ML20099E988
| ML20099E988 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee  |
| Issue date: | 11/06/1984 |
| From: | VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORP. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20099E973 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8411260185 | |
| Download: ML20099E988 (14) | |
Text
. -
% .m ,
- . .f b
STARTUP TEST REPORT VERMONT YANKEE CYCLE 11-
Introduction:
Vermont Yankee Cycle 11 initial startup commenced on August 6, 1984
-following a 7 week outage for annual refueling and maintenance related activities. Fuel sipping was performed during the outage due to increased off gas-activity observed last cycle. A total'of 92 fuel bundles were sipped, with one failed fuel bundle being found. This bundle was subsequently reconstituted and inserted for Cycle 11.
The core loading for Cycle 11 consisted of:
2 P8x8R P8DPB289 Reinserts'from cycle 7 34 P8x8R P8DPB289 Reinserts from cycle 8 120 P8x8R P8DPB289 Reinserts from cycle 9 108 P8x8R P8DPB289 Reinserts from cycle 10 104 P8x8R P8DPB289 non-irradiated assemblies An as loaded Cycle 11 core map is included as Figure I. Details of the cycle 11 core loading are contained in the Yankee Atomic Electric Company document YAEC-1403. " Vermont Yankee Cycle 11 Core Performance Analysis, April 1984" Shutdown margin testing was performed satisfactorily on July 27, 1984. An in-sequence critical was performed satisfactorily July 27, 1984. Reactor power was limited to 75% due to the loss of one condensate pump. This steady state power level was reached on August 17,1984. With the return of the condensate pump, steady state full power was achieved on October 5,1984.
Control rod coupling verification was performed satisfactorily for all 89 control rods on July 24,25 and 27, 1984. Control rod scram testing was performed satisfactorily for all 89 rods on August 2-8,1984.
The final as loaded core was verified correct by Vermont Yankee and Yankee Atomic Electric personnel on July 24, 1984.
Core Verification:
The final core loading was verified correct on July 24, 1984. Three
- separate criteria were checked
i
- 1. Proper bundle orientation was verified by checking channel fastener orientation and assuring that fastener orientation agreed with that shown in Figure II.
l
- 2. Proper bundle seating was verified by following Vermont Yankee Procedure VYOP 1411.
- 3. Proper core loading was verified by checking the serial l number of each bundle through use of a video camera. This l l verification was recorded on video tape and was later l independently reviewed and reverified to agree with the
! licensed core loadina of Figure 1.
8411260185 841106
! PDR ADOCK 05000271 L F,) (F0
P
~~
7 ]
Procans Co putcr Datn Chacks:
Process computer data shufflina checks were completed August 7,1984.
These checks included various manual and computer checks of the new data constants. A check for the consistency of the data was also performed by
. Yankee Atomic Electric Company and found to be satisfactory. ,
Shutdown Margin Testing:
A subcritical shutdown marain test was performed on July 27,1984 by withdrawing the analytically determined strongest rod to the full out position and then withdrawing a diagnally adjacent margin rod for which a rod worth curve has been calculated. A shutdown margin of at least 1.18% DELTA K/K was demonstrated. The reactor remained subcritical through the test, thereby satisfying the Tech. Spec. requirement to demonstrate a shutdown margin of 0.32% DELTA K/K for cycle 11.
In-Sequence Critical:
Sequence 11 A-1 was used to perform the in-sequence critical test.
On July 27, 1984 control rods were withdrawn in-sequence until criticality was attained. Criticality was achieved on the 7th rod in group 2 (26-31) at notch position 16. The moderator temperature was 94 degrees Farenheit.
The actual critical rod pattern and the YAEC prediction agreed within plus or minus 1% DELTA K/K. Figure III shows the actual, predicted and plus or minus 1% DELTA K/K critical rod patterns.
Rod Scram Testing:
All 89 control rods were scram tested on August 2nd through 8th, 1984.
All insertion times were within the limits defined in the Vermont Yankee Tech. Specs. Results of the testing are presented in Table IA.
In accordance with Tech. Specs. Section 4.3.C.2 scram time information available for scrams occuring since the transmittal of the previous startup test report is also included in Table IB. All insertion times were within the limits defined in the Vermont Yankee Tech. Specs.
All scram time information was evaluated to ensure that proper drive performance is being maintained. No degradation of drive performance is noticeable.
Thermal Hydraulic Limits and Power Distrubtion:
Core Maximum Fraction of Critical Power (CMFCP), Core Maximum Fraction of Limiting Power Density (CMFLPD), Maximum Average Planar Linear Heat Generation Rate ratio (MAPRAT) and the ratio of CMFLPD to the fraction at Rated power (CMFLPD/FRP) were all checked daily during the startup using the process computer. All checks of core thermal l limits were within the limits specified in Technical Specifications.
l The results of the Backup Core Limits Evaluation (BUCLE) program were compared to results of the process computer for the same ccre
- conditions. The results were essentially identical as can be seen in i
Table II.
~
i The process computer power distribution was updated twenty (20) times
- using the TIP system during the ascent -to full power.1 Sue result of these_ updates are presented in Table III.
The LPRM's were calibrated three (3) times in conjunction with TIP sets 885 , 890 and 905. The -initial checkout of LPM 4 high and low trip alarm setpoints was done at 0% power on 8/1/84. The TIP and LPRM systems were both' functionally tested and found to operate satisfactorily.
The process computer power distribution update performed October 9,1984 (TIP 904) was used as a basis for comparsion with an offline calculation performed using the Yankee Atomic Electric Company nodal code SIMULATE. This was the first appropriate full power TIP calibration available. For the pcwer distribution of October 9,1984 the SIMULATE core average axial power distribution was compared to that calculated by the i plant process computer: comparisons are shown in Table IV. A comparsion was also performed between SIMULATE and process computer peak radial power: comparisons are shown in Table V.
TIP Reproducibility and TIP symmetry:
TIP system reproducibility was checked in conjunction with the power distribution update performed October 17,1984. All three TIP system traces were reproducible to within 3.3%.
, The A-1 sequence used as :the initial control rod sequence varied slightly from and eighth core symmetric pattern with octant symmetric rod locations at notch position 38 and 24. Due to this lack of 1 eighth core symmetry, calculation of a total TIP uncertainty was calculated using synthetic traces from a SIMULATE case at the same conditions as calibration 904, but with control rods at core locations :
26-35 and 34-27, as well as their symmetric counterparts, set to position 32. These synthetic traces were pointwise adjusted by SIMULATE using the ratio of the actual TIP 904 traces to the synthetic SIMULATE
- TIP 904 traces. By using the pointwise adjustment ratios, it is
~
possible to estimate what the actual TIP traces would be for a symmetric pattern.
f The resulting total TIP uncertainty for this case was 1.98%.
I 4 The results of the TIP uncertainty test as shown in Table VI are well d
below the 8.7% acceptance criteria, l
i 1
4 4,
-..-,'-,----,n-.m,. -- , -. ---ee--,-e , ,,w,~,-, ---~--n-,rw-~e,-
--e.- - - - - - - ,. - a-,----- v-,r-
Figure I CYcII: 11 CDRn mp
, VERMONT YANKEE 44 UPlUP UZ lWZ UP 1 UP 199 l263 069 1070 2648 200 42 UP l LY g LY M I LY LY l LY IUP 243 1 47771476169251692 762 47788244 40 WP :UZ UZe LY Zl LY UZlWZ LY I UZ LY UZ UZ UP 262ILOL O_6114793 1_29_ 1692_9 051 10; [ 0191.1w u93 a6L 105 16t.
33 UP UZ l LY LY I LY LY I LY LY ILY LY lLY LY ! LY LY UZ UP 19 1 I I 926 4781691h749 6937 483716941694MB18h918 47506934g78. 927 .1,91 36 UP i UZIu UZ LY 'n l LY u l LY LY : LY LY I U Z LY IUZ UZ l UP 251l077 934f6945 10116949 477316953 475314754 6954!4774 69501102 69461935 0781 252 34 UZ lLY LY i LY LY I LY UZ t LY UZ iUZ LY IUZ LY I LY LY l LY LY I UZ 073 1480 95714765 696114853 13 14833 1171118 8341 114 48541696 76616958 48023 074 32 UZ lLY U Tl LY UZlLY LY l U Z LY lLY UZ I LY LY LY UY LY UZ 08916965 04216969 93816973 480$l093 6977 16978 09414806 6.974lUZg)l 6170lQ.R,6161l.Q9Q.
30 U PI LY lLY u g LY LYg U T LY g LY UZ IUZ LYlLY UT ILY LY l LY LYlLY l WP 23114821)4813 698114825 69851 038 698914757 1211122 ,75816990 039 16986 482686982 4814 822 1 232 23 UP LY1 UZ [LY LY IUZ LY I LY UZ l LY UZIUZ LY L1Z LY LY UZ LY LY I UZ LY 247I4849 085 16993 4817l133
~ ~ ~
4841}6997 125 l7001 0971098
~
UPIE~ LY th~ Y.Y s LY~ UZsLY LY I UZ LYl LY 70028126 6998 I4842 134 I4618 69943086 485QlUP Zi[
26 UZlLY LY UZ LY LY LY l LY LY IUP 23514829 70051480q0091478510914797 0131065 4769 I477g6617014 4798110g786l7010 4810700g83d 236 UZ 8 LY UZ GLY ' LY IUZ LY $.17 Z l LY UZ lWZ LY l UZ UT LY UZl LY 24 LY I U Z LY IUZ 081 8 7017 922 i7021 48451942, 7_025034_ 9)0, I4_78,9 918,19,19, 4,790l 9310_3L lL0l6 j,41484j 8
LOL21217,Q18 8 I q8[
UZ l LI UZ lLY LY quZ LYf.7T UZ l M UZ IUZ 22 08317019 924 g7023 4847,944 LY lUZ UTI LY UZlu LY I UZ LY lU Z 7027p36 32 14791 9201921 4792l933 037 17028 94514848 7024f925 70201084 20 UPILY LY GLY LY l LY UZg LY 1YIUZ LYI LY UZl LY LY IU Z LYl LY LY l LY ' LY IUP 237 I4831 700714811 70114787 1_11 147,99 7 1 70,1510,67_ Q714J7_{ gjl l Zgy 90.Q8 1]{. Q8),17.Q11 QU I20QJQ112)(1 18 UP ILY UZ ILY LY IUZ LY lLY U Z l LY UZ WZ l LY IUZ LY l LY UZ LY LY I UZ LY UP 24914851087 1699 g819135 484315999g12717003 099100f0048128 7000 l 484g16 l4R70 6996 8
UPl LY ILY LY l LY ORgE ZQ,,,,
16 u l UT LY l LY U Zl U Z' LY lLY UT I LY LYI LY LY l u 1 UP 233 1482314815 698384827 69871040 699114759 123l124 476016992 041 36988 4828 16984 481614824I 234 14 UZI LY UTI LY UZl LY LY I U Z LYl LY UZ l LY LY UZ LY UT LY UZ 091696g4416971940E975gB078095 5979 6960 476 80$ 6976l941g972 045 6968l092 1
12 UZI LY LY l LY LYl M UZe LY UZ I UZ LY I U Z LY I, LY LYi LY LY j uZ 07514803 695914767 696314855 11514835 1191 120 48361116 4856 %964 '768'6960
. 4804 076 10 ULI UZ UZl u UZlLY u I LY LYI LY LY lLY LY IU Z ,LY 'UZ UZIUL 746117 3616947 103 1695 77516955 4755 I475 95614776 8 6952 104 948'937 080, 1747 08 UP ZI U UlU LY l LY LYI LY LY l LY LY l LY LY l UZi LJP 193 92814783 693514751 693914839 6943 16944 4840l#;940 4752 86936 478d9291194 06 UUIUZ UZILY UZ lLY UZ l UZ LY UZ UZ l UU 7191107 n63t 4,Jt5 13116931 059 I 060691?lUZLY117 42%6l04 W l 7?n 04 UP i LY l LY LYl LY LY I U e WP 245 64],72,147,63 692]l6928 476414J80 246 02 UP IUP UZ l UZ UPlUP 201 1265 0711 072 266 1202 01 03 05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 g LPRM LOCATION (COMMON LOCATION FOR ALL TIP MACHINES) 43 Q LP M LOCATION (LETTER INDICAtl$ 39 TIP HACHINE) 35
@ Im LOCATION 31 A sm LOCATION 27 23 19 15 11 7
3
- _ _ _ . _ _ . . . . _ _ _ _ _ . . . 2 6 10 14 18 22 26 30 34 39 47
l FIGURE II
! CORE CELL LOADING. CONFIGURATION
( V
^
k )
i l i
j n i if l 8 4
! 'a yh '.
J !,I
<i, '+T .
i l
+'
/ \'
Control _
Rod tt e
~
/7y g = ~
N
)
Channel I
=
- ~
g m O, Fastaner l , 5-T, .T Lifting T d 4 !s l Sail ' '
.\
C, I
,#ji j _
h Y . J l
I l
l
?
6 1
CRITICAL R00 CONFIGWATION COWARISCN Figura III
. Vermont Yank 33 B: ginning of Cycle 11 43 48 48 48 48 48 48
' 39 35 48 48 48 48 31 27 48 48 48 48 12 48 48 48 48 23 19 48 48 15 11 48 14 48 48 48 48 03
-l% AK/K Predicted Critical Pattern 02 06 10 14 18 22 26 30 34 38 42 02 06 10 14 18 22 26 30 34 38 ~ 42 .
43 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 39 35 48 48 48 48 48 16 48 3
27 46 48 48 48 48 46 48 48 48 48 48 48 23 19 48 48 18 48 48 48 g3 11 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 07 03
+1% Ak/k Actual Critical Pattern l
TABLE IA
-CONTROL ROD SCRAM TESTING-RESULTS
. - VERMONT YANKEE BEGINNING OF CYCLE.11 Scram #125 August 8, 1984 Mean Time for % Insertion. 4.51% 25.34% '46.18% -87.84%
' 0,870 Measured time (sec). O.351 1.411 2.546' Tech. Spec. Limit (sec) 0.358 0.912. 1.468 i 2.686 ,
Maximum 87.84% insertion time = 2.920 Tech. Spec. limit for slowest 87.84% insertion time = 7 sec.
Slowest 2x2 Array for % Insertion- 4.51% 25.34% 46.18% 87;84%
Measured time (sec) 0.368 0.915 1.487 2.697 ~
- Tech. Spec. limit (sec) .
0.379 0.967 1.556 2.848 t
j i
i i
i j
.I l'
i t
I i
t
p-o m ,
'i TABLE IB CONTROL ROD SCRAM TESTING'RESULTS VERMONT YANKEE CYCLE 11 ,
Scram #120 June 20, 1983 Mean Time for % Insertion 4.51% 25.34% 46.18% 87.84%
Measured time (sec). 0.309 0.818 1.338 2.430 Tech. Spec. Limit (sec) 0.358 0.912 1.468 2.686 -
Maximum 87.84% insertion time = 2.764 sec.
Tech. Spec. limit for slowest 87.84% insertion time = 7 sec.
Slowest 2x2 Array for % Insertion 4.51% 25.34% 46.18% 87.84%
i Measured time (sec) 0.349 0.876 1.433 2.609 Tech. Spec.' Limit-(sec) 0.379 0.967 1.556 2.848 Scram #121 June 29, 1983 Mean Time for % Insertion 4.51% 25.34% 46.18% 87.84%
Measured time (sec) 0.295 0.802 1.318 2.440 Tech. Spec. Limit.(sec) 0.358 0.912 1.468 2.686 Maximum 87.84% insertion time = 2.756 sec.
Tech. Spec. Limit for slowest 87.84% insertion time = 7 sec.
l Slowest 2x2 Array for % Insertion 4.51% 25.34% 46.18% 87.84%
Measured time (sec) 0.335 0.877 1.424 2.591 Tech. Spec. Limit (sec) 0.379 0.967 1.556 2.848 l
l Scram #122 August 27, 1983
( Mean Time for % Insertion 4.51% ,25.34% 46.18% 87.84%
Measured time (sec) 0.263 0.760 1.264 2.367 Tech. Spec. Limit (sec) 0.358 0.912 1.468 2.686 Maximum 87.84% insertion time = 2.664 sec.
j Tech. Spec. Limit for slowest 87.84% insertion time = 7 sec.
l Slowest 2x2 Array for % Insertion 4.51% 25.34% 46.18% 87.84%
Measured time (sec) 0.273 0.799 1.336 2.477 l Tech. Spec. Limit (sec) 0.379 0.967 1.556 2.848 l
Scram #123 January 5, 1984 Hean Time for % Insertion 4.51% 25.34% 46.18% 87.84%
Measured time (sec) 0.253 0.765 1.287 2.373 Tech. Spec. Limit (sec) 0.358 0.912 1.468 2.686 l
Maximum 87.84% insertion time = 2.616 sec.
Tech. Spec. Limit for slowest 87.84% insertion time = 7 sec.
Slowest 2x2 Array for % Insertion 4.51% 25.34% 46.18% 87.84%
Measured time (sec) 0.269 0.807 1.363 2.488 Tech. Spec. Limit (sec) 0.379 0.967 1.556 2.848
>* m y
,.g..
[h. *
~
?( . ,
t j.
. TABLE IB.(cont'd) <
CONTROL ROD SCRAM TESTING RESULTS
, VERMONT YANKEE CYCLE 11
'* u 1
Scram #124 e . April'16, 1984
'Mean Time for % Insertion 4.51% 25.34% 46.18% 87.84%
Measured time (sec) 0.283 0.787 1.307 . 2.427 Tech. apec.-Limit (nec) 0.358 0.912 1.468 - 2.686 Maximum 87.84% insertion time = 2.808 sec. i l Tech. Spec. limit for slowest 87.84% insertion time = 7 sec.
4 Slowest 2x2 Array for % Insertion- 4.51% 25.34% 46.18% 87.84%
Measured time (sec) 0.291 0.813 1.379 2.552 Tech. Spec. Limit (sec) 0.379 0.967 1.556 2.848'
)
\
(
4 J
t M
a
. k
TABLE II Y:
.z g , ~ COMPARISON OF BUCLE AND PROCESS COMPUTER'
.' THERMAL LIMITS CALCULATION in .
Parameter .BUCLE Process Computer (8/9/84).
~
CMFCP* 0.382 0.385 Location 25-24 , 25-24 e
CMFLPD* 0.284 0.28/
- Location 23-26-18 23-26-18 MAPRAT* 0.265 0.269 Location 23-26-18 23-26-18s ,
- Tech. Spec. Limit = 1.000 a
h r
1 J
I s ,
( .
a
^
TABLE III 2 POWER DISTRIBUTION MEASUREMENTS ~ CYCLE 11 START-UP Datel; Power % Core Flow %' CMFLPD* CMFCP* MAPRAT*
8/9/84J 21.9 31.6 .287' .385 .269 8/9/84! 21.6 31.4 .286 .384 .267' ' >
8/12/84 51.3 ;35.3 .457 .765 .444 8/12/84' 60.3 50.3 .539 .736 .523 8/13/84 66.6 49.8' .559 .799 .541 8/13/84 67.2 49.6 .577 .821 .557 8/13/84 65.7 49.9 .569 .809 .549 8/13/84 51.7 35.4 .530 .780 .519 8/16/84 63.0 50.5 .544 .757 .522
'8/23/84 80.0 91.8 .767 .747 .757 9/4/84 79.9 92.3 .765 .738 .'758 ,
9/5/84 60.3 42.4 .582 .806 .573 9/7/84 86.7 69.5 .763 .862 .754 <
9/14/84 95.4 97.6 .859 .842 .857 10/2/84 64.8 49.1 .570 .792 .555 10/2/84 64.5 49.2 .595 .776 .562 10/2/84 68.3 48.1 .650 .822 .634 10/3/84 76.8 58.8 .727 .849 .723 10/4/84 94.8 95.2 .893 .835 .891 10/9/84 100.0 97.5 .901 .870 .898
- Tech Spec. Limit a 1,000 T
t l
i f.>
i.
I
'T. ,
- s.: .y i
es , _
t T:bla IV
.c Comparison of SIMULATE and Direct From Traces Average Axial Distributions-Direct _
Node From Traces SIMULATE' l
24 .4504 .3578 l 1
23 .6634 .5865 ,
22 .8320 .7712 ,
i 21 .9277 .9122 20 1.0148 1.0145 19 1.0968 1.0842- .
18 1.1139 1.1232 17 1.0836 1.1287 16 1.1275 1.1374
- 15 1.1342 1.1477
'14 1.1062 1.1540 13 1.1214 1.1501 12 1.1163 1.1284 11 1.0996 1.1211 10 1.0949 1.1266 l 9 1.1424 1.1388 l 8 1.1619 1.1522 l
7 1.1411 1.1579 l
6 1.1479 1.1443 5 1.1035 1.0939 4 1.0321 1.0364 3 .9367 .9597 l 2 .7983 .8317-l l
1 .5535 .5416 i
5
, Tible V Comparison of 10 Highest Relative Radial Powers Location SIMULATE Plant 17-14 1.334 1.371 21-10 1.343 1.359 19-16 1.300 1.336 15-12 1.306 1.332 l
13-18 1.283 1.331 15-20 1.265 1.323 19-12 1.318 1.300 15-14 1.287 1.272 11-16 1.240 1.272 21-14 1.314 1.269
.3 l ..
se t
- .T; bin VI .
T;t:1 TIP Unc::rt:inty' Case Rod Pattern- Power (%) Core Flow (%) Unceratinty (%)
SYM904 32 99.98 97.52 1.98 14 32 ,
E F