ML18065A996

Forwards Response to Questions from 960814 Meeting Re Reactor Vessel Fluence

ML18065A996
Person / Time
Site:	Palisades
Issue date:	10/01/1996
From:	Bordine T CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.)
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
NUDOCS 9610090138
Download: ML18065A996 (35)

Text

,. -

. *. ~.

consumers Power l'OWERl#li llllClllliA#"S l'IUllillESS Palisades Nuclear Plant: 27780 Blue Star Memorial Highway, Covert, Ml 49043

• October 1, 1996 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 DOCKET 50-255 - LICENSE DPR PALISADES PLANT Thomas C. Bordine Manager. Licensing UPDATED REACTOR VESSEL FLUENCE SUBMITTAL - PARTIAL RESPONSE TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS On April 4, 1996, Consumers Power Company (CPCo) submitted a reevaluation of the Palisades fluence data. The reevaluation contained a new estimate of when the limiting reactor vessel material will reach the Pressurized Thermal Shock (PTS) screening criteria.

On May 15, 1996, CPCo met with the NRC staff to discuss the updated reactor vessel fluence values. On June 12 and 21, 1996, CPCo responded to the NRC questions from the May 15, 1996 meeting. On August 14, 1996, the NRC staff and CPCo met to further discuss the updated reactor vessel fluence submittal. At that meeting, the NRC staff asked additional questions..,On August 27, S~ptember 9, and September 19, 1996, CPCo submitted the first three parts of the response to those questions. This fourth-partial -

response is the final submittal planned and completes our response to the NRC questions from the August 14, 1996 meeting.

. AlVI /i A CMS' ENERGY COMPANY

SUMMARY

OF COMMITMENTS This letter contains no new commitments and no revisions to existing commitments.

Thomas C. Berdine Manager, Licensing CC Administrator, Region Ill, USNRC Project Manager, NRR, USNRC NRC Resident Inspector - Palisades Attachment 2

~*

ATTACHMENT 1 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY PALISADES PLANT DOCKET 50-255 CPCO RESPONSE TO NRC QUESTIONS FROM AUGUST 14, 1996 MEETING 32 Pages

~.

UPDATED FLUENCE SUBMITTAL Request for Additional Information 1.2 In view of the strong sensitivity of both the neutron and gamma capsule response to the spatial representation of the capsule, how were the Palisades capsule models verified?

4.5 It is indicated in Response 1.2 (RAl-1) that the new explicit modeling of the ex-vessel dosimetry resulted in up to a 23% increase in the f/uence. In view of the sensitivity of the measurements and the MIC bias to the capsule modeling, describe the in-vessel and ex-vessel capsule/dosimetry geometry and materials and how they were modeled in DORT. Is air or water included inside the capsule?

Note:

RAl-1 refers to "Palisades Plant Updated Reactor Vessel Fluence Submittal -

Balance of the Response to Questions", Letter, R.W. Smedley (CPCo) to USNRC, June 21, 1996.

CPCo Response These two RAl's are being responded to simultaneously since they both refer to the DORT modeling of the capsule measurement locations.

The configuration of a single surveillance capsule attached to the core support barrel or the reactor vessel cladding is shown in Figure 3.1-6 of WCAP-14557, Rev. 1. From a neutronic standpoint, the inclusion of the surveillance capsules and associated support structures in the analytical model is significant. Since the presence of the capsules and the support structure has a marked impact on the magnitude of the neutron flux as well as on the relative neutron energy spectra at dosimetry locations within the capsules, a meaningful comparison of measurement and calculation can be made only if these effects are properly accounted for in the analysis. Thus, the stainless steel holder tube, water gap, and carbon steel capsule block were included in the model. The DORT meshing defining the accelerated and wall capsules, along with the cavity measurements, is shown below.

Number of Centerline Centerline Number of Azimuthal Radial Azimuthal Capsule Radial Mesh Mesh Location (~m)

Location (deg)

• Accelerated 3

5.

196.. 06 30° Wall 3

3 215.43 20° Cavity 1

1 See Note See Note Note: Section 2.1 of WCAP-14557, Rev. 1 and "Palisades Plant Updated Reactor Vessel Fluence Submittal - Partial Response to Additional Questions", Letter, T.C. Berdine (CPCo) to USNRC, September 9, 1996 provide a description of the cavity measurement locations.

1

The mesh sizes of the Palisades model meet the guidelines established in Draft NRG

. Regulatory Guide DG-1053, "Calculational and Dosimetry Methods for Determining Pressure Vessel Neutron Fluence." However, no parametric study was performed to investigate the effect of changing the mesh sizes. The actual dosimetry wires were not explicitly modeled, as the flux solution was determined at the capsule centerline as defined above.

In contrast to the relatively massive stainless steel and carbon steel structures associated with the internal surveillance capsules, the small aluminum capsules used in the reactor cavity measurement program were designed to minimize perturbations in the neutron flux and, thus, to provide free field data at the measurement locations. Therefore, explicit modeling of these small capsules in the forward transport models was not required.

Request for Additional Information 1.3 Under certain conditions the flux in the cavity and biological shield exhibit non-physical spatial oscillations due to numerical approximations. Have the transport calculations been V(!Jrified to ensure that such oscillations are not present?

CPCo Response Figures 1.3-1 through 1.3-4 present azimuthal traverses in the Palisades reactor cavity for Q>(E > 1.0 MeV), <f>(E > 0.1 MeV}, <t>(E < 0.414 MeV), and dpa/sec, respectively. These four traverses are at radial locations of 255.71 cm, 262.82 cm, 273.23 cm, and *320.06 cm which represent cavity dosimetry positions anq general area cavity locations. It can be seen from the figures that there are no oscillations present. These figures represent the results from one DORT calculation, however, other cycles exhibit similar behavior.

2 i

Figure 1.3-1 Palisades <l>(E > 1.0 MeV) Azimuthal Traverses in the Reactor Cavity 1010-..--------------,-------,.------------,

~

Cl.I

~

~

109 A

~

-e-10 0

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Azimuthal Location (deg) 3

Figure 1.3-2 Palisades cf>(E > 0.1 MeV) Azimuthal Traverses in the Reactor Cavity

~

Cl.I

~

~

1010_

=

/I.

~

~

-e-IOQZ-/-~~,~..--l-.--,~l~~,~~l~..--,~l.--~'~~l~~,~..--1-.--,,~l~~,~~I~..--,~

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Azimuthal.Location (deg) 4

Figure 1.3-3 Palisades cp(E < 0.414 MeV) Azimuthal Traverses in the Reactor Cavity

~

~

~

..-4 109_

~ =

v

~

-e-lO~"--l-~~1---,-r--1-,.--~l~~,~~l~..--,~l.--~'~~l~~,~..--l~'r-~l~~,-.--rl~..--,~

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Azimuthal Location (deg) 5

Figure 1.3-4 Palisades dpa/sec Azimuthal Traverses in the Reactor Cavity 10-ll -_~-----------------------------.

10-13

'I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

. I -

I I

I I

I 0

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Azimuthal Location (deg) 6

Request for Additional Information 1.4 It is stated in WCAP-14557 that the analysis is consistent with the methods provided in DG-1053. However, no description of the calculation uncertainty analysis (except for the extrapolation from the capsule to the inner-wall) or the periodic calibration of the measurement system has been provided.

. CPCo Response As stated in Section 8.2 of WCAP-14557, Rev. 1, "The overall uncertainty in the best estimate exposure projections within the pressure vessel wall stem primarily from two sources:

and

a. The uncertainty in the bias factor (K) derived from the plant specific measurement data base,

b. The additional uncertainty associated with applying the M/C bias factor at the pressure vessel wall."

The use of the measurement data on a plant specific basis essentially removes biases present in the analytical approach and mitigates the uncertainties that wquld result from the use of analysis alone. Therefore, uncertainties associated with input parameters such as the neutron source, core geometry, core coolant temperature, and bypass temperature are

• reflected directly in MIC bias factor with its associated uncertainty and should not be counted a second time in the evaluation of a total uncertainty in the exposure of the pressure vessel wall. The additional uncertainties that should legitimately be combined with the bias factor uncertainty are associated primarily with extrapolating the results at relative locations of the dosimetry measurement points to the pressure vessel wall. As discussed in Section 8.2 of WCAP-14557, Rev. 1, these additional uncertainty components were based on analytica*1 sensitivity studies performed for the Palisades reactor. The net uncertainty of 14.5% for fluence E > 1.0 MeV provided in Section 8.2 of WCAP-14557, Rev. 1 was based on a combination of the uncertainty in the bias factor and the uncertainty from the analytical sensitivity study.

Internal surveillance capsule and ex-vessel reactor cavity dosimetry packages irradiated at Palisades consist of comprehensive multiple foil sensor sets using a variety of radiometric monitors. Following irradiation, the specific activity of each of the irradiated radiometric sensors was determined at the Westinghouse Waltz Mill Analytical Services Laboratory using the latest version of ASTM counting procedwe~ for _each reaction. In addition to the quality introduced by the use of the ASTM standards in the evaluation ofsensor reaction rates, these procedures have been tested via round-robin counting exercises included as a part of the NRC sponsored Light Water Reactor Surveillance Dosimetry Improvement Program (LWR-SDIP) as well as by evaluation of fluence counting standards provided by the National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST).

In addition to the round-robin counting exercises and standards testing of the counting 7

procedures, a further consistency check on the measured reaction rates from surveillance capsule and reactor cavity irradiations are routinely obtained from an examination of the

--~- - -

several location and reactor dependent data bases developed over many years of performing reactor dosimetry. Since the relative neutron spectrum at a given measurement location within the reactor geometry remains essentially constant over plant lifetime, the spectral index as measured by reaction rate ratios of individual sensors does not vary with time. Therefore, the measured reaction rate ratios from any individual sensor set can be compared with the data base applicable to the sensor location to provide confidence that the latest counting results are consistent with past practice. Potential counting errors or anomalies would become immediately apparent when these comparisons are made.

A more extensive discussion of the various uncertainties associated with the best estimate

_ pressure vessel exposure are in WCAP-13390 included as part of a 1992 submittal regarding the Palisades vessel fluence.

8

Reguest for Additional Information 2.5 Discuss the effect of Pu build-up and changes in the power in the peripheral assemblies during the cycle on short half-life dosimeter measurements (i.e., the C/s).

CPCo Response Pu build-up is a long term, high burn-up effect and not a function of the power changes during a single cycle. The changes in power during the cycle may have an impact on the short half-life measurements.

Table 2.5-1 is taken from Table 7.2-1 of WCAP 14557, Rev. 1 and shows the M/C bias factor for the 46Ti (n,p) and 58Ni (n,p) reactions (short half-life dosimetry measurements) compared to the longer half-life 137Cs product reactions, which is less sensitive to power changes.

The data show that the short half-life reactions are in agreement with the long half-life reactions indicating that the C/s are properly accounting for the power changes.

Additionally, the MIC bias factor for the W110 in-vessel capsule (irradiated for 10 cycles) is consistent with the single cycle and shorter multi-cycle irradiations.

9

Table 2.5-1 Comparison of the Sensitivity of the Short Half-life Dosimetry to Power Changes

~*~.o Ti46(n.p)

Ni58(n.p)

U238(n.f)

Np237(n.f)

Internal A240 (30°)

1.069 0.863 W290 (20°)

0.962 0.878 0.858 W290-9 (20°)

1.009 0.860 0.871 0.817 W110 (20°)

0.993 0.865 6° Cavity Cycle 9 0.964 0.844 0.875 0.932 Cycle 10/11 0.946 0.881 1.049 0.874 16° Cavity Cycle 8 0.948 0.852 0.833 1.083 Cycle 9 0.911 0.830 0.753 0.900 Cycle 10/11 0.930 0.874 0.868 0.864 24° Cavity Cycle 10/11 0.886 0.811 0.916 0.713 26° Cavity Cycle 8 0.933 0.825 0.797 0.992 Cycle 9 0.919 0.834 0.873

. 0.982 Cycle 10/11 0.943 0.838 0.885 0.888 36° Cavity Cycle 10/11 0.859 0.835 0.798 39° Cavity Cycle 8 0.940 0.822 0.771 0.934 Cycle 9 0.896 0.798 0.708 0.752 Cycle 10/11 0.908 0.810 0.814 0.793 Average 0.942 0.843 0.847 0.880 Std. Dev. (1o) 0.049 0.026 0.079 0.101 10

Request for Additional Information 2.6 Why are all in-vessel measurements (except for Ti"-46 in A-240 and W290-9) over predicted?

CPCo Response Responses to 1.1 and 1.2 of RAl-1 provided detailed reasons as to the changes in the calculations, including the cross-section library, coolant temperatures, core sources, among others. These changes collectively introduce a bias that results in an over prediction. In some cases, such as 46Ti in A240 and W290-9, there is an under prediction.

However, it should be noted that the response range for the 46Ti (n,p) reaction is E > 4.4 MeV, which is a region sparse in neutrons.

Request for Additional Information 2.7 Why was the Jog-normal least squares adjustment chosen?

CPCo Response The log-normal least squares algorithm weights both the trial values and the measured data in accordance with the assigned uncertainties and correlations. In general, the measured values fare linearly related to the flux <l> by some response matrix A:

~(s,a) = L ~~) <J>~a) g where i indexes the measured values belonging to a single data set s, g designates the energy group, and a delineates spectra that may be simultaneously adjusted. For

• example,*

relates a set of measured reaction rates R; to a single spectrum <l>9 by the multigroup

-. reaction cross:section 0;9:* The log:.normal-approach automatically accounts for the.

physical constraint of positive fluxes, even with large assigned uncertainties, thus it ensures flux values are positive.

A detailed description of the method of solution is given by Schmittroth, E. A., "FERRET Data Analysis Code", HEDL-TME-79-40, Hanford Engineering Development Laboratory, Richland, Washington, September 1979.

11

Request for Additional Information 2.8 The axial fluence distribution in the cavity is flatter than at the vessel inner-wall and direct application of the chain axial measurements to the (r,9) calculated inner-wall f/uence results in an under prediction of the peak wall fluence. How

• was this effect accommodated in the interpretation of the (off-midplane) measurements and the prediction of the vessel fluence?

ePeo Response Table 7.1-1 of weAP-14557, Rev. 1, provides the average bias factor used to calculate the best estimate fluence at the pressure vessel, excluding the off-midplane cavity measurements. Thus the peak pressure vessel fluence, at the core midplane, is determined using the midplane measurements.

The Palisades circumferential weld is located very near the mid plane of the core so the off-midplane fluences are provided in weAP-14557, Rev. 1 for reference only.

Request for Additional Information 2.9 Have fission products other than Cs-137 (e.g., Zr-95 or Ru-103) been measured in the analysis of the fission dosimeters? If so, do the resulting fluence estimates agree with the Cs-137 fluence predictions?

ePeo Response In Table 7.2-1 of WeAP-14557, Rev. 1, comparisons of the unadjusted measured and calculated reaction rates for the 238U (n,f) and 237Np (n,f) reactions are provided in terms of.

M/e ratios. These comparisons were based on the measurement of the 30-year half-life mes fission product. The average M/e ratios derived from the data provided in Table 7.2-1 are as follows:

23au (n,f) 131es 237Np (n,f) mes M/e Ratio 0.847 0.880 Standard Deviation 0.079 0.101

• 1n the radiochemical* ~malysis of the fission sensors frorrf all of the reactor cavity measurements as well as from in-vessel wall capsule W-290-9, the short half-life 95Zr and 103Ru fission products were measured and processed along with the mes isotope for both the 238U (n,f) and 237Np (n,f) reactions. A comparison of the M/e ratios derived from each of these fission products is summarized as follows:

12

23au (n,f) 137Cs 238U (n,f) Zr-95 238U (n,f) Ru-103 238U (n,f) Average 237Np {n,f) 137Cs 237Np (n,f) Zr-95 237Np (n,f) Ru-103 237Np (n,f) Average MIC Ratio 0.847 0.794 0.802 0.814 0.880 0.827 0.908 0.872 Standard Deviation 0.079 0.064 0.061 0.056 0.101 0.093 0.089 0.089 Fractional Difference

-0.063

-0.053

-0.039

-0.060

+0.032

-0.009 In addition to the M/C ratios provided individually for each of the three fission products, data are included based on the average of the three measurement results for each fission reaction. Also included in the tabulation is the fractional change in the M/C ratio relative to the 137Cs based values that were used in the determination of the Best Estimate neutron exposure of the Palisades reactor pressure vessel.

. The fractional differences listed above are obtained from the following ~quation:

F = Subset M/C ~ Qs137 M/C Cs137 M/C An examination of the M/C comparisons shows that, for both the 238U (n,*f) and 237Np (n,f) reactions, all of data sets fall within one standard deviation of the ratio based on the 137Cs fission product. Furthermore, M/C ratios based on the average of all three fission products fall within 4% and 1 % of the values based solely on 137Cs for the 238U (n,f) and 237Np (n,f).

reactions, respectively. It is also evident that the use of the reaction rates based on the average of the three fission products in place of those based solely on 137Cs measurements would result in a small reduction in the derived Best Estimate neutron exposure of the pressure vessel.

13

' (

Request for Additional Information 2.10 Is there any difference between the MIC f/uence bias determined for the short-lived fission products, such as Sc-46 (84 d) and Co-58 (71 d), which are sensitive to the recent (-3 Month) power-history and the long-lived nuclides, such as Cs-137 (30.2 y), Co-60 (5.3 y), and Mn-54 (312 d), which are sensitive to the power history over several cycles? Note that the Ti-46 seems to be under predicted for capsules A-

. 240 and W-290-9.

CPCo Response Based on the unadjusted comparisons provided in Table 7.2-1 ofWCAP-14557, Rev. 1, the M/C bias observed for each of the sensors is summarized as follows:

Standard Product M/C Bias Deviafion Half-Life (day:s) 63Cu(n,a)6°Co 0.922 0.046 1925.2 46Ti(n,p)46Sc 0.942 0.049

~3.81 54Fe(n,p)54Mn 0.836 0.033 312.5 58Ni(n,p)58Co 0.843

• 0.026 70.82 23au ( n, f) 131 Cs 0.847 0.079

• 11020 231Np(n,f)131cs 0.880 0.101 11020 -

From this data comparison; no correlation between the observed M/C bias and the product half-life is evident. The 6:3Cu (Ty, = 1925.2 days) and 46Ti.(Ty, = 83.81 days) high eriergy * *.

threshold sensors yield essentially the same M/C bias (0.922 vs 0.942). Likewise, the. 54Fe (Ty, = 312:5 days) and 58Ni (Ty, = 70.82 days)* medium energy threshold. sensors also yield self consistent results -(0.836 vs 0.843). If a bias were to exist due to the product half-lives*

of the respective sensors, the expectation would be that the 46Ti and 58Ni results would*..

tend to agree and both-would be differentiated from the results obtained from the.sensors with longer half-life reaction products. Clearly this is not the case with the Palisades dat~

s.et.

The M/C ratios from the individual sensors does, however, imply that a bias exists between the high threshold 63Cu and 46Ti results and the remainder of the M/C data base.

If the 63Cu and 46Ti M/C ratios are treated as a data set separate from the remainder of the data provided in Table 7.. 2-1, the following comparison can*be made:

63Cu/46Ti Data Set s4Fe/saNiJ23BLJJ237Np Data Set Average MIC Ratio 0.932 0.851

-- -standard Deviation 0.048 0.066 Relative frequency histograms of the sample sets comprising these two M/C data bases 14

are depicted in Figure 2.10-1. The individual bin sizes chosen for the construction of the histograms correspond to the standard deviation of the respective data sets. From Figure 2.10-1 it is noted that the mean of the two data sets differ from one another by more than the standard deviations.

As discussed in response to RAI 3.2 (included in the CPCo letter dated September 19, 1996), due to the sparsity of neutrons at high energies, the M/C for the Fe/Ni/U/Np group is more heavily weighted than the Cu/Ti group.

15

0.5 0.4 -

0.3 -

0.2 -

0.1 -

Figure 2.10-1 Relative Frequency Distributions of Unadjusted M/C Ratios

__ Cu, Ti

_Fe, Ni, U, Np I

.I I

I

! I

~r-r-*

r

I I

l

'I I

i 1 I

I

! I I

J

• I i '(

1 1r,

I I*

.. ----~

/::

I

( I; i;

t-----

1 I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

J ll ll *.J I

II I:. *. 1*:,1*

1---_~,"'~""1---;

0.0 --,---.-.......,...---,----.---+---,r--r--.,.._..-...-;.l~l......._.---;.~I,~* _..,......11,......._.,._~l---r----..~~ic~~~l....,..._l,...-~1.....,...---,----,.--,--1 I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I 'I I

I I

i I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

0.6 0.7 0.8

,0.9" 1.0 1.1 1.2 MIC Ratio 16

Reguest for Additional Information 2.11 The measured and calculated flux values for W-290 appear to be lower in WCAP-14557 compared to those reported in WCAP-10637. What is the justification for the new values given that the computational methodology has not changed?

CPCo Response The measured and calculated flux values for W-290 are lower in WCAP-14557, Rev. 1 than in the previously published WCAP-10637. However, several significant differences exist between the two evaluations. Most of these differences were discussed in RAl-1, but will also be highlighted in this response.

The calculation documented in WCAP-10637 was based on the use of a single core power d.istribution representative of Cycle 5 and assumed an axial peaking factor of 1.2. The analysis assumed one coolant temperature distribution for the entire irradiation period and made use of ENDF/8-IV transport cross-sections from the SAILOR library. The analysis described in WCAP-14557, Rev. 1 was based on the use of ENDF/B-VI transport cross-sections from the BUGLE-93 library. The co'olant temperatures, as well as the core neutron sources, including axial peaking effects, were treated on an individual fuel cycle basis rather than as an average over the irradiation period.

In the determination of reaction rates from the measured sensor specific activities, the analysis documented in WCAP-14557, Rev. 1 utilized an improved decay correction that accounted for the variation in fuel cycle dependent neutron flux atthe sensor set location and accounted for the effects of photo-fission in the 238U sensor. The prior evaluation neglected the effects of photo-fission and did not incorporate the impact of cycle dependent neutron flux.

In the determination of neutron fluence from the measured reaction rates, the WCAP-10637 evaluation was based on the spectrum averaged cross-section approach and utilized ENDF/B-IV based dosimetry reaction rate cross-sections, while the WCAP-14557, Rev. 1 analysis was based on the least squares adjustment approach using dosimetry reaction cross-sections from the ENDF/B-VI data files.

Discussions of the impact of these differences in methodology were submitted as a part of RAl-1.

17

Request for Additional Information

4. 1 In Response -1. 1 (it~m-2), it is stated that comparisons of the DORT calculations with pin-wise sources determined by PDQ and SIMULA TE-3 yield consistent results. Provide the comparison of these results.

CPCo Response CPCo made the change to SIMULA TE-3 source data based on industry experience and in-house benchmarking that showed SIMULA TE-3 did a better job of modeling the Palisades reactor core. In-house checks of this source data were made to ensure that no large difference existed between the SIMULA TE-3 and PDQ/XTG data that might indicate a problem with the processing of this data.

In-house calculations were performed to validate the use of SIMULA TE-3 pin-wise source distributions. These calculations made a direct comparison between the PDQ/XTG and SIMULATE-3 sources for cycles 9, 10 and 11. These are the cycles for which the individual cycle PDQ/XTG source data is readily available. Table 4.1-1 below provides this comparison.

Cycles 9

10 11 O Degrees PDQ/XTG 1.97E+10 1.42E+10 1.25E+10 SIMULATE-3 2.01E+10 1.53E+10 1.34E+10 16 Degrees PDQ/XTG 3.00E+10 2.27E+10 1.98E+10 SIMULATE-3 3.10E+10 2.31E+10 2.01E+10 30 Degrees PDQ/XTG 1.93E+10 1.90E+10 1.48E+10 SIMULATE-3 1.95E+10 1.88E+10 1.49E+10 45 Degrees PDQ/XTG 1.07E+10 1.26E+10 0.93E+10 SIMULATE-3 1.08E+10 1.24E+10 0.94E+10 Table4.1-1 Source Comparisons for Cycles 9, 10, and 11.

Clad/Base Metal Interface ( 4> > 1 MeV.)

As shown in Table 4.1-1 the SIMULATE-3 results provide very consistent answers over th~Jhree cycl~_s exall_lined. The values listed above are from an in-house caLculation that provided values consistent with Westinghouse values shown in CPCo's April 4, 1996 updated fluence submittal. Additional spot checks were made by both CPCo and Westinghouse to ensure that SIMULA TE-3 source data calculated for early cycles was reasonable.

A more elaborate check of the early cycle pin data is provided in response to this request.

Pin-wise data for quarter core assemblies 8, 24, and 38, as defined in Figure 4.1-1, is 18

shown for cycles 2 and 4. Cycle 4 is shown because it provided the highest flux levels during the first five cycles. Cycles 1 and 2 were of interest to the NRC because of the large difference in the flux levels they produce when compared to the cycle 1 through 5 average fluxes reported in the CPCo's June 5, 1992 fluence submittal. Cycle 1 pin-wise source data used in the previous calculations was created using the cycle 2 pin power gradient. For this reason a direct comparison of pin-wise sources for cycle 2 is presented in this response. Tables 4.1-2 to 4.1-7 provide the pin-wise comparison for both cycle 2 and cycle 4. Percent differences are calculated relative to the core average pin power (1.0).

Tables 4.1-2 to 4.1-7 show that the two sources are different in both gradient and magnitude, but these differences are considered *reasonable by CPCo. It is apparent from the data provided that some of the changes in calculated fluence may have been caused by the change in pin-wise sources. However these changes are not major contributors to the overall change.

In addition, the Staff asked the plant to provide an example of core averaged axial power distributions. Included as Figures 4.1-2 to 4.1-4 are core averaged axial power distributions taken from the plant's Safety Analysis Review (SAR) prepared by Siemens Power Corporation for the cycle 11 core reload design. These three figures show axial power shape$ at the beginning, middle, and end of the cycle 10 fuel cycle. These figures were provided in the SAR report to demonstrate XTG's ability to predict the m~asured shape. They are presented here to provide the Staff with an example of typical axial

-power distributions.

19

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Shroud 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 Figure 4.1-1 Quarter Core Assemblies Numbering 20

XTG/PDQ Averaae RI e ative Pin Powers Averac e Assembly Relative Power 0.725 1.093 1.044 1.011 0.997 :.\\;,**.*:,:::<: 0.932 0.874 0.827 0.786 0.754 @;,::::::'j,):\\ 0.654 0.581 0.516 0.452 1.006 1.044 1.003 0.980 0.957 0.913 0.862 0.817 0.777 0.741 0.701 0.642 0.577 0.520 0.418 0.965 0.992 0.943 0.909 0.878 0.842 0.803 0.763 0.724 0.684 0.640 0.590 0.538 0.492 0.402 0.964 0.979 0.918 0.877 0.844 0.810 0.775 0.738 0.699 0.658 0.614 0.567 0.521 0.483 0.401

.. *.*..,

• : 0.977 0.906 0.863 0.829 0.797 0.764 0.728 0.689 0.647 0.603 0.557 0.514 0.479,,*+**... ::>

0.948 0.960 0.897 0.855 0.822 0.792 0.762 0.729 0.688 0.643 0.598 0.553 0.509 0.473 0.395 0.920 0.942 0.889 0.851 0.819 0.792 0.770 0.745 0.696 0.644 0.596 0.550 0.506 0.467 0.387 0.910 0.934 0.884 0.848 0.817 0.792 0.779

"' 0.705 0.645 0.595 0.549 0.504 0.464 0.384 l'*'*S.:::J:*;;qJ' 0.916 0.937 0.884 0.846 0.815 0.788 0.766 0.742 0.693 0.641 0.594 0.548 0.503 0.465 0.385 0.938 0.950 0.888 0.846 0.814 0.784 0.754 0.722 0.681 0.637 0.592 0.547 0.504 0.468 0.391 i * *.. *h**:*;: 0.960 0.891 0.848 0.814 0.782 0.750 0.726 0.677 0.636 0.592 0.548 0.505 0.472

~<:. '!':.*!:+

0.939 0.953 0.892 0.852 0.819 0.787 0.753 0.717 0.679 0.639 0.596 0.551 0.507 0.470 0.391 0.926 0.949 0.899 0.865 0.835 0.801 0.764 0.727 0.689 0.650 0.608 0.562 0.513 0.471 0.387 0.9:41 0.970 0.926 0.902 0.879 0.838 0.792 0.751 0.713 0.680 0.642 0.589 0.531 0.482 0.391 0.982 0.923 0.886 0.871

,*;,+:~,,,,..* 0.811 0.759 0.717 0.681 0.654

>E?'.*.'C.:\\',,*;:.. : 0.567 0.504 0.451 0.403 SIMULATE 3A veraae RI f p* P ea 1ve in owe rs A verac e A bl RI f P

ssem 1v

• e a 1ve ow er 0 769 1.106 1.025 0.982 0.970 ;1i:;;\\!:H:**'. 0.895 0.829 0.782 0.743 0.716 mi:mU:':i:')::*:.**i 0.610 0.539 0.482 0.433 1.043* 1.069 1.024 0.997 0.977 0.921 0.868 0.822 0.778 0.738 0.697 0:630 0.566 0.511 0.421 1.022 1.047 0.995 0.958 0.923 0.883 0.841 0.798 0.754 0.708 0.659 0.606 0.553 0.504 0:418 1.039 1.048 0.984 0.941 0.904 0.866 0.827 0.785 0.741 0.694 0.645 0.595 0.547 0.505 0.427 r.;/'.. i: 1.060 0.979 0.933 0.895 0.860 0.822 0.781 0.736 0.688 0.638 0.589 0.544 0.511 1.027 1.038 0.973 0.929 0.893 0.860 0.826 0.787 0.740 0.688 0.636 0.586 0.539 0.500 0.424 0.994 1.021 0.967 0.926 0.891 0.863 0.843 0.821 0.754 0.690 0.634 0.583 0.536 0.491 0.410 0.985 1.015 0.964 0.923 0.890 0.863 0.863

,,,,.,,.,,.,,,..,,,, 0.77';.. 0.)90 0.633 0.582 0.533 0.489 0.406 0.991 1.017 0.963 0.922 0.888 0.859 0.839 0.817 0.751 0.686 0.631 0.581 0.533 0.489 0.409 1.020 1.030 0.966 0.921 0.885 0.852 0.818 0.780 o.t32 0.681 0.630 0.580 0.534 0.496 0.421

,'.);:{:$;;, 1.049 0.968 0.922 0.884 0.849 0.811 0.770 0.726 0.679 0.629 0.581 0.536 0.505..,,;;~:w~::*;"!:

1.022 1.033 0.970 0.926 0.889 0.852 0.813 0.772 0.728 0.681 0.633 0.584 0.538 0.497 0.421 1.001 1.027 0.977 0.940 0.905 0.866 0.824 0.781 0.738 0.693 0.646 0.594 0.542 0.495 0.411 1.013 1.045 1.002 0.977 0.957 0.902 0.849 0.804 0.761 0.722 0.683 0.618 0.556 0.502 0.413 1.061 0.996 0.960 0.951

!::>>;*** 0.878 0.814 0.768 0.730 0.704

• ~f

  ';::*;j;***' 0.601 0.532 0.475 0.425 Percent Difference in Relative Core Power

-1.3%

1.9%

2.9%

2.7%

.. :*::*:*'.:."..'" 3.7%

4.5%

4.5%

4.3%

3.8% ~4.4% 4.2%

3.4%

1.9%

-3.7%

-2.5% -2.1% -1.7% -2.0% -0.8% -0.6% -0.5% -0.1%

0.3%

0.4%

1.2%

1.1%

0.9%

-0.3%

-5.7%

-5.5% -5.2% -4.9% -4.5% -4.1% -3.8% -3.5% -3.0% -2.4% -1.9% -1.6% -1.5% -1.2%

-1.6%

-7.5% -6.9% -6.6% -6.4% -6.0% -5.6% -5.2% -4.7% -4.2% -3.6% -3.1% -2.8% -2.6% -2.2%

-2.6%

• .. *.;;*:::,ry,j -8.3% -7.3% -7.0% -6.6% -6.3% -5.8% -5.3% -4.7% -4.1% -3:5% -3.2% -3.0% -3.2%

lc*:*.~*;jt

-7.9% -7.8% -7.6% -7.4% -7.1% -6.8% -6.4% -5.8% -5.2% -4.5% -3.8% -3.3% -3.0% -2.7%

-2.9%

-7.4% -7.9% -7.8% -7.5% -7.2% -7.1% -7.3% -7.6%

-5.8% -4.6% -3.8% -3.3% -3.0% -2.4% -2.3%

-7.5%

-8.1% -8.0% -7.5% -7.3% -7.1% -8.4%

1*-'A.:,~*mmt:Vii' -6.7% -4.5% -3.8% -3.3% -2.9% -2.5% -2.2%

-7.5% -8.0% -7.9% -7.6% -7.3% -7.1% -7.3% -7.5% -5.8% -4.5% -3.7% -3.3% -3.0% -2.4% -2.4%

-8.2% -8.0% -7.8% -7.5% -7.1% -6.8% -6.4% -5.8% -5.1% -4.4% -3.8% -3.3% -3.0% -2.8% -3.0%

f'.*::*.:*1 -8.9% -7.7% -7.4% -7.0% -6.7% -6.1% -4.4% -4.9% -4.3% -3.7% -3.3% -3.1% -3.3% :Fifo?U

-8.3% * ~8.oo/o -1.8% -7.4% -7.0% -6.5% -6.0% --5.5%

-4.9% -4.2% -3.7o/o

-3.3% -3.1% -2.7%

-3.0%

-7.5% -7.8% -7.8% -7.5% -7.0% -6.5% -6.0% -5.4% -4.9% -4.3% -3.8% -3.2% -2.9% -2.4%

-2.4%

-7.2% -7.5% -7.6% -7.5% -7.8% -6.4% -5.7% -5.3% -4.8%

-4.2o/o

-4.1% -2.9% -2.5% -2.0%

-2.2%

-7.9% -7.3% -7.4% -8.0%

!:'.::~:*>.*:'* -6.7% -5.5% -5.1% -4.9% -5.0% :i'>::,;;.

C:: -3.4% -2.8% -2.4%

-2.2%

Table 4.1-2 Quarter Core Assembl*y 8 Cycle 2 21

XTG/PDQ Averaae RI.

e at1ve Pin Powers Averac e Assemblv Relative Power 0.551 1.045 0.982 0.939 0.917

{

::,

0.843 0.785 0.737 0.697 0.665 i::'.h:,,

0.573 0.508 0.452 0.401 0.951 0.975 0.924 0.893 0.865 0.818 0.765 0.720 0.680 0.645 0.607 0.554 0.497 0.450 0.367 0.903 0.916 0.858 0.817 0.781 0.741 0.700 0.660 0.621 0.583 0.543 0.498 0.454 0.417 0.346 0.892 0.893 0.823 0.776 0.737 0.700 0.663 0.625 0.587 0.548 0.508 0.467 0.429 0.399 0.337 0.879 0.801 0.751 0.711 0.675 0.639 0.603 0.565 0.526 0.486 0.447 0.412 0.387 *Q'

oocm FF-"*:'"'*<

0.855 0.852 0.780 0.730 0.691 0.655 0.622 0.588 0.549 0.508 0.469 0.430 0.396 0.370 0.313 0.818 0.820 0.757 0.710 0.672 0.639 0.612 0.585 0.539 0.493 0.452 0.414 0.380 0.352 0.295 0.794 0.797 0.736 0.690 0.652 0.621 0.601

,,,,..,,,,,,.., 0.528 0.477 0.435 0.398 0.364 0.336 0.281 0.780 0.780 0.716 0.669 0.630 0.597 0.570 0.543 0.499 0.455 0.416 0.380 0.347 0.321 0.269 0.776 0.768 0.697 0.647 0.606 0.571 0.539 0.506 0.469 0.431 0.395 0.361 0.330 0.308 0.259

t;:'U'".~~*, 0.752 0.674 0.622 0.581 0.545 0.511 0.477 0.442 0.408 0.374 0.342 0.313 0.293 I

+t:~I:,:.:*::r 0.730 0.718 0.647 0.597 0.557 0.520 0.485 0.451 0.418 0.385 0.353 0.322 0.294 0.274 0.230 0.686 0.680 0.620 0.575 0.538 0.501 0.465 0.431 0.398 0.367 0.337 0.306 0.278 0.256 0.212 0.654 0.653 0.603 0.568 0.537 0.498 0.457 0.421 0.389 0.361 0.333 0.301 0.269 0.245 0.202 0.626 0.570 0.539 0.518...,,,,,..,,.,,:,.,

0.459 0.418 0.384 0.354 0.328

~:,o,:;*:*,~,;:.*' 0.272 0.241 0.217 0.200 IM S

ULATE -3 Averaae RI.

p* P e at1ve m owe rs A verac e A bl RI.

P ssem IV e at1ve ower 0 575 1.061 0.967 o.915 0.896

,~*i*,

:*::~::.*..., 0.813 0.747 0.699 0.659 0.630 li'.jj;*..... ;::, 0.526 0.459 0.403 0.354 0.981 0.998 0.945 0.912 0.886 0.828 0.774 0.726 0.682 0.641 0.600 0.535 0.474 0.420 0.336 0.947 0.963 0.906 0.863 0.825 0.782 0.738 0.693 0.649 0.603 0.555 0.503 0.452 0.404 0.325 0.950 0.951 0.883 0.835 0.794 0.754 0.712 0.669 0.624 0.578 0.530 0.482 0.436 0.394 0.323 1:j~~;.('fo'.'i 0.949 0.865 0.814 0.773 0.733 0.693 0.651 0.606. 0.559 0.511 0.464 0.421 0.387 t~:,;:[:::ii\\jt':::

0.914 0.914 0.844 0.795 0.754 0.716 0.679 0.638 0.592 0.542 0.493 0.447 0.404 0.366 0.300 0.871 0.883 0.822 0.774 0.734 0.699 0.673 0:646 0.584 0.525 0.475 0.429 0.386 0.347 0.280 0.848 0.860 0.800 0.753 0.711 0.678 0.666 t'.'<***""'"""' 0.575 0.504 0.454 0.409 0:368 0.330 0.266

,;* *],';

• ;"

0.837 0.842 0.779 0.729 0.686 0.649 0.621 0.593 0.533 0.477 0.430 0.388 0.349 0.314 0.255 0.843 0.831 0.757 0.703 0.657 0.617 0.578 0.537 0.493. 0.448 0.405 0.365 0.330 0.301 0.250

• t:;;.;;;;;*:.n:*H 0.821 0.733 0.675 0.627 0.584 0.542 0.500 0.458 0.417 0.378 0.341 0.309 0.286

• • d*'""''

"" 0.800 0.780 0.704 0.647 0.598 0.552 0.509 0.467 0.426 0.387 0.350 0.315 0.285 0.261 0.219 0.755 0.745 0.677 0.622 0.573 0.525 0.478 0:435 0.396 0.359 0.324 0.291 0.261 0.236 0.196 0.733 0.723 0.658 0.608 0.565 0.505 0.452 0.407 0.368 0.335 0.306 0.269 0.239 0.215 0.179 0.728 0.650 0.591 0.550 :L't::'.I*; 0.448 0.390 0.347 0.312 0.287

• ,;,;~;'.;'

...,/* 0.229 0.199 0.179 0.166 Percent Difference in Relative Core Power

-1.6%

1.5%

2.4%

2.1%

I :,;;:;'i')t,K: 3.0%

3.8%

3.8%

3.8%

3.5% ;;:'i:r,fr.z*.:' 4.7%

4.9%

4.9%

4.7%

-3.0% -2.3% -2.1% -1.9% -2.1% -1.0% -0.9% -0.6%

-0.2%

0.4%

0.7%

1.9%

2.3%

3.0%

3.1%

-4.4% -4.7% -4.8% -4.6% -4.4% -4.1% -3.8% -3.3% -2.8% -2.0% -1.2% -0.5%

0.2%

1.3%

2.1%

-5.8% -5.8% -6.0% -5.9% -5.7% -5.4% -4.9% -4.4% -3.7% -3.0% -2.2% -1.5% -0.7%

0.5%

1.4%

-7.0% -6.4% -6.3% -6.2% -5.8% -5.4%.-4.8% -4.1%

-3.3% -2.5% -1.7% -0.9%

0.0%

• . *.*. *""**. )~)\\,,~

!;\\>;C;:<<:'i>,'

• "o;'ti!i!/E1:::::*

-5.9% -6.2% -6.4% -6.5% -6.3% -6.1% -5.7% -5.0% -4.3% -3.4% -2.4% -1.7% -0.8%

0.4%

1.3%

-5.3% -6.3% -6.5% -6.4% -6.2% -6.0% -6.1% -6.1% -4.5% -3.2% -2.3% -1.5% -0.6%

0.5%

1.5%

-5.4% -6.3% -6.4% -6.3% -5.9% -5.7% -6.5%

'

.!,'.'"H"frt~fli -4.7% -2.7% -1.9% -1.1% -0.4%

0.6%

1.5%

-5.7% -6.2% -6.3% -6.0% -5.6% -5.2% -5.1% -5.0% -3.4% -2.2% -1.4% -0.8% -0.2%

0.7%

1.4%

-6.7% -6.3% -6.0% -5.6% -5.1% -4.6% :.3.9% -3.1%

-2.4% -1.7% -1.0% -0.4%

0.0%

0.7%

0.9%

i~*t***... *:::*r* -6.9% -5.9% -5.3% -4.6% -3.9% -3.1% -2.3% -1.6% -0.9% -0.4%

0.1%

0.4%

0.7%

i:;>"'A:f;i:::::*

. ~7.0% -6.2% -5.7% -5.0% -4:1% -3.2% -2.4%

~1.6% -0.8% -0.2%

0.3%. 0.7%

0.9%

1.3%

1.1%

-6.9% -6.5% -5.7% -4.7% -3.5% -2.4% -1.3% -0.4%

0.2%

0.8%

1.3%

1.5%

1.7%

2.0%

1.6%

-7.9% -7.0% -5.5% -4.0% -2.8% -0.7%

0.5%

1.4%

2.1%

2.6%

2.7%

3.2%

3.0%

3.0%

2.3%

10.2% -8.0% -5.2% -3.2%

.:~;Li(: : 1.1%

2.8%

3.7%

4.2%

4.1% !;:::'::** 4.3%

4.2%

3.8%

3.4%

Table 4.1-3 Quarter Core Assembly 24 Cycle 2 22

XTG/PDQA veraae RI r p* P ea 1ve in owe rs A verac e A bl RI.

P ssem IV e at1ve ower 0 8

.4 8 1.093 0.995 0.935 0.905 1: '(:::*;;,~:,_:*. 0.829 0.772 0.726 0.688 0.657 l';::c;. '.'. ' 0.567 0.504 0.453 0.411 0.997 0.982 0.909 0.870 0.&;39 0.793 0.741 0.698 0.660 0.628 0.592 0.541 0.487 0.446 0.374 0.939 0.911 0.831 0.781 0.743 0.705 0.666 0.629 0.593 0.557 0.520 0.478 0.438 0.408 0.350 0.911 0.874 0.783 0.728 0.688 0.653 0.618 0.584 0.550 0.514 0.478 0.441 0.407 0.385 0.335

'-"'"*-*..;o:, 0.845 0.747 0.689 0.649 0.616 0.584 0.552 0.519 0.484 0.449 0.414 0.384 0.367 l>:::*['t"i:'

0.838 0.799 0.710 0.655 0.617 0.586 0.557 0.528 0.494 0.459 0.425 0.392 0.363 0.345 0.302 0.782 0.749 0.672 0.622 0.586 0.558 0.536 0.514 0.476 0.437 0.402 0.370 0.342 0.322 0.280 0.737 0.707 0.635 0.589 0.555 0.530 0.515

,:",::t':*7,rn 0.457 0.414 0.374 0.349 0.321 0.302 0.262 0.699 0.670 0.600 0.555 0.523 0.497 0.478 0.458 0.423 0.387 0.356 0.327 0.301 0.284 0.246 0.670 0.638 0.565 0.520 0.489 0.463 0.439 0.416 0.388 0.359 0.331 0.305 0.282 0.267 0.233

~*,,;.::: *;: 0.604 0.528 0.484 0.454 0.429 0.405 0.382 0.357 0.332 0.306 0.282 0.261 0.250 1*;;;:'1"i:i'u.1;:

0.580 0.553 0.487 0.448 0.420 0.396 0.37.3 0.351 0.329 0.306 0.283 0.260 0.241 0.229 0.199 0.517 0.499 0.447 0.415 0.390 0.368 0.346 0.324. 0.304 0.283 0.262 0.241 0.222 0.208 0.179 0.466 0.458 0.418 0.393 0.374 0.351 0.327 0.306 0.286 0.269 0.251 0.230 0.209 0.194 0.165 0.425 0.386 0.359 0.343

.~,*

.... 0.308 0.284 0.265 0.249 0.235 0.200 0.180 0.166 0.158 SIMULATE 3A veraae RI f p* P ea 1ve in owe rs A verac e A bl RI f P

ssem 1v ea 1ve ower 0 502 1.149 1.041. 0.982 0.959

!;:.';'[F;;i( 0.873 0.806 0.758 0.719 0.693 0.587 0.514 0.450 0.384 1.044 1.024 0.950. 0.909 0.882 0.822 0.770 0.726 0.685 0.649 0.614 0.551 0.492 0.439 0.350 0.987 0.952 0.868 0.816 0.775 0.734 0.694 0.655 0.616 0.577 0.537 0.491 0.446 0.404 0.329 0.967 0.913 0.818 0.760 0.718 0.680 0.644 0.608 0.571 0.533 0.494 0.454 0.416 0.383 0.320 0.889 0.779

,,,;,*'{.

0.719 0.677 0.642 0.609 0.575 0.539 0.502 0.464 0.426 0.392 0.369

';l.i'l(,i'.

:*::::

0.884 0.830 0.739 0.683 0.644 0.612 0.583 0.552 0.515 0.476 0.438 0.403 0.370 0.342 0~288 0.818 0.779 0.700 0:649 0.612 0.584 0.566 0.547 -0.499 0.453. 0.41E). 0.380 0.348. 0.319. 0.264 0.771 0.736 *o.662 0.614 0.579 0.554 0.548,, *.*,_,;!,:'.0,. 0.483 0.429 0.391 0.358 0.327 0.299 0.247 0.732 0.696 0.624 0.577 0.544 0.518 0.501 0.484 0.441 0.400 0.366 0.335 0.307 0.281 0:234 0.706 0.660 0.586 0.540 0.507 0.480 0.456 0.430 0.401 0.370 0.340 0.312 0.287 0.266 0.225 i.i.*t; *;;< 0.625 0.545 0.501 0.469 0.443 0.418 0.393 0.368 0.341 0.315 0.289; 0.266 0.251 ~

0.599 0.562 0.500 0.461 0.432 0.407 0.384 0.361 0.337 0.314 0:290 0.266 0.245 0.227 0.193 0.525 0.503 0.454 0.423 0.398 0.375 0.352 0.330 0.309. 0.289 0.268 0.245 0.224 0.205 0.172 0.460 0.448 0.412 0.390 0.375 0.347 0.323 0.303 0.284 0.268 0.253 0.228 0.206 0.188 0.156 0.394 0.358 0.336 0.327

':'J'::I~0j,;. 0.293 0.268 0.251 0.237 0.228

~.;;;: *******,. ;, 0.195 0.173 0.157 0.144 Percent Difference in Relative Core Power *

-5.6% -4.6% -4.7% -5.4%

,:)~);:::.:.;:.. -4.4% -3.4% -3.2% -3.1% -3.6%

,.,;;;~;

:'}:.. -2.0% -1.0%

0.3%

2.7%

-4.7% -4.2%. -4.1% -3.9% -4.3% -2.9% -2.9% -2.8% -2.5% -2.1% -2.2% -1.0% -0.5%" 0.7%

2.4%

-4.8% -4.1% -3.7% -3.5% -3.2% -2.9% -2.8% -2.6% -2.3% -2.0% -1.7% -1.3% -0.8%

0.4%

2.1%

-5.6% -3.9% -3.5% -3.2% -3.0% -2.7% -2.6% -2.4% -2.1% -1.9% -1.6% -1.3% -0.9%

0.2%

1.5%

~:;::;:::.: -4.4% -3.2% -3.0%. -2.8% -2.6% -2.5% -2.3% -2.0% -1.8% -1.5% -1.2% -0.8% -0.2%,*.;.;::1n:m1:1:*

-4.6% -3.1% -2.9% -2.8% -2.7% -2.6% -2.6% -2.4% -2.1% -1.7% -1.3% -1.1% -0.7%

0.3%

1.4%

-3.6% -3.0% -2.8% -2.7% -2.6% -2.6% -3.0% -3.3% -2.3% -1.6% -1.3% -1.0% -0.6%

0.3%

1.6%

-3.4% -2.9% -2.7% -2.5% -2.4% -2.4% -3.3%

• • >;,'!.h*.:J -2.6% -1.5% -1.7% -0.9% -0.6%

0.3%

1.5%

>>*P**""""

-3.3% -2.6% -2.4% -2.2% -2.1% -2.1% -2.3% -2.6% -1.8% -1.3% -1.0% -0.8% -0.6%

0.3%

1.2%

-3.6% -2.2% -2.1% -2.0% -1.8% -1.7% -1.7% -1.4% -1.3% -1.1% c0.9%

-0.7% -0.5%

0.1%

0.8%

\\ii'*('."?! -2.1% -1.7% -1.7% -1.5% -1.4% -1.3% -1.1% -1.1% -0.9% -0.9% -0.7% -0.5% -0.1%,,, *..,: *. *:;*:e:**

-1.9% -0.9% -1.3% -1.3% -1.2% -1.1% -1.1% -1.0% *-0.8%. -0.8% -0.7% -0.6% -0.4%

0.2%

0.6%

-0.8%

-0.4%

-0.7% -0.8% -0.8% -0.7% -0.6% -0.6% -0.5% -0.6% -0.6% -0.4% -0.2%

0.3%

0.7%

0.6%

1.0%

0.6%

0.3%

~0.1% '0.4%

0.4%

0.3%

0.2%

0.1%

-0.2%

0.2%

0.3%

0.6%

0.9%

3.1%

2.8%

2.3%

1.6%

• \\';!;*:*.;.;:*

1.5%

1.6%

1.4%

1.2%

0.7%

• ~;;;;,',;*<::: 0.5%

0.7%

0.9%

1.4%

Table 4.1-4 Quarter Core Assembly 38 Cycle 2 23

XTG/PDQA veraae R I t' p* P ea 1ve m owe rs A vera< e A bl RI.

P ssem IV e at1ve ower 09

. 77 1.321 1.283 1.268 1.283 \\:'.. 'S'? 1.239 1.160 1.100 1.062 1.041 :*::;.'!'/,:, 0.916 0.821 0.754 0.709 1.209 1.165 1.141 1.282 1.296 1.268 1.185 1.113 1.085 1.068 1.007 0.913 0.734 0.684 0.660 1.161 1.109 1.073 1.185 1.199 i'.' *2;::"' 1.120 1.043 1.025 '(!'+'.<'[:* 0.929 0.839 0.687 0.651 0.640 1.172 1.238 1.178 1.141 1.128 1.110 1.053 0.992 0.964 0.934 0.869 0.802 0.756 0.730 0.644

'"""***:.: 1.264 1:205 1.140 1.083 1.044 1.002 0.958 0.918 0.876 0.830 0.797 0.771 0.745 :*:*::*::;;;3j!lii

1.163 1.262 i<:::~*, **.' 1.147 1.068 1.023 0.987 0.950 0.905 0.857 0.816 0.800 U:>*S;:.* ' 0.746 0.642 1.119 1.217 1.185 1.122 1.058 1.019 1.000 0.974 0.916 0.854 0.808 0.782 0.757 0.720 0.623 1.106 1.192 1.151 1.102 1.053 1.021 1.014 1::.;;::';~::,; 0.929 0.855 0.804 0.767 0.734 0.704 0.617 1.125 1.222 1.190 1.126 1.061 1.022 1.002 0.976 0.918 0.855 0.808 0.782 0.757 0.720 0.623 1.173 1.272 :;;,;:;j;*.0*;;,;. 1.154 1.073 1.027 0.990 0.952 0.906 0.858 0.817 0.800 1:,::;'i'*.:;*:,,, 0.746 0.642 IP:'//:'.::: 1.274 1.213 1.146 1.087 1.047 1.003 0.958 0.917 0.875 0.828 0.795 0.768 0.743

• .~,.. ;

  *

1.180 1.243 1.181 1.140 1.125 1.106 1.047 0.985 0.956 0.925 0.860 0.793 0.748 0.723 0.640 1.156 1.100 1.061 1.167 1.178 :... 1;.,;:,j<<;:j<f':;* 1.096 1.018 0.999 1:;:,*;,,:::::;* 0.903 0.814 0.668 0.635 0.628 1.171 1.123 1.094 1.222 1.232 1.203 1.122 1.050 1.022 1.004 0.944 0.855 0.690 0.648 0.633 1.219 1.172 1.151 1.161 [.":/*%;;,; 1.114 1.035 0.978 0.942 0.924 hi/if::;r:* *. o.810 0.727 0.674 0.650 SIMULATE 3A veraqe R I t' p* P ea 1ve m owe rs A vera~ e A bl R I t' P

ssem 1v ea 1ve ower 0 969 1.249 1.178 1.149 1.158 1: ** ;.~.;c,:;, 1.107 1.034 0.984 0.946 0.924

~s.;.t*. 0.793 0.703 0.631 0.572 1.178 1.119 1.092 1.205 1.218 1.198 1.111 1.049 1.016 1.001 0.927 0.829 0.674 0.610 0.557 1.158 1.100 1.069 1.167 1.191

'::'{'*i'i 1.113 1.028 1.018.;;;h'>:?. 0.906 0.804 0.662 0.604 0.556 1.183 1.230 1.183 1.146 1.131 1.129 1.057 1.001 0.967 0.943 0.861 0.789 0.732 0.677 0.571

• >>;:iit':<;::;: 1.269 1.231 1.154 1.102 1.066 1.025 0.981 0.937.0.890 0.838 0.794 0.761 0.698

'::'.*/.e/,h'."i:'*

1.187 1.283

!~,*~(f~;.;:(1.{:<,, 1.183 1.095 1.053 1.018 0.979 0.931 0.878 0.831 0.812 ***t:,:::trr*s::*,. 0.705 0.573 1.149 1.231 1.224 1.146 1.089 1.053 1.036 1.019 0.946 0.878 0.825 0.786 0.754 0.675 0.554 1.142 1.214 1.180 1.132 1.088 *1:056* 1.063

'"**<<<:.:"""' 0.970 0:879 0.823 0.774 0.725 0.663 0.549 1.157 1.238 1.229 1.150 1.092 1.055 1.037 1.020 0.946 0.877 0.824 0.785 0.753 0.675 0.554 1.203 1.297 1rm:H>::*.*1 1.191 1.100 1.056 1.020 0.980 0.930 0.877 0.829 0.811 \\,*;.*b':;; 0.704 0.573

~¥':J':i':}lS' 1.289 1.247 1.166 1.110 1.071 1.027 0.982 0.936 0.888 0.835 0.792 0.759 0.697 13,::,;::;:;;)

1.208 1.254 1.202 1.161 1.142 1.136 1.061 1.002 0.966 0.941 0.858 0.786 0.730 0.676 0.571 1.183 1.125 1.091 1.186 1.206 1.£1*sr:;;::~.1;;:: 1.119 1.031 1.018

ti~1*'./;~*:.:~*,. 0.903 0.801 0.660 0.603 0.556 1.196 1.144 1.117 1.229 1.238 1.213 1.120 1.054 1.018 1.001 0.925 0.827 0.673 0.610 0.557 1.243 1.197 1.177 1.185

• .{:l'.'~':t*::** 1.126 1.048 0.994 0.952 0.929 ':f:>:::.. 0.795 0.705 0.634 0.573 Percent Difference fn Relative Core Power 7.2%

10.5% 11.9% 12.5%.. "!*;,,~1:>'.. 13.2% 12.6% 11.6% 11.6% 11.7%.:;,*,**'::.: 12.3% 11.8% 12.3% 13.7%

3.1%

4.6%

4.9%

7.7%

7.8%

7.0%

7.4%

6.4%

6.9%

6.7%

8.0%

8.4%

6.0%

7.4%

10.3%

0.3%

0.9%

0.4%

1.8%

0.8%

• ,,,;)

  '*it;*;:*; 0.7%

1.5%

0.7%

m~.b.... *.:12* 2.3%

3.5%

2.5%

4.7%

8.4%

-1.1%

0.8%

-0.5% -0.5% -0.3% -1.9% -0.4% -0.9% -0.3% -0.9%

0.8%

1.3%

2.4%

5.3%

7.3%

lii':':!.i"'i:**:'".i -0.5% -2.6% -1.4% -1.9% -2.2% -2.3% -2.3% -1.9%

-1.4% -0.8%

0.3%

1.0%

4.7% 1:::::*.HlidJ;;::;

-2.4% -2.1% §;ih:/. -3.6% -2.7% -3.0% -3.1% -2.9% -2.6% -2.1% -1.5% -1.2%

l:*'l'~}:1:'.t' 4.1%

6.9%

-3.0% -1.4% -3.9% -2.4% -3.1% -3.4% -3.6% -4.5% -3.0%. -2.4% -1.7% -0.4%

0.3%

4.5%

6.9%

-3.6%

-2.2% -2.9% -3.0% -3.5% -3.5%

-4.9% l?'*:::t'i'i1'. -4.1% -2.4% -1.9% -0.7%

0.9%

4.1%

6.8%

-3.2% -1.6% -3.9% -2.4% -3.1% -3.3% -3.5% -4.4% -2.8% -2.2% -1.6% -0.3%

0.4%

4.5%

6.9%

-3.0%

-2.5% fu1[j;;1,j*:i'::' -3.7% -2.7% -2.9%

-3.0% -2.8% -2.4% -1.9% -1.2% -1.1% '"'*'""'. ": 4.2%

6.9%

• • .*w;;:;:;o*

i'X

\\'P'<***: -1.5% -3.4% -2.0% -2.3% -2.4% -2.4% -2.4% -1.9%

~1.3% -0.7%

0.3%

0.9%

4.6% {'.."""""""

_,,:*;./'.* ::' *;,:

-2.8%

-1.1% -2.1% -2.1% -1.7% -3.0%

-1.4% -1.7%

-1.0o/~ -1.6%

0.2%

0.7%

1.8%

4.7o/o 6.9%

-2.7%

-2.5%

-3.0% -1.9% -2.8%

-2.3% -1.3% -1.9%

r:.,.::.L.':'>'i.W 0.0%

1.3%

0.8%

3.2%

7.2%

-2.5%

-2.1%

-2.3% -0.7% -0.6% -1.0%

0.2%

-0.4%

0.4%

0.3%

1.9%

2.8%

1.7%

3.8%

7.6%

-2.4%

-2.5%

-2.6% -2.4%

1* : : :::~;]:,,.. ';., -1.2% -1.3% -1.6% -1.0% -0.5%

~!:*li:.,,....,."

1.5%

2.2%

4.0%

7.7%

Table 4.1-5 Quarter Core Assembly 8 Cycle 4 24

XTG/PDQA veraae Rlt' PP ea 1ve in owe rs A

bl verac e Assem IV Relative Power 0.786 1.379 1.317 1.281 1.277

• \\'.~!.'.;..,

1.205 1.116 1.048 1.001 0.974 1**::;;;,*

• ' 0.844 0.752 0.685 0.639 1.251 1.185 1.141 1.263 1.261 1.218 1.125 1.045 1.008 0.983 0.921 0.828 0.659 0.609 0.583 1.188 1.114 1.059 1.152 1.148

~

;.*:::: 1.045 0.961 0.934 :* *.-:,'.!*'.:-* 0.831 0.743 0.602 0.565 0.551 1.180 1.225 1.145 1.089 1.060 1.029 0.962 0.894 0.859 0.823 0.758 0.692 0.646 0.618 0.539

~!~*:*~~!'. '. 1.230 1.150 1.068 0.997 0.946 0.893 0.842 0.796 0.751 0.703 0.668 0.639 0.612 1::.;,:*s:~:

1.134 1.206 ::;.:*:u:\\1**: *. 1 1.052 0.960 0.902 0.856 0.810 0.761 0.712 0.670 0.649 i*,~*~m~~*1* 0.593 0.505 1.069 1.137 1.082 1.002 0.924 0.873 0.841 0.805 0.745 0.685 0.639 0.611 0.586 0.551 0.470 1.031 1.084 1.022 0.955 0.891 0.845 0.823 1*;~1.':I:**:***::**: 0.727 0.659 0.610 0.574 0.543 0.515 0.444 1.019 1.080 1.023 0.943 0.866 0.814 0.781 0.745 0.688 0.629 0.586 0.558 0.533 0.501 0.427 1.031 1.089... }!'*':\\: 0.933 0.842 0.784 0.738 0.693 0.646 0.600 0.561 0.542

• • 'i'!!'~*"'.'. 0.491 OA16

. :*1:*.:. ' 1.057 0.973 0.889 0.815 0.762 0.711 0.662 0.619 0.577 0.537 0.508 0.484 0.462

,.:).!'*~'.:

0.974 0.993 0.907 0.843 0.803 0.765 0.703 0.644 0.608 0.575 0.524 0.475 0.441 0.422 0.366 0.916 0.836 0.773 0.822 0.801

,*}*~{;'.;;, 0.700 0.631 0.602 1.::.(;::~j;J.'.*;.,- 0.517 0.457 0.366 0.343 0.335 0.885 0.813 0.762 0.825 0.805 0.763 0.690 0.625 0.588 0.560 0.512 0.453 0.356 0.329 0.317 0.867 0.806 0.775 0.759........ '" 0.688 0.623 0.570 0.528 0.497 tfai*!J..,..)~::;:1 0.411 0.363 0.330 0.314 SIMULATE 3A veraae RI.

p* P e at1ve m owe rs A verac e A bl RI.

P ssem 1v e at1ve ow er 0 764 1.290 1.202 1.159 1.154 *,:.>,'***-: 1.078 0.995 0.936 0.890 0.860

L;;t;;,t:..: 0.720 0.628 0.555 0.493 1.202 1.129 1.088 1.190 1.189 1.156 1.058 0.988 0.946 0.922 0.842 0.742 0.592 0.526 0.469 1.167 1.095 1.050 1.135 1.145

,* 1.043 0.951 0.931 1;*i~!;.:!*/***** 0.807 0.705 0.568 0.509 0.456 1.176 1.209 1.147 1.096 1.067 1.052 0.971 0.907 0.865 0.832 0.748 0.675 0.615 0.557 0.455 1.>.01;,*;;: 1.228 1.174 1.082 1.018 0.970 0.919 0.867 0.816 0.764 0.708 0.660 0.622 0.558 1.,::*L.':K::,:

1 :142 1.219.

,i'V!)*'!M[;~:*:* 1.086 0.987 0.933 0.888 0.841 0.786 0.730 0.679 0.653

~.]i:::[W;0;1*. 0.544 0.429 1.083 1.143 1.115 1.024 0.954 0.906 0.875 0.847 0.772 0.703 0.650 0.607 0.572 0.501 0.398 1.054 1.100 1.045 0.981 0.922 0.877 0.866 !'.;Ji{"i('i7{' 0.760 0.675 0.619 0.572 0.525 0.470 0.378 1.043 1.092 1.057 0.963 0.892 0.841 0.808 0.778 0.706' 0.640 0.589 0.550 0.518 0.455 0.364 1.057 1.110 +

q**:*nr~:o-* 0.960 0.861 0.804 0.756 0.708 0.655 0.604 0.558 0.535

,.,,,~;,::*:::.>:::* 0.448 0:358

."7i5X' 1.066 0.996 0.898 0.827 0.772 0.718 0.667 0.618 0.571 0.524 0.486 0.458 0.414 I'.';>{;.,,,

1.000 0.998 0.917 0.850 0.804 0.771 0.694 0.633 0.591 0.559 0.495 0.444 0.405 0.370 0.311 0.946 0.856 0.790 0.821 0.797

<***.Ji':*< 0.678 0.599 0.570

.'****+*~.:.;.:*;,: 0.474 0.410 0.331 0.300 0.278 0.923 0.833 0.767 0.800 0.763 0.708 0.621 0.556 0.514 0.486 0.434 0.378 0.302 0.273 0.253 0.930 0.834 0.765 0.721.........,,

0.601 0.525 0.470 0.427 0.398 j;ifj:ii.o;,;,;*,::; 0.319 0.279 0.252 0:233 Percent Difference in Relative Core Power 8.9%

11.5% 12.2% 12.3% 1Lb*./,*',;.;: 12.7% 12.1% 11.2% 11.1% 11.4% ?':::'\\ E! 12.4% 12.4% 13.0% 14.6%

4.9%

5.6%

5.3%

7.3%

7.2%

6.2%

6.7%

5.7%

6.2%

6.1%

7.9%

8.6%

6.7%

8.3%

11.4%

2.1%

1.9%

0.9%

1.7%

0.3% 1.'..;,:.*,*"('. 0.2%

1.0%

0.3%.::JjT':... : 2.4%

3.8%

3.4%

5.6%

9.5%

0.4%

1.6%

-0.2% -0.7% -0.7% -2.3% -0.9% -1.3% -0.6% -0.9%

1.0%

1.7%

3.1%

6.1%

8.4%

.j::i**.'.' 0.2%

-2.4% -1.4% -2.1% -2.4% -2.6% -2.5% -2.0% -1.3% -0.5%

0.8%

1.7%. 5.4%

-0.8% -1.3%

/i':*(;:i~l* -3.4% -2.7% -3.1% -3.2% -3.1% -2.5% -1.8% -0.9% -0.4%

*i'~r:1*,~.'; 4.9%

7.6%

-1.4% -0.6% -3.3% -2.2% -3.0% -3.3% -3.4% -4.2% -2.7%

-1.8% -1.1%

0.4%

1.4%

5.0%

7.2%

-2.3% -1.6% -2.3% -2.6% -3.1% -3.2% -4.3% 1':::::::.*:.:,;m'* -3.3%. -1.6% -0.9%

0.2%

1.8%

4.5%

6.6%

-2.4% -1.2% -3.4% -2.0% -2.6% -2.7% -2.7% -3.3% -1.8%

-1.1% -0.3%

0.8%

1.5%

4.6%

6.3%

-2.6% -2.1%

,,,,.,.,,,.,,t;:o;;;*v -2.7% -1.9%

~2.0% -1.8% -1.5% -0.9% -0.4%

0.3%

0.7%

.t::)'i)~~1.i'.j;'.*** 4.3%

5.8%

J6*i

• '*;;*~******** -0.9% -2.3% -0.9% -1.2% -1.0% -0.7% -0.5%

0.1%

0.6%

1.3%

2.2%

2.6%

4.8% 1:;.*.. \\~jj{

-2.6% -0.5% -1.0% -0.7% -0.1% -0.6%

0.9%

1.1%

1.7%

1.6%

2.9%

3.1%

3.6%

'5.2%

5.5%

-3:0% -2.0% -1.7%

0.1%

0.4%

• (;::::~i;iifi'/ 2.2%

3.2%

3.2%

• • i:lli~:.i*;;,,:. 4.3%

4.7%

3.5%

4.3%

5.7%

-3.8% -2.0% -0.5%

2.5%

4.2%

5.5%

6.9%

6.9%

7.4%

7.4%

7.8%

7.5%

5.4%

5.6%

6.4%

-6.3% -2.8%

1.0%

3.8%

i:'::t:::i:,;::,.!;:;ifo; 8.7%

9.8%

10.0% 10.1%

9.9%

...... 9.2%

8.4%

7.8%

8.1%

"'"!Jj;',""*'"'*"""'"

Table 4.1-6 Quarter Core Assembly 24 Cycle 4 25

XTG/PDQ Averaae Relative Pin Powers Avera< e Assemblv Relative Power 0.716 1.491 1.360 1.287 1.265 l.?r;.':,* 1.184 1.096 1.031 0.989 0.965

t;c;

1* 0.843 0.754 0.689 0.646 1.362 1.222 1.140 1.242 1.231 1.186 1.095 1.019 -0.986 0.964 0.906 0.818 0.653 0.605 0.580 1.291 1.142 1.049 1.121 1.108 1

:;,~<:'.;:.::;j,< 1.004 0.925 0.902

..,.,,,.,..,,.,.,, 0.808 0.725 0.588 0.554 0.541 1.271 1.246 1.122 1.047 1.010 0.977 0.913 0.850 0.819 0.787 0.727 0.666 0.623 0.597 0.521 t*'!-0,;;:{:iJ 1.237 1.112 1.011 0.936 0.885 0.836 0.789 0.748 0.708 0.665 0.633 0.608 0.583 1.193 1.193... _......,..,;;-..,,. 0.980 0.886 0.831 0.788 0.748 0.704 0.661 0.624 0.607

~.

;r:r;.;: 0.558 0.475 1.106 1.103 1.010 0.917 0.838 0.789 0.762 0.731 0.679 0.626 0.587 0.564 0.542 0.512 0.437 1.042 1.028 0.932 0.855 0.792 0.750 0.732 1.r,,...,,.. 0.652 0.593 0.552 0.522 0.495 0.471 0.407 1.001 0.996 0.910 0.825 0.752 0.707 0.681 0.653 0.605 0.557 0.521 0.500 0.479 0.452 0.385 0.979 0.976

~;"":*' 0.794 0.713 0.665 0.629 0.595 0.558 0.521 0.491 0.477 ::"'::r;'.:*:*01 0.437 0.370

• • ~::**:~: 0.919 0.818 0.735 0.671 0.629 0.590 0.554 0.523 0.492 0.461 0.440 0.422 0.404 0.858 0.831 0.734 0.673 0.640 0.612 0.568 0.525 0.501 0.478 0.440 0.403 0.378 0.363 0.317 0.768 0.665 0.597 0.631 0.615 1*;*:*:'::'X*;~;) 0.547 0.499 0.482

~ i;~[~:i;; ~:~ 0.423 0.378 0.306 0.289 0.284 0.705 0.617 0.563 0.606 0.591 0.565 0.516 0.475 0.454 0.439 0.406 0.364 0.290 0.271 0.263 0.662 0.594 0.551 0.530 ':;.:;ti.','} 0.482 0.442 0.411 0.388 0.372,;;tc\\XT' 0.318 0.285 0.264 0.253 SIMULATE 3 A veraoe RI t' p* P ea 1ve m owe rs A vera( e A bl RI t' P

ssem 1v ea 1ve ower 0 681

. 1.443 1.316 1.253 1.236 O}.F'"~': 1.151 1.065 1.006 0.961 0.934 1; *. ;,:,Jf 0.792 0.694 0.609 0.523 1.319 1.175 1.102 1.190 1.183 1.143 1.046 0.979 0.941 0.923 0.851 0.755 0.604 0.539 0.479 1.258 1.104 1.021 1.084 1.082 ;-;,);;.. >:*f 0.981 0.896 0.880

._,_,.,.;o, i':j 0.773 0.680 0.553 0.501 0.453 1.244 1.195 1.086 1.014 0.976 0.957 0.883 0.826 0.790 0.765 0.692 0.630 0.581 0.534. 0.445

"*,,..,,, 1.189 1.086 0.978 0.909 0.862 0.816 0.771 0.729 0.686 0.640 0.603 0.575 0.525 I.ck

• >:.;,,:,.':\\:

1.161 1.152

• ~~ ;,::*r.:, 0.960 0.863 0.813 0.774 0.734 0.690 0.644 0.604 0.588

~:":.. *:::;;:.:,: 0.505 0.407 1.077 1.055 0.987 0.887 0.818 0.775 0.750-0.728 0.667 0.612 0:'570 0.539 0.514 0.458 0.374 1.018 0.990 0.904 0.831 0.775 0.737 0.729 'F.. }i':.>::*: 0.648 0.580 0.537 0.502 0.467 0.426 0.350 0.974 0.952 0.889 0.797 0.733 0.693 0.669 0.649 0.594 0.544 0.506 0.478 0.457 0.408 0.333 0.948 0.935

.'!'*'::'!),:;,, ** 0.772 0.691 0.648 0.615 0.582 0.545 0.508 0.476 0.462

~~:'.;:*:-:**, 0.398 0.324

c~

r;:~::*~:*;, 0.863 0.782 0.699 0.646 0.609 0.573 0.540 0.508 0.476 0.444 0.418 0.399 0.366 lfi,!('*';;;;:i::::t 0.805 0.765 0.689 0.638 0.609 0.593 0.543 0.505 0.481 0.464 0.418 0.381 0.352 0.326 0.277 0.705 0.613 0.561 0.588 0.582

\\}:' -,,,;,;;;., 0.519 0.471 0.460.*;;***.\\':)'.::' 0.401 0.353' 0.289 0.265 0.247 0.620 0.548 0.508 0.541 0.532 0.511 0.463 0.430 0.411 0.401 0.368 0.328 0.266 0.242 0.225 0.533 0.487 0.461 0.452 1.:;::*>)** 0.413 0.378 0.355 0.337 0.327 :*C\\)'i;)>: 0.279 0.248 0.225 0.208 Percent Difference in Relative Core Power 4.8%

4.4%

3.4%

2.9%

i~:,:u*:~.;' 3.3%

3.1%

2.5%

2.8%

3.1%

""'.?*.' 5.1%

6.0%

8.0%

12.3%

4.3%

4.7%

3.8o/o 5.2%

4.8%

4.3%

4.9%

4.0%

4.5%' 4.1%

5.5%

6.3%

4.9%

6.6%

10.1%

3.3%

3.8%

2.8%

3.7%

2.6%

2.3%

2.9%

2.2%

3.5%

4.5%

3.5%

5.3%

8.8%

1*-:::;:c;-*:*:c*****

2.7%

5.1%

3.6%

3.3%

3.4%

2.0%

3.0%

2.4%

2.9%

2.2%

3.5%

3.6%

4.2%

6.3%

7.6%

l*r.:m-**'i':m:u 4.8%

2.6%

3.3%

2.7%

2.3%

2.0%

1.8%

1.9%

2.2%

2.5%

3.0%

3.3%

5.8%

• • ~1*i:;::***

3.2%

4.1%

2~;7fu,,:;, 2.0%

2.3%

1.8%

1.4%

1.4%

1.4%

1.7%

2.0%

1.9%

lfoc,K:;/if:,:],:~j; 5.3%

6.8%

2.9%

4.8%

2.3%

3.0%

2.0%

1.4%

1.2%

0.3%

1.2%

1.4%

1.7%

2.5%

2.8%

5.4%

6.3%

2.4%

3.8%

2.8%

2.4%

1.7%

1.3%

0.3%

1:;~'~';.**~'.;';* 0.4%

1.3%

1.5%

2.0%

2.8%

4.5%

5.7%

2.7%

4.4%

2.1%

2.8%

1.9%

1.4%

1.2%

0.4%

1.1%

1.3%

1.5%

2.2%

2.2%

4.4%

5.2%

3.1%

4.1%

tt~:2*;;:,.:_:,. 2.2%

2.2%

1.7%

1.4%

1.3%

1.3%

1.3%

1.5%

1.5%

l:'*~:'::~Fh':!'~~T. 3.9%

4.6%

~~*;'ij!'\\*, 5.6%

3.6%

3.6%

2.5%... 2.0%

.1.7%

1.4%

1.5%

1.6%

1.7%

2.2%

2.3%

3.8%

5.3%

6.6%

4.5%

3.5%

3.1%

1.9%

2.5%

2.0%

2.0%

104%

2.2%

2.2%

2.6%

3.7%

4.0%

6.3%

5.2%

3.6%

4.3%

3.3% 1:.*1."J:*&:J:::f:: 2.8%. 2.8%

2.2%

2.2%

2.5%

1.7%

2.4%

3.7%

!;*,;:*J:***'"""

8.5%

6.9%

5.5%

6.5%

5.9%

5.4%

5.3%

4.$%

4.3%

3.8%

3.8%'

3.6%

2.4%

2.9%

3.8%

12.9% 10.7%

9.0%

7.8% **>:.\\', 6.9%

6.4%

5.6%

5.1%

4.5%

,**

;*_.,;::;r-.*::*. 3.9%

3.7%

3.9%

4.5%

Table 4.1-7 Quarter Core Assembly 38 Cycle 4 26

\\.... r 1.4 1.3 XTG x

Measured 1.2 1.1 1.0 Q) 0.9

~

0.8

. Q)

I\\.)

0\\

e 0.7 Q)

~ 0.6

~

0.5 0 u 0.4 0.3 0.2

. I 0.1

. 0.0 0.0 i 0.1 0.9 1.0 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 Axial Position (Fraction From Top of Core}.

Figure 4.1-2 Palisades Cycle 1 O Axial Power Distribution Comparison at 500 MWd/MTU (PIDAL @ 442.3 WMd/MTU)

j:

I '

• t*

j t'

~

1.4 1.3 XTG x

Measured 1.2 1.1 1.0 L...

Q) 0.9

~

c£ 0.8 Q)

I\\.)

0\\

00 e 0.7 Q)

~ 0.6 Q)

L...

0.5 0 u 0.4 O.J 0.2 e*

0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1' 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 o:s 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 Axial Position {Fraction From Top of Core)

Figure 4.1 ~3 Palisades Cycle 10 Axial power *Distribution Comparison at 6000.MWd/MTU (PIDAL @ 5915 WMd/MTU)

t>

~

cf t>

()\\

I\\.) e

<D Q)

~

~

0

(.)

1.4 -----------.r-------..,.--~---"""'T""'--~------..

. 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.4 O.J 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 XTG x

Meo sured x x*x x

x x x x x x x x x x 0.1 0.2 Q;J 0.4 0.5 0.6.

0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 Axial Positio.n (Fraction From Top of Core)

Figure 4.1-4 Palrsades Cycle 1 O Axia.1 Power Distribution Comparison at 11,000 MWd/MTU (PIDAL@ 1.0,988 WMd/MTW) f!'

t '\\, *.:- **

(1

'i'

'r Request for Additional Information 4.2 _ In Response-1.1 (ltem-3), why are the bypass temperatures used for Cycles 1 and 2 lower than the temperatures used for later cycles?

CPCo Response Cycle 1 and part of cycle 2 were run at a maximum core power of 2200 Mwth. To insure that a conservative bypass temperature is used, the bypass temperature in all cases is set equal to the average external assembly core midplane temperature. The average external assembly core midplane temperature is conservatively assumed to be equal to the core mid plane temperature for all high leakage cores. Since these cycles had lower core midplane temperatures, the bypass temperature is also lower.

Request for Additional Information 4.4 lnresponse 1.2 (RAl-1),.jt is indicated that the use of independent cycle sources results in a reduction in the vessel f/uence in Cycle 1 and 2. Since combining the

• cycle sources before running the DORT calculations or using* cycle-specific sources and combining the f/uences after running the DORT calculations should yiel<:j the *.

• same result; what is causing the 4% and 14% f/uence reductions in Cycles 1 and 2, respectively?

CPCo Response The -combined cycle sources were not developed by a linear averaging technique as indicated in the request. The averaging process was complicated by the fact that assemblie~ had differing numbers of fuel pins in different cycles in some cases.

Therefore, cycle specific weighting factors were developed to account for the number of fuel pins, axial peaking factor, effective full power days, and assembly burn up to _core average burnup ratio for each assembly.

These weighting factors were used to determine ari average relative power production for each assembly. In addition, an effective average burnup was calculated for each assembly in order to calculate the proper average values of neutron per fission, energy per fission; and fission spectrum for each assembly. The weighted average axial peaking.

factors were used as a multiplier on the individual assembly power distributions.

• The-refore~~ since-a weiglitecf average oftner source was-usea p-revioi.Jsly-, where the Cycle-.

1 and 2 sources were lower than that of Cycles 3, 4, and 5, it would be expected that a cycle specific evaluation would produce a reduction in the calculated flux for Cycles 1 and 2 when compared to an average fluence.

30

Reguest for Additional Information 4.6 In Response 2.1.3 (RAl-1), how has the effect of the photons produced as a result of boron capture accounted for in the photo-fission correction?

CPCo Response The bypass and inlet water were modeled with a 500 ppm boron concentration. It is the neutron-induced gamma-ray sources in the internals themselves which allow the boron concentration in the water to play a role in the calculation of the gamma-ray flux over a fuel cycle. This occurs because the boron in the water competes with the steel for thermal neutrons. When a neutron is captured in the boron in the water, an alpha particle is emitted which is stopped in a very short distance, giving up heat to the water. There are no significant gamma-rays produced by this process, which is in marked contrast to the high-energy gamma-rays resulting from neutron radiative capture in the stainless and carbon steel structures.

Reguest for Additional Information A.7 In Response 2.3 (RAl-1) it is indicated th.at a 16% correction has been made to the..

W290 U-238 dosimeter measurement to account for U-235 content and Pu build-in.

c In view of the increaseq sensitivity of the E > *.1. 0 Me V f/uence to the U-238 measurements, describe how these corrections were determined. How was the effect of the Cd shield included?

CPCo Response The measured 137Cs activity* in the Cd shield~d 238U sensors includes the effect of fission of 235U impurities present in* the sensor as well as the effect of fission of 239Pu which builds-in due to radiative capture in 238U. The net correction required to account for these competing reactions increases over time as the neutron exposure of the sensor increases.

The magnitude of these competing effects in the Palisades W290 capsule was obtained*

from a c::orrelation relating 137Cs activity contributions from comp~ting reactions to the nel,Jtron fluence experienced by the sensor. The correlation was developed by coupling a relative neutron spectrum applicable to the sensor location with an ORIGEN calculation to account for the time dependency of the target isotopics and reaction product build-ups.

The calculated neutron exposure of the capsule was then used to determine the fraction of

~

37Cs produced by the 238U (n,f) reaction f~r the applicable irradiation period.

The presence of the Cd shield surrounding the sensor was addressed by eliminating the portion of the competing reaction rates that are induced by neutrons below the cadmium cutoff energy (-0.4 eV). The validity of this assumption is verified by calculations of the shielding effect of cadmium covers using the SAND code.

31

~

The specific correlation used in the evaluation of the W-290 internal capsule is as follows:

ESTIMATED FLUENCE (E > 1.0 MeV)

[n/cm2]

2.86E+18 5.71E+18 8.57E+18 1.43E+19 2.86E+19 4.28E+19 5.71E+19 7.14E+19 8.57E+19 1.14E+20 Request for Additional Information 23au CONTRIBUTION 0.873 0.862 0.852 0.828 0.781 0.733 0.691 0.654 0.617 0.556 4.8 The uncertainty estimates of Response 3.1.2.5 (RAl-1) appear low. How is the uncertainty in the power-history modeling and data, and the C/s included?

CPCo Response The uncertainty in the power history and C/s is not explicitly included, however, it is included in the associated uncertainty estimates for the decay correction as stated in Response 3.1.2.5 (RAl-1 ). As described in Response 2.5, the M/C bias data from the short half-life reactions is consistent with the long half-life data indicating that any uncertainty in the power history and C/s is very small.

32