ML20210S596
| ML20210S596 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Quad Cities  |
| Issue date: | 09/03/1997 |
| From: | Pearce L COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| To: | Collins S NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned), NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| LWP-97-089, LWP-97-89, NUDOCS 9709110184 | |
| Download: ML20210S596 (6) | |
Text
4 k Mini lll% Ilj%% f 40 l I
% I44 9ll 4 ll\\ \\fld l l)
Quati t itir* (et ot raung $ tation 2/'lO 2llf sth.$% 4 (1640 Mill ll
( orslou n. 611i! 9' 40
'I t i 30'8 h% 4 llil LWP 97-089 September 3,1997 Mr. Samuel J. Collins, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attn: Document Control Desk
Subject:
Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station Unit Two Unit Two Cycle 15 Startup Test Report NRC Docket No. 50-265
Dear Mr. Collins:
Enclosed for your information and use is the Quad Cities Station Unit Two Cycle 15 Startup Test Report Summary. These tests comprise a subset of the overall test program and are submitted in accordance with station procedure QCTP 0920-04 Quad Cities Unit Two commenced Cycle 15 operation on June 8,1997 following a refueling outage. The Cycle 15 core loading consists of 216 fresh fuel bundles (Siemens Atrium 911 fuel) and 508 reload bundles.
k\\
I All test data taken has been reviewed in accordance with applicable station procedures. Exceptions from any criteria were evaluated to verify compliance with Technical Specification limits.
9709110184 970903 PDR ADOCK 05000265 p
PDR___
l!! !
l
$1MGR\\0A097.1.WP
\\ t miom timyum h
l
_, LWP.97 089 2
September 3,1997 l
1 Attached are the evaluations of the following tests:
l e
Core Verification Shutdown Margin Determination and Control Rod Functional Checks l
e i-e initial Critical Prediction e
Core Power Distribution Please contact the Nuclear Engineering Group at (309) 654 2241 ext. 2161 if there are any questions.
Respectfully, COMMONWEALTil EDISON QUAD CITIES NUCLEAR POWER STATION
- b. b.
loA.
L. W. Pearce Station Manager LWP/JP/tsr Enclosure cc:
A. B. Beach, Regional Administrator, RegLa 111 R. M. Pulsifer, Project Manager, NRR C. G. Miller, Senior Resident inspector, Quad Cities W, D, Leech. MklAmerican Energy Company D. C. Tubbs, MidAmerican Energy Company F. A. Spangenberg, Regulatory Affairs Manager, Dresden INPO Records Center -
Office of Nuclear Facility Safety, IDNS DCD License (both electronic and hard copies)
M. E. Wagner, Licensing, Comed
. 3HlGR\\08997,LWP f
c
TAHLli OF CONTENTS Contents g
- 1. Core Verification 2
- 2. Shutdown Margin 2
i
- 3. Initial Critical Prediction 3
- 4. Core l'ower Distribution Symmetry Analysis (Til' Asymmetry) 4 I
I I
i 51htGRWA997.1.WP
}
~
I 1,.
Cme Verificauca bl@fic To verify proper core location arid orientation for each fuel assembly.
Criteria Prior to reactor startup the actual core configuration shall be verified to be identical to the planned core configuration.
Results and Discussion Verification of the Cycle 15 core was completed on May 13.1997. The orientation.
l seating, and serial number (bundle ID) weit verified for each assembly. The first inspection was made to verify orientation and seating c;' assemblies. A second pass was subsequently made to verify bundle serial numbers, i
2.
Shutdown Margin Demonstration and Control Rod Functional Checks Pamaic The purpose of this test is to demonstrate for this core loading in the most reactive condition during the operating cycle, that the reactor will remain suberitical with the strongest control rod fully withdrawn and all other rods fully inserted.
Criteria The shutdown margin (SDM) shall be greater than 0.38% Ak with the highest worth control rod analytically determined or 0.28% Ak with the highest worth control rod determined by test.
Sn1GRW8W7.LwP 2
Besults and Discussion On May 13,1997 control rod F 8 was fully withdrawn to demonstrate that the reactor would remain suberitical with the strongest rod out (SRO). This rod was calculated by Nuclear Fuel Services (NFS) to have the highest worth with the core fully loaded.
The strongest rod out maneuver was performed to allow single control rod l
withdrawals for CRD testing.
l Control rod functional checks were performed as part of control rod friction testing.
No unexpected reactivity insertions were observed when any of the control rods that were tested were withdrawn.
Prior to the initial critical. NFS calculated the shutdown margin to be 1.88% Ak at 0 MWD /MT, which is the pol.t of minimum shutdown margin for Cycle 15 (R=0).
The critical rod pattern eigenvalue (from NFS data) was 1.0114 and the SRO eigenvalue was 0.9892. Corrections for moderator temperature and reactor period were 0.3528% Ak and 0.0553% Ak, respectively. Subtracting the corrections from the critical eigenvalue less the SRO cigenvalue results in a shutdown margin for Cycle 15 of 1,8119% Ak.
k 3.
Initial Critical PrediclinD PurDoSe The purpose of this test is to calculate the reactivity difference (%Ak) between the predicted and actual critical eigenvalues.
Criteria The reactivity equivalence of the difference between the actual rod density and the predicted rod density shall not exceed il% Ak, Results and Discussion The reactor was brought critical on June 8,1997 at 1025 hours0.0119 days <br />0.285 hours <br />0.00169 weeks <br />3.900125e-4 months <br /> with reactor water temperature 1520F, The Ak difference between the expected critical rod pattern and the actual critical rod pattern (at 680F) was -0.00088 from rod worth tables supplied by NFS. The temperature effect was 0.000756 Ak from NFS supplied corrections, The excess reactivity from the 148 second period was 0.000553 AK. These reactivities sum to a -0.00068 Ak difference (-0.068% Ak) between the expected critical rod pattern and the actual rod pattern, which is within the il% Ak criteria of this test, sTh1GRiO8997.t WP 3
, 4.
, Core Power Disitibution Symmetry Analysis blIPric The purpose of this test is to determine the magnitude of core power distribution asymmetries using data (TIP traces and OD 1) collected ia conjunction with the LPRM l
calibration.
l Cdtttja l
The total TIP uncertainty shall be less than 9% and the maximum difference between symmetric TIP pairs shall be less than 25%.
Results and DiscussioD Core power symmetry calculations were performed based on OD 1 data from July 3, 1997. The average total TIP uncertainty from these data sets was 3.817 which satisfies the 9% limit. The random noise uncertainty was 1.289, and the geometrical uncertainty was 3.593%. The maximum deviation between symmetric TIP pairs was 13.50% for pair 5, which meets the 25% limit, snianunuwe 4
1