ML20086E311

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Ccnpp Unit 2 Cycle 11 Summary of Startup Testing
ML20086E311
Person / Time
Site: Calvert Cliffs Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 07/05/1995
From:
BALTIMORE GAS & ELECTRIC CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20086E298 List:
References
NUDOCS 9507110313
Download: ML20086E311 (10)
v • d • e


Text

-

BALTIMORE GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY CALVERT CLIFFS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNIT 2 Docket No. 50-318 License No. DPR-69 UNIT 2 CYCLE 11

SUMMARY

OF STARTUP TESTING l

i t

4 I

i 8

fSOdo!CKOh00 1

. _ _ - _ . . . _. .- ._ . ._ _ _ .__..__ _ _ _ __ _. ._ _....____ ..._ _ _._ _ _ .a

Unit 2 Cycle 11 Summary of Startup Testing Page 2 of to INTRODUCTION Be Unit 2 Cycle 11 core is designed for a Full Power Operation Burnup of 20,100 to 21,400 MWD /MTU. He core loading is detailed in Table 1, and the core loading pattern is shown in Figure 1. The initial startup for Cycle i 1 began with Control Element Assembly (CEA) and Control Element Drive Mechanism (CEDM) testing on May 14. Initial criticality for Cycle 1I was declared at 23:27 on May 15. Startup testing was concluded with the variable Tavg test to determine Moderator Temperature Coefficient (MTC) on May 22.

The overall startup testing evolution was conducted in three phases. The first phase was controlled by Post Startup Test Procedure 13 (PSTP-13), CEDM Perfomiance Testing. The second phase was controlled by Post Startup Test Procedure 2 (PSTP-2), Initial Approach to Criticality and I,ow Power Physics Testing Procedure. The third phase of testing was controlled by PSTP-3, Escalation to Power Test Procedure.

Tests performed under PSTP-13 included:

  • CEA and CEDM Testing e CEA Drop Time Testing Tests performed under PSTP-2 included:
  • Dual CEA Symmetry Check e Critical Boron Concentration (CBC) Measurements e Isothermal Temperature Coefficient (ITC) Measurement

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

e 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 e ITC and Power Coefficient (PC) Measurement at 97% RTP (Variable T avg Test)

, , , - = , , - - . . - .- . , - , , , -n-- ., ,- . ,

l Unit 2 Cycle 11 1 Summary of Startup Testing

. Page 3 of 10 t TEST CRITERI A i For the individual tests in the startup evolution, the following Acceptance and Review Criteria were applied (References 2,3,5):

a l PARAAfETER ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA REVIEW CRITERIA e

1 CEA Drop Time less than 2.95 seconds to less than 2,75 seconds to 90% insertion 90% insertion CEA Symmetry Check None less than 10% Tilt i RCS Flow Verification

1) Core dP 6.0 - 18.2 rsi 6.8 - 17.0 psi
2) Projected 389,025 - 407,850 gpm 397,580 - 407,090 gpm HFP Flow CBC 100 ppm of predicted 50 ppm of predicted CEA Worth
1) Group Greater of115% or 0.1% Greater of 15% or delta rho of predicted 0.1% delta rho of predicted
2) Total 10% of predicted 10% of predicted ITC, at 0% and 97% Within limits of M1C 10.3 x 10-4 delta Technical Specification rho / F of predicted ,

PC, at 97% i 0.3 x 10-4 delta 0.2 x 10-4 delta l rho /% of predicted rho /% of predicted Power Distributions Box Powers (Interior / Peripheral)

1) 30% RTP FxyT, and FrT within 15 % / i 20 %

l Technical Specification ofpredicted i (Tech. Spec.) limits

2) 60,85, and Fx T, prT, and Tq within i 10% /i 15%

i 97% RTP Te h. Spec. limits ofpredicted i

I I

l. ,- _ _ , - ..,_ _ - - _ . - . ., . - - - . _ . . . . - . . -

Unit 2 Cycle 11 Summary of Startup Testing Page 4 of 10 PARAMETER ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA REVIEWCRITERIA Core Symmetry Evaluation 1

1) Box Powers Same as Power Same as Power j Distribution Distribution j l
2) Tilt a) 30% RTP None 55%

1 b) 60,85, and 53% $2%

97% RTP

3) SymmetricICI None 10 %

Box Powers TEST RESULTS Table 2 summarizes startup test results, while individual tests are discussed below. l CEA and CEDM Testing 1 1

CEA and CEDM Testing was performed priet to initial Cycle 11 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 # 36, with a 90% insertion time of 2.45 seconds.

Dual CEA Symmetry Checks The Partial Symmetry Check was performed by inserting each dual CEA in Shutdown Group C individually. 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 0.043 (4.3%), which was within the Review Criteria of 10%.

Unit 2 Cycle 11 Summary of Startup Testing

. Page 5 of to RCS Flow Verification l He RCS Flow was verified at Hot Standby conditions with all four RCPs 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 core dP was 13.9 psi, compared to 14.1 psi for the l previous cycle. This value was well within Acceptance and Review Criteria.

The projected HFP RCS Flow was 400,461 gpm, based on total RCP dP. This value met both Acceptance and Review Criteria.

Critical Boron Concentration (CBC), HZP, All Rods Out (ARO)

He CBC was determined by obtaining from Chemistry the results of a RCS boron grab sample taken at conditions near ARO and adjusting it to an ARO condition. The ARO CBC was j determined to be 1995 ppm, compared to a predicted value of 1984 ppm. This value was within j both Acceptance and Review Criteria. j Isothermal Temperature Coefficient (lTC), HZP ARO The ITC was determined by decreasing and increasing RCS temperature while measuring the associated reactivity change. He measured reactivity was divided by the temperature change to j arrive at a value for the ITC. He calculated ITC with Group 5 at approximately 105 inches l withdrawn was +0.47 x 10-4 delta rhoPF. The predicted value was +0.38 x 10-4 delta rhoFF.

The prediction, when corrected for actual test conditions, was +0.40 x 10-4 delta rhofF. The measured value met both Acceptance Criteria and Review Criteria.

CEA Group Worth Measurement I

ne worth of each Regulating CLa was determined using the dilution method. Each indisidual measured group worth met the Acceptance and Review Criteria, as did the total measured group

, worth for all Regulating CEAs. )

Radial Power Distribution Comparisons j The Radial Power Distribution Comparisons were performed at 30,60, 85, and 97% RTP testing plateaus. The power distribution calculated by CECOR at a given power plateau was compared to the ROCS redicted ower distribution for that power level. At each power plateau, the peaking factors, Fr and F x , and azimuthal tilt, T limits. In all cases, the peakingqfactors and were within their h, were Technical respective compared to their Technical Specifications limits. In addition, the comparison of Box Powers, 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 4.78% (peripheral) and 1.54% (interior). At 60% RTP, the maximum differences were 9.56% (peripheral) and 4.20%

(interior). The maximum differences at 85% RTP were 9.504% (peripheral) and 4.060%

(interior) The maximum differences were 8.98% (peripheral) and -5.02% (interior) at 97% RTP.

~

Unit 2 Cycle 11 Summary of Startup Testing Page 6 of 10 i

Core Symmetry Power Distribution Measurements The Ct re 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 and the Review Criteria were met.

The maximum tilt at 30% RTP was 0.0127. At 60% RTP, the maximum tilt was 0.0132. At 85%

RTP, the maximum tilt was 0.0142, and the maximum tilt at 97% RTP was 0.0132.

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 ofi 10% was met.

ITC and Power Coefficient (PC) Measurement The ITC and PC were measured at 97% RTP with Regulating Group 5 CEAs at approximately 105 inches withdrawn. These parameters were determined by adjusting either moderator temperature or core power while adjusting turbine load to maintain the unaffected parameter approximately constant. The final measured value for the ITC was -0.24 x 10-4 delta rho / F.

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

-0.27 x 10-4 delta rho / F. The measured value for the PC was -1.03 x 10-4 delta rho /% RTP.

This value, when compared to a predicted value of-0.98 x 104delta rho /% RTP, met Acceptance and Review Criteria.

REFERENCES

1. J. E. Baum to W. J. Lippold, "Calvert Clifft Unit 2 Cycle 1i Reload Design Report,"

B-95-Oll, January 13,1995.

2. PSTP-2, Initial Approach to Criticality and Low Power Physics Testing Procedure, Revision 15.
3. PSTP-3 Escalation to Power Test Procedure, Revision 17.
4. PSTP4, Variable Tavg Testing Procedure, Revision 30.
5. PSTP-13, CEDM Performance Testing, Revision 4.

Prepared by _ #

y-OC -

Date 4/2f/rS i <

Reviewed by e Date J /

/  ;

i i

i

3. .

Ucit 2 Cycle 11 Summary of Startup Testing Page 7 of10 4

I Figure 1 Unit 2 Cycle 11 Core Loadmg Pattern i

2m 2J01s iten 2LH2 1'

~

2u14 2L004 2M001 2N200 2N406 2N201 2M003 2LO14 2uGS 2"

3" . 2 Leu am m 06;N414 2MHS 2m2M02M 2M1H 2M2 2W2

~

am0 2N0042mtm 0s 2M202 2N633 m 05 2m 2M2172m22 2ms 2N00s 2LO0s 4"

zum 2m 2M3m2Ne4 2M2m2m1 2M314 2N626 2M3372m2 2m42Nel 2M3mm3 2ws 5"

2m5 2M101 2 mis m 13 2an m ai m 25 2M301 am03 2W 30mm0 2m2zmts 2ms 2L001 6-1 2M011 2N410 2M2192N610 2M311 2N623 2M324 2N644 2M3342N628 2M3182N618 2M203 2N415 2M010 7- -

"' "'T3 8' 2N206 2M1122N638 2M322 2N643 2M335 2NT1 2M325 2NT3 2M328 2N605 2M3202N634 2M108 2N202 [

g--

2J0M I 10- 1L017 2Ne3 2m2ms2 W 36 2M3232W5 2M3M 2J10. . ?$2N614 2W06 2N6M 2M215 2M006 2Nm9 11 iL0s 12" 2J0M 13- 2N204 2M1142N642 2M317 2N632 2M329 2NT4 2M302 2NT2 2M334 2N617 2M313 2N627 2M107 2N207 14^ 2LT4 2u09 2M2 2M2 2M2062N644 2W152WO4 2M 2W7 2M3272N611 2M331 2N637 2M2202N401 2M012 15- -

i

, 2m2 2Minm 20 2M2102NH1 2M312 2N64 2W262m242MM42NHS 2M2M2WT 2WO2 2W6 ,

16- . _

17- 2L115 m ot m22N413 2M2MM 2W08 2M31 2M3072N639 2M211 2N411 2M3322N007 2L105 2LA07 2N002 2M3102N600 2M218 2N613 2M201 2N6122M204 2N621 2M3332N005 2LOOD 18" .

19- I + - 2LOM 2N009 2M1062N402 2M109 2M0082M1132N416 2M1042N011 2L005

+ .

20 -

2u07 2L013 2M005 2N203 2N407 2N205 2M004 2 LOO 3 2L113 .

. - - 2L111 1LO24 2J040 2LT2 .

21-4 .

A B C D E F G 'J L N R S T V W X Y H K M P j

1-

[

d 6

. , , - - . , _-.-,.---,.-..-,-...,.#. - , . . - - , . - - . , , , - , . , , , v.m+ ...e,w,_.- .,o . , , - . . , . ..,,,.w. -m.

..w,c, ,,-,--%-~~-,.. - , . . . . ,-wm w %

l o

Unit 3 Cycle 11 Summary of Startup Testing  ;

Page 8 of 10 '

l .

{ Table 1 I-

! Unit 2 Cycle 11 Core Loading TOTAL NUMBER NUMBER OF BATCII OF SillM RODS ASSEMBLIES ENRICllMENT 2J' 0 1 3.40 w/o ill 0 4 4.04 w/o 1 i

2J 0 4 4.05 w/o <

l 2L 0 16 4.28 w/o  !

I 2LX 48' 12 4.28 w/o 2

2LT 176 4 3.81 w/o 2M 0 12 4.0I w/o 2M1 64' 16 4.00 w/o 2M2 160' 20 3.99 w/o 2M3 480' 40 3.99 w/o 2NO 0 12 4.48 w/o 2

2N2 160 g 4,43 ,fo 2

2N4 704 16 4.48 w/o 2

2N6 3264 48 4.,48 w/o 2

2NT 176 4 4.00 w/o Notes:

B4C bearing shim rods 2

Erbium bearing shim rods i

l

. _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ , . _ . _ . . _ , , . _ _ = . . _ _ . ~ . . _ . . _ - . , ,. . _ - . . . . . _ _ . - ~ . _- - - - -

Unit 2 Cycle 11 l

Summary of Startup Testing

, , Page 9 of10 Table 2 Unit 2 Cycle 11 Startup Testing Results Page 1 of 2

! TEST DESCRIPTION UNITS PREDICTED MEASURED

CEA 90% INSERTION Slowest CEA to 90% insertion CEA # ---- 36 seconds ---- 2.45 l

INITIAL CRITICALITY Boron Concentration ppm ----

1970 Group 5 Position inches ---- 78 CRITICAL BORON CONCENTRATION ARO ppm 1984 1995 Groups 5,4,3,2, and 1 in ppm 1567 1575 ISOTHERMAL TEMPERATURE COEFFICIENT HZP, Group 5 @ 105" w/d x 10-4 delta rho / F +0.38 +0.47 HZP, Corrected for Test x 10-4 delta rho / F +0.40 --

Conditions 97%, Group 5 @ 105" w/d x 10-4 delta rho / F -0.27 -0.24 POWER COEFFICIENT 97%, Group 5 @ 105" w/d x 10-4 delta rho /% RTP -0.98 -1.03 CEA GROUP WORTIIS Group 5  % delta rho 0.353 0.370 Group 4  % delta rho 0.686 0.651 Group 3  % delta rho 0.927 0.893 Group 2  % delta rho 1.207 1.128 Group 1  % delta rho 0.404 0.399 Total  % delta rho 3.577 3.441

Unit 2 Cycle 11 Summary of Startup Testing

, Page 10 of 10 Table 2 1 Unit 2 Cycle 11 Startup Testing Results

Page 2 of 2 POWER DISTRIBUTION MEASUREMENTS PEAKING FACTORS 30% RTP 60% RTP 85% RTP 97%RTP FxyT 1.6189 1.6059 1.5943 1.5971 FrT 1.5688 1.5588 1.5501 1.5711 Tq 0.0127 0.0132 0.0142 0.0132 BOXPOWERS f

i 30% RTP 60% RTP 85% RTP 97%RTP Interior 1.54 % 4.197 % 4.060 % -5.019 %

l- Peripheral 4.78 % 9.555 % 9.504 % 8.983 %

i CORESYANETRY 30% RTP 60% RTP 85% RTP 97%RTP Tilt 1.13 % 1.32 % 1.42 % 1.28 %

Symmetric -2.543 % 3.76 % 3.634 % 3.85 %

Box Powers .

l i

4 g ~ y .-, -n n .n-,-. - -

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20086E311&oldid=2737832"