ML20087M443
| ML20087M443 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 03/26/1984 |
| From: | Elder M, Parsons C DUKE POWER CO. |
| To: | Harold Denton, Stolz J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8403290314 | |
| Download: ML20087M443 (25) | |
Text
, +. --
1 I
s 4
J DUKE POWER COMPANY OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION OCONEE 2, CYCLE 7 STARTUP TESTING REPORT Part I Zero Power Physics Testing Part II Power Escalation Testing Prepared By: Michael L. Elder Connie H. Parsons l
8403290314 840326
, 'PDR ADOCK 05000270
- P PDR b
, . . , , - , - -y v- g --4 +-
-y,w y - - -- + -
R OCONEE 2 CYCLE 7 Startup Testing Report Table of Contents Part I Zero Power Physics Test Section Page 1.0 Introduction and Summary . ..... . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2.0 Approach to Critical . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3.0 Pre-Physics Measurements . ..... . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4.0 Physics Testing . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Part II Power Escalation Test Section Page 1.0 Introduction and Summary . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.0 NSS Heat Balance /RC Flow Verification . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.0 Core Power Distribution . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.0 Power Imbalance Detector Correlation . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.0 Reactivity Coefficients at Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Enclosures 1.0 All Rods Out and Differential Boron Worth Results 2.0 Integral Group Rod Worth Measurements 2.1 Integral Rod Worth Curve of Gp 5 2.2 Integral Rod Worth Curve of Gp 6 1
2.3 Integral Rod Worth Curve of Gp 7 '
3.0 Radial Peaking Factor Comparisen at 40% FP 3.1 Total Peaking Factor Comparison at 40% FP 3.2 Radial Peaking-Factor Comparison at 100% FP 3.3 Total Peaking Factor Comparison at 100% FP l
i l
l l
e - , ,, v , - ,
-.r. , ,n.--
4 4.0 Minimum DNBR and Maximum LHR Calculations at 40% and 100% FP 5.0 40% FP PIDC Thermal Calculation and Correlation Slope Results 6.0 Reactivity Coefficients 7.0 NSS Heat Balance /RC Flow Verification
OCONEE 2 CYCLE 7 STARTUP TESTING REPORT PART I ZERO POWER PHYSICS TEST l
l 1.0 Introduction and Summary The Oconee 2 Cycle 7 Zero Power Physics Test (ZPPT) program was conducted from 12/6/83 to 12/7/83 per Station Procedure TT/2/A/711/07 (Oconee 2 Cycle 7 Zero Power Physics Test). The purpose of this testing was to
, , verify the nuclear parameters upon which the Oconee 2 Cycle 7 safety analysis and Technical Specifications are based.
The ZPPT measurements were made with reactor power controlled between 2.0 x 10~10 acps and 3.6 x 10 8 amps on the intermediate range instrumentation; reactivity insertions were maintained < 11200 pp. RCS pressure and temperature were maintained at
- 2155 PSIG and
- 532*F, respectively.
The following nuclear parameters were measured per the ZPPT:
(a) All rods cut boron concentration (See Enclosure 1.0)
(b) Integral rod worth for CRA groups 5, 6, and 7 (See Enclosures 2.0-2.3)
(c) Differential boron worth (See Enclosure 1.0)
(d) Temperature and moderator coefficients of reactivity (See Enclosure 6.0)
The plant computer was used to record RC pressure, RC temperature, inter--
mediate range NI power levels, and control rod positions. Reactivity was calculated by the plant computer and output to a chart recorder.
On 12/7/83 at 1230, the ZPPT was declared complete; all acceptance criteria were met.
2.0 Approach to Critical The initial RCS heatup following the refueling outage began on 11/26/83.
A return to cold shutdown was initiated from 295'F due to problems with the 2B2 seal return line. Hot shutdown was eventually reached on 12/5/83 ;
at 1900. Performance ZPPT personnel recorded count rates and generated l 1/m'(inverse multiplication) vs RC temperature plots throughout both heatups.
I '
_______._m___m.. . . - -______m____.__m_-.___._-_.-___..-__________-___
i
- l 2- '
Rod withdrawal for the Control Rod Drive Trip Time Test began at 1230 4
on 12/6/83. 1/M vs. withdrawn rod worth plots were maintained. The RCS boron concentration had been adjusted.to approximately the all-rods-out critical concentration to achieve criticality near the all-rods-out conditions.
At 1535 initial criticality was achieved with Group 7 at 90%wd and Group 8 at 37.5%wd. CR Groups 1-7 were then tripped into the core to complete
, the trip time test. Due to the investigation and repair of a faulty position indication for a rod in Group 2, criticality was not reestablished until 2105 hours0.0244 days <br />0.585 hours <br />0.00348 weeks <br />8.009525e-4 months <br />.
3.0 Pre-Physics Measurements After establishing steady conditions with the reactor critical, the NI overlap and Sensible Heat determination measurements were performed.
The power level of 3.6 x 10 s amps on the intermediate range NIs (as indicated on the Control Room chart) was established as the upper limit for ZPPT.
An on-line reactimeter checkout
- was then performed by making reactivity insertionr of about 250, 750, and i 1200 pp and measuring the associated doubling times. These doubling times were input to an off-line reactivity calculation and the results were then compared to the on-line reactivity.
values.
- NOTE: An "off-line" react'imeter checkout was performed during RCS heatup.
This checkout verified correct calculational and chart recorder response to three test cases in which simulated power ramps were input via floppy discs.
1 4.0 Physics Testing A. All Rods Out Boron Concentration Measurement j The RCS equilibrium boron concentration was measured with CR Groups 1-7 at 100% wd and Group 8 at 37.7% wd. Group 8 was moved to 37.5%
! wd and the associated reactivity change was converted to ppmb. The resultant all-rods-out boron concentration was calculated to be
- 1562 ppmb.
B. Temperature Coefficient of Reactivity Measurements 1
Temperature coefficient measurements were made while maintaining
! equilibrium boron conditions at two approximate rod configurations:
all-rods-out and all-regulating-rods-in. Each measurement was made
, by. increasing RCS temperature about 10*F and observing the associated.
reactivity change. The change in reactivity was divided by the change.
in RCS temperature to calculate the temperature coefficient. The moderator coefficient was calculated by subtracting the isothermal doppler coefficient (-0.15 x 10 4 aK/K/*F) from the measured temperature coefficients.
l l
l
=
-- a C. Control Rod Group Integral Worths and Differential Boron Worth Measurement The worths of Groups 5, 6, and 7 were measured by steadily deborating the RCS and compensating for the resulting positive reactivity ramp by inserting (in discrete steps of * - 800 pp) the control rods from 100% wd on Group 7 to 0% wd on Group 5 (with no rod overlap). The reactivity changes resulting from the discrete control rod insertions were summed for each group to obtain the group integral worth.
The differential boron worth was calculated by dividing the reactivity change by the boron change, resulting from the control rod worth measurements. The initial and final values for reactivity and boron concentratise were recorded at critical equilibrium conditions.
1
PART II POWER ESCALATION TEST 1.0 Introduction and Summary The Oconee 2 Cycle 7 Power Escalation Test was performed between 12/7/83 and 12/30/83 per Station Procedure TT/2/A/811/07. Testing was performed at 12%, 40% and 100% Full Power (FP) to verify the nuclear parameters upon {
which the Oconee 2 Cycle 7 safety analysis and Technical Specifications are based. The following tests and verifications were performed:
(A) Initial Core Power Distribution Check @ 12% FP (B) Power Imbalanc' e Detector Correlation @ 40% FP (See Enclosure 5.0)
(C) NSS Heat Balance (including RCS flow measurement at 100% FP) @ 12% FP, 40% FP, and 100% FP (See Enclosure 7.0)
(D) Incore Detector Checkout @ 40% FP and 100% FP (E) Core Power Distribution @ 40% FP and 100% FP (See Enclosures 3.0-3.3 and 4.0)
(F) Reactivity Coefficients @ 100% FP (See Enclosure 6.0)
Oconee 2 reached 12% FP at 2250 hrs on 12/7/83. The initial core power distribution check and primary NSS heat balance were completed at 2340 on 12/7/83.
The unit achieved 40% FP at 0900 on 12/8/83. The incore detector checkout for this power level was completed at 1100 on 12/9/83.
While holding for equilibrium xenon, to enable completion of the 40%
plateau testing, Unit 2 tripped. The RPS Channel D Pump Power Monitor Instrument Calibration (IP/2/A/0305/ID) was in progress at the time of the trip, which occurred at 1458 on 12/9/83. The Channel D (RCP-2B2) pump power monitor was disabled per procedure. A momentary loss of power on KVIC tripped the 2B1 RCP power monitor and resulted in alarms on all RPS Channel C parameters. The indicated loss of both RCPs in the B Loop tripped all four RPS Channels on RCP/ Flux ratio. Oconee 2 Trip #67 tractsient analysis and associated data may be referenced for further details.
Testing at the 40% plateau resumed at 0800 on 12/11/83 and was completed by 2013 that same day.
As previously implemented on Oconee Unit 1 Cycle 8, the Intermediate Power (70% to 85% FP) testing was eliminated. The radial / total peaking factor criteria were satisfied for 100% FP at the 40% FP plateau.
.. 5-The unit reached 100% FP at 0800 hrs on 12/19/83. The verification of RC Flow Constants (PT/0/A/275/03) was initially performed on the same day.
A discrepancy in the B1 and B2 feedwater flow indications was discovered during the test. The feedwater flow transmitter calibration data was reverified. No errors were found. PT/0/A/275/03 was performed again on 1/26/84. Revision of the plant computer RC flow constants was subsequently completed on 2/7/84. Slope and reference RC flow adjustments for the AT power calculation were not required.
The incore detector checkout and Core Power Distribution tests for 100% FP were completed on 12/19/83. The reactivity coefficients measurement was performed on 12/30/83. Data reduction and analysis for this test were completed by 2/14/84. This completed the Oconee 2 Cycle 7 Power Escala-tion Test - all acceptance criteria were met.
2.0 NSS Heat Balance /RC Flow Verification Off-line secondary and primary heat balances were performed at 12% (primary only), 40% and 100% FP. These tests verified the accuracy of CTPA, the on-line plant computer program which performs primary and secondary heat balances. The plant computer was used to average heat balance data (flows, temperatures, pressures, etc.) for 15 minutes. This data was input into the off-line heat balance programs and the results were compared to CTPA averages for the same period.
At full power, an off-line program was used to calculate RC flow based on a secondary heat balance and measured primary loop enthalpy changes.
This demonstrated that the RC flow rate was above that assumed in the core design (106.5% design flow) and below that which would cause core lift at 470*F (113.8% design flow).
After establishing the primary flow rate at full power, the plant computer flow constant (used to calculate flow from the primary AP instrumentation) was normalized.
3.0 Core Power Distribution Core Power Distribution tests were conducted at 40% and 100% FP. These tests verified that reactor power imbalance, quadrant power tilt, minimum DNBR, maximum LHR and radial / total power peaks did not exceed their respective specified limits. An initial Core Power Distribution was performed at 12% FP. However, due to the low power, only quadrant power tilt was verified to be within limits.
Specific checks were made as follows:
Incore imbalance was compared to the error adjusted imbalance LOCA limit curve and was verified to be within specified limits (based on Tech. Spec. 3.5.2.7).
The maximum positive quadrant power tilt was verified to be less than the error adjusted LOCA limit of +3.71% (based on Tech. Spec. 3.5.2.4).
The maximum LHR was verified to be within the LOCA limit maximum allowable heat rate (per Reload Report DPC-RD-2002).
a- ._
The worst case minimum DNBR and maximum LHR, when extrapolated to the overpower trip, were verified to be within the fuel melt limits (per Technical Specification 2.1).
The radial and total peaking factors were measured and compared to the predicted values. The following acceptance criteria were applied:
- * ~ *** #
(a) % Deviation = Measured x 100 < 1 20%
~
(b) x 100 $ Radial Total LMP 8.0% 12.0% @ 40% FP 5.0% 7.5% @ 100% FP hiere:
LMP is the largest measured peaking factor LPP is the largest predicted peaking factor (c) The full core root mean square radial peaking factor deviation (i) for all core locations with operable incore detector strings was limited as follows:
N i=I((PP-MP)2/(N-1)] $ 0.100 @ 40% FP 1 0.075 @ 100% FP klere:
PP = Predicted radial peaking factor MP = Measured radial peaking factor N = Total number of operable incore detector strings The following incore detector strings were inoperable:
- String 45, 1/8 core location A9 String 48, 1/8 core location C12 String 52,1/8 core location Cl3
- Note: Corrections in software decreased the calculated
% deviations for String 41 and allowed use of String 45 for 100% FP testing.
Per the "Oconee Generic Startup Test Program", the following criteria were verified at 40% FP to allow deletion of the Intermediate Power (70% to 85% FP) Testing:
LMP-LPP Total
,)
LMP x 100 < Radial
- 5.0% 7.5%
n b) I (PP-MP)2/(n-1] . 1 0.075 L
(Calculated for radial peaking factors only)
At 100% FP, tilt and imbalance were calculated using the backup incore recorder outputs and then compared to the full incore values.
]
4.0 Power Imbalance Detector Correlation The Power Imbalance Detector Correlation test was performed at 40% _FP.
The purposes of this test were:
a) to measure the outcore to full incore power' imbalance correlation j
. slopes for NI Channels 5, 6, 7, and 8, and to verify these slopes to be conservative with respect to the FSAR, i
?
1 b) to verify reasonable power imbalance agreement between the backup j incore detector recorder system and the full incore detector system, j l
c) to verify the adequacy of the RPS flux / flow / imbalance and overpower trip envelope by demonstrating that the extrapolated values of minimum DNBR and maximum LHR were within the fuel melt limits of Technical Specification 2.1, and d) to verify the adequacy of the LOCA imbalance limit curve by demon-strating that the extrapolated values of LHR were within the LOCA limits listed in the Reload Report (DPC-RD-2002).
After measuring the parameters above for three imbalance levels, it was apparent that the NI A flux gain settings needed to be adjusted. Once I&E had changed the gain settings, testing resumed. Correlation slopes were calculated for imbalance levels of +4.18, -0.17, -2.36, -5.76 and -8.29%
FP. The remaining parameters (b-d) were measured / calculated for imbalance levels of +4.18, +2.45, +0.91, -0.03, -2.36, -5.76, and -8.29 % FP. These imbalance levels were achieved by positioning Group 8 (APSR).
The incore/outcore imbalance correlation slope for each NI Channel (5-8) was determined by a least squares fit of outcore to incore imbalance -
indications for the six imbalance levels. All the slopes were verified to be greater than 1.15.
The backup incore/ full incore correlation was determined by plotting hand--
calculated imbalance from backup incore recorder outputs versus the full incore imbalance value obtained from the plant computer. These points were required to be within a specified range.
Values for the minimum DNBR and maximum LHR were obtained from the plant computer. These values were extrapolated to the maximum allowable trip *,
and were verified to be within the fuel melt limits: < 20.4kw/ft and > 1.30 DNBR.
- The maximum allowable trip being either the overpower trip or the flux / flow / imbalance trip, whichever would be encountered first.
Measured values of LHR were extrapolated to the LOCA' imbalance window and verified to be less than the LOCA limits specified in the Oconee 2 Cycle 7 Reload Report (DPC-RD-2002).
5.0 Reactivity Coefficients at Power .
Data for calculating the doppler and temperature coefficients was taken at N 100% FP. This test verified that the measured and extrapolated reactivity coefficients were conservative relative to the specified values in the FSAR.
The reactivity coefficients were calculated in the following manner:
Group 7 differential rod worth measurements were made over the range of rod motion encountered in the test. The B&W " push / pull" differential rod worth measurement technique and the B&W " fuel power correction" calculation were used to determine the differential rod worths.
The temperature coefficient of reactivity was determined by varying the average RC temperature (thermal power was held as steady as possible) and measuring the resulting change ir Group 7 position. The power doppler coefficient of reactivity was determined by varying reactor power level (average RC temperature was held as steady as possible) and measuring the resulting change in Group 7 position.
The measured differential rod worths were used with the temperature change and power changes to calculate the temperature and the power doppler coefficients, respectively. Corrections for xenon and temperature / power variations were also made.
O
OCONEE 2 CYCLE 7 E
STARTUP REPORT ENCLOSURE 1.0 ARO AND DIFFERENTIAL BORON WORTil RESULTS MEASURED PREDICTED ACCEPTANCE PARAMETER CONDITIONS VALUE VALUE DEVIATION CRITERIA AH Rods Out Gp 7 @ 100% wd Predicted Boron Conc. Cp 8 at 37.5% wd* 1562 ppm 1537 ppm 25 ppm 150 ppm Differential 1375 ppm Average -0.933% AK/K -0.886% AK/K -5.0%** Measured < 1.33%
Boron Worth During Measurement per 100 ppm per 100 ppm AK/K per 100 pp, and 115% Deviation End Points:
Gp 7 @ 100, Cp 8 @ 37.7 1560 ppm Gp 5 @ 9.6, Cp 8 @ 37.5 1185 ppm
- Equilibrium conditions: Gp 7 @ 100% wd, Gp 8 @ 37.7% wd, Bgo @ 1560 ppm
- % Deviation = Predicted measured
- measured x 100 e
e e
e 9
- _ = _ _- . - _ . -
_ . _ . .~ . _ _ . . . . _ _ . -. .
OCONEE 2 CYCI.E 7 STARTUP REPORT ENCLOSURE 2.0 INTEGRAL GROUP ROD WORTil HEASUREMENTS HEASURED PREDICTED ACCEPTANCE PARAMETER VALUE VAIUE DEVIATION
- CRITERION
(% AK/K) (% AK/K) (%)
Gp 7 Integral Worth -1.42 -1.38 -2.8 1 15% Deviation Gp 6 Integral Worth -1.04 -1.08 +3.8 1 15% Deviation Gp 5 Integral Worth -1.11 -1.16 +4.5 i 15% Deviation GP 5-7 In'tegral Worth -3.57 -3.62 +1.4 1 10% Deviat. ion predicted - measured
- % Deviadon - measured x 100 9
4 6
I. l l Pi li j l !I! jl! Ih f!I!'il'ij i
!U~gllsll ! ! !II: lj!
r ui I : 1 u{lljjg
' ~
OCollEE 2 CYCI,E 7 l } )t ;; l ;h ["
STARTUP REPORT -
lj l !
ENCI.OSURE 2.1 l - - E'l 4 "llt -l!%
1 2 CP 5 INTEG. ROD WORTil I i ! b
< L j l .
i 1
j
)- .1 .
' I
- -i ~i i l .l !
l l i ~1.2 -a l
- 1.1 Lg.I ..,
1.0 ,
0.9 r..... i i 0.8 g 4 .
j D. ,,
i n ,
- 0.7 ! *,--
d
.i y
j i 0.6 -
y
-7 t ,
j o
0.5 -
m ,
fl.
ll' 0.4 :' l-j ,
0.3 ,
' l
.- - .- .I l 4
R i
).
{jl ll jl i l!i
,, l ll Il ! ,
l' i
'i i
, 0.2 ,
g p
0.1 .
' , L
! -J l! $! h ! i!
--f,,,I
- (;roup 5 Posit on (%WD) ! . I d .!! !! k f!!! b!.
, ... ,, i i mmunnmunmmunmnnummmni I ! l . Il ! lil lli !!h ,li! lli.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 '70 80 90 100 l 01919F r .v v EEEllwT EeU JUIE 3*H gg
~~
. 2Jzn/94 i
"~{T'p' j j Qi ID i i j I ll !
l l l } q l OCONEE 2 CYCLE 7
~
i l STARTUP REPORT ti ! ik l [- '
-+
ENCLOSURE 2.2 -a
.-.[i 4 y! '
4l GP 6 INTEC. ROD WORTil ! j j I j
' j '
'l i l ! ;
ll j l
.I' l j '
t i li 1 7 ,
1.2 I
i 1.1 i l 1.0 -
-. g T~k
.1-0.9 0.8 $
5' l 0.7 -"- l '
I y l !
f 0.6 y >
. .1 ..[3 J. , i lj u - I -
0.5 g
-d q . l a: . ,,- l 11 '
11 0.4 ',
,--' C 1- [-- ..1 I ! j f!
0.3
/ .1 [..
1
.t -
ba i l
..i 4.
l I t I ! . l .:
I i i 1 .i
, l .
0.2 ,
1 - + J 4 .
' !. - 1.i gi pl t ll l '!
O,1 ..:. !p! @l I j41
[
-s-- Group 6 Position (7.WD) I i l !! ! l Il !!i:
!-- l]i, fi lip li i Ilii h:ljj fill i I!!Illi t t ili li t il i t ill il !!!!I llli li t t l i t illi t tiii l l i i i i i i l l
! j k.!i! lDiii U 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 OIsI9e o,..,,.. U"L7#a"MJJJ!i,"o'l iMI
~
Mur 122.7/ F4
i i
l 1 l l l ! I l I
l ! { l f b fb l !! hllllh l l !!N!! ! !I!
dllJ
!!i li d!! ii j s f iU k I!
2 l ! J i 1 : ) .! Up '
{ OCONEE 2 CYCLE 7 l ! ! !l [
l li!
jj id jj {! [lfj l ll I I
.3 STARTUP REPORT l l ! L ..i (.. l .I (
l ENCLOSURF,2.3 l I I
..l j !p l lt CP 7 INTEG. ROD WORTH l l { '] [ ;j , ,,
] jg :
J j ]-
1.5 i --j - -
. : r..
I I
l } f. ! !
'. i 4 i i ,
7li j ihi. .,
1.4 b,.d ""*~~
1.3 "-
l l , s '
i- j i n.
i 1.2 (j-- l .
,,,4 j ! !
I 1.1 ,
p
j i fl{
.l;
. 1.0 ,
-f l,-
, i 4 ,,i.'
- 0.9 -S '
' ' I -
L I
D ..
',,- l
{ll'
- ] l O.8 ~~
g p,1 -t--
- y- ,
O.7. $ "
-l k 1o ,
Il j
_I
' l .
0.6 --
' l j ,
j . .
i ,' ' .)
l l l 1
0.5 ,
l.
E j
j . j j; ; !i 0.4 . '
i !
l l l ! I l 0.3 ,
l , jj l .. !. i j ji 3 fI ! !!
. 0.2
} ,'
J hf i a . .
f!! ! i ; it :.
j' -
. 0.1 I
' Croup '7 Nsition O'WDh
'i
! I ldI LN l!! h M..
l I !
- {lI S
.. , .! ! l !lh
- -+ ' "
l I lilililllililiti!Illillillillilillli!!!!!illil!!!! i l i ! . l!! I i
l .
I , t ii!' ;!:i l ,
0 .-_ 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 4
l 0Ist9F = > .r = n E L k l J?a"i Y J Mi Ta". M l
.. pg
} . . , .
2/z.7/84
,' . OCONEE 2 CYCLE 7 ,
. STARTUP REPORT j l
ENCLOSURE 3.0 Radial Peaking Factor Comparison 40.0 % FP l g.g l G-8 l F-8 E-8 D-8 C-8 B-8 l A-8 O.8631 0.9958 1.0086 1.2558 1.0605 1.3307 1.0226 0.5934 1
0.92 1.05 1.02 1.21 1.10 1.29 1.05 0.61
- -6.185 -5.16 -1.118 3.785 -3.59 3.155 -2.61 -2.72 G-9 T-9 E-9 D-9 C-9 B-9 A-9
- 1.0864 1.2660 1.0439 1.2665 1.187 1.225 1.13 1.22 1.11' 1.21 1.26 1.17
-3.86 3.77 -5.95 4.67 -5.75 4.71 F-10 E-10 l D-10 C-10l B-10l A-10 1.0723 1.2493 0.9327 1.243' O.883 0.390' 1.15 1.24 0.99 1.23 0.02 n.41
-6.76 0,75 -5.79 1.073 -3.97 -4.83 INCORE TILT E-11l D-11 C-11 3-11l W-X -0.14 1.1158 1.2397 1.0514 0.863 X-Y 0.34 Y-Z -0.40 -6.24 -0.24 -6.125 -0.793 Z-W 0.21 D-12 '
C-12
- 3-12l gg 1.0639 0.4754 CCNDITICNS ACTUAL 1.24 0.51 TOR PEAKING MEAS *uLWENT CONDITICNS -14.20 -6.745 PREDICTIONS C-13 ;
- 37.7RNUP 2 E7PD 1.18 EFPD Gy 5 100.0 vd. 100.0 % ud.
GP 6 100.0 % vd. 100.0 vd.
G7 7 87.0 % vd. 86.9 : vd. g G7 3 33.3 : vd. 35.4 vd.
Core Location
- m. -
3.32% & Measured Peak Predicted Peak j POWER 40.0 : FP 39.73 : FP Deviation BORON 1247 ppm (D"dneas. * ~** ** * ) x 100 HIGHEST % DEVIATION = -14.2 i in 1/8th Core Location D-12 -
RMS RADIAL PEAKING FACTOR Ut.VIATION = 1.29= 0.0561 in Ai8th core location C-8 HIGEEST MEASURED RADIAL PEAK LMP - LPP- x 100 = -3.155 ~
12!?
0 Inoperable String
- _ - . ~ - . - . . - _ - - - - , - - _ .
OCONEE 2 CYCLE 7 STARTUP REPORT
,' ENCLOSURE 3.1 Total Peaking Factor Comparison 40
- FP 1
H-8 C-8l F-8 E-8 D-8 C-8 B-8 A-8 1.0442 1.2248 1.2635 1.5274 1.2419 1.6157 1.2730 0.7360 1.15 1.29 1.32 1.51 1.32 1.61 1.40 0.78
-9.20 -5.05 -4.28 1.152 -5.916 0.354 -9.01 -5.64 C-9 F-9 E-9 D-9 C B-9 A-9
- 1.3478 1.5588 1.2539 1.5433 1.4226 1.5143 1.38 1.50 1.37 1.52 1.54 1.44
-2.33 3.92 -8.474 1.533 -7.623 1.631 F-10 E-10l D-10 C-10 B-10 A-10l 1.2892 1.5338 1.2088 1.5252 1.0944 0,4859
.40 1.55 1.31 1.55 1.13 0.51
-7.914 -1.045 -7.725 -1.60 -3.15 -4.725 INCORE TILT E-11 D-11 C-11l 3-11l W-X -0.14 1.3351 1.5384 1.2968 1.0704 1.47 1.55 1.37 1.10 X-Y 0.34 Y-Z -0.40 -9.18 -0.748 -5.343 -2.6S Z-W 0.21 D-12 C -12 l
- 3-12 ASSUMED 1.342 0.
CCiDITICNS ACTUAL 1*01 / 0.64 FOR PEAKric MEASUR. N.
PREDICTIONS CC:.*DITICNS
-16.60 -8.52 SUF2.'UP 2 EFPD 1.18 ETPD C-13l*
G7 5 100.0 % ud. 100,0 7. vd.
CP 6 100.0 vd. 100.0 % vd.
j c? 7 8 7. 0 '; vd . 86.9 : vd.
! KET l CP 3 35.3 : vd. 35.4 '; vd.
i Core Location IM3. -2.41 i=b. 3.32 : isb. 7 POWER 40.0 ; yp 39.73 : yp Predicted Peak / Measured Peak
- Deviation SORON 1247 ppm i pred.-eens.) x 100 l . eas.
HIGHEST : DEVIATION = -16.6 % in 1/8th Core Location D-12 .
HIGHEST MEASURID TOTAL PEAK = 1.61 in 1/8th core location C-R and D-12 W - LPP x 100 - -0.354 i L.'".P
- Inoperable String i
--.l
4 .
OCONEE 2 CYCLE 7
- STARTUP REPORT i
ENCLOSURE 3.2 Radial Peaking Factor Comparison 100.0" ??
H-g lG-8l F-8 E-8 D-8 C-8 B-8 l A-8 i 0.6711 1.0035 1.0134 1.2460 1.0590 1.3120 1.0230 0.6084 0.94 1.05 1.02 1.18 1.08 1.25 1.04 0.61
-6.63 -4.43 -0.65 5.59 -1.94 4.96 -1.64 -0.26 ,
G-9 T-9 E-9 D-9 C-9 B-9 A-9
~
, 1.0877 1.2566 1.044 1.2532 1.177 1.2150 0.5756 1.13 1.19 1.08' 1.19 1.24 1.14 0.59
-3.74 5.60 -3.30 5.31 -5.07 6.66 -2.44 J i F-10 E-10 D-10 C-10 3-10] A-10 1 1.071 1.238 0.9348 1.232 0.8911 0.4047 j 1.14 1.19 0.95 1.18 0.92 0.42
-5.98 4.07 -1.60 4.42 -3.14 -3.64
, INCORE TILT E-11! D-11 C-11l 3-11l W-X -0.18 1.1115 1.2291 1.0517 0.874 X-Y 0.40 1.16 1.21 1.10 0.87 Y-Z -0.29
-4.18 1.58 -4.39 0.48 Z-W 0.07 D-12 C-12
- 3-12
, 1.063 0.4896 AS N 1.11 0.51 CONDITIONS ACTUAL FOR PEAKING MEASURDfENT
, PRDICTIONS CONDITICNS -4.19 -4.00 BURNUP 4 E7PD 7.699 E7PD C-13 l
- CP 5 100.0 % vd. 100.0 % ud.
GP 6 100.0 : wd. 100.0 vd.
GP 7 87.0 vd. 87.1 : vd. g GP 8 28.8 : ud. 28.9 ~ vd.
i Core Location
~
M* ~
- Predicted Peak Measured Peak POWER 100.0 ; yy 99.87 : yP BORON 1040 ppm (D" -*****) x 100 HIGHEST % DEVIATION = 6.66 ?. in 1/8th Core Location B-9 -
RMS RADIAL PEAKING FACloa uc.VIATION = 1.25 = 0.0453 La u 8th core location c-8 HIG~dIST MEASURED RADIAL PEAK Ut? - LPP x 100 = - 4.96 %
1:1P l
l
- Inoperat,le String
. OCONEE 2 CYCLE 7 STARTUP REPORT ENCLOSURE 3.3 Total Peaking Factor Comparison 100.0 % FP 4
H-8 G-8l F-8 E-8 D-8 C-8 3-8l A-8 j 1.0530 1.2234 1.2472 1.4645 1.2109 1.5026 1.2554 0.14o.,
.10 1.24 1.22 1.34 1.20 1.45 1.27 0.73
-4.27 -1.34 2.23 10.78 0.91 7.78 -1.15 2.21
! G-9 F-9 E-9 D-9 C 6 3-9 A-9 1.3328 1.5168 1.2251 1.4699 1.375 1.4789 0.69 1.31 1.37 1.20 1.35 .42 1.35 y 0.70 1.74 10.72 2.09 8.88 -3.13 9.55 -0.04 T-10 E-10 D-10 C-10l 3-10 A-10l 1.2556 1.4535 1.1460 1.4571 1.0735 0.4979 1.27 .33 .17 .36 .06 0.48
-1.13 9.29 -2.05 7.14 1.27 3.73 INCORE TILT E-ll D-11 C-11l 3-11l
. 68 1.0 75 L2m 1. W 83 W-X -0.18 1.39 1.26 1.02 X-Y 0.40
. Y-Z -0.29 ~2.38 4.86 -1.02 3.76 Z-N 0.07 D-12 C-12
- 3-12l 1.2866 0.589 ASSUMED CONDITIONS ACTUAL 1.33 0.61 FOR PEAKING MEASUR.". ENT PREDICTIONS CCNDITIONS -3.26 -3.41 C-13
cp 7 87.0
- vd. 87.1 vd.
W! !
GP 3 28.8 ud. 28.9 : vd.
Core Location l Df3. - 6.58 imb. 2.72: imb. j Predicted Peak Measured Peak POWER 100.0 , FP 99.57 : y?
Deviation SORON 1040 ppm (pred.-meas.) x 100
. meas.
HZCHEST DEVIATION = 10.78 in 1/8th Core Location E-8 .
HIGHEST MEASURED TOTAL PE.ut = 1.45 in 1/Sth core location C-8 LMo - LPP x 100 = -7. 78 %
LT 0 Inoperable String l
OCONEE 2 CYCLE 7 STARTUP REPORT ENCLOSURE 4.0 MINIMUM DNBR AND MAXIMUM LIIR CALCULATIONS AT 40% AND 100% FP TEST PLATEAUS Incore Tilt Extrapolated Gp6/7/8 Boron incore WX/XY Extrapolated Worse Case Power Burnup Positions CONC Imbalance YZ/ZW Worst Case MLHR MLHR 3 Level (EFPD) (% WD) (PPM) (% F.P) (%) MDNBR HDNBR (KW/FT) (KW/FT) 40 1.18 100/86.4/35.4 1247 3.32 -0.14/ 0.34 9.08 3.26 4.55 12.16
- -0.40/ 0.21 100 7.70 100/87.1/28.9 1040 -2.72 -0.18/ 0.40 3.71 N/A 10.21 N/A
-0.29/ 0.07 NOTE: The 40% FP case was extrapolated to 105.5% FP. The 100% F.P case was not extrapolated.
k i
i e
3 0
. e 7 - , . _ _ _ _
OCONEE 2 CYCLE 7 STARTUP REPORT ENCLOSURE 5.0 40% FP PIDC TIIERMAL CALCULATION AND CORRELATION SLOPE RESULTS
, Worst Case Full Incore Extrapolated Extrapolated Imbalance MLIIR MLilR MDNBR MDNB.R
(% FP) (KW/ft.) (KW/ft.)
+4.18 4.67 12.57 8.90 3.05
+2.45 4.41 11.87 9.41 3.35
+0.91 4.21 11.30 9.82 3.50
-0.03 4.24 11.09 10.13 3.69
, -2.36 4.54 11.87 10.17 3.85
-5.76 4.99 13.13 9.10 3.31
-8.29 5.15 13.12 3 93 3.32 NOTE: All extrapolations are to 105.5% FP, except for the -8.29% FP imbalance case where $/ flux / imbalance reduces the maximum allowable trip setpoint to 102.1% FP.
NI S NI 6 NI 7 NI 8
. Correlation Slope 1.36 1.30 1.40 1.38
, Differential Amp.
Gain Setting 4.80 4.80 4.80 4.80 g .
OCONEE 2 CYCLE 7 STARTUP REPORT ENCLOSURE 6.0 REACTIVITY COEFFICIENTS MEASURED PREDICTED ACCEPTANCE PARAMETER CONDITIONS VALUE VALUE CRITERION llot Zero Power T = 532*F Temperature G0"7@97.0%wd -0.08 x 104 -0.01 x 10~4 Predicted 1 0.3 x 10~4 Coefficient Gp 8 @ 37.7% wd AK/K per "F AK/K per "F AK/K per *F (ARO) 1560 ppm Hot Zero Power T = 532*F Predicted 1 0.3 x 10~4 AK/K per *F '
Moderator Gp"7 @ 97.0% wd +0.07 x 10~4 +0.15 x 104 and Coefficient Gp 8 = 37.7% WD AK/K per *F AK/K per *F ~4 AK/K per *F Heasured 5 +0.5 x 10 (ARO) 1560 ppm llot Zero Power T = 533*F Temperature G0#5, @ 10.3% WD -0.72 x 10~4 -0.68 x 10~4 Predicted 1 0.3 x 10~4 Coefficient Cp 6,7 @ 0% WD AK/K per *F (Control Rods In) Gp 8 @ 37.5% WD AK/K per *F AK/K per *F 1185 ppm llot Zero Power T = 533*F Predicted i 0.3 x 10~4 AK/K per *F Moderator G0"5,@10.3%WD -0.57 x 104 -0.53 x 10~4 and Coefficient Gp 6,7 @ 0% WD AK/K per *F AK/K per *F Measured 5 +0.5 x 10 4
AK/K per *F Cp 8 @ 37.5% WD (Control Rods In) 1185 ppm Hot Full Power BOC T
= 579'F -1.11 x 10~4 -1.11 x 104 Temperature Coefficient more Temperature Coefficient AK/K per "F AK/K per *F negative than -0.14 x 104 Extrapolated to 95% FP AK/K per F at 95% FP Hot Full Power BOC T
= 579'F -1.13 x 10 4 -1.21 x 10~4 N/A Temperature Coefficient AK/K per "F AK/K per *F Extrapolated to 100% FP Hot Full Power BOC T
= 579*F -3.02 x 10~4 -3.09 x 104 Temperature Coefficient more Temperature Coefficient AK/K per "F AK/K per *F positive than -3.17 x 10~4 Extrapolated to 100% FP AK/K per *F at 100% FP at EOC
. Hot Full Power BOC T
= 579'F -0.93 x 10~4 -1.09 x 10~4 Power Doppler Coefficient more
. Power Doppler Coefficient AK/K per %FP AK/K per %FP negative than -0.55 x 10~4 Extrapolated to 100% FP AK/K per % FP at 100% FP e
9
- OCONEE 2 CYCLE 7 ST.GTUP REPORT ENCLOSURE 7.0 NSS HEAT BALANCE /RC FLOW VERIFICATION Plant Computer Plant Computer Plant Computer Off Line Off Line Test Plateau On Line Primary On Line Secondary " Delta Temp" Calculated Calculated RC Power Level Power Level Power Level Primary Secondary Flow Power Level Power Level 12% FP 11.3 N/A 12.1 11.0 N/A N/A 40% FP 39.8 39.9 39.7 41.7 39.8 N/A
~
100% FP 100.1 100.0 100.5 100.8 99.8 *113.09% D.F.
100% FP (after adjusting constants) 99.4 100.0 99.6 N/A N/A 113.33% D.F.
- Calculated by the off-line secondary heat balance program (SECitT) per PT/0/A/275/03 Verification of RC Flow Constants t
b
!e, .
E DUKE POWER GOMPANY P.O. BOX 33189
, CHAMLOTTE, N.C. 28242 A HALH. TUCKER TE LEPitONE vanramasomwt (704) 373-4531
" " * * " ~ ~ "
March 26, 1984 Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Attention: Mr. J. F. Stolz, Chief Operating Reactors Branch No. 4
Subject:
Oconee Nuclear Station Docket No. 50-270
Dear Sir:
Please find attached the Startup Test Report for Oconee 2 Cycle 7.
Very truly yours, gg Hal B. Tucker JCP/php Attachment cc: Mr. James P. O'Reilly, Regional Administrator U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II 101 Marietta Street, NW, Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30303
'/
L i