k.a

. h.f.5.- -

g^'* is,,is p" .... .

ff6 e - $f3

. $k4 ff4 f5i $h.9B.f5 0 2 a Ek.a

- is , i b e 4' 8

b.8.ie. _.0$b9

. _ $5ev.8

... e.a ew . A e e **

2,.g _

153 $ia $55 $k0 bb1 bk0 is h.b.8b.b.7 -

$b,.8_.

e bb. .$k6. 7.

.n _ $$.6 _$ba m _' m . . .t. .t a .bi4A2Lbi9 A 2K-

'a-- A 2J 2J 2L 2K. 2L 2J 2L 2K 2J 2K 2L 2J 2 L. ,,

g 2 }J, \Q,8 ON 1,2E 2Q(, ,,gpB TE., if,8 g JJ9 01Q }$8 1,y T $,,, _

b kb0 hk0 $b2 3 ffy f,k0 b,hp

- ..i.lf.k2fk9 $.k.$b8 A2_u= _ _v . > ~ hfa n

2L 2J "

c 2J 2L 2K 2L 2K 2K 2K 2L- 2K Eo IM_ _0p,5 3Q ,3g_ 1Q{, ,yp, ,3QE,_ _gl4, }pp, _g7,, ,,

Y 2J 2L 2K 2L 2K 2L 2K 2L 2d 8"

0{Q)J [0Q]g,00 }p,2 0,1J QQ6 0)J IJJ l => b84 ..bh ..

8b2 83s

,7 g.. 7-G J L M n

. - . _ . . . , _ - _ - _._m., . _r,, ~._,_,-._.._._.,m. . , _ _ _ _ . _ _ , . . _ _ . . _ - .r...- ._ . , _ _ _ . - _ _ _ . . . , _ _ _ _ . ,

. UNIT 2 CYCLE 9

SUMMARY

OF STARTUP 1ESTING PAGE 8 0F 9 i Table 1 i Unit 2 Cycle 9 Core Loading I

BATCH NUMBER Of ASSEMBLIES ENRICHNENT 2L (no shims) 16 4.30 w/o 2LX (4 shims) 20 4,30 2L/ (8 shims) 24 4.30 2L* (12 shims) 28 4.30 2LE (44 Erbium pins) 4 4.30/3.40 2X (no shims) 16 4.08 2X/ (8 shims) 44 4.08 2K* (17 shims) 28 4.08 2J (no shims) 36 4.05 2H* (no shims) 1 3.40

, UNIT 2 CYCLE 9

SUMMARY

Of STARTUP TESTING PAGE 9 0F 9 Table 2 Unit 2 Cycle 9 Startup Testing Results l

DESCRIPTION UN115 PREDICTED MEASURED CEA 90% INSERTION Slowest CEA to 90% insertion CFA #. - --- 56 seconds - --

2.50 INITIAL CRITICALITY Boron Concentration ppm -- -

1797 Group 5 Position inches ----

70.5 l

CRITICAL BORON CONCENTRATION ARO ppm 1830 1801 Groups 5, 4, 3, 2 and 1 in ppm 1398 1389 HFP, Group 5 9-105" withdrawn (W/D) ppm 1371 1336

! ISOTHERMAL TEMPERATURE COEFFICIENT 0

HZP, Group 5 9-105"W/D 97%, Group 5 0-105"W/D x10'jdeltarho/F 0

+0.36 +0.304 x 10' delta rho / F 0.22 0.290 POWER COEFFICIENT 97%, Group 5 9-105"W/D x 10'4 delta rho /% -0.90 -0.85 l

CEA GROUP WORTHS l

l Group 5  % delta rho 0.34 0.336 Group 4  % delta rho 0.60 0.514 Group 3  % delta rho 0.81 0.709 Group 2  % delta rho 0.79 0.681 Group 1  % delta rho 0.96 0.013 Group C  % delta rho 1.06 0.946 Total  % delta rho 4.56 4.099 l POWER DISTRIBUTION NEASUREMENTS 30% 60% 85% 97%

T Fxy 1.7172 1.6648 1.6392 1.6108 T

Fr 1.5276 1.5757 1.5700 1.5919 Tq 0.0157 0.0089 0.0069 0.0049 1

_ _ . __ .. __. _. .