ML20205K156
| ML20205K156 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Maine Yankee |
| Issue date: | 01/31/1986 |
| From: | Whittier G Maine Yankee |
| To: | Murley T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| References | |
| 7026L-SDE, GDW-86-24, MN-86-13, NUDOCS 8602270160 | |
| Download: ML20205K156 (13) | |
Text
n MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY teIE YAfEEE ATOMIC POWER COWANY CYCLE 9 STARTUP TEST REPORT January, 1986 ol 8602270160 860131 PDR ADOCK 05000309 I3 P PDR 7026L-SDE .
_ _ _ .J
L MAINE YANKEE CYCLE 9 STARTUP TECT REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION TITLE 1 Critical Boron Concentration 2 CEA Bank Worths 3 Ejected CEA Worth 4 Isothermal Temperature Coefficient at HZP 5 Moderator Temperature Coefficient at HZP 6 CEA Drop Times 7 Core Radial Tilt Monitoring 8 Power Distribution Measurements 9 Conclusions TABLES 1 Startup Test Acceptance Criteria 2 Startup Test Measurement and Predictions FIGURES 1 Power Distribution Measured vs. Predicted near 50% Power 2 Power Distribution Measured vs. Predicted near 100% Power J
_,m- , ,_ , - _ . . , _ _ _ - . , _ _ . , - _ _ _ - _ - - . _ _ _ _ _
e '. -
MAINE YANKEE CYCLE 9 Startup Test Report 4
4 Maine Yankee initiated system heatup for Cycle 9 in October 1985 after reloading the core in accordance with the loading pattern documented in YAEC-1479 (Reference 1). The startup tests were_ performed from October 22 to October 28, 1985, the latter date being the completion date for 50% power testing. The startup tests performed were subject to the acceptance criteria in Reference 1, presented here in Table 1. Each of the following tests is detailed below, with the results compared to those predicted in Table 2. In these comparisons, the nominal measured value is compared to the calculated value, the latter corrected for any difference between the measurement and calculational conditions.
- 1. Celtical Boron Concentration y The approach to criticality began on October 22, 1985 by withdrawal of all CEAs except Bank 5. A dilution was initiated with Bank 5 partially inserted until the reactor was critical. A final ARO critical boron i concentration of 1276 ppa was established, compared to the predicted -
value of 1333 ppm. The deviation of 57 ppm was within the acceptance criteria of i 1% delta rho (approximately i 101 ppm). A rodded critical condition was established near Banks 5 through 1 (the regulating banks) inserted. A final critical boron concentration of 911 ppm was achieved, i compared to a predicted value of 922 ppm. The deviation for the rodded case between measurement and prediction was 11 ppm.
- 2. CEA Bank Worths The CEA worth of all the regulating Banks 5 through 1 in the non-overlap conditions were_ measured via a reactivity computer. The individual bank worths are given in Table 2. The total worth of Banks 5-1 was measured i as 4.297% delta rho compared to a predicted worth of 4.132% delta rho.
The difference from the predicted, which is +4.0% of the total predicted worth, is within the acceptance criteria of 110.0% of the nominal total worth.
,-e-- -,-,- - -m n..,n,--n.-e-,.-.,-,-,,,,, ,-,,n-.--, , - - _ , __w,w,-n,, ,.,mw- -, --m..w--nc,,r.,,,,-e---
'3. E3ected CEA Worth The worth of the most limiting near-full-power ejected CEA was measured at the zero power condition. The ejected CEA is a Bank 5 (INCA location 20, on the core quadrant line) CEA measured from the Bank 5 inserted configuration. The single CEA had a measured worth of 0.419% delta rho compared to a predicted worth of 0.384% delta rho, which is within the acceptance criteria of the measured worth no more than 15% greater than the predicted worth.
- 4. Isotherinal Temperature Coefficient at HZP The ITC was measured at the ARO and Banks 5-1 inserted conditions at zero power. As given in Table 2, a measured ARO ITC of
+0.32 (10 delta rho / F) was obtained, compared to a predicted value of +0.14 (10 delta rho / F). The difference of
+0.18 (10 delta rho / F) was within the acceptance criteria of 0.50 (10 delta rho / F) for the ARO case.
- 5. Moderator Temperature Coefficient at HZP Based on the ITC measurement at the ARO condition at zero power, a measured MTC of +0.48 (10~ delta rho / F) is obtained. This value is less than the maximum allowable zero power MTC of +0.50 (10 delta rho / F) given in Figure 4.8 of YAEC-1479 (Reference 1).
- 6. CEA Drop Times The measured drop times for 90% insertion for each individual CEA was performed from the hot zero power condition. The values were compared to the Technical Specification limit of 2.70 seconds. All CEAs achieved 90%
insertion within 2.30 seconds. The average CEA drop time was 2.17 seconds, with a standard deviation of 0.07 seconds.
- 7. C?co k*dini Tilt Mrnitering INCA incore (as well as excore) tilt was monitored at least each 5% in core power during power escalation up to 50% power. The INCA tilt at 5.0% power was 6.4% and decreased with power escalation, as detailed in Table 2 for selected power levels. A detailed evaluation of the incore detectors at 48% power resulted in a deletion of older problem detectors and a subsequent decrease in the calculated incore tilt from 2.8 to 1.7%. The INCA tilt near 50% power was 1.7%, well within the acceptance criteria of 3.0%.
- 8. Power Distribution Measurements Power distribution measurements via INCA were performed during power escalation. The equilibrium power distribution measured near 50% power is compared to the predicted power distribution in Figure 1. The comparison shows good agreement, well within the acceptance criteria of i10% for each individual assembly. The average assembly deviation is 2.0%. The maximum deviation which occurs is 6.3% (Location 14), with a deviation of 0.8% in the limiting assembly (Location 34).
A near full power comparison of power distributions near 1,000 MWD /NTU is presented in Figure 2. Good agreement is shown, with an average deviation of 1.7%, a maximum deviation of -6.6% (Location 17) and a deviation of 1.4% in the limiting assembly (Location 34).
- 9. Conclusions i
Each of the startup test criteria in Table 1 were met by the startup test f measurements. The conclusion is that the core characteristics are
! demonstrated to conform to those assumed in the safety analysis, as i discussed in Section 6.3 of YAEC-1479 (Reference 1).
{
,.__,.,-__m__yw-.-.,-.__f-m_ -._..._,._.-_,s__-__, .w,, _ _-_ . , _ , _ , - . - - -_ _ . _ , , . - . . ~ , ,. - - ~ * - - , , - ,
1 REFERENCES
- 1) YAEC-1479, " Maine Yankee Cycle 9 Core Performance Analysis", dated 1
April 1985.
~
TABLE 1 Maine Yankee Cycle 9 Startup Test Acceptance Criteria Measurement Conditions Criteria
- 1. Critical Boron Hot zero power, near Measurement within + 1%
Concentration all-rods-out delta rho of predicted value
Regulating Banks 1+2+3+4+5 in the of the predicted value non-overlap condition
- 3. CEA Bank Worths- Hot zero power, CEA This measurement is not Shutdown Banks A+B+C+1+2+3+4+5 required if the criteria in the non-overlap in Measurement (2) is met.
condition If the criteria in Measurement (2) is not met, the total worth of all CEA banks must be within + 10%
of the predicted value
- 4. Ejected CEA Worth Hot zero power, pre- Ejected CEA worth no more ejection CEA banks than 15% greater than the inserted for measurement predicted value of the most limiting near-full power ejected CEA
- 5. Isothermal Hot zero power, near ITC measure Temperature _ all-rods-out +0.5x10-gentwithin delta rho /0F Coefficient at of predicted value and the HZP MTC within the acceptable region specified in Figure 4.8 of YAEC-1479 1 6. Isothermal At or slightly below 50% This measurement is not 4
Temperature power, near all-rods-out required if both criteria Coefficient at in Measurement (5) are
- 50% Power met. If either criteria
, in Measurement (5) are not l met, the MTC must be in 4 the acceptable region specified in Figure 4.8 of YAEC-1479.
e 1
a J
TABLE 1 (Continued)
Maine Yankee Cycle 9 Startup Test Acceptance Criteria Measurement Conditions Criteria
- 7. Control Rod Drop Operating temperature Drop times to 90%
Times insertion no greater than 2.70 seconds
- 8. Radial Power At or slightly below Each assembly average Distribution 50% power, near all- power within +10% of rods-out predicted value
- 9. Tilt 5-48% rated power, Tilt trends to less
, Monitoring for near all-rods-out, tilt than 3.0% for greater Symmetry is monitored at 5% than 50% power operation, Verification power intervals as indicated by the relative changes in excore detector readings or lr incore detectors i
TABLE 2 ,,-
Maine Yankee Cycle 9 Startup Test Measurements and Predictions Item Units Measurement Predictica Deviation Criteria
- 1. Critical toron concentration ppe ARO 1276 1333 -57* 11% delta Banks 5-1 911 922 -11 rho (1101 ppm)
- 2. CEA Bank Worths % delta rho 5 1.476 1.415 +0.061* -
4 0.235 0.240 -0.005 -
3 0.866 0.848 +0.018 -
2 0.646 0.603 +0.043 -
1 1.074 1.026 +0.048 -
Total 5-1 4.297 4.132 +4.0%** 110%
- 3. Ejected CCA Worth Bank 5 (INCA location 20) % delta rho 0.419 0.384 +9.1%** greater CEA ejected from Bank 5 than +15%
Inserted
- 4. Isothernul Temperature 10-4 delta Coefficient at HZP rho /0 F ARO +0.32 +0.14 +0.18* 10.50 Banks 5-1 -0.74 -0.91 +0.17 -
- 5. Moderator Temperature 10-4 delta +0.48 - -
MTC less Coefficient at HZP, ARO rho /0 F positive than
+0.50
- Deviation = Measurement - Prediction
- % Deviation = 200 x (Measurement - Prediction) / Prediction
TABLE 2 (Continued)
Maine Yankee Cycle 9 Startup Test Measurements and Predictions Item Units Measurement Prediction Deviation Criteria
- 6. CEA Drop Times Seconds 2.17 average less than 2.30 worst 2.70 seconds
- 7. Tilt Monitoring vs.
Percent Rated Power
% Rated Power % Tilt 5.0 6.4 - - -
11.2 3.9 - - -
17.8 3.5 - - -
20.1 3.1 - - -
25.1 3.1 - - -
30.2 2.9 - - -
35.2 2.8 - - -
. 40.6 2.8 - - -
45.3 2.8 - - -
48.0 1.7*** - -
less than 3.0 at 50% power
- Tilt correction from 2.8 to 1.7% resulting from deletion of problem detectors in incore tilt calculation.
1
FIGURE 1 Maine Yankee Cycle 9 Assembly Relative Power Densities INCA versus Predicted BOC, ARO Equilibrium Conditions near 50% Power Assembly Type and INCA Location ..... L-8 8 L-0 21 INCA at 47% Power, O MWD /MTU ..... 0.336 0.502 Predicted at 50% Power, O MWD /MTU ..... 0.338 0.505 Percent Difference ..... -0.6 -0.6 L-8 15 M-4 31 N-4 11 N-4 '25 N-8 4 0.324 0.671 1.047 1.183 1.188 0.330 0.671 1.043 1.216 1.203
-1.8 0.0 ,
0.4 -2.7 -1.2 L-8 if N-4 33 N-8 13 M-0 2E M-8 7 M-8 20 0.424 1.004 1.228 1.254 1.233 1.195 0.423 1.022 1.237 1.274 1.236 1.199 0.2 -1.8 -0.7 -1.6 -0.2 -0.3 N-0 34 M-4 14 L-0 30 N-8 1C L-4 24 N-8 3 1.179* 1.342 1.061 1.244 0.957 1.223 1.170* 1.262 1.036 1.295 0.968 1.267 0.8 6.3 2.4 -3.9 -1.1 -3.5 M-8 32 N-8 12 L-8 27 M-4 6 M-8 19 1.310 1.337 0.959 1.068 1.087 1.233 1.282 0.935 1.081 1.107 6.2 4.3 2.6 -1.2 -1.8
. . L-4 29 N-8 9 L-8 23 M-4 2 0.984 1.226 1.064 0.996 0.944 1.215 1.068 1.032 4.2 0.9 -0.4 -3.5 M-8 26 M-8 5 L-12 18 1.087 1.002 0.826 1.074 1.001 0.818 1.2 0.1 1.0
- Maximum 1 pin M-8 22 N-8 1 0.983 1.047 Octant Location 34 1.002 1.114 Measured 1.596 -1.9 -6.0 Predicted 1.573 Difference 1.5% E-16 17 Percent Difference: 8 red
-3.8
...r, _
. , _ . _ , _ _ . - - - . . . - . . , . - , . , _ . _ . - - _ . . . . . _ . , . - , . . . , . , , . .,_ _c. , , . . , . - -
FIGURE 2 Maine Yankee Cycle 9 Assembly Relative Power Densities INCA versus Predicted BOC, ARO Equilibrium Conditions near 100% Power Assembly Type and INCA Location ..... L-8 8 L-0 21 INCA at 97% Power, 1160 MWD /MTU ..... 0.340 0.500 Predicted at 100% Power, 1000 MWD /MTU. . . . . 0.331 0.488 Percent Difference ..... 2.7 2.5 L-8 15 H-4 31 4-4 11 N-4 25 i-8 4 0.331 0.661 1.004 1.161 1.156 0.323 0.642 0.986 1.155 1.155 2.5 3. 0 , 1.8 0.5 0.1 L-8 16 N-4 33 N-8 13 H-0 28 M-8 7 H-8 20 0.427 0.980 1.190 1.217 1.218 1.183 0.410 0.973 1.180 1.205 1.199 1.175 4.1 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.6 0.7 N-0 34 M-4 14 L-0 30 N-8 10 L-4 24 N-8 3 1.118* 1.222 1.013 1.256 0.968 1.243 1.103 1.204 1.009 1.282 0.972 1.280 1.4 1.5 0.4 -2.0 -0.4 -2.9 M-8 32 N-8 12 L-8 27 M-4 6 M-8 19 1.214 1.261 0.964 1.111
~
1.131 1.212 1.289* 0.960 1.115 1.149 0.2 -2.2 0.4 -0.4 -1.6 L-4 29 N-8 9 L-8 23 M-4 2 9.975 1.284 1.121 1.063 0.975 1.276 1.130 1.099 0.0 0.6 -0.8 -3.3 M-8 26 M-8 5 L-12 18 1.158 1.089 0.902 1.152 1.095 0.910 0.5 -0.5 -0.9
- Maximum 1 pin M-8 22 N-8 1 1.083 1.172 Octant Location 12 34 1.115 1.249 Measured 1.466 1.508 -2.8 -6.2 Predicted 1.495 1.486 Difference -1.9% 1.5% E-16 17 Percent Difference: . 69 red
-6.6 1
E' " " n
MAIRE HARHEE ATOMICPOWERComPARUe AUGUSTA, MAINE 04336 (207) 623-3521 O
January 28, 1986 MN-86-13 GDW-86-24 Region I United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Inspection and Enforcement 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 Attention: Dr. Thomas E. Murley, Regional Administrator
Reference:
(a) License No. DPR-36 (Docket No. 50-309)
Subject:
Maine Yankee Cycle 9 Startup Test Report Gentlemen:
In accordance with the provisions of Maine Yankee Technical Specification 5.9.1.1, please find enclosed the Startup Test Report for Maine Yankee Cycle 9 Core.
We believe this report is complete, but ir you nave any questions, do not hesitate to contact us.
Very truly yours, MAItE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY bbbY G. D. Whittier, Manager Nuclear Engineering & Licensing GDW/bjp
Enclosure:
Subject Report cc: Mr. Ashok C. Thadani l Mr. Cornelius F. Holden Mr. Pat Sears l
V \
7026L-SOE :
l a