ML20149M745

Startup Test Rept,Vermont Yankee Cycle 19

ML20149M745
Person / Time
Site:	Vermont Yankee
Issue date:	01/24/1997
From:	VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORP.
To:
Shared Package
ML20149M744	List: ML20149M741 ML20149M745
References
NUDOCS 9701270190
Download: ML20149M745 (13)

Text

__. . . _ .. __ _ _ _ _ . _. .. - . _ - _ . _ _ _ . _ _

o e l

i STARTUP TEST REPORT l VERMONT YANKEE CYCLE 19 l

Introduction:

Vermont Yankee Cycle 19 initial startup commenced on October 30, 1996 following a 56 day outage for refueling and maintenance activities.

The core loading for Cycle 19 consists of:

96 BP8DWB335-10GZ reinserts from Cycle 17 32 BP8DWB335-11GZ reinserts from Cycle 17 88 BP8DWB335-10GZ reinserts from Cycle 18 l 32 BP8DWB335-11GZ reinserts from Cycle 18 120 BP8DWB354-12GZ non-Irradiated assemblies An as-loaded Cycle 19 core map la included as Figure 1. Details of the Cycle 19 core loading are contained in the Yankee Atomic Electric Company document l YAEC-1935, " Vermont Yankee Cycle 19 Core Performance Analysis Report",

October,1996.

The final as-loaded core loading was verified correct by Vermont Yankee personnel i on October 7,1996.

Control rod coupling verification was performed satisfactorily for all 89 control rods on October 7 and 8,1996. Control rod scram testing was performed satisfactorily prior to reachirig 30% power per Technical Specifications. The testing was performed for all 89 control rods on October 22,1996.

An in-sequence critical was performed satisfactorily on October 30,1996. The shutdown margin was verified to be satisfactory based upon the data collected from the in-sequence critical.

Startup commenced October 30,1996 and steady state full power conditions

, were reached November 6,1996.

l 970127o190 970124

PDR ADOCK 05000271 P PDR 1

- - =.---- - .- .- - - . . - - . .

Core Verification:

The final core loading was verified correct on October 7,1996 in accordance with Vermont Yankee procedure OP1411. Three separate criteria were checked:

1. Proper bundle seating was verified.

2. Proper bundle orientation, channel fastener integrity and upper tie plate cleanliness were verified.

3. Proper core loading was verified by checking the serial number of each bundle through the use of a video camera. This verification was recorded on video tape and was later independently reviewed and reverified to agree with the licensed core loading of Figure 1.

1 Process Computer Data Checks: l Process computer data shuffling checks were completed on November 2,1996.

These checks included various manual and computer checks of the new data l constants. A check for consistency of the data was also performed by Yankee Atomic Electric Company (YAEC) and found to be satisfztu y.

In-Seauence Criticah l The in sequence critical test was performed on October 30,1996 as part of the l reactor startup. Control rod sequence 19-A-2(1) was used to perform the  ;

in-sequence critical test. Criticality was achieved on the 9th rod in group 2 (1831) l at notch position 16. The moderator temperature was 150 F.

The actual critical rod pattern and the prediction agreed within +/- 1% AK/K.

l Figure 11 shows the actual, predicted and the + /- 1% AK/K critical rod patterns.

Cold Shutdown Marain Testing:

The cold shutdown margin calculation was performed using data collected during the in-sequence critical and information provided in the YAEC " Cycle 19 Core

! Management Report" (YAEC-1938). The minimum shutdown margin required was 0.45% AK/K. The actual shutdown margin was shown to be 1.33% AK/K.

i 1

Control Rod Scram Testing: j Single rod scram testing of all 89 control rods was completed on October 22, 1996. All insertion times were within the limits defined in the Vermont Yankee Technical Specifications. Results of the testing are presented in Table IA.

In accordance with Technical Specifications Section 4.3.C.2, scram time information available for scrams occurring since the transmittal of the previous startup test report is included in Table IB.

Thermal Hydraulic Limits and Power Distribution:

The core maximum fraction of limiting critical power ratio (MFLCPR), the core maximum fraction of limiting power density (CMFLPD), the maximum average planar linear heat generation rate ratio to its limit (MAPRAT) and the ratio of CMFLPD to the fraction of rated power (FRP) were all checked daily during the startup using the process computer. All checks of core thermallimits were within the limits specified in the Technical Specifications. )

The process computer power distribution was updated November 4,1996 using the traversing incore probe (TIP) system during the ascent to full power. The results of this update is presented in Table ll. l The local power range monitors (LPRMs) were manually calibrated once in conjunction with the TIP system. The LPRM high and low trip alarm set points were verified correct prior to startup on 10/14/96. The TIPS and the LPRMs were both functionally tested and found to operate satisfactorily. A total of 19 APRM gain adjustments were done as required during the startup from 10/31/96 to 11/06/96.

The process computer power distribution update performed on November 8,1996 was used as a basis for comparison with an off line calculation performed using the Yankee Atomic Electric Company nodal code SIMULATE-3. For that power distribution, the SIMULATE-3 core average axial power distribution was compared to that calculated by the plant process computer. Comparisons are shown in Table Ill. A comparison was also performed between SIMULATE-3 and process computer peak radial pnwer. These values show reasonable agreement and are l presented in Table IV.

i 1

i

i At approximately 25,50,75 and 100 percent power levels the process computer heat balance was compared with an off-line computer calculation. The values of core thermal power from each method were found to be in excellent agreement (within 5 Megawatts thermal).

A core flow calibration was completed on January 14,1997 to ensure that the core flow calculation by the process computer is accurate over the entire operating range.

TIP Reoroducibility and TIP Symmetry:

TIP system reproducibility was checked in conjunction with the power distribution update performed on November 8,1996. All three TIP system traces were reproducible to within 2.3%. A TIP intermachine calibration was successfully completed on November,1996. A check of tip axial alignment was completed on November,1996 and found to be acceptable.

The total TIP uncertainty was calculated using TIP set 1567. Since the rod pattern was symmetric, the actual plant TIP readings were used in the calculation. The resulting total TIP uncertainty for this case was 1.50%. The results of the TIP uncertainty test as shown in Figure ill are well below the 8.7% acceptance criteria.

l l

1

Figure i VERMONT YANKEE Cycle 19 Core Map 1

- North  !

1 l

l 44 . - . . . _ . . . . . . . - . ~ - _ . . . . . _ _ _ . - -

(.524e 0 52:' 0 5286 0 5287 f)S2% (J5247

.].

l' 4; . , . . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . - - -

05214 (s A;81 UA:f' J A017 QA01e UA06s (JAOff OS215

[A? 'A' 44 - - -

05Jtl2 (J625P (J624 9 f)A M ? %A:? OF 4 ' 'J A38' ' A08 OF 414 f)AW . A042 VJ52W 0 525', (J5281

.J;-

M - -

. 511 P 05122 UAS4! OA%) v 4417 (J42' f)518 'f 425 f f 42t (J5155 UF 42. * / 416 (JA %.- OA;4s 051Ji 4511 l

,A.

, LA . B H vj$;4; UA t % Vf 420 4 5294 Vf433 f. A :6' (f 41" (J5276

- . . _ _ . . . , . _ . _ ,,5126 TJ5275 ( # 4 36 (JA06; NF 414 0 529? # # 41C OA11: 4 5127 4 524)

M - -- ---

O!J9 f.A;57 OF441 (JA117 UF445 (s.A025 f f 44 k (J A ' ' 4 451 (f 454 (JA T 14 ff45: 403C OF 44t UAl t e Yf44 (JA058 (JSJ59 A' [A.' (A,' .'A '

'O --- - - ~ -

4 5155 ' . A 10' (JS106 ff457 UA001 YJ46' W.5;54 (# 4 t' (J531e f,5115 (fdoc YJ525i 'f M2 (JA00 ff 450 YJ5.107 (JA 10e 0515e M _ . . . . . . _ 05J5,4 QA k- 'f edi (JF471 OA021 f5477 VJ5266 (J 4 5' OA:1 QA011 O A014 QA 14 ff48. 4 5267 OF47i (JA02; ff 474 (JF47C (JA0br 452 %

7 "D ,

a 28 - ~

(JS1' 4 UA1;' OA * *849

. (JA 077 fjF4e'c f)51G2 (JF491 f. A 3;, (f ai* 'J511C 0511' (#4 ke OA01; if494 VJ5100 (f44C UA07* ( # 466 f)A0Jt. fJA t:4 f)5115

.7 fj$3 UA04. (JF 5 : 8.5142 f 5505 (JA053 (JF5% (AW G8 5 ? ) (J 5.~

• f 517 (f 5te f)S275 ( 5 514 d ,A 370 Y$ 51: UA054 vp 50t 0 5141 QF 50. CA:$ VJ5271 l J4 Bl [A' O :B B VJ5A2 QA07 QA 6 8 v. 8 52' fJ5110 UF 5Jf (J5114 VJA017 (.515: (ff. 'J5146 0 5147 ($51: Y)S15' < A31e Oily UF52W VJ5111 ($5J2 QA064 OA:74 0 5261 J

l Vf?J64 OA37' r JA ' i. z 523 (J5 tti fp 52: 0 5110 f ) A011 (.!iS; QF 51- 9514e 4 514; (JF51; f j5151 '

< A 32C VJ51T (#5de VJ5111 ($ 524 OA0tV O A:7e fJ5J65

~

'.C. .B.

M OS$ UAS5' ($! i <'.5144 f#507 QA35! ($511 YJ AC 7 f (J 5 t ! 05." UF 510 f f 520 0 52 " Vf 55 t GA:72 ff 51 GA05o f450e 0 5149 VJF 504 QA:54 VJ527'l 14 f)51's (A1: (A:. *8467 (JA074 UF491 fJS104 QF40' f.A:11 v jF 4 ' J51); r 5113 f f 5 -: OA01 f4x 0 51:5 ff402 UA06: f#44 (JA02f (A':4 06317 B, :c. 'c' c: :B

" -l Om: eA:; . e4 71 ( # 475 (JA 02 'i OF 475 V j526e (Jeel QA : '. ' JA015 (, A a t e. OA016 f f 484 J5265 V# 48 GA0J4 WS47c OF472 OA t or v .51: '

1 e,c 05), Y,. 5, ,_1 ,, 1 , . , ,56 ,,. . ,51.: 0 514, ,,.. 0 5,57 ,,.6; ,_ ,,.. 051= eA , M G516:

. . . ,F. .

• c_.

E L

4 05;f. ' A ;5- ff 441 OAlti OF447 f AC1' V 45' OA"*'

• f 455 ff 456 UA t 16 (#45. NA 31; UF446 UA12C Vf444 (JAM 4 5251 M _ - -- 05;4J i1Je UA1 t t Vf 41' 0 529% f/415 v,. A :41 f f ai. 4 528: f ;526 ' vf 44: OA364 f aic 0 5297 OF41; OA t i . 45125 0 5245

B: .c - ;c' ~c 8 - -

. 41J: Q5144 UAS47 (J A% % ( J 41 t < :421 USW . ' f 42' G 42* G5157 ( # 424 0 42: QA %- QA348 O '.12 ' 4 512' fJ5284 0526: Q5291 f)AM3 c. A::" (f r ' .l A 061 Q A;64 (# 4

• 6 f ) A CC GA:44 0 52% G5J61 45JC

'd - --+-

0$Jh v.. A % OA V A)% '; A $4: OA:N OA%. . s5J17

}

8244 G 8. . J52*e 'MJM G5J4' WJ 5241 i

I i I m .. ,, n .

., ,  :, - , . , ,, 3 c n i s. S ME

~.,

w h

err %p aaum.

. . . ~ _ .. . .. . ._ ~ . . ~_ _ _ _ . _ _

FIGURE 11 VERMONT YANKEE BOC 19 1

. CRITICAL ROD CONFIGURATION COMPARISON CR I 1 3K CRiftb hIffERN 43 43 l

39 48 48 48 39 48 48 48 48 48l 35 35

. l 31 48 48 31 l 48 18 48 48 27 27 l

23 48 48 48 08 48 23 48 48 48 48 48 48 d

19 19 ,

i 15 48 48 15 48 48 48 11 11 ]

07 48 48 48 07 43 43 4g 4g 48l 03 j 03 )

i

~*

l I l 02 06 10 14 18 22 26 30 34 38 42 02 06 10 14 18 22 26 30 34 38 42 i PREDICTED ACTUAL CRITICAL "'. JK CRITICAL PATTERN 43 g '

43 39 48 48 48 39 48 48 48 48 48l 35 8 l8 35 31 31 43 49 4gl 4g 48 16 48 48 27 8 10 8 27 l

23 49 43 4g 4gl 4g 48 23 48 48 48 48 48 48 19 g g I

19 10 15 48 48 48 15 48 48 48 48l 11 8 l8 II 07 43 4g 4e ag 07 48 48 48 48l l 03 3; 03

I l

02 06 10 14 18 22 26 30 34 38 42 02 06 10 14 18 22 26 30 34 38 42 i

Nv!v A Blank Box Denotes 4xl Poston 00

l .

~ .

- FIGURE Ill

! Total TIP Uncertainty 43 39

. 35 31 24 14 24 27 23 12 12 19 15 24 14 24-11 07 03 l l

l l 02 06 10 14 18 22 26 30 34 38 42 l

l TIP: 1567 l Date: Nov.11,1996  !

CTP: 100.0 %

, Core Flow: 97.7 % i i Uncertainty: 1.5%

i r

i 5

i

(

1 .

I TABLE lA CONTROL ROD SCRAM TESTING RESULTS l VERMONT YANKEE BEGINNING OF CYCLE 19 l

l Single Rod Scrams - October 22,1996 1

Maximum 92.01% insertion time (seconds) = 2.973 Tech. Spec. Limit for slowest 90% insertion time (seconds) = 7.000 Mean time for % insertion 4.51 % 25.34 % 46.18% 87.84 %

Measured time (sec) 0.278 0.793 1.321 2.435 Tech. Spec. limit (sec) 0.358 0.912 1.468 2.686 l

Slowest 2x2 arrav for % insertion 4.51 % 25.34 % 46.18% 87.84 % i 1

Measured time (sec) 0.283 0.819 1.376 2.527 l Tech. Spec. limit (sec) 0.379 0.967 1.556 2.848 l

l l

F TABLE IB CYCLE 18 CONTROL ROD SCRAM TESTING RESULTS

SUMMARY

MEAN TIME 2 X 2 ARRAY MAXIMUM DATE SCRAM # DESCRIPTION 4.51% 25.34% 46.18% 87.84% MAX 90% 4.51% 25.34% 46.18% '87.84%

i BOC XVIII SINGLE t 04/23/95 162 ROD SCRAMS 0.317 0.821 1.334 2.413 2.863 0.324 0.839 1.361 2.474 SINGLE ROD i 05/03/95 163 SCRAM 10-35 0.317 0.821 1.334 2.413 2.863 0.324 0.839 1.361 2.474 l SINGLE ROD 1 11/07/95 164 SCRAMS 0.333 0.837 1.347 2.425 2.673 0.362 0.886 1.400 2.495 j SINGLE ROD SCRAMS .

11/09/95 165 (5 RODS) 0.332 0.835 1.345 2.421 2.673 0.348 0.859 1.377 2.477 I SINGLE ROD SCRAM 11/15/95 166 (1 ROD) 0.331 0.835 1.345 2.422 2.673 0.348 0.859 1.377 2.477 i

, . SINGLE ROD SCRAM ,

11/21/95 167 (2 RODS) 0.331 0.834 1.345 2.421 2.673 0.348 0.859 1.377 2.477 -

77 RODS 0.356 0.862 1.373 2.461 12/08/95 168 ALL RODS 0.352 0.858 1.371 2.458 2.787 0.362 0.885 .1.415 2.538 SINGLE ROD ,

12/09/95 169 SCRAMS 0.329 0.851 1.380 2.496 2.706 0.337 0.868 1.413 2.559 15 SINGLE 01/09/96 170 ROD SCRAMS 0.330 0.849 1.375' 2.485 2.706 0.339 0.869 1.405 2.542 3

~.

~

TABLE IB CYCLE 18 CONTROL ROD SCRAM TESTING RESULTS

SUMMARY

(Continued)

MEAN TIME 2 X 2 ARRAY MAXIMUM DATE SCRAM # DESCRIPTION 4.51% 25.34% 46.18% 87.84% MAX 90% 4.51% 25.34% .46.18% 87.84% l 15 SINGLE O2/27/96 171 ROD SCRAMS 0.330 0.849 1.373 2.482 2.706 0.339 0.872 1.399 2.533 15 SINGLE 04/23/96 172 ROD SCRAMS 0.333 0.853 1.378 2.487 2.762 0.341 0.875 1.407 2.529 64 SINGLE ROD SCRAMS 0.310 0.812 1.320 2.397 05/29/96 173 ALL RODS 0.317 0.824 1.336 2.415 2.611 0.341 0.867 1.407 2.501 25 SINGLE ROD SCRAMS 0.311 0.822 1.332 2.384 1

06/11/96 174 ALL RODS 0.311 0.815 1.323 2.392 2.611 0.320 0.829 1.344 2.449 BOC XIX SINGLE 10/22/96 175 ROD SCRAMS 0.278 0.793 1.321 2.435 2.634 0.283 0.819 1.376 2.527

-. _- . _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ = _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - - - _ - _ _ - _ _ _ --- _.

TABLE il Vermont Yankee Power Distribution Measurements Cycle 19 Start-Up Core Date Time Power (%) Flow (%) CMFLPD MFLCPR MAPRAT 11/04/96 16:59 71.0 53.1 0.717 0.841 0.649

, 11/04/96 21:11 69.6 53.4 0.670 0.814 0.611 The Tech. Spec. limit for the three thermallimits above is less than or equal to 1.0.

.' l l

TABLE Ill l l

Comparison of Process Computer and SIMULATE-3 Core Average Axial Relative Power Distributions  !

Vermont Yankee Beginning of Cycle 19  !

Process Node SIMULATE-3 Computer 25 0.139 0.148 24 0.253 0.268 23 0.646 0.643 )

22 0.818 0.835 21 0.919 'O.946 20 1.018 1.023 19 1.085 1.096 18 1.110 1.122 17 1.157 1.152 l 16 1.219 1.218 15 1.250 1.244 14 1.258 1.228 13 1.289 1.263 12 1.278 1.256 )

11 1.270 1.233 10 1.260 1.216 9 1.255 1.237 '

8 1.225 1.201 7 1.210 1.156 6 1.195 1.181 5 1.155 1.171 4 1.091 1.097 3 0.966 0.974 2 0.732 0.732 1 0.197 0.361 l

l l

l l

s 0 i

l TABLE IV l

' Comparison of 10 Highest Relative Radial Powers l

Vermont Yankee Beginning of Cycle 18 l

l l Process Location Computer SIMULATE-3 27-18 1.318 1.309 29-20 1.262 1.278 25-16 1.273 1.291 25-18 1.302 1.277 27-20 1.300 1.272 23-20 1.285 1.269 25-22 1.282 1.268  ;

27-12 1.222 1.231 27-16 1.253 1.243 29-18 1.244 1.238 1

i