ML17309A915

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Suppl 1 to NF-TR-95-01, Nuclear Physics Methodology for Reload Design of Turkey Point & St Lucie Nuclear Plants
ML17309A915
Person / Time
Site: Saint Lucie, Turkey Point  NextEra Energy icon.png
Issue date: 08/31/1997
From:
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML17309A912 List:
References
NF-TR-95-01-S01, NF-TR-95-1-S1, NUDOCS 9801060194
Download: ML17309A915 (44)
v • d • e


Text

St. Lucie Unit 2 Docket No. 50-389 Proposed License Amendment Core 0 cretin Limits Re ort COLR ENCLOSURE 2 to L-97-280 SUPPLEMENT 1 to NF-TR-951, NUCLEAR PHYSICS METHODOLOGYFOR RELOAD DESIGN OF TURKEY POINT AND ST. LUCIE NUCLEAR PLANTS, AUGUST 1997 PDR ADQCK 05000250 p

PDR l

Nuclear Physics Methodology for Reload Design of Turkey Point and St. Lucie Nuclear Plants NF-TR-95-01 Supplement 1

August 3997 Florida Power and Light Company Nuclear Fuel Section Juno Beach, FL

O.

NF-TR-95-01 Supplement 1

ABSTRACT This document provides benchmarking data for St. Lucie Unit 2 as a supplement to NF-TR-95-01. The initialtopical report was approved by the NRC in Reference),

but did not contain St. Lucie Unit 2 specific data.

NF-TR-95-01 described the nuclear design methodology employed by Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) to analyze the core design characteristics necessary to support a fuel reload for Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 and St. Lucie Units 1 and 2.

This methodology, including all computer programs used, was obtained from Westinghouse Electric Corporation.

Calculations for this supplement were performed using this methodology and the results compared to operating data from St. Lucie Unit 2. The quality, of these additional comparisons further demonstrates FPL's ability to perform reload core design for FPL's St. Lucie Unit 2.

NF-TR-95-01 supplement 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE

1.0 INTRODUCTION

AND CONCLUSIONS 1.1 OBJECTIVE..............

1 s2 SCOPE

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

1.3 CONCLUSION

S

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

1

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

1

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

s

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

2 2.0 PHYSICS MODELVERIFICATIONFOR ST. LUCIE UNIT 2...

2.1 CYCLE DESCRIPTION...... ~....... ~........

~

2.2 ZERO POWER PHYSICS TESTS 2.2.1 CRITICALBORON CONCENTRATION 2.2.2 MODERATOR TEMPERATURE COEFFICIENT 2.2.3 CONTROL ROD WORTH 2.2.4 DIFFERENTIAL BORON WORTH

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

3

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

3

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~ 4

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~ 4

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

4

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

e 5

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

5 2.3 POWER OPERATION............................

2.3.1 BORON LETDOWN CURVES.................

2.3.2 AXIALPOWER DISTRIBUTIONS

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

5

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

5

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

6 2,4

SUMMARY

~. ~.............

6

3.0 REFERENCES

~.........

~.....

~.............

24

NF-TR-95-01 Supplement 1

LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE 2.2-1 St. Lucie Unit 2 Cycles 8 and 9 HZP Critical Boron Concentration Comparison Between Measurement and Prediction..........................

7 2.2-2 St. Lucie Unit 2 Cycles 8 and 9 HZP Moderator Temperature Coefficient Comparison Between Measurement and Prediction......................... ~........

8 2.2-3 St. Lucie Unit 2 Cycles 8 and 9 Control Rod Worth Comparison Between Measurement

~O and Prediction.......... ~..............

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

9 Measurement and Prediction 2.3-1 St. Lucie Unit 2 Cycles 8 and 9 Boron Letdown Comparison Between Measurement and Prediction................................

~

11 2.2-4 St. Lucie Unit 2 Cycles 8 and 9 HZP Differential Boron Worth Comparison Between

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

e 10 1.1.

NF-TR-95-01 Supplement 1

LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE 2.1-1 St. Lucie Unit 2 Cycle 8 Core Ioad jnn oading Pattern 2.1-2 St. Lucie Unit 2 Cycle 9 Core L

d oading Pattern

~ ~......................

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

1 3 2.2-1 St. Lucie Unit 2 Cycle 8 Measured versus Predicted Reference Bank Integral Rod orth 0

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

1 4 W

2.2-2 St. Lucie Unit 2 Cycle 9 Measured versus Predicted Reference Bank Integral Rod orth a

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

1 5 W

2.3-1 St. Lucie Unit 2 Cycle 8 Boron Letdown Comparison Between Measurement a'

nd Prediction....................... ~....................

16

~

~

~

~

~

2.3-2 St. Lucie Unit 2 Cycle 9 Boron Letdown Comparison Between Measurement 4

and Prediction............................................

17 2.3-3 St. Lucie Unit 2 Cycle 8 Axial Power Distribution Comparison Between CECOR and ANC 467 MWD/MTU ~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

1 8 2.3-4 St. Lucie Unit 2 Cycle 8 Axial Power Distribution Comparison Between CECOR and ANC - 8165 MWD/MTU.................. ~... ~........ ~......

19 3.3.3.

NF-TR-95-01 Supplement 1

LIST OF FIGURES (CONTINUED)

FlGURE PAGE 2.3-5 St. Lucie Unit 2 Cycle 8 Axial Power Distribution Comparison Between CECOR and ANC - 16286 MWD/MTU.....................................

20 2.3-6 St. Lucie Unit 2 Cycle 9 Axial Power Distribution Comparison Between CECOR and ANC 458 MWD/MTUi

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

e 21 2.3-7 St. Lucie Unit 2 Cycle 9 Axial Power Distribution Comparison Between CECOR and ANC - 5697 MWD/MTU.;........................ ~...........

22 2.3-8 St. Lucie Unit 2 Cycle 9 Axial Power Distribution Comparison Between BEACON and ANC - 13798 MWD/MTU.....................................

23

NF-TR-95-01 Supplement 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

AND CONCLUSIONS This report provides additional comparisons between predictions and operating data as a further demonstration of Florida Power and Light's qualifications to use the Westinghouse methodology to perform reload design calculations for St. Lucie Unit 2 in the same manner that is currently performed forTurkey Point Units 3 and 4 and St. Lucie Unit1.

1.1 OBJ ECTIVE The objective of this report is to further demonstrate FPL's competence to perform reload design analyses for St. Lucie Unit 2. To this end, extensive design calculations have been performed for St. Lucie Unit 2 Cycles 8 and 9 and the results are compared to actual plant operating data.

I.2 SCOPE Initial training of FPL personnel in the Westinghouse methods was performed during 1993 utilizing the Nuclear Core Design Training Center approach provided by Westinghouse.

FPL individuals were trained in areas ranging from Loading Pattern Scoping, Cross-Section Development, Loading Pattern Generation, Safety Analysis Models and Analysis, Nuclear Design Models and Analysis, to the development of Core Follow Analysis. Ongoing training by Westinghouse has also been provided when methodology and code improvements are implemented.

FPL has performed in-house core design calculations and core follow analysis for the St. Lucie Units. Comparisons between measurements and predictions for St. Lucie Unit 2 Cycles 8 and 9 are presented in Section 2 using Westinghouse methodology. Allmethods used to generate the results detailed in this report (computer programs and model development) are

0

NF-TR-95-01 Supplement 1

standard licensed methods used by the Westinghouse Commercial Nuclear Fuel Division. Therefore, both the calculational uncertainties (Reference 2) and the methods utilized to process measured data (Reference

3) are standard to Westinghouse and do not require re-quantification by FPL.

1.3 CONCLUSION

S This report describes the use of the Westinghouse methodology as applied by FPL to model the St. Lucie Unit 2 core.

Calculations were performed for St. Lucie Unit 2 Cycles 8 and 9 as described in Section 2. The results from these comparisons further demonstrate FPL's understanding of the methodology and show that FPL can apply the Westinghouse procedures and computer codes during the performance of future reload design analyses for St. Lucie Unit 2.

NF-TR-95-01 Supplement 1

2.0 PHYSICS MODEL VERIFICATIONFOR ST. LUCIE UNIT 2 I

Core physics model verification for St. Lucie Unit 2 will include comparisons between measurement and predictions for Cycles 8 and 9.

St. Lucie Unit 2 is currently in its tenth cycle of operation.

In this section, predictions made using the physics methodology described in NF-TR-95-01 are compared to zero power physics test measurements and at power operating data.

As stated in Section 1, the methods employed to generate the predictions reported in this section are standard licensed methods used by Westinghouse's Commercial Nuclear Fuel Division.

The purpose of these comparisons is to further demonstrate FPLs competence to use these methods to analyze the core configurations found at St.

Lucie Unit 2.

St. Lucie Unit 2 is a Combustion Engineering (CE) reactor with a thermal rating of

~

~

2700 MW. The core consists of 217 assemblies of the CE 16x16 design.

2.'I CYCLE DESCRIPTIONS St. Lucie Unit 2 Cycle 8 began operation in April 1994 and shutdown in October 1995 after a 504 Effective Full Power Days (EFPD) cycle. The Cycle 8 reload utilized debris resistant fuel (long end cap design) with an active fuel length of 136.7 inches.

Fuel displacing B4C shims are used for burnable absorbers.

The core loading pattern for Cycle 8 including a description of the fresh fuel and the locations of control rods are shown in Figure 2.1-1

~

St. Kucie Unit 2 Cycle 9 began operation in January 1996 and shutdown in April1997 after a 447 EFPD cycle. Cycle 9 also utilized debris resistant fuel with an active fuel length of 136.7 inches.

Gadolinium is used as the burnable absorber in the fresh fuel (Region L). The core loading pattern for Cycle 9 including a description of the fresh fuel and the locations of control rods are shown in Figure 2.1-2.

2.2 ZERO POWER PHYSICS TESTS NF-TR-95-01 Supplement 1

After each refueling, startup physics tests are conducted to verify that the nuclear characteristics of the core, are consistent with design predictions.

While the reactor is maintained at hot zero power (HZP) conditions, the following physics parameters are measured:

~

Critical Boron Concentrations,

~

Moderator Temperature Coefficient,

~

Control Rod Worth, and

~

Differential boron worth.

All review criteria of measured to predicted data are based on ANSI/ANS-19.6.1.

2Property "ANSI code" (as page type) with input value "ANSI/ANS-19.6.1.</br></br>2" contains invalid characters or is incomplete and therefore can cause unexpected results during a query or annotation process..2.1 CRITICALBORON CONCENTRATION Table 2.2-1 provides the comparisons between HZP critical boron concentrations measurements and predictions for Cycles 8 and 9.

The values represent all rods out (ARO) and Reference Bank in conditions.

As

shown, excellent agreement is demonstrated for each case with all differences well within the +50 ppm review criteria.

b 2.2.2 MODERATOR TEMPERATURE COEFFICIENT Table 2.2-2 provides the comparisons between HZP Moderator Temperature Coefficient measurements and predictions for Cycles 8 and 9.

Again, excellent agreement is demonstrated with all differences being well within the review criteria of +2 pcm/'F.

4

NF-TR-95-01 Supplement 1

~

~

~

~

2.2.3 CONTROL ROD WORTH Table 2.2-3 provides

.the Control Rod Worth comparisons between measurement and prediction for Cycles 8 and 9. In all cases, the agreement is within acceptance criteria.

Figures 2.2-1 and 2.2-2 show the integral rod worth comparisons for the Reference Bank.

The predicted rod worth and integral worth were calculated at the exact conditions which were present during the measurement.

Excellent agreement is observed between measured and predicted integral worth.

2.2.4 DIFFERENTIALBORON WORTH Table 2.2-4 provides the Differential boron worth comparisons between measurement and predictions for Cycles 8 and 9. Both the measured and predicted values are obtained using the worth of the Reference Bank in pcm divided by the change in boron concentration from'RO to Reference Bank inserted.

All differences are within the review criteria of +/-15%.

2.3 POWER OPERATION 2.3.'I BORON LETDOWN CURVES Reactor coolant system boron concentrations are measured daily at the plant.

Critical boron concentrations measured at or very close to hot full

power, all rods out, equilibrium xenon and samarium conditions are compared to the predicted boron letdown curves for Cycles 8 and 9 in Figures.

2.3-1 and 2.3-2.

The predicted curves were obtained from design depletions with the three-dimensional ANC model. Table 2.3-1 shows the difference in ppm between measurement and ANC at various cycle exposures.

The mean difference between measured and predicted critical boron concentration for both cycles is 8 ppm with a standard deviation of 20 ppm.

S

NF-TR-95-01 Supplement 1

2.3.2 AXIALPOWER DISTRIBUTIONS Measured, core average axial power distributions for Beginning-of-Cycle (BOC), Middle-of-Cycle (MOC) and End-of-Cycle (EOC) obtained with the incore monitoring codes CECOR (Reference 4) and BEACON (Reference 5) using incore detector "snapshots" were compared to predicted axial distributions in Figures 2.3-3 through 2.3-8. The predicted distributions were obtained from three-dimensional ANC calculations performed for core conditions similar to those at the time of the "snapshots".

Overall, the comparisons show excellent agreement between measured and predicted axial power distributions.

2.4

SUMMARY

ln this section, predictions made using Westinghouse's reload core design methodology are compared to zero power physics test measurements and at power operating data from St. Lucie Unit 2, Cycles 8 and 9. In all cases, the predictions agree well with the measurements.

The agreement between the predictions and the measurements reported here further demonstrates FPL's capability to apply the Westinghouse licensed methodology to perform reload core design for St. Lucie Unit 2.

NF-TR-95-01 Supplement 1

TABLE 2.2-1 ST.

LUCIE UNIT 2 CYCLES 8 AND 9 HZP CRITICAL BORON CONCENTRATION COMPARISON BETWEEN MEASUREMEMT AMD PREDICTION CYCLE BORON CONCENTRATION (PPM)

CONFIGURATION MEASURED (M) 1741 PREDICTED (P) 1713 DIFF.

(M-P)

BANK B IN 1464 1465 ARO 1561 1586

-25 BANK B IN 1317 1339

-22 Review Criteria is

+ 50 ppm NF-TR-95-01 Supplement 1

TABLE 2.2-2 ST LUCRE UNXT 2 CYCLES 8 AND 9 HZP MODERATOR TEMPERATURE COEFFXCXENT COMPARXSON BETWEEN MEASUREMENT AND PREDXCTXON CYCLE CONFIGURATION MEASURED (M)

PREDICTED (P)

DIFFERENCE (M-P)

MODERATOR TEMPERATURE COEFFICIENT (PCM/ F) 3.56 4.38

-0.82 ARO 0.56 1.86

-1.30 Review Criteria is

+

2 pcm/ F.

NF-TR-95-01 Supplement 1

TABLE 2. 2-3 ST.

LVCXE VNXT 2 CYCLES 8 AND 9 CONTROL ROD WORTH COMPARXSON BETWEEN MEASVREMENT AND PREDXCTXON CONTROL ROD WORTH (PCM)

CYCLE CEA GROUP MEASURED (M)

PREDZCTED (P) 9o DZPPERENCE (M/P-1) *100 3,4,5 1.2 TOTAL 1693 1380 2057 1708 6838 1775 1520 2142 1823 7260

-4.61

-9.20

-3.97

-6.31

-5.81 3,4,5 1.2 TOTAL 1783 1641 1992 1481 6897 1758 1674 2075 1523 7031 1.42

-1.97

-3.99

-2.78

-1.89 Acceptance Criteria is

+15% or 100 pcm which ever is greater

,(1) Reference Bank Acceptance Criteria is +10%

(2)

Sum of all measured banks within +10%

NF-TR-95-01 Supplement 1

TABLE 2.2-4 ST LUCXE UNXT 2 CYCLES 8 AND 9 HZP DXFFERENTXAL BORON WORTH COMPARXSON BETWEEN MEASUREMENT AND PREDXCTXON CYCLE DIFFERENTIAL BORON WORTH (PCM/PPM)

CONFIGURATION AVERAGE OVER BANK B INSERTION AVERAGE OVER BANK B INSERTION MEASURED (M) 7.43 8.16 PREDICTED (P) 8.64 8.40 io DIFFERENCE (M/P-1) *100

-14 '

-2.86 Review Criteria is + 15%.

TABLE 2.3-1 NF-TR-95-01 Supplement 1

ST LUCIE UNIT 2 CYCLES 8 AND 9 BORON LETDOWN COMPARISON BETWEEN MEASUREMENT AND PREDICTION HFP BORON LETDOWN PPM CYCLE EXPOSVRE (MWD/MTV) 100 200 500 1000 2000 3000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 11800 12082 100 200 500 1000 2000 3000 3750 5000 6000 7500 8250 9000 10000 10709 MEASVRED (M) 1290 1255 1216 1173 1091 976 782 671 548 447 338 218 117 18 15 1114 1076 1054

1021, 973 923 874 817 776 672 589 496 360 273 PREDICTED (P) 1288 1270 1226 1183 1075 980 767 659 540 438 327 217 106 15 1151 1135 1098 1069 1004 947 887 834 786 677 588 492 355 264 DIFFERENCE (M-P)

-15

-10

-10 16 12

-37

-59

-48

-31

-24

-17

-10

4r

FIGURE 2.1-1 ST LUCIE UNIT2 CYCLE 8 LOADINGPATTERN NP-TR-95-01 Supplement 1

HX H

H K*

A H

JX JX KX JX J

KX JX KX H/

KY HX H

JX J

J/

KX H/

K+

HX JX KX J/

KX JX Kl A

JX A

JX J

H*

H/

JX KX H/

A H*

Jl K

H/

KY HX LEGEND H/

HX BATCHjD CEA GROUPID FRESH FUEL INVENTORY:

K - 4.10 w/o U-235 KY-4.10 w/o U-235, 4 84C rods K+ - 3.60 w/o U-235 K'

3.60 w/o U-235, 4 84C rods K/- 3.60 w/o U-235, 8 84C rods KX-3.60 w/o U-235, 12 84C rods,2

FlGURE 2.1-2 ST LUCIE UNIT 2 CYCLE 9 LOADINGPATTERN

, NF-TR 01 Supplement 1

JX LX LX LX KX LX LX K+'+

LX K+

J/

A KY LX KX K*

LX K

LX LX KX LY JX LX B

LX A

L*

JX K/

LX K

LY JX LY K+

JX LEGEND KY BATCH ID CEA GROUPID FRESH FUEL tNVENTORY:

L - 4.30 w/o U-235 L'

4.30 w/o U-235, 4 rods I 4 w/o Gd203 L/- 4.30 w/o U-235, 12 rods I 6 w/o Gd203 LX-4.30 w/o U-235, 16 rods I 6 w/o Gd203 LY-4.30 w/o U-235, 8 rods I 4 w/o Gd203 0

NP-TR-95-01 Supplement l 2200 FIGURE 2.2-1 ST LUCIE UNIT 2 CYCLE 8 MEASURED VERSUS PREDICTED REFERENCE BANK INTEGRAL ROD WORTH 2000 1800 1600 O

1400 0

1200 A0 1000 800 MEASURED PREDICTED 600 400 200 0

0 40 80 120 ROD POSITION (INCHES WITHDRAWN)

NF-TR-95-01 Supplement 1

2200 FIGURE 2.2-2 ST LUCIE UNIT 2 CYCLE 9 MEASURED VERSUS PREDICTED REFERENCE BANK INTEGRAL ROD WORTH 2000 1800 1600 1400 C40 1200 A0 1000 800 MEASURED PREDXCTED 600 400 200 0

0 40 80 120 ROD POSITION (INCHES WITHDRAWN)

NF-TR-95-01 Supplement 1

1400 PXGURE 2.3-1 ST LUCXE'NXT 2 CYCLE 8 BORON LETDOWN COMPARXSON BETWEEN MEASUREMENT AND PREDXCTXON 1300 1200 1100 g 1000 0

900 U

800 80 700 C40 0

600 O

g 500 H

O 400 MEASURED PREDXCTED 300 200 100 0

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 CORE AVERAGE EXPOSURE~

EFPH NF-TR-95-01 Supplement 1

1400 PXGURZ 2.3-2 ST LVCXE UNZT 2 CYCLE 9 BORON LETDOWN COMPAR1SON BETWEEN MEASUREMENT AND PREDXCTXON 1300 1200 g 1100 g 1000 0H 900 8U 800 0

g 700 0

0 600 HH500 H

D40 400 MEASURED PREDXCTED 300 200 100 0

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 CORE AVERAGE EXPOSUREi EFPH NP-TR-95-01 Supplement 1

2.00 FXGURE 2.3-3 ST LUCXE UNXT 2 CYCLE 8 AXXAL POWER DXSTRXBUTXON COMPARXSON BETWEEN CECOR AND ANC 1.75 CECOR 0

1.25 dd d

d d

d dd dd d

Pq 1. 00

~ g 0.75 0

0.50 0.25 0.00 0

12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 120 132 144 BOTTOM TOP AXIAL HEIGHTi INCHES BURNUP=467 MWD/MTU POWER LEVEL=100'18-

0

NF-TR-95-01 Supplement 1

2.00 ZXGURE 2.3-4 ST'UCRE UNXT 2 CYCLE 8 AXIAL POWER DXSTRXBUTZON COMPARXSON BETWEEN CECOR AND ANC 1.75 CECOR 1.50 g

1.25

'Pq 1. 00 4

4 4

4 4

4 g 0.75 0.50 0.25 0.00 0

12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 120 132 144 BOTTOM TOP AXIAL HEIGHTi INCHES BURNUP8165 MWD/MTU POWER LEVEL 1 0 0 io NF-TR-95-01 Supplement 1

2. 00 FIGURE 2.3-5 ST LUCRE UNXT 2 CYCLE 8 AXXAL POWER DXSTRXBUTXON COMPAR1SON BETWEEN CECOR AND ANC 1.75 CECOR 1.50 0

1.25 Pq 1. 00 g 0.75 0.50 0.25 0.00 0

12 24 36 48 60 '2 84 96 108 120 132 144 BOTTOM TOP AXXAL HEIGHT, INCHES BURNUP=1 62 8 6 MWD/MTU POWER LEVEL=89 2

'20-

0 I

NF-TR-95-01 Supplement 1

2.00 FIGURE 2.3-'6 ST LUCRE UNXT 2 CYCLE 9 AX1AL POWER DXSTRXBUTXOM COMPARISON BETWEEN CECOR 2') AMC 1.75 CECOR g0 1.25 Pq 1. 00 d

d d

d d

d g 0.75 0.50 0.25 0.00 0

12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 120 132 144 BOTTOM

~

TOP AXIAL HEIGHTi INCHES BURNUP=458 MlItD/HTU POWER LEVEL=100~o 0

) 0 0

NF-TR-95-01 Supplement 1

2.00 FIGURE 2.3-7

.ST LUCRE UNZT 2 CYCLE 9 AXIAL POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPARISON BETWEEN CECOR AND ANC 1.75 CECOR CC 0

1.25 Pq 1. 00 d

d d

g 0.75 0.50 0.25 0.00 0

12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 120 132 144 BOTTOM TOP AXIAL HEIGHTi INCHES BURNUP=5697 MWD/MTU POWER LEVEL 100~o P~ g t

NF-TR-95-01 Supplement 1

2.00 FXGURE 2.3-8 ST LUCRE UNXT 2 CYCLE 9 AXIAL POWER DZSTRXBUTXON COMPARISON BETWEEN BEACON AND ANC 1.75 BEACON 1.50 0g 1.25 Pg 1. 00 a

a a

a a

g 0.75 0.50 0.25 0.00 0

12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 120 132 144 BOTTOM TOP AXIAL HEIGHT INCHES BURNUP 13798 HWD/KZU POWER LEVEL100~o g

0

NF-TR-95-01 Supplement 1

3.0 REFERENCES

Croteau, Richard P., "Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 - Issuance of Ammendments Re: Implementation of FPL Nuclear Physics Methodology (TAC Nos. M91393 and M91394)," June 9, 1995.

2.

Langford, F.L. and Nath, R.J., "Evaluation of Nuclear Hot Channel Factor Uncertainties," WCAP-7308-L, April 1969, and Spier, E.M. and Nguyen, T.G., "Update to WCAP-7308-L-P-A (Proprietary), Evaluation of Nuclear Hot Channel Factor Uncertainties," June 1988.

3.

Meyer, C.E. and Stover, R.L, "INCORE Power Distribution Determination in Westinghouse Pressurized Water Reactors," WCAP-8498, July 1975.

4.

CENPD-153-NP Revision 1-NP-A, "INCA/CECOR Power Peaking Uncertainty," May 1980.

5.

Topical Report WCAP-12472-P-A, "BEACON Core Monitoring and Operations Support System," 1994.

I 0

I 1

0

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML17309A915&oldid=5080719"