SBK-L-05146, Cycle 11 Startup Report
| ML052080150 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 07/21/2005 |
| From: | St.Pierre G Florida Power & Light Energy Seabrook |
| To: | Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| SBK-L-05146 | |
| Download: ML052080150 (14) | |
Text
a.
FPL Energy Seabrook Station FPL Energy Seabrook Station P.O. Box 300 Seabrook, NH 03874 (603) 773-7000 July 21, 2005 Docket No. 50-443 SBK-L-05146 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555-0001 Seabrook Station Cycle 11 Startup Report In accordance with the requirements of Technical Specification 6.8.1.1, enclosed is the Cycle 11 Startup Report for Seabrook Station.
Should you require further information regarding this matter, please contact Mr. Paul V. Gurney, Reactor Engineering Supervisor, at (603) 773-7776.
Very truly yours, FPL Energy Seabrook, LLC Gene F. St. Pierre Site Vice President
,/,
cc:
S. J. Collins, NRC Region I Administrator V. Nerses, NRC Project Manager, Project Directorate I-2 G.T. Dentel, NRC Senior Resident Inspector 0) an FPL Group company
ENCLOSURE TO SBK-1,05146
SEABROOK STATION UNIT NO. 1 STARTUP TEST REPORT CYCLE I 1
INDEX 1.0 EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
2.0 CORE DESIGN
SUMMARY
3.0 LOW POWER PHYSICS TESTING
SUMMARY
(LPPT) 4.0 POWER ASCENSION TESTING
SUMMARY
(PAT) i
1.0 EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
This report summarizes the cycle II startup testing performed following the completion of the April 2005 refueling outage. Preparations for both the refueling outage and cycle 11 operation included a stretch power uprate to allow operation at 3587 MWt. The planning for the SPU included the following:
On March 17, 2004, the station submitted License Amendment Request 04-03, Application for Stretch Power Uprate, requesting approval to operate at the higher power level starting in cycle 11.
Secondary plant modifications were planned to support the cycle 11 power uprate.
The modifications included items such as the following:
Performance Upgrade for Condensate Pumps Moisture Separator Reheater Internals Upgrade Modification Moisture Separator Reheater Relief Valve Modification High Pressure Turbine Upgrade I&C Related Modifications to Support the Stretch Power Uprate Heater Drain Stability Modifications Condensate Storage Tank Inventory Enhancements With the exception of the condensate pump upgrade (performed on-line during cycle 10 operation), the above modifications were implemented during the April 2005 refueling outage with required modification retests performed during plant heatup or power ascension.
On February 8, 2005, License Amendment 101, Seabrook Station Unit No. I -
Issuance of Amendment RE: 5.2 Percent Power Uprate, was issued to support operation at the higher power level in cycle 1.
Operation/testing milestones were completed as follows:
CYCLE 11 FUEL LOAD COMPLETED 04/14/05 INITIAL CRITICALITY 04/30/05 LPPT COMPLETED 04/30/05 ON LINE 05/02/05 30% PAT COMPLETED 05/04/05 50% PAT COMPLETED 05/05/05 80% PAT COMPLETED 05/06/05 94% PAT COMPLETED 05/06/05 95% PAT COMPLETED 05/07/05 FULL POWER 05/10/05 1 of9
2.0 CORE DESIGN
SUMMARY
The Cycle 11 core is designed to operate for 20,710 MWD/MTU with a coastdown to 21,790 MWD/MTU. Eighty-eight fresh fuel assemblies were loaded into the Cycle 11 core.
Forty-eight have an enrichment of 4.0 w/o and forty have an enrichment of 4.8 w/o. In addition, the top and bottom 6 inches have an enrichment of 2.6 w/o creating an axial annular blanket. By comparison, Cycle 10 utilized 84 fresh fuel assemblies, 44 with an enrichment of 4.3 w/o and the remaining 40 at 4.7 w/o, both with a similar 2.6 w/o axial annular blanket configuration.
The following mechanical design is used in the Cycle 11 core:
The fresh region 13 and reload regions 11 and 12 fuel are of the Robust Fuel Assembly (RFA) design, which includes slightly thicker RCC guide and thimble tubes as well as a different mid-grid design. The mid-grid design is expected to mitigate grid-to-rod fretting seen in V5H assemblies. Cycle 11 completes the transition to the RFA design.
All fuel utilizes ZIRLO for fuel clad, control rod guide tubes and instrument thimbles. The top and bottom grids are Inconel-718. The six low-pressure drop mid-zone and three intermediate flow mixer grids are ZIRLO with ZIRLO sleeves.
In addition, all fuel contains a Performance+ debris mitigation grid located at the bottom end plug of the fuel rod The Cycle 11 core was designed for an uprated rated thermal power (RTP) condition of 3587MWt. ThepreviousRTP forcycle lOwas3411 MWt.
2 of 9
3.0 LOW POWER PHYSICS TESTING
SUMMARY
Testing was performed in accordance with the following general sequence:
I.
Initial Criticality: Criticality was achieved by withdrawing all shutdown and control banks and diluting to critical.
- 2.
Zero Power Test Range Determination: This was determined after the point of adding heat had been demonstrated.
- 3.
On-line Verification of the Reactivity Computer: This was determined by examining the output of the Advanced Digital Reactivity Computer (ADRC) during rod withdrawal and the determination of the point of adding heat.
- 4.
Boron Endpoint Measurement: This was determined with all the Control and Shutdown banks withdrawn using the ADRC.
- 5.
Rod Worth Measurement: Individual control bank and shutdown bank worths were measured using the Dynamic Rod Worth Measurement (DRWM) technique with the ADRC.
- 6.
Isothermal Temperature Coefficient Measurement (ITC): This was determined using the ADRC during a Reactor Coolant temperature change. The Moderator Temperature Coefficient (MTC) was calculated from the ITC Data.
All acceptance criteria were met and the results are presented in Table 1.
3 of 9
4.0 POWER ASCENSION TESTING
SUMMARY
Since the power ascension for cycle 11 included first time operation at an uprated rated thermal power level of 3587 MWt, the standard post-refuel power ascension test program was augmented to include additional testing/evaluations. The scope of the additional testing/evaluations was determined as follows:
As part of the preparations for rated thermal power increase from 341 1 MWt to 3587 MWt, an applicability assessment of initial plant startup tests (as discussed in Chapter 14 of the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report) was performed. The assessment results are summarized below:
A number of the Chapter 14 tests now exist as routine operating and surveillance procedures that are performed as part of each refueling and post-refueling startup. The scope of these procedures was determined to be acceptable for use in the uprated power condition and as such are not reported in this startup report. Examples of these procedures are Core Loading, Rod Drop Testing, and Water Chemistry Control.
The dynamic tests described in Chapter 14 were not re-performed. The assessment determined that these tests were not necessary based on analysis and the experience of other plants with similar uprates. Examples of these procedures are Reactor Trip and Load Swing.
Chapter 14 tests were not re-performed on systems or equipment that have been removed from service since initial startup.
Sk Chapter 14 tests that are re-performed during each post-refueling startup were re-performed for the cycle 11 startup. Examples of these procedures include Control Rod Worth Measurement and RCS Flow Rate Measurement.
A limited number of Chapter 14 tests were re-performed to accommodate uprate specific modifications and/or conditions. These procedures include the Steam Generator Moisture Carryover Test and the Turbine Generator Performance Test.
A number of secondary side modifications were completed as part of the uprate to improve margins, plant performance, and efficiency. These included moisture separator reheater tube bundle replacement, high-pressure turbine replacement, and piping modifications to improve secondary side stability. Specific performance tests for these modifications were developed and included in the scope of the power ascension test program.
4of9
4.0 POWER ASCENSION TESTING
SUMMARY
(Continued)
A specific station procedure was written for the power ascension to the uprated power level of 3587 MWt. This procedure directed the performance of required testing/evaluations.
This power ascension procedure provided the overall sequence of required activities as well as the types of management reviews and approvals needed to continue the power ascension to the next power plateau.
Testing was performed at specified power plateaus of 30%, 50%, 80%, 94%, 95%, and 100% Rated Thermal Power (RTP). Power changes were governed by operating procedures and fuel preconditioning guidelines.
Test activities I through 10 described below are standard power ascension activities performed following all refueling outages. Items 11 through 19 describe the additional testing/evaluations performed to ensure a conservative, deliberate approach to the uprated power level of 3587 MWt.
Thermal-hydraulic parameters, nuclear parameters and related instrumentation were monitored throughout the Power Ascension. Data was compared to previous cycle power ascension data and engineering predictions, as required, at each test plateau to identify calibration or system problems. The major areas analyzed were:
- 1.
Core Performance Evaluation: Flux mapping was performed at 30%, 50% and 100% RTP using the Fixed Incore Detector System. The resultant peaking factors and power distribution were compared to Technical Specification limits to verify that the core was operating within its design limits. All analysis limits were met and the results are summarized in Table 2.
- 2.
Nuclear Instrumentation Indication: Overlap data was obtained between the Intermediate Range and Power Range channels. Secondary plant heat balance calculations were performed to verify the Nuclear Instrumentation indications.
- 3.
RCS Delta-T Indication: All RCS AT loops were initially scaled using Cycle 10 values (scaled conservatively for a rated thermal power condition of 3411 MWt).
Data from 30%, 50%, and 80% RTP met prescribed acceptance criteria. Data was evaluated at 95% RTP and the AT loops were re-scaled for the new rated thermal power condition of 3587 MWt.
5 of 9
4.0 POWER ASCENSION TESTING
SUMMARY
(Continued)
- 4.
Upper Plenum Anomaly Evaluation: In early 1992, Westinghouse notified Seabrook Station that it might be susceptible to a phenomenon known as the Upper Plenum Anomaly (UPA). The UPA is primarily characterized by a periodic step change of 1IF to 20F in hot leg temperature and a corresponding change in steam flow. Cycle 11 data collected at 100% RTP identified the presence of UPA. Instrumentation changes to the delta-T loops performed as part of the uprate successfully increased the margin to channel trip during UPA events.
- 5.
RCS Temperatures: Data was obtained for the Narrow Range Loop temperatures.
Evaluations for Delta-T (eF) and TAVG /TREF Indication were performed. The data was as expected.
- 6.
Steam and Feedwater Flows: Data was obtained for the steam and feedwater flows.
Evaluations for deviations between redundant channels on individual steam generators were performed. The data was as expected.
- 7.
Stearn Generator Pressures: Data was obtained for the steam generator pressures.
Evaluations for deviations between redundant channels on individual steam generators were performed. The data was as expected.
- 8.
Turbine Impulse Pressure (TRu): The initial scaling of impulse pressure was set during refueling outage 10 based on engineering calculations for expected full power turbine impulse pressure. The scaling of TRUF was evaluated during the power ascension and found acceptable for continued power increase to 100%. Once steady state 100% RTP conditions were reached, the turbine impulse pressure was re-scaled to reflect actual conditions.
- 9.
Incore/Excore Calibration: Scaling factors were calculated from flux map data using the single point calibration methodology. The nuclear instrumentation power range channels were re-scaled at 50% and 100% RTP.
- 10.
RCS Flow: The RCS flow was measured at the 94% RTP plateau using elbow tap measurements to minimize the effects of observed hot leg streaming. The calculated RCS flow value met the Technical Specification requirements.
- 11.
Plant Walkdowns: At the testing plateaus, walkdown of selected secondary plant systems/components were performed to evaluate the overall response/stability of these systems/components. Acceptable results from these walkdowns were documented as part of the approval process to continue to increase power to the next plateau. In addition, during the initial power ascension above 3411 MWt, secondary plant walkdowns were performed following each 1% increase in RTP.
6of9
4.0 POWER ASCENSION TESTING
SUMMARY
(Continued)
- 12.
Augmented Data Collection/Evaluations: For the areas of NSSS, Balance of Plant, and Key Control Systems, selected additional monitoring points were evaluated against expected values at the testing plateaus. Acceptable results from these evaluations were documented as part of the approval process to continue to increase power to the next plateau.
- 13.
Secondary Plant Stability Testing: In response to a major secondary piping heater drain modification, secondary plant stability testing was performed at the higher power level plateaus to evaluate the response to operational transients involved with evolutions such as main turbine valve testing and swapping of condensate pumps.
The results of these tests showed improvement in secondary plant stability when compared to previous cycles.
- 14.
Moisture Separator Reheater Testing: Due to the replacement of the moisture separator reheater internals, testing to optimize moisture separator reheater performance was performed once steady state 100% RTP conditions were reached.
- 15.
Main Turbine Performance Testing: Due to the replacement of the high pressure turbine blading, testing to measure the turbine-generator performance was performed once steady state 100% RTP conditions were reached.
- 16.
Steam Generator Moisture Carryover Measurement: Once steady state 100% RTP conditions were reached, testing was performed (using radiotracer soduim-24) to measure/determine the steam generator moisture carryover for the uprated rated thermal power condition of 3587 MWt.
- 17.
Radiation Surveys: Containment radiation surveys were completed at the uprated power level. The results were evaluated and found acceptable and consistent with expectations for the uprated power condition.
- 18.
Area Temperature Monitoring: Selected area temperatures and process stream measurements were obtained during plant operation at the uprated power level. The results were evaluated and found acceptable and consistent with expectations for the uprated power condition.
- 19.
Vibration Monitoring Walkdowns: At selected testing plateaus, walkdowns of selected secondary plant systems/components were performed to evaluate the overall response/stability in regards to piping/component vibrations. Acceptable results from these walkdowns were documented as part of the approval process to continue to increase power to the next plateau.
7of9
TABLE I LOW POWER PHYSICS RESULTS: CYC LE II ITEM MEASURED PREDICTED ERROR CRITERIA BORON END POINT:
+/- 1000 pcm HZP ALL RODS OUT 1985 ppm 1978 ppm
-43.3 pem +/- 500 pcm
- ALL RODS OUT ITC (pcmPF)
-2.37
-3.09 0.72
+/- 2*
ALL RODS OUT MTC (pcm/°F)
-0.64
-1.36 N/A
<+ 3.02**
CONTROL BANK ROD WORTHS:
(pcm)
A 773.8 758.8
+15.0 B
670.3 626.8
+ 43.5 C
788.7 751.0
+ 37.7 D
611.0 574.6
+ 36.4 SA 281.7 270.5
+11.2 100 pcm or SB 895.7 863.1
+ 32.6 15%
- SC 428.9 412.4
+ 16.5 SD 430.4 411.0
+ 19.4 SE 469.5 458.0
+11.5
+/- 8%*
TOTAL 5350.0 5126.2 223.8
>90%
NOTE:
- Review criteria, all others are acceptance criteria.
8 of 9
TABLE 2 POWER ASCENSION FLUX MAP RESULTS: CYCLE II ITEM MAPI MAP 2 MAP 3 DATE OF MAP 05/03/05 05/05/05 05/11/05 POWER LEVEL (%)
29.6 49.0 100.0 CONTROL BANK D.
POSITION (steps) 155 190 227 FQ 2.0990 2.1582 1.7993 FAIl 1.5618 1.4964 1.4342 INCORE TILT 1.0162 1.0133 1.0085 MAXNMUM MEASURED TO PREDICTED POWER
-8.897
-7.917
-7.271 DISTRIBUTION ERROR (%o)
AVERAGE MEASURED TO PREDICTED POWER 2.305 2.092 1.891 DISTRIBUTION ERROR (%)
I I
I 9 of 9
SBK-L-05 146 CYCLE 11 STARTUP REPORT Helfrich, R. E.
e-mail Mashhadi, M.
e-mail Dryden, M. S.
e-mail Guldemond, W. G.
e-mail Ossing, M.
e-mail Gurney, P.
e-mail Letter Distribution e-mail File 0018 01-48 File 0048 01-48 RMD 02-06