ML20042A641

Quad-Cities Nuclear Power Station Unit 2,Cycle 6 Startup Test Results.

ML20042A641
Person / Time
Site:	Quad Cities
Issue date:	03/15/1982
From:	COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20042A600	List: ML20042A599 ML20042A641
References
ID-TS2-B, NUDOCS 8203230642
Download: ML20042A641 (10)

Text

. = . - . . .- =.---- __

e. .

4 i

• 4 i

f i

I 1

i t I

f a

1 1'

1 ID/TS2-B n

QUAD-CITIES NUCLEAR POWER STATION i

! UNIT 2 CYCLE 6 i! STARTUP TEST RESULTS

't +

1 t

i 4

i I

1-I i

8203230642 820315 PDR ADOCK 05000265 P. PDR .,

'q'.

r.

., . . , , ...,~. .-,_-. . ._, .._ ,._.-.___.__,.._

- - . ~ . + _ , . . , . . _ - -

TABLE OF CONTENTS Test No. Title Page 1 Scram Timir.g 1 2 Shutdown Margin 3 3 Initial Critical 4 4 TIP Reproducibility and Core Power Symmetry 5 1

l l

i

I. Control Rod Scram Timing Purpose The purpose of this test is to demonstrate the scram capability of all of the operable control rods in campliance with Technical Specifications 4.3.C.] and 4.3.C.2.

I Criteria A. The average scram insertion time, based on the de-energization of the scram pilot valve solenoids as time zero, of all operable control rods during reactor power operation r, hall be no greater ;

than:

% INSERTED FROM AVG. SCRAM INSERTION '

FULLY WITHDRAWN TIMES (sec) 5 0.375 20 0.900 50 2.000 90 3.500 i

The average of the scram insertion times for the three fastest control rods of all groups of four rods in a two by two array shall be no greater than:

% INSERTED FROM AVG. SCRAM INSERTION FULLY WITHDRAWN TIMES (sec) 5 0.398 20 0.954 50 2.120 90 3.800 If these times cannot be met, the reactor shall not be made supercritical; if operating, the reactor shall be shutdown immediately upon determination that average scram time is deficient. -

B. The maximum insertion time for 90% insertion of any operable control rod shall not exceed 7.00 seconds. If this requirement cannot be met, the deficient control rods shall be considered inoperable, fully inserted into the core, and electrically disa rmed.

Results and Discussion .

All~177 control rods were scram tested. The results are presented in Table 1.1. The maximum 90% insertion time was 3.30 seconds for control rod F-11 (22-43). Both criteria A and B were met.

l

. l

Table 1.1 ,

Control Rod Scram Results i N1'MBER REACTOR AVERAGE TIMES FOR % INSERTED, SEC OF RODS -CONDITIONS 5% 20% 50% 90%

5 177 Cold 0.26 0.50 0.98 1.72 ,

177 Hot 0.30 0.69 1.50 ~ 2.63 i

e L

r t

1 i

t i t i

i l i-M

(

l

2-- l l

l l

! 'l

II. Shutdown Margin Demonstration and Control Rod Functional Checks Purpose The purpose of this test is to demonstrate for this core loading in the most reactive condition during the operating cycle, that the reactor is subcritical with the strongest control rod full out and all other rods fully inserted.

Criteria If a shutdown margin of 1.467% aK (=0.25% + R + B 4 C settling penalty) cannot be demonstrated with the strongest control rod fully withdrawn, the core loading must be altered to achieve this margin.

The core reactivity has been calculated to be at a maximum 4000 MWD /T into the cycle and R is given as 1.167%. The control rod B 4 settling penalty for Unit Two is 0.05%.

Results and Discussion On December 7, 1981, control rod H-5 (the rod which was calculated by General Electric to be of the highest worth) was fully withdrawn to demonstrate that the reactor would remain suberitical with the strongest rod full out. This maneuver was performed to allow cold control rod testing prior to the shutdown margin demonstration. The 3-rod diagonally-adjacent shutdown margin test could not be performed t until ECCS systems were placed in operation allowing the reactor mode switch to be placed in STARTUP for multiple rod maneuvers.

Control Rod functional subcritical checks were performed as part of the cold scram timing and control rod friction testing. No unexpected reactivity insertions were observed when any of the 177 control rods were withdrawn.

General Electric provided rod worth curves for the strongest diagonally adjacent rod (J-4) and the next strongest diagonally adjacent rod (J-6) with rod H-5 full out. This method provided an adequate reactivity insertion to demonstrate the desired shutdown margin. On December 23, 1981, a diagonally adjacent shutdown margin demonstration was successfully performed. Using the G.E. supplied rod worth curve for H-5 (the strongest rod) and T-4 (the strongest diagonally adjacent rod) and J-6 (the next strongest diagonally adjacent rod), it was determined that with H-5 and J-4 at gosition 48, and J-6 at position 10, a moderator temperature of 151 F, and the reactor subcritical, a shutdown margin of 1.61% A K was demonstrated. The G.E. calculated shutdown margin with H-5 withdrawn and 68 F reactor water temperature was 2.37% A K at the beginning of cycle 6.

At approximately 4000 mwd /t into cycle 6 a minimum calculated shutdown margin of 1.203% A K will occur with H-5 fully withdrawn.

1

G.E.'s ability to determine rod worth was demonstrated by the accuracy of their in-sequence criticality prediction. The A K difference between the expected critical rod pattern and the actual critical rod pattern was determined to be 0.413% A K. This initial critical demonstrated that the actual shutdown margin at the beginning of cycle 6 was 2.783% A K and that the predicted SDM will be approximately 1.616% A K at 4000 mwd /t into cycle 6.

III. Initial Critical Prediction Purpose The purpose of this test is to demonstrate General Electric's ability to calculate control rod worths and shutdown margin by predicting the insequence critical.

Criteria General Electric's prediction for the critical rod pattern must agree within 1% A K to actual rod pattern. A discrepancy greater than 1% A K in the non-conservative direction will be cause for an On-Site Review and investigation by Nuclear Fuel Services.

Results and Discussion On December 26, 1981, at 0602 hours0.00697 days <br />0.167 hours <br />9.953704e-4 weeks <br />2.29061e-4 months <br /> the reactor was brought critical with a reactor water temperature at the time of criticality of 180 F. The A K difference between the expected critical rod pattern at 68 F and the actual critical rod pattern at 180*F was 0.00413.

The reactivity difference between the estimated and actual critical rod pattern at 20 C was 0.0084 AK. The temperature effect was

-0.0037 A K. The excess reactivity yielding the 100 second positive period was 0.00057 A K. These reactivities sum to give 0.00413 A K difference (0.413 % a K difference) between the expected critical rod pattern and the actual rod pattern. This is within the 1% A K required in the criteria of this test, and General Electric's ability to predict control rod worths is, therefore, successfully demonstrated.

m IV. Core Power Distribution Symmetry Analysis Purpose The purpose of this test was to determine the magnitude of indicated core power distribution asymmetries using data (TIP traces and OD-1) collected in conjunction with the P-1 update.

Criteria A. The total TIP uncertainty (including random noise and geometric uncertainties obtained by averaging the uncertainties for all data sets) must be less than 9%.

B. The gross check of TIP signal sy= metry should yield a maximum deviation between symmetrically located pairs of less than 25%.

Results and Discussion Core power symmetry calculations were performed based upon computer program OD-1 data runs on January 6,1982, at 79% power, on January 12,1982, at 99% power, and January 13, 1982, at 100% power. The average total TIP uncertainty from the three TIP sets was 3.642%.

The random noise uncertainty was 1.102 %. This yields a geometrical uncertainty of 3.471%. The total TIP uncertainty was well within the 9% limit.

Table 2 lists the symmetrical TIP pairs and their respective deviations. Figure 1 shows the core location of the TIP pairs and the average TIP readings. The maximum deviation between symmetrical TIP pairs was 8.328% for pair 15-21. Thus, the second criterion, mentioned above, was alsc met.

The method used to obtain the uncertainties consisted of calculating the average of the nodal ratio of TIP pairs by:

~ ~

n 22 1 I I Rij

_R = 18n ,j=1 i=5 ,

j where Rij is the ratio for the ith node of TIP pair j, there being n l

such pairs, where n=18.

l l

1 Next the standard deviation of the ratios is calculated by:

l - -

n 22 o_=- jb1 i=h ( Id - )

R (18n - 1) .

og is multiplied by 100 to express og as a percentage of the ideal value of j of 1.0.

% og = og x 100 i

i The total TIP uncertainty is calculated by dividing % og by /2in order to account for data being taken at 3 inch intervaTs and analyzed on a 6 inch nodal basis.

In order to calculate random noise uncertainty the average reading at each node for nodes 5 through 22 is calculated by:

'MT NT 1 I I BASE (N, M, K)

BASE (K) = NT . MT ,M=1 N=1 ,

where NT = number of runs per machine = 4 MT = number of machines = 5 EIKE (K) = average reading at nodal level K, K = 5 through 22 The random noise is derived from the average of the nodal variances by:

" 22 MT NT .2' I I I , BASE (N, M, K) - BASE (K)

%o noise = K=5 M=1 N=1 BASE (K) ,

x 100

. 18 (NT x MT -1) -

Finally the TIP geometric uncertainty can be calculated by:

% a geometric = (% o total - % o noise )

P

. o o

Table 2 CORE SYMMETRY Based on OD-l's From 1-6-82 (79% power), 1-12-82 (99% power), and 1-13-82 (100% power)

SYMMETRICAL TIP T= T -T  % = 100 x T/ T_* + Tm" PAIR NUMBERS ABSOLUT$DINERENCE  % DEVIATION 2 a b 1 6 3.061 4.179 2 12 2.030 2.106 3 19 6.820 6.659 4 26 3.909 4.247 5 33 1.276 2.656 8 13 3.351 3.229 9 20 0.399 0.867 10 27 1.149 1.208 11 34 1.151 1.334 15 21 8.931 8.328 16 28 1.176 1.015 17 35 5.530 5.160

, 18 39 1.586 2.245 23 29 0.360 0.316 24 36 6.029 5.456 25 40 0.826 1.292 31 37 7.562 8.021 32 41 3.340 6.613 22 Average Deviation =

Tg = I Tg(K) /18 3.607%

1=5 I

i l

9 Figure 1 UNIT TWO POWER SYMMETRY l Average BASE Readings  !

(nodes 5 through 22)

From OD-l's on 1-6-82, 1-12-82, and 1-13-82 Avg. BASE, TIP/LPRM String No. Axis of Symmetry

, , . . i do e i i e sa Img I l WJo S i

!  !  ! I i /l l

____i__ , i i

, i ,

3 .i i i

e i i i

i i l i

i 1

5 l l l l l l l  ! l l lg

_ _ __ L_ V__ __

" 947e u

14.Q i I loi. x l lI37% ! 97'07 , ! 7210(/I l l 331 l Sfi i 151 - i ni  ! 37 Ssi  :  :

66 . i , . .

i f 1 I r

i 'i i I [,I i i I f

, i i

44 , .

i .t i

i i

8 i

g

,, g /I g

8 i

i i

'o l iE, kasi'T'illf, i l l 23:

lidag i E!27, l ULJ/l i agi i n9l 30l Eff), l SS7(l__

l l 34 3.f i 38 i i i i

i i i i i l i , , ,

i i i , , , , , , ,

' ' i i

' , 'i 36 8 ' ' i i i e I e i i i i i _'i i i , , , ,

2*

l 91Be l Gd Q, ! 1012Q l kb l lijktel k?,4. I (rff&c ;~

l __!_ _ 8-l__ .__i__ 29__ __i___Wi___ '

i

__ M ____l 231 l ~29L_ __l 2 57 x l l j .

i j i

_u ,F i i

i i

ne  !  ;

_i  ; i  !.,i' _ _ ._; L;  ;  ;  ; i l l i

I l i /ad$ l I //M l /o#.7g i 'bjsf l

- =6 I Thfe,l.$

i loi i vg  ! 141 l ///l7.{1 i 15 i i /Bi

, M- - l 171 l g i i l i i i 1 6 1 8 I i i i, , l , 1 l

_i_ .

i

, i.3 3

E~~ i , , , , , , . . t i, l 1 l , i ,i l I 3 1

,. i :1 1*

75 Y8

!g61 I 8677 l

lo3.*Q I 136 99 i

%Q! SST.tQ ! l '

l u --

i i

i ll, ,

Si ,

i 9l ,

l 10l i

Ili l

14 i i i , , i i i i i i e .

'= /,

,S i

i , i , i i ,

i i

, o,i i i I no 1, / l 92WQ __,__i__h_i___i l 921M l /05'7* l l ggy, l

• • l l' l p.i l 3l @,12,4:

l

/ __l _ _ 5 re -

! l l i  ! l  !  :

e6 l l l l l l

32- j ' -

i , , i  ! l l l l 01 03 05 of c9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 77 29 31 33 35 17 33 k1 h3 45 47 k9 51 51 55 57 59

_ .__ _