ML19199A208

Suppl Startup Rept

ML19199A208
Person / Time
Site:	Crane
Issue date:	03/23/1979
From:	Metropolitan Edison Co
To:
Shared Package
ML19199A207	List: ML19199A206 ML19199A208
References
NUDOCS 7903290163
Download: ML19199A208 (47)

Text

s METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY TilREE MILE ISIMT) NUCLEAR STATION UNIT 2 SUPPLDIENTARY STARTUP REPORT 7 9 0 32 9 0 / (< 3 March 23, 1979

5.1 BICLOGICAL SHIELD SURVEY 5.1.1 PURPOSE The purpose of the biolcgical shield survey was to measure g1 na and neutrcn dose r1tes at specified accessible locations of the plant in order to establish the adequacy of shielding, identify high radia+ ' a t'nes, 2nd obtain baseline data for comparison with future neasurements of radia-ivn levels during plant opera-tion.

5.1.2 mr-m.

. Lrm. n..Ceu A~a The biological shield survey was conducted to zero reactor power a d at LO5 and 975 of full power.

The zero power surveys were ecnducted folleving initial criticality while the LC1 and 975 full power surveys were ecnducted after a minimum of fifteen hcurs of steady state operaticn at the specified pov was attained. The Reactor Building outside of the bio]'gical shield or areas designated as access areas were marked off in horincntal and vertical scnes and readings were taken in discrete sections.

A is of the Auxiliary, Fuel Handling, Ihrbine, and Service buildings were al-Surveyed.

The surveys were conducted using portable radiation detection instrumentation.

Vertical vall radiation surveys were t1 ken as surface contact readings. General area radiaticn surveys were conducted by holding the instrunent at approximately three feet above ficar level and then turning in a 3c0 degree circle.

The maxinun and minimun radiaticn dose rates were noted, with the maxinun indication being recorded.

If at any point the measured dose rate exceeds the average dose rate measured in the area by a factor of 5, a thorough survey of the area shall be made in order to ascertain that prcper action can be taken to reduce radiation streaming.

.l.

mre. e. raUr_ec No areas exceeding 5 tines the average dose rate fcr t hat area were located during the test, indicating that shield valls did noc have any significant void areas.

The maxinwn dose rates measured at zero power were less than 0.2 nren/hr g1nna and less than 0 5 aren/hr neutron for all areas surveyed.

Radiation surveys ccnducted at h05 full power indicated several areas were significantly higher than expected especially the neutron dose rate.

These areas are within the reactor building outside the secondary shield vall with design dose rates between 2.5 to 25 nren/hr at full power. "easured ganna dose rates ranged from a lov of 0.2 nren/hr (cne location) to a high of 17 nren with most reading 7 to 11 nren/hr.

The measured neutron do. e rate ranged frcn a lov of 5 mren/hr (one location) to a high of 100 nret/hr (two locational.

There are a total of twelve shield tanks forning an annular ring, loc 1teJ at the top of the reactor cavity (fuel transfer canal floor level), around the upper elevation of the Peactor Vessel.

Each tank has a ecnfiguration as a segnent of the annular ring with apprcximate dimensions of 5.h feet long by 3 feet bb()

' 8 (~

t

.\\.l 5.1-1

vide by 3 feet high.

Each tank is designed with bottcm and side stainless steel sheets velded to the stainless steel frame to prevent any corrosien.

The tank is designed to be filled with pure water and covered with plastic sheets, tc minimise evaporation, during reactor pcVer cperaticn to reduce radiatica streaming from the reactor cavity.

Investigation revealed the water level to be less than expected.

The shiela tanks are inaccessable during reactor power cperation due to radia-tion levels. The existing design dces not permit remote filling nor visual check on the water level.

Three possible causes for the lovered water level are:

a.

Evaporation rates greater than anticipated.

b.

Radiolytic decomposition of water due to fast neutrcns.

c.

Tank leaks.

The most probable cause is evaporation based upon the fact an extremely high fast neutren flux vculd be required to induce significant deccaposition and while one or two tanks might have small leaks develop, a majority of the tanks vculd not be expected to have this occur.

The shield tanks were refilled and testing was cenducted at 975 full power.

The reactor cavity access area measured 12 mren/hr gamma and 75 mren/hr neutron which is within the range expected based upon design configuratien. The remaining 1reas outside the secondary shield nov ranged from 7 to 20 mrer/hr gamma and 20 to 75 mrem /hr neutron dcse rates.

5.1.h CC:iCTSICIIS The gradual increase in radiatien dose rates with extended power operation vill necessitate an engineering design change to permit remote filling of the shield tanks or a design modification to permit installation of solid shielding material such as high-density polyethylene. Since personnel access to these areas is restricted during reactor operation by appropriate equipment design and adminis-trative centrols, the existing design is adequate for continued operation pending a design review.

Other than the eight areas discussed above, the remaining areas surveys (h6 in number) were within design specifications.

bf 1 )"*

9 5.1-2

-3.3 I w v=. = D. =,.,, = -,. a ne 5.3..,

.Upum2

...m-~

A syste: cf se.lf-powered-neutrea detectors (S?:.Ts) is installed in the T'!! Unit II reectc"

^^re.

"hasa Aetectors -c"it^r ^^re rever lensity within the core and their outputs are renitored and processed by the plant computer to provide accu-rate readings of relative neutron flux.

Although the incore detector syster serves no safety related functi:n, it does provide detailed core power distri-bution data which will be used :hrcughout core life for physics and fuel performance calcula; ions.

In addition, infornation frem these detecters forced an inte$ral cart of the startur. test.nrogram.

~

Tests conducted on the inecre detector systen during power escalatien were per-formed to:

(a) Verify that the cutput from each detector and its response to increasing reactor power was as expected.

(b) V a.

.' 'v ' k.,a'.

• . k. _.'e..w h. and am e" a + 4. ^ n a o r.- a " + 4 " ". o-

.l

-+

a"n 'm _ dm k"

+ k..a_ t.'.a.".'.

D 4a

.u

~ -.

y.

cc puter are correct.

(c) Ve 4#~

• b..a *

• b.a.

k a - > 3.- ^.u.. d si-.a.'

4-

.a r '.4 4

g.b'e.

m..-

..s e.

o.

m (d)

Calibrate the backup incore recorder.

5.3.o

.=.~c.

c._=. u.. n_v

.c n

5.3.2.1 Incore Detector Systen Power distribution within the core is ceasured at 36L locations (7 axial posi-

+4cno-i n.. 5 c'

1. . ua ' a c e a_..b.' 4.a_ o' )

k~

'm.a_ 7. more Pe + e n_ '. o " v.vs +_a.. ' o" s a '.#.n^we-aA

..a_"2".^.

k

. O

+

e.

y detector.

The 52 inecre toniter assemblies are placed at preselected radial positions as shown in Figure 5.3-1.

Seventeen detector assemblies are positioned to act as synnetry monitors and the rensining 35 assemblies, with 5 of the 17 3.7mmetrv nonitors, monitor ever" other fuel assembly r.osition assuming quater-s core sy net ry.

Each assembly contains seven equally scaced flux detectors corresponding to ceven axial core elevations to prsvide nessurenent of 1xial flux snape.

The self-powered incore detectors use rhodium wire detectors which underro elec-tron emnission when placed in a neu.trcn envirocnent.

The capture of a neutron by

.w-di

.. - 107 - " o +m l m-a o-

'_"..a.

" a d ' ^ am~ '.1 ". e s c+. v' y _

1.

e k - d.."a... -.' O L.

• k.a_

4 ra u 4 e s. a

• i, e

.u 4

.m e.

..m decay of rholium - 10h emits a beta particle and creates a daughter prcduct that requires one more orbital electron than the paren*,.

This orbital electron is the source cf the self-powered detector sirnal when the only free electron path to the detector is an electrical conductor in series with a current measuring instru-ment.

.a.4, c o me,~ a c,s

.w a e,.. _,^L<-m,.

.. - w

-,.,e

.w

...o_

u,.., s

~-.,-_m_

-.o g, o_

n. g ;,

.w m

e m..v.

-.m_

core, the current measured from the individual rhcdimn detectors previously had to be corrected for 1 background current.

As a result of operational experience and research, Eabcock and lilcox has been able to manufacture incore ia+

+

W.. e ^v o s "* *4 + k.-

.. i ". 4 a '.

k n.a_ '[.$. v"2.. Am c_ ^ n.+v 4.ko u+. 4 ^ n.

". k.. a_ b a c >.. m-. ^s "a. 4 C 'l-. a '.1 *v

• w'

--^

v v

v.

M O ' - 4 ( ' f)

JL' >..t 5.3-1

e measured by background detectors in each of the 52 incore tonitor assemblies to verify this correction factor is not required in the computer software program.

The outputs frcn the detecterc are read and processed by the plant computer.

Tre ecmputer applies as built manufacturing and depletion correction factors to each detector reading.

The incore detector information is then used in core physics calculations and/or provided for display to the rcacter operators. The readings frca 36 incore detectcrs are also acnitored by two 2h point recorderu.

The recorders provide pcVer distribution information to the cperator et times the plant cenputer is not available.

5.3.2.2 Incore Detector Tests The response of the incore detectors versus power level was determined and a comparisen of the symmetrical detector outputs made at reactor powers of 15, k0 and 755 FP.

Once steady state conditions were achieved at each of the above power levels, a printout of ccrrected and uncorrected SPND naps for all detec-tors was obtained frca the plant cc=puter.

The corrected and uncorrected rhodium dettetor readings and the background readings, in units of nanoamps, were then evaluated 7ersus reactor power level to verify that each detector was respcnding as expected.

The values of all symmetrical detectors v -re ec= pared to verify that they were the same within allcwable deviations.

The plant ec=puter applies as built manufacturing and depletion correction factors to each rhodium detector, as centioned above.

Hand calculaticns were perforned at L0i ?? to verify the ecnputer calculated correcticns using uncorrected S?ND outputs and SFUDI values frcn performance data output segment number 6.

SPNDI is the accumulated nancamp sun for each detector.

Data was collected to calibrate the backup incore recorder at h05 and 755 FP.

The readings frca two 2h point recorders located in the control rcen were recorded while cbtainini; a printout of the corrected detector readines from the plant computer. The recorder indication was then adjusted to agree witn the corrected detector cutputs.

5.3.3 m.;01 cred v m. o-c

.mm m

Incor e detector testing during the startup prcgran indicates that the detectors are responding as expected.

Typical results of the tests are shown in Tables 5.3-1 and 5.3-2 and Figure 5.3-2.

Figure 5 3-2 data is tabulated in Tnble 5.3-3.

Tables 5.?-l and 5.3-2 show the ccmparison nade between two sets of symnetrical detectors at h05 FP.

Ccrrected SPND values for each detector at all seven axial levels were recorded and the highest and lowest detector readings at each level were determined.

The acceptance criteria for the test required that the differ-ence between the average value and the highest and the lowest detecter readings be within 5% of the average value for a given level.

The 55 acceptance criteria was cet in all cases except cne.

This was for incore detector number LT, core location 0-10.

The error became progressively larger proceeding fror level 1 to level 7 The maxinun difference between this detector reading 2nd the average value was 23.h5.

However, by 755 FP this detector and all others met the + 55 of avernge criteria.

P p.

A La.. 3)'

5.3-2

Table 5.3 L lists the incore detec+ ors that a. e presently teing substitut ed for b.v the plant computer. The c.lant compute: aut omaticalls" calculater, c curve fit best value shculd a detector level ' t11 telow the average cutpt +

~,. o pa +v n.c g,-

,g.

e_.

+-i^ to i +

k~

a %.v a.. i L~.. u, +.. ".' P.o_

r e_ o ~ ^ n ' u- - + k..a m.

-i o j..., a. w.

v.-

v

..o

.c

-g mo-three levels (cut of a total of 36h levels) failing has not jet teen deter-

-4. n n. a.

e. w.. n.--rw,n

..,,, wn

.,..~,m_m a,a. 4 r,-

a

., u..n- _ o_ l m,_4..+.g.,a..

a_.~_3,,,

a.,

~.

2 e.

e.~

m Calibraticn of the backup incore reccrders was performed at LO5 and 55 P.

i

".'h e %

.4 e_ %. _ a + o r s. e-". a'. o~ ".e-a

". a n o -4_a 4 '. - ^....r o. "ack.up -ac^*.m.

o~ a+

+. 5.. a. o"..a 4a.

s m

.. + - -

v tire that corrected detec;or readines were obt ained frca the plant ccaputer.

A ccmputer calculation of (F/?c) v1s perfor el using the ec puter dat i asd these 711ues were f ac;cr. ' into the adjustrents made to the backup re crder readings. The advantage c: using this technique is that in allition to having a readout of relative neutrcn flux on the backup recorder, the informati:n displa.~> ed also indicates flux peaking in the core.

Durir: the w

,,,+ o.

+wo_ w, c t.,..,,.o,or n.a

+ g. o

+..o.n.'..~.

-- ae. --

a e

c.o

,ry.yg -. ~- w, o... a-r a

-. -.. g + t. a-m.

w z.

wo-o e

a corrected:

a m

e < v.. n. a.coo g....

o_r:o.2.n.

<. 3 e 4 g s ~. 4. + w..

a 0 0"v O o_ k.... - "m*

• n *.' ~ " + e.

k.. L s

~..i

. e 4

a.

n

.n. 9 +. k e o_ n. 3n. pr.oa.

~ b. 4 - 3 e 7.4pc w o_ n.4

+, e. m o

,a<-

nrol + o C o. ".1 " a ".. "** #*".

~e.

a a

a. o a-a --.

i n e '- a.

d a_ + a ^. +. o " 4 a c ' a_ + 4 0_.. d'a i..-

-a_ k ". -."a,e.

r a-'.r i. R_a + 9_. ' + o

..' '. a,

. e m..

leus than 500 ohms is required ani -hus all fixed resistors :re funered

. u.. l s +. 4... a.

v,a+e

.+.,,

e P

b.

On Recorder A the number 1 and nu.ber 11 pctenticneters were fcund ta te wired in reverse i.e.

number cne ccntrolled point 11 and num.er 11 con-trolled point 1.

'dirirs was corrected and recorder calibrat-.d properly con._ g i o.. a ham + m.s.'. r u ' o,.."..k a - e ' a.. 4

'r', +. k.. a +e

". e r a_

'. o u. m 's ' k..a ~. e a a

4

~

-. 4

.e n 1w. e.12, b.

+n

% w.oi i n.d p n.a e 4.n. s, + h.. c..,. + p.

v. p q. 4 A.~n..n. o, e a_* p. h..p n p

+.h n,. c.m. a_

o.. e v.6 J

~

e

.~

. m o, g o, c. e + a l

e. v, w n w 4. r +~mq +..

c. o. y n + w 3.. a-C #.

• k..".

c k.. # a_ '. 4 1

".P.

1. .~.".'.

+^ *"

-. - - ~

e.

n o..

a m

~ -

touchin;- the cen+.er lead wire. The stranded shield was properl;, termin-ated and the prch'en corrected.

5. e. *t ec.Lrm rnmu c. s.~

3 v.

7 7 ^ ^~"e J:e +m* +. ^v r

• e c + 4 30... n m u

• i.. e-n ". e -

e_ o c ' ' a + #. o n

_d a-.. o n " +m. 2+u.u.

+ k..a+

21 '. _i a_ '_ -

e i

e o

m o

t ^. o-

". a " a.

^a. o. H~ c. i n -, o-s a_.v "e.c+ e i, + " 2+. a:...a ian'

4. e + a. a + ^ v. a.,_. 4 '. s a n ' -~. 4.

a

- +

-n

+.

4 u

e

,y..

y. +. w. 4.,

n_.,_ ^_ a_ o, +e ab 7 a..' i. '. ' m' a. i + %.. _*v

+ k..a.

o "u*a_.

a n ' # a_ d.

^ ^. - a o_ + i ^ n.

'.c o + u^ ". o~

are accurate. The backup incore recorder was calibrated and operational as required by the Technical Speci:icaticns.

s.r.

- 4,.. s a

+. 1

.i P

(

)

s.; o

II! CORE DE'"ECTOR LCCATIC::3 A

3 0 0

~

C 0 O W

c o

O O.

O E

O O

O O

F 0

010 0 0 I

o o

o o I

o O

(D u

O O

D 0 0

0 0 0 o o 0

01 0

t

?

o o

O O

O 0

0 0 o

0 0 6

0 O

I e

O O

R t

1 2

3 L

5 lc 7

8 9

10 11 12 13 1h 15 O

s7=etr7==nitors h

Total core nonitors based on 1/h core spr.etry h

Cc=bination total core and synnetry nonitors

.= n 4, <,

D >-

J--<'

Figure 5.3-1

8 e

T COD. T 1T.m.1."a.,."OR a

o pc e+U.tewr t r;n..m 'c.)

nM n

v DU.

n.%p a Cm.0R O. O. *q

.m a.

......~_....-...._.._...._1_.__L_._.4.__-~.._.4-.__.4_..._L._-

.. ~...

[._. _

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

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

n.

+_

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

.000

. -... _. ~.._

. ~_.,...

.. ~..

. _ _...............n...n.-3...

n..e......._.. + _.....,. _ _. _....+.... _..-..- >_. _.- _./..

.- +

.v y.w

w a

_....... - +.... _ -.... _.

_m t;.2.t.....

....6

. - -. ~

y......._-._._.........,--._._-.__.3.-

..g_._.-...-f _.,. _.

.... _.... _,p.o.

~~

~

...., _ - ~.

• -~..~..*.^_~.~.*-~__~.~'~'..*_~_%.... _..... _... _

900

' _ ~

~ ~** ~ '

~ ' ~

~

~

~ ~. ~

. ~...... _

../_..._ -.... -.

..... _ +....

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

.o...

... -.... -.. _...... ~...

_4

....t..__..._.,......_.-..._...._.._.._._a.g._..._..--.

......~

... +...

800 y.

s.

..~.........:._t

_.w&.

...-.... ~...-_...._.._._. _.__ _.

._.--.....~.

..-. ~. _.

4..__..

_~

. ~ -..

............v..w.-.ww.....~.__.._._

...s

.. ~.

.v

.. ~, m 4. w

....._.~..,.%...__._..+.-...._..._...__..~~~~~--f-.-...-..__-+.-

w T00

.. _....... -.... _.-- ~-... _ - -.... _. _..

- ~ ' ~ ~

'.~

=-

.....'.._.=.-----,".a..__..._.'-_.___._._. _. _-_. _ __. _. _.'~~. _...

^

w

. _.. _.. _. _..u...c e c.a. _r

._ _x t __... _.... _ _.. _.. _...

00 s....

na L_. _.. _... -... -.. _... _..._. _..._... _..... _. -

~

500.

.... _..... ~..

_...t._.._........~....._...__.._..t.__.

O c

,.s

~..

4,

.. _.... _. _ _.. _ _... ~. _. _. _ _. _.. _ _. _ _ _. _. _ _ _,. _...... _.. _.. _ _ _. _.. _.. _.

~

. n......... _.

r....

o

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

c

-.a....

v 00

.. _._..__._.____.s

../..._......._._.__.._..._.._.__.._.._.._.._... _. _....... _. _. _ _.. _.. _ _

o

. 1,

. m t.

200 - - -.

-.+...._....+......

O

..4..

.... ~.. ~..

4.._...._

o a

.. -. _.. ~. _.

..m.

a oe 100 -.

a

._.._... E. _.._...- ____.,_..

0

-t _

..._....I_._._.t.____.t.__...__.t_._._._t._.__.t._._..-_.--._._.._.t..

_ _ t __

.t..__...

u,. _.

....-. ~_... _.

0 10 20 30 ho 50 60 70 80 90 100 Reactor Pover, f, FP p r..

m e q

r..,

n.,

,icure e

r -

SECIETRICAL DETECTOR COMPARISON 09-10-78 Date h05 FP Power Level Det.

Core No.

Location 1

2 3

h 5

6 7

5 E-9 103 160 165 157 167 135 63 7

E-7 101 161 167 156 163 13h 62 9

G-5 105 163 162 157 159 133 63 11 K-5 103 160 166 15h 161 13h 62 13 M-7 loh 160 16h 155 161 133 60 16 M-9 10h 160 16h 155 161 13L 61 19

-11 105 162 16h 156 163 132 60 25 G-11 105 159 163 157 163 13h 65 Average 103.8 160.6 16h.h 155 9 162.3 133.6 62 Highest 105 163 167 157 167 135 65 Lowest 101 159 162 15h 159 132 60 1.2 2.h 2.6 1.1 L.7 1.h 3.0 2.8 1.6 2.4 19 33 1.6 2.0 (1) Difference is taken between the average 7alue and the highest and the icwest readings.

N f/ ' i(ei, Table 5.3-1

g e

SY'GETRICAL DETEC"'OR CC?FARIS0N 09-19-78 Date h05 FP Power Level Det.

Care

, Corrected Nancamps, By Level No.

Locatica 1

2 3

h 5

6 7

23 F-13 3'i 30 138 126 135 113 58 28 C-10 90 138 136 129 135 111 h9 32 C-6 89 1ho 137 128 139 115 50 35 F-3 89 139 138 127 137 112 kg 39 L-3 88 137 136 123 137 111 h6 h3 0-6 89 137 135 126 139 110 h9 h7 0-10 26 133 128 116 127 100 36 I

50 L-13 88 137 133 127 137 112 h9 Average 88.2 137.h 135.h 125.2 135.8 110.5 h7 90 1ho 138 129 139 115 50 Highest Lowest 86 133 128 116 127 100 36 (1) Difference 1.8 2.6 2.6 3.8 3.2 L.5 3

(_2. 2 l

h.h 7.h 9.2 8.8 10.5 11 (1) Difference is taken between the average value and the highest and the lowest readings.

-c--4

,2 1:3 :.. O Table 5.3-2

IIICORE DETECTCR RESPO:ISE VERSUS REACTOR Port.R(' )

^

Power Level Detect'r Current in IIancamps o

(5)

Uncorrected Corrected Packcround 15 156 162 6.5 LO h16 h2h ih.5 Th 732 Thh 2h.5 (1) For incore detector number 2, core location H-9, level h er E. J - s b)

Table 5.3-3

SUBSTITUED I:ICORE D C ECTORS Core Location Strine ?!teber Level D-10 27 h

T-3 lh 3

II-8 lb 2

S-pn-A

-e, 2,;)

J... d Table 5.3 h

1 5.h POWER IMBAL/JICE DETECTOR CCRRELATIO:I TEST 5.h.1 FURPOSE The Power Lnbalance Detector Correlation Test at LOG FP and 755 FP has four objectives:

(a) To determine the relaticnship between the induced power distribution as indicated by out-of-core instrumentation and the actual incore power distribution.

(b) To denonstrate axial xenon control using the AFSR's.

(c) To verify the adequacy and cccuracy of backup imbalance calculations using Metropolitan Ediscn's Procedure 2103-1.11, " Hand Calculation for Quadrant Power Tilt and Core Power Imbalance".

(d) To verify that core Maximun Linea" Heat Rate, Mininum DMBR, Maxinum Heat Flux Hot Channel Factor and Maximun Enthalpy Rise Hot Channel Factor limits are not exceeded at various core habalances using Metropolitan Edison's Procedure 2311-F2, " Power Distribution".

5. ~'. o

-:Da in-uen r-cwrauw This test was conducted at h0% and 755 FP to determine the relaticnship between the core axial inbalance as indicated by the incore detectors and the Out-of-Core detectors.

Eased upon this correlation, it ecuid be verified that the Minimum D IER, Maxinun Linear Heat Rate (MLHR), Maximum Heat Flux Mot Channel Factor (F ) and '.!axinun Enthalpy Rise Hot Channel Factor (FiI ) limits Q

H would not be exceeded by cperating within the Flux / Delta Flux / Flow envelope set in the Eeactor Protection Systen (RPS).

The method employed to conduct the test at both power levels was the same.

The sequence is outlined below:

(a) Steady state conditions were established at the desired power level with core xenon concentrations at equilibrium (2D).

(b) The Incore Monitoring Systen was verified as cperational and the backup recorders were checked as having been calibrated in accordance with TF 300/2L, "Incore Detector Testing".

(c) The unit computer was verified as operational with applicable Nuclear Stes: Systen (:iSS) prograns functicning properly.

(d) Prior to conducting this procedure, TP 300/22 and TF 300/2, " Heat Eslance" and "Huclear Instrumentation Calibration at Pcwer" respectively, were used to calibrate the Out-of-Core detector inbalance to read within 05,

+ 15 cf the inecre inbsinnee.

1h 'i' fg 5.L-i

(e)

Due to the narrow allowable rod band (Table 5.L-1), imbalance limits (Table 5 h-2) and possible high linear heat rates which could occur at 755 FP testing, it was considered prudent to utilice the provisions of Special Test Exceptien 3.10.1.

This Special Test Exception is written expressly for conducting physics tests of this type.

In crder to meet the required Surveillance Requirements, a modified version of 2311-F2, " Power Distribution" was incorporated as Enclosure h to SP 800/21, "Pcver Escalation Controlling Procedure" and performed at least every two hours during this test at 75% FP.

(f) Baseline data censisting of the follaving was collected:

(1) Cc=puter group 31, " Fluid Conditiens".

(2) Selected computer group established prior to commencing test (Table 5.h-3).

(3) Backup Incore Detector Recorders were marked with TP r.waber, step number, time, date and initials.

Recorder data pointc were tabulated.

(h) Computer group 20, " Worst Case Thermal Conditicns".

(5)

Computer group 3h, "3-D Power Map".

(6) Cc=puter group 36, " Fuel Assembly to average Fuel Assembly Power Ratio".

(7) Computer group 55, " Tilt / Imbalance /Insertien".

(8) Ccmputer group 33, " Core Average Thermal Conditions".

(9) Selected ecmputer group of step (2), above.

(10) Ccmputer group 32, " Heat Palance" was added at the 755 PP plateau.

(g)

Once tre base line data was acquired, an imbalance was established using the group 8 control rods (APSR's). The integrated control system (ICS) autcmatically compensated for the reactivity chenges induced by APSP movement by repositioning group 6/7 to maintain a ecnstant indicated power level.

(h) The imbalance established in step (g) was observed for a minimum period of twenty minutes to verify stable conditions existed (required para-meters steady or in the case of imbalance, very slavly changing due to core xenon redistribution) prior to recording a full set of test data.

(i)

Once stable conditions were verified, the data listed in step (f),

part (1) through (10) was once again collected.

(j ) A new imbalance was then established and the same data was recorded once again; this procedure was repeated until the maximum positive and negative imbalances had been established and the raquirai data recorded.

At the maximum positive and negative imbalances, an addit.

.1 special data set was obtained. This data set is ca))ei a Performance Data Output (PDO) and providas all signific9nt nn~'aa r----^'^

r e-"+ainad vitbin the computer basai upon a 30- minute time averaged cenpilation.

1. G.

g Y) e r

5.4-2

--~

Ihe difference between the measurements at h05 and 755 FP, other than those previously mentioned, were:

(a) The power imbalance limits observed were + 0 93/-19.99% imbalance at 1

"P and + 3.335/-12.2'5 at 755 FP.

(b) easurement at LO5 initially used a gain factor (K) of k.50 set into caled difference anplifiers of the power range detector channels.

value of "K" was for a slope of y 1.00 to _dL 1.05 per the original

>ck and Wilcox (3&W) reccnnendations.

In order to achieve additional trvatien, this slope was later changed to 71.15 and fi l.20 at LO5 1

BLW.

neasurements at 75% FP ased the gain factor determined during the h05 neasurement to verify that the measured gain factor met the acceptance iteria.

As In imbalance condition was established, core power distribution and worst case thernal information was obtained frcn the plant ecmputer to ensure safe conduct of the test.

A plot was maintained of incore of fset versus out-of-;sre offset.

Based upon previous startup experience, it was determined that the relationship between the incore detectcr (ICD) and out-of-core (OCD) offsets was linear and of the fern given in Equaticn 5.h-1.

OCO = (M x K x ICO) + 3 (Equation 5.h-1)

Where:

OCO = Out-of-Core Offset, 5 FP ICO = Incore Offset, 5 FP M = Slope of line K = Gain Factor (scaled difference amplifier)

R =

In+aroept at 'ero ICC The experimental slope could be determined frcn the plot of ICD versus CCD of fset.

Once the experimental slope was known, the scaled difference amplifier gain (K Factor) required to meet the acceptance criteria was determined frcn Equation 5.L-2.

= M !M

( qu tion 5.h-2) 2 1 Where:

K = Gain Factor (scaled difference amplifier)

Experimentally determined slope M

=

Desired slope

'I

=

2 5.h.3 1201

-nm

--nU,m.S nc u The relaticnship between the ICD and CCD offsets was detennined at h05 and 755 FP by impcsing deliberate inbalinces in the reacter core using the APS?'s.

The measured results at h05 ?? yielded slopes ranging frca 0.89 to 0.93 with an average sicpe c: 0.915 for the ICD versus CCD offset relationship.

Initially, the minimum permissible sicpe was specified as 1.01. but as was discussed in Secticn 5.h.2 was late" increased to 1.15 to provide additional censervatism.

'b /n 7.e'),lse

=

~.f4-]

)

Using the measured slopes and an acceptance criteria (desired) slope of 1.18, the K factor was found to ranse frca 5.71 to 5 97.

The valu of 5.97 would s'ive assurance that the mininun acceptance criteria would be met fer all power range channels.

After adjustnent of the scaled dif ference caplifier : factors to 5.97, the imbalance test was repeated at 755 FP to verify the results of the h05 FP neasurement. The slope measured cn the four cut-of-core detectcrs rangel frcn 1.22 t o 1.27 with an average of 1.25, corresponding to an " actual" scaled difference amplifier gain ranging from 5.52 to 5.75.

~nese values ccmpared well with the LO5 FP results.

Previous startup test rcsults have shown the indicated slope becomes more conse"vative with increasing power.

The 505 FP E factor values previousl.v established were acce"ted as

t. roviding e

the more conservative results.

A ccmparisen of the incere detector (ICD) offset versus thc out-of-core (CCD) detect'or offset obtained frcn each ;iI channel is shown in Table L.5 h.

The aea +m ay. i + h o,

=p e

. m_

c.y +, ;,.e m

. ; + u.. 1 a

a:sc.

o.y,1 r. ; e - e a: -

n,-

_ n.. a a m.e-,_nca_

s e+e +u# n ~ n ' L. p 0 ". h. ' ' a + "._ ~r 5 a'..

s ~

7" d n ' a " a_ '..' a_ 'a-

'v".._

e v."y

" '..e ".'v a '. ' "

m' e_ e _ "... 4..". e '.

a.

.a a

E factors of 5.97 The data in Table L.5 L also shows a larger positive imbalance ecndition being obtained at 755 FP than was recorded at LO3 FF.

Experience at LO5 ?? indicated excessive bcrc. tion /deboration of control rod

roup 6/7 would be necessary in order to induce any significant positive imbalance within the core. Rather than use this approach, an additional negative imbalance point was obtained at LO5 FF.

'.ihen t e s t in g at 755 F?,

+ %._

na_3 a + ~< _

1. ...~k a.l a.. ^_ a_

m

~

4

- 44 4 c orm.' m^..s

'. _". a._

'... c.c e d o 'v a". _4, c,

'v.. _M 'en-+ v. %"*d.a a

m

-a.

value and beccning pregressively more negative. When the maximum negative imbalance data had been collected, the APS?'s were returned to their initial position fcr the start of 75% FP testing. The effects of axial flux redistri-bution created a similar axial redistribution of xencn with time. The resul-tant flux depression (xenon buildup) in the lower ccre producei a positive 4..b a A' an c a.

.i.n +sb u"p ~y_".

^ ~ a. "'o va.

G' a_ ^ a" /'v l"".. ~ '.

444 i n' ' +v. ^v u.c, k..

.k ao m t. n.a'-

~

_vi s n s.

m..

v y v

m_

5._ 5.,.,a_ a _e,

4 m.. c _ _., a

u...,_ u _n.

- w., 4 ~_ a,

+%._,,.

..a ". a_

n o'e %_s e dm m o r. *. ha.

n

,m a

mu m m

r.~

v y

standard cperatin~ ccniitions wherein positive i-balances are rarely achieved, s

even during abnor al circ = stances.

Core power distributicr measurements were taken in ecniuncticn with each of v

the imbalance measurenent3 discussed abcVe. The values of minimum D: PR, maximun linear heat rate (M 23), Fc.x and FJAu.. were determined and extrarolated to the applicable overpcwer trip setpoint and ccmpared to the acceptance critaria as required.

Calculations were performed as discussed in Section 5.9, " Core Power Distribution".

The worst case values of minimum D::ER,

'T

'40R, Fq and F;'y determined at h05 and 755 FF are listed in Table 5.h-5, 3.,-..g

.4+w

+ %._

o v.+.. y7_, o ' # c n ', o *. *.. ov o_ "r. ^s",. a_ ". '.".#.t, "a ~ oin..' a-

.s"

+ %.m

s. a v. '.

'^

m

-e plateau in the "ecwer escalation sequence.

Tne worst case D:IB ratio was greater tnan the minimu-limit o f 1. L1 an d the

,c

.-a nw

...i.. 4 + ". 2.'. O %. w/ '. '. (or w_du"a.v

.v.r u..p.

.n a u n_ a.., - ' s_ u a-

• M r. t h...

'u a l.

..a.-

v a

.v v

a

l. i.. 4 'm _ d

'm o _9 0 h '.<.". / '. ' '. ^ "

n_ ^mva _ ". "< a' 4... ) a #. ' a_ ".

a_ v. ' " n_n, ^v ' o 'm#

n t o

'_h. _

a a

m o v a "n, c wa_ ".

m m

'"4 e 'y s i.*-.

a' m' ' ca'oule_d.. ~.l ue

^P

.sg '..." a_

.i ' h 4 n.

+M...

a "_ ~_ _" m' o b _' a_

D,

.-^x-..-

o a

a m n'" e " " 4.. s~ %.. ~4

^^

u c ". -.'. ~. ~ ~# - e i va

'c.. x~

- _ a n' ' a-a ".. v '-. e n - "e ' '. c ^.. v.' a_

^o' c

-- - g.

e ha~< e b o_ a_ n

..e.. am 'mh a*v "1

i e"g"a*ve "g" e^' _# -

-._~.44e b~

' M._

C.. a. a ^ '~.

O. v ^ ' a _ -

4-a v

v m

y s

tion Syster trip setpoints ?cr the allowed axial imbalances during power :peration.

.L Jr re - 4 < v}.

5.L h

3ackup imbalance calculations using SP 2103-1.11, "H1nd Calculation for Quadrant Pcwer Tilt and Core Pcwer Imbalance" did not agree with computer calculated imbalances within the limits specified in the test at h05 FP.

Section 5.3, "Incore Detecter Testing" discussed problems isolatnd during testing which effected the backup recorders cperability.

Fesolution of these minor viring problems allcved the acceptance criteria to be met at 75% FP.

Table 5.h-6 lists the ec=puter calculated imbalances as well as imbalances obtained using the incore detector backup recorders.

5.h.h CC:!CLUSIONS Backup imbalance calculations performed in accordance with SP 2103-1.11 provide a reliable alternate method to ec=puter calculated values of Enbalance.

Utilization of the Scaled Difference Amplifier Gain "K" f actor as determined at h05 FP, resulted in gced agreement between Incore and Out-of-Core Detector Offset indications as verified at 755 FP.

The most important parameters verified as a result of this test were minimum D:IBR, Maximum Linear Hent Eate, Maximum Heat Flux Hot Channel Factor and Maximum Enthalpy Rise Hot Channel Factor.

A_1 of these parameters were well within Technical Specification (3/h.2 Fever Distributien Limits - Bases) limitations au vell as criteria established in knendment 6 dated 17 August 1978 and knendment 8 dated 15 December 1978.

Do to the essentially self-damping characteristics of the Reactor Core, the axial power imbalances induced during this test by xenon oscillation were easily controlled by the APSR's.

e r 4 <>r, L:,

5.h-5

2.

REGUIATI::G RCD GROUD I:iSERTIO:I LI:1ITS (0-200 _+ 10 EFFD and h Pr.n Or.eration) 5 Power Rod Index (5 vd) 0 63 15 117 h5 130 82 173.8 92 ISh.9 102 187.1

.409

'g,,,

J.,

Table 5.h-1

EPROR ADJUSTED IMBALANCE LD ITS (0-200 EFFD LOCA Limits)

Error Corrected Full Power Tech Full Minimum Cut-of (5) _

Specs.

Incore Incore Core 0

-28.10

-20.06

-19 25

-19.56 h3

-28.10

-20.06

-19 25

-19.56 82

-16.70

-11.96

- 8.31

- 8.77 92

- 9.30

- 5 72

- 1.7h

- 2.12 102

- 9 00

- 6.09

- 1.1h

- 1.Th 102

+15.80

+12.bl

+ 6.85

+ 8.10 92

+16.60

+12.51

+ 7.87

+ E.9h 80

+19.20

+1h.16

+10.h8

+11.37 ko

+25.h0

+17.35

+16.85

+16.85 0

+25.h0

+17.35

+16.85

+16.S5 (1) Error corrected val'tes assume all possible sources ccntribute their maximum calculated errors in the same direction.

Not exceedirg these limits will insure compl'ance with Tech Spec. limits for Desien Basis Accidents.

(2) 'dinimum Incore refers to enl'/ those detectors supplying the bsckup incore recorders.

The conputer is assumed to be unavailable.

{ l]' ' n a, }.

J.

x Table 5.L-2

SELECTED CCMPUTER GECUP Computer Point Par ameter 577 Power Range NI 5 578 Power Ran.ge UI e 579 Power Range NI 7 580 Power Range UI 8 581 Power Range NI 5 Imbalance 582 Power Range UI o Imbalance 583 Power Range 3I 7 Imbalance 5eh Power Rance UI 8 Imbalance 1723 Core Pover - Secondary 1729 Core Power - Primary 17hl Upper Core Half Power 17L2 Lower Core Half Power 1750 CORPW - Core Thernal Pcwer

~

.- o - 4 o i.,

bj~ S

~

~'

~

Table 5.L-3

MEASURED ICD A'iD CCD OFFSE"S A"' h05 A:iD 755 FP IIcminal ICD OCD Orfset (5)

Power (5) orrset (5)

II-5

II-6

L - t

..I-8 LO

+ 2.22 1.72 1.6h 2.0c 1.86 ho

- 1 5h

-1.66

-1 59

-1.27

-1.h2 ho

-16.85

-15.56

-lh.95

-14.95

-15.91 40

-23.73

-27.03

-26.00

-26.17

-26.66 ho h0.h7

-38.62

-37.oh

-37.hh

-3S.37 Lo h8.78 h5.22 h3.h6 h3 92 h5.00 Slope =

0 93 0.89 0.91 0.93 75 5.01 6.75 6.58 6.65 6.90 75

.113

.210

.2h9

.210 367 75

-1.589

-3.361

-3.282

-3.203

~3.282 75

-5.850

-7.332

-7.0h3

-6.955

-7.135 75

-11.0h9

-13.965

-13.h5

-13.hS9

-13 776 75

-15 96h

-20 323

-19.590

-19.802

-20.167 Slope =

1.27 1.22 1.2h 1.27

'ihere ICD OFFSET = PC'4UP-PC'iL'd x 1005 POWUP+PO'iL'd CCD CFFSET = CHA'i'IEL IMEALA'ICF x 1005 CHXI?iEL FO'JEF

.- n - A c

.t t >

D Table 5.h L

t MEASURED DNBR, MLIIR, F0, ^

11 flominal Extrapolated Valuen

,3

~

y Power Minimum MI,IlR Maximum Maqimum Power IJIR 6'

(%)

DNBR (kw/f t )

Fan

( #5 )

(kW/ft) 40 5.Sh 8.27 3.0h 1.69 85 17.15 in 75 3.37 12.11 2.h9 1.685 105 16.95 V*

C

CC:FARISO:I 0F CALCULATED IIICCRE VERSUS BACLUP RECORDER IMBALA:!CES Ucminal Computer Calculated Backup Recorde?

Powe" T-balance Imbalance (5)

(5)

(5) ho

+ 0 93

+ 0.59 ho

- 6.90 k.20 ho

-19 99

-lh.59 75

+ 3.83

+ h.h6 75 h.h6

- 5 00 75

-12.27

-13.70 5A= p 4 a,fb L.'

Table 5,h-c,

5.5 ROD WORTH AT POWER 5.5.1 PURPOSE The purpose of the Rod Worth At Power Test was to define a method for measuring differential control rod reactivity worths as required during the performance of the reactivity coefficients at power test 5.5.2 TEST METHOD The method by which the differential rod worth was determined at power is the fast insertion / withdrawal method.

In this measurement, the controlling rod group is inserted for approximately six seconds, followed immediately by a withdrawal for approximately six seconds.

Since the total elapsed time is on the order of the primary loop recirculation time, the moderator temperature effects are elininated and the reactivity versus time is essentially a combina-tion of the effects due to the control rod motion and the fuel power variation.

Figure 5.5-1 shows the response of various unit parameters (ie. rod position, neutron power and reactivity) during a typical measurement at power.

The B&W reactimeter which utilizes periodic neutron flux sampling from a nuclear detector was used to calculate core reactivity and record unit para-reters during the measurement.

Fuel Power Variation needed to define the power doppler reactivity feedback effects were determined from measure neutron power by colving the following differential equation:

'g(t) = C2 (P - f(

9"

-)

n Where:

P (t) = Time dependent fuel power, % FP g

P (t) = Time dependent neutron power, % FP n

C2 = Cooling constant, seconds -

From this data the differential rod worth was then determined by using the measured reactivity, rod position, and fuel power at a one second time incre-ment in a linear least square fit.

Mathematically, this is expressed as:

60 (Al) (A4) - (A3) (AS)

Eq. (5.5-2)

AH (A1) (A2) - (A3) (A3)

Where:

A1 = I SP 2 i = 1 to 12 g

A2 = I aH 2 f

A3 = I AH aP 1

g A4 = I aH aP f

A5 = I 2P aH gf During testing at 40 and 75 percent full power an Intermediate Range Detector (NI-3, Partial Length Detector) was employed by the reactimeter.

However, due to axial spatial effects observed on this detector, it was replaced,-by. a f d0ft Range Detector (NI-7, Full Length Detector) at 90 and 98 percent furh'powei.~

5.5-1

To normalize all the data to the Power Range calculated reactivity a correction factor was applied to the h0 and 75 percent full power differential rod worths.

This factor was developed theorically from the inverse kinetic model in the reactimeter and expressed mathematically as:

PR/IR 9*

(

F

~

1 + B/A PIR Where:

A = Slope (AP PR IR)

B = Intercept, % FP P

= Average Intermediate Range Power, %FP IR The constants A and B were determined by a least squares fit between tne Power Range and Intermediate Range signals such that (PPR = A PIR + B).

This value was calculated and applied to each measurement at 40 and 75 percent full power.

Reactivity and neutron power sinusoidal oscillations were also observed during testing at 40 and 75 percent full power with amplitudes in the crder of 4.0 to 9.0 PCM and 0.1 to 0.4 % FP, respectively.

To remove these effects the steady state oscillation prior to the measurement was plotted and the best fitted period and amplitude determined. These oscillations were then superinposed on the measured data te ascertain the true reactivity and neutron power response.

Even though the correction did affect each measurement they had little impact on the average values which were employed in the determination of the reactivity coefficients. An overview of this approach is shown in Figure 5.5-1 which is a typical measurement at 40 percent full power.

The recommended generic value of the cooling constant C2 employed in calculation of the fuel power for the differential rod worth calculation is 0.24

However, to ensure that the value was valid for TMI 2, Cycle 1 experimental verification was performed at ho, 75, 90, and 98 percent full power. This was acne by finding the value of C2 which gives the most linear relationship between changes in fuel power and reactivity after a short rod-motion.

During this period reactivity and fuel pcwer are coupled in a linear relationship of the form below.

AP

• ig Eq. (5.5-4)

Ap

=

i PD fi o

Where:

"PD = Power Doppler Coef ficient, PCM/% FP APff= Delta Fuel Power, % FP Ap Ini tial Inserted Reactivity, PCM

=

g The best value for C2 is that which minimizes the sum of the squares of the difference between the measured and calculated reactivity changes to give

_7 the best correlation of the line. A typical measurement with C2 =.22 seconds is shown in Figure 5.5-3.

1P/~130 5.5-2

5.5.3 TEST RESULTS The results of the differential rod worth measurements performed during the Power Escalation Test Program are presented in Table 5.5-1.

This table includes the core power level, core burnup, and average control rod positions that existed on each measurement. For comparison these values were then plotted versus groups (6/7) position... Cee Figure 5.5-2.

As can be seen, the results ascertained formed a consistent set of data which defined the differential rod worth at each test plateau as a function of group position.

Corrections for oscillation in the measured data used in the differential rod worth analysis was required on reactivity and neutron power at 40 and 75 percent full power.

It was determined that the amount of correction applied was sensitive to the amplitude and incoming phase of the imposed oscillation. At 40 percent full power the amplitudes and correction were small and at 75 percent the amplitude and corrections were large. However, since each measurement reported at these plateau were based on three fast insertion / withdrawal measurement, in the average this correction had little impact on the final results.

The remaining correction applied to the measured differential rol worth was lue to the fact that at 10 and 75 percent full power an intermediate range detector instead of a power range detectcr was employed.

Eecause of this, axial _src ti al effects were observe'l and required reactivity compensation. This factor resulted in a 5.5% average increase in the differential rod worth previously measured.

The results of the best fitted cooling constant analysis is summarized in Table 5.5-2.

This table includes information on the statistical fit, time interval of analysis, and the number of data sets employed.

From this study it was determined that the cooling constant on TMI 2, Cycle 1 was 0.23 1 0.01 seconds-1 It should be noted also that the value seemed to be independent of core power level.

Thus the generic value of 0.24 seconds 1 used in the fuel power model (ie. differential rod worth analysis) was verified to be acceptable.

5.

5.4 CONCLUSION

S Differential control rod reactivity worth measurements were performed as required during the Power Escalation Test Program in conjunction with reactivity coefficients at power test.

The results obtained provided the dif ferential rod worth curves necessary to convert changes in group position to reactivity used in the coefficient analysis.

To normalize all the values to a consiston: technique, taricus correctionc at 40 and 75 percent full power were necessary to removc unit oscillations and axial spatial effects.

However, these corrections had little impact on the final averaged dif ferential rod worths.

To ensure that the fuel power model was predicting fuel power adequately, verifica-tion of the cooling constant C2 used in the model was also checked.

The conclusion reached after extensive measurements was that it was constant for all power levels at 0.23 1 0.01 second-1, s 0: - 4 o 1

1. 1 v.

5.5-3

Summary Of Differential Rod Worth ffeasurements Performed At Power As Part Of Reactivity Coefficient At Power Test Power Core Group Position Differentfal*

Plateau Burnup (1-5)

(6/7)

(8)

Group Worth

( % FP)

(EFPD)

(% wd)

(% wd)

(% wd)

(PCf1/% wd) 40 3.3 100 85.6 27 15.47 100 87.1 27 14.49 100 86.0 27 14.63 100 86.5 27 14.80 100 83.0 27 16.47 100 87.4 27 14.49 75 10.6 100 83.4 16 14.70 e

100 80.2 16 11.26 100 85.2 16 13.22 E

100 82.5 16 14.74 100 86.7 16 11.22 v.

Y 90 19.5 100 90.6 26 10.64 100 91.6 26 9.84 100 85.3 26 13.60 100 89.5 26 11.16 100 91.8 26 9.20 100 91.9 26 9.89 100 90.9 26 9.25 98 29.1 100 91.7 24 10.30 100 93.1 24 9.52 p

100 91.6 24 9.58 J3 100 91.3 24 10.14 100 92.7 24 9.64

'4 100 92.3 24 10.15

• J 100 86.1 24 13.58 N

100 90.9 24 10.21

• Note:

These values represent the average of (3) fast insertion / withdrawal at 40 and 75% FP and (2) fast insertion / withdrawal at 90 and 98% FP.

s Stmmary Of Fuel To Moderator Overall Cooling Constant (C2)

Measurements Performed at Power (1)

Power Cooling Time Plateau Pull Constant Correl at i on Data Interval

( *< FP)

Humber (1/Sec ond s)

Of' Id ne P,e t a (Second s) 40 1

0.22 0.9974 56 5-16 2

0.22 0.9980 12 5-16 Y

a-70 1

0.23 0.9882 12 5-16 Y

2 0.23 0.9909 12 5-16 Y

w rb 90 1

0.22 0.9947 61 4-16 2

0.24 0.9877 61 4-16 98 1

0.21 0.9911 5]

6-16 2

0.24 0.9901 54 5.4-16

-1 Note (1):

The average value measured on TMI 2, Cycle 1 at BOL conditions was 0.23 + 0.01 seconds p'.

C Q

u)

Reactivity, Group Position, And Neutron Power During A Typical Differential Rod Worth Measurement at Power m...

r u t=: Amplitude = 0.28 7. FP

'~~ ~ = =

~ '

=2r~-

~~z

nt-Period

= 3. 40 seconds :n=I=r= nu,=nnn:r

-t

+ rr

+

!nn

~n

=

40

=.=.. n.h.n.. i 1. =..m....

.y=. 1.n_ _... _= }... =_ _

rrt- "

.._..{=.._=...[.......

....,=.;...g...===..t.=..n._=.

n

.. n ;;

. -... - -.. ;n_u. n =.. =...n=.... e nn..m

.n..r._=

~

==.

~.

=t nt=;m"l=vn"nr..

. :In n: = $n n...ntun+n n+ = = = * ^ :M.; -t**j = = =

i C-.

"nrntun =

t = tn u nJn=nnt:TM nInnr-

.in" n.=-

l:jjjjEil!.EEEE!5EI !iliiEEE

. @s!ENI:5E!"55i5in=L.=5lilli!EMI!i' <~

i 33

~IE?i!!!FiEEiEaE=nGE= "=iMH=Hiiils= dis %

!=!!!#wih.E b

. ;t.u ;

. n..=f =a.. =

:^= t r. u. n 7 : : :

.n

~? -

. : ;= "'un.

m O

n=

n

=

7==

- nnn T ;..

-""...=: -

n-un.

a

......_t=.....- 2_3_na un =. n.n. n 'nt-

. j =~ t.=. a nt.u

.. _.- : t.=--

un; O

....t......t..t.=

~

g y

g

=._=. =..j=.. uta=nnt=_ung =. gggg.,

3. i-lgn ;.. :m.. _i..:.. 2n =..- = -.

..t.,

~..... - - - -

g.

n;- -nin.. _ _ L. n u n =. - nn [-. -.._;.===== l =n:..-..

._ ; =en_...

u.a :.

~

+

=

nr m + n-r.

rta 36

.---.--I=.---._t---:.

_=...=.... r.n. =..~.- - _n n. }.n..u. n. =...n..n.. =.. j.=.. n.. n !n.tu. -. -

+.i==

nn

.:..n_ t=. n.n._..

n. n..

4

==. =. =tn==t : n =,nn==y=n= n.

a.=;nnrr={nr.

rr

-..nin n

r+ anc t n.==

m r.

+

n.

1.

utn m_a_n=.2.....l-.._.....=....=....._u.,....

...i._.....=....... - n. [...n.. ;. n.. -:-t r "U

87 3

n. m a =.. n..=...-

... w. u.y4- *n...u.n..in.

n_r

.t

' " = ; = = =g=~ ^ = jn g U;~= ' "

a

======n

^~"2"~22==

^= & ~"*"

tan; nu.

E sid;Eiii".EEE. d 4; k ~= u n ~

86

+=

d

--Ei$5Hiii!55EE-Ei=!~=i-EDi:

51. 5!S :lEIE "'t

.3

' =;n..

..:_.:nnt =:. Q~ +n, n u"I" ig:i-~~&*....

nun =+

5 "=i=" r-

=

"j=~...... = * * ~

..tn

'=' "*" '"*"~~

85 u

-liiiri.iF.. n.-E_iE_::i::E..IE._n__; E.nH:.c 1EN.

. r. t..? r..E.li'...;E.in.

~...

=.

~

c-v3

,o

==nj=n__...n;=n. n t==-

- n-. nnnen r :tn-".~.

nn =

---.. nt:: r ny= tnut=..

a.-. n _

....__n

+ - t-tn n tr~

an- - r - w r-Q

'nhfi5155EEiiE E55l5fi';-i:

~LP" E !!l!! '.5Ei:*.E}51 !EilffE=-

i

=E 'Ni'!5S}EIEEdiE"fE!'fif 50 ~ 'E[5E ++d!!!==E!E: !!Ei+"!id #~!

i g

83 g;33gggggggg;3=gggg gg ggg; g;g =ggg=gg;n.

,;.=m

" """* *'W""~'"~""~"j """" g * "... n t n... = t - - - - -

--a._

nin:== tun:nnt=:= n.ca=

• " ~

"~

~

+8

_::: -jg Amplitude = 4.20 PCM M ::;}gni

ni!*@tg. --

" - + -

-..nr Pe riod

...m_.

3. 40 se cond.s -- ni=n =n n :

=

n.t = -

n c..

==n...

n utn uta-

n-

+

....h ".. i".

min'ii!Ef'E!5"_h dili-an!NE=f -Elkii".H( %..

..!=_..

..l..

hn.- ! ~

is!iin c

i i

.. a.... ~~.._. t r n: = j..... j..-...

2. ~-

_1 *-

a g

m%.........-........_..._.__...._.....-*-

= tr n.="r e

~ "" - " - -

n r n n.

0

- +

e

+IiE$iSU[IhEk!!EE[ii :!E!E :i-N[ii=SEi"N[

-UN!:i~~h -

~

N5NE!!ES !=Zi 5k"i!l5"' E!![:4r5!Ei$"!!I55hi! 1 '--55555 "

r

H--

,4 U

n _.:.u - "'-

--n_

.n

=

..... aj n= =,..n i n.:+-.: nt=r.Nt r r nir

~ ni=-

m-c.

n-n

'_8El5"E:.[JiS$5:hhii':"Ijli'E:" S~4' 5fE i

~~

'+~"

g

-8 u

.. _.. 1.. _._..g n

.c n t.

.n

= n.

=

n.

a:=

.nr

- n_r.==n. nun ntu,m n{=... :

-Ja=n:}::=.

=

n=1

.: =_.

.,......_.,_....g..~......_,

......_._g..-._

..g..

'J5iE i Tiii U'Etiiin" Sit.

ii!!n fi E tiH

- IEfE' -

7. Egg.g :gi:."EtEPiEi

-12 7-y.E.E;cqgggg 1

.gjg{rr.

.qtg. gg

_.gtgg.

h

FiEE r"En nE: -: 90E}Ei!E Fi~ i-

- ~ ~Ehi~ mil!i

""+

-16

-~

"-T

+ -

:a. u; ii.iE.i.t.::.. :i!.EE.. lie..jE"i. E._n.in E. E. E: #- - --..lil-ti.E.. ji. i-

- n'{-

3

_-.=..

J:iir :

F+ it-EtE=1HEQ) QEji H '}D,l & 4 :...E.j(, "li[.+ fyg __

i'L + <

-20

..g.

..z..

..v.._._....._.

=d' E;n.c.n; = u nlE-H E E 2*: Corrected Data Point - AE ici"ipl5f % jn~;i E]!i~-

.~: u q = t.--p -e an_ n n g..c...g a m.-.

n

-4

-2 0

2 4

6 8

10 12 14 Tine, Seconds

,n e

Figure 5.5-1

Differential Rod Worth Versus Group 6/7 Position Measured At Each Test Plateau As Part Of Reactivity Coefficient At Power Test

.:: : ^!dii and*id nii!!d :

iiii:i!

? ""i 9"l!i!! ~*

..iihn;nn

-.p'

.;-};; ;.,.sg

.unnu

~ ~ ~ ";@'ip"iu #

-- +

9" iii;;

16

=

~ 40 % FP ' -

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~

utu--

-+-

4.. -

~

l::.:j.; '

n

++

++t_tgt n

n...

~-+ i.$i i ~ " Ali.

6%;i *'

lijij ni!!

14

..t.

+

n..tn.n.g{:nc

..l......

t

-+ t:

7.u. t.=. :

- u..,g _-

g.;

. ;,;q..

. - u;,

uu.,,

.n.nu u.,:._ u ap: -

- n,a

n.. ; a - -

utu n.u

+

12 m

ap:

."~'

a p": ~

'. ii "_

" dis. "-v";E. ".-

"iEE", s.:itF..::

...*t...

.." 5

ut nil""

.{.-

- j ".

u p";- -

10

=

'.: - un:: ajn 2

t-

. ++

nn n-Ln n. tn.. :n t n......:..

. +

ap:

n;::

.-..t..

^^

- n t :: a {...,...

8

. ^

inn una. -. -. -

i

' ^ ~ " " :

a p":

n

..t-

+

.. ; ny.] '- - - -

. :.u:

+

nt::

+au g

n gj

+...

...::t=:: ~.

a _.. :

..au

_++-

uta

~

75% FF +

1 16

y....

a._u,;;

a. n.

.....w Ela

+

n- - -

mu r

+

uja

+

n.u 3

14 aun un n;n

+

.c....an' a ::

utn.

~-

nin

... n gn.....

. ~.7m+n:n.

+

t- -

n

. n... _

+n.

u.. T _... ;

• )

~

~

iiti:. n>

u

....iiE-

.:.:::: ~2$2

. 2 i!!E 9:[",;t=::

H"-

1::

M;r."'"

t "'--"+ii"2

" " - + -

E

.... l..

1..

,.t-

.1....,_..

~.;

an niu.

+

n a j;u:...........

a.

......nu n

anc

,k

_....... a. n.. -

. nru

-. _ _ _ _.. tunrug ----

a.. t n.. u.t. a.. n 8

b

=n

. +

n:n

in

+

n a I_nu n

• -P-"

..._.~.;.

s

... =_..r e

.E...

~ n. t a. - - m..an =.

a.. m..: +r.. -

. '. ~ ~ ~ ~...

1 16 190 %FP M

e,

...nnr O_.

+un

.3....

,,_m.

--T--- -. nn mn

. :: tn..

.: n :.

+

L

+-

~ : -

In nn 0

14

..u

+

+-

g

.n ":

... -- : I n..

n. n.

n. t. n...u. t..

t". - ~ - -

h- ;

+

n f.:n M

*^ ^

+r"

.un.

w

+

-+*:

-"+

n ::

+

u 1.g

...._g..

~~

C n n".nu

' ' ~

a;n:: n

.4..

"t::

...;u.... n...

g". n_...

. ; min -

.u. u. u g

. uus n.."- ' - - -

u..n. !".

n;

~

g i::

x g

r

.._...-.....t~

t W

n:t::

~

tun n.....

-^ ^ - '

..n.n :,....n 0-rT=-t

• pt-n !.*--

....n--+--

~*

m-.

..+

c

. u

- +

n. t..

- - - - + -.. -. -. -..

t-

+

aja ap:

a ::

.n:

+.

u...

k..

-. 'ma L

f..

ut

... +

n.n......

+

+....... _

. *n. ! n...

+

+..

n.} :.

n. n.. n.. n..

1

.. '. " "- id...E' Z^

n!n iilhi

. nn nx

- a

.....n : n.

..4 H

. k:9iE"ii$:NEllib*

3Sii}E-i 25"Mtili +- '!"--

xg::

-Eilli +

"7

=!E.

!!i:iiili!.....iijii rn

+

+

14 v n... :...

--- - n + ;;

+

.. ir h..

w! a..

.. i.. t. n u.....

u"

+n"

.....t..--.-....,

. - +.

+

!! h!

!f!!!! f! Ii!!!h h

+

12

.}... n.

..= tun u x.

utnn nata-

-r-,

C T..

10

._p qu.

.... g.,..m J+E"W-r7H:;t;; 5- ;r; y :4;:;:

n+lg K E Lln

..i.:

- r-

_ntn

. nin n t..

_ l- + -

a:

ain n

m.

+

8

..n;n...

atn u[E aji

. ajn x

n

^

a"; ;;

.=1..::+"idEifiEih :

--4'"i"E2miEy "HEr M - -++il+ib""

i

a. n.

n. n.. i: $ x.. a m

a. n..

a,. t..n

a. l n.. - +

o. n..

82 84 86 88 90 92 Group 6/7 Position, % wd c. 4 c.,

Figure 5.5-2 h

dd

omHnp E(QonH<gnM <mnmcm eaHnm mcoH Nocgn ecn+pm

1. D g crnoH vjPmcneaoon yon emnonMrpm g"PO y

noO~ rpm aoomnpan ^nov n m *.. :t: I';..l p;n -lj.n:

• nn : n * '. '{:. : : y.., n:m!".

ni

• p!.

. r

.*. +

imv.anm'g..ny4am'!yt

.p1.t.

nn.ut* j.n:."!,}n+.;"imna

'i'!.+*

..j.

n J.

. e 1' t+!t

.i.

,).

i n:tu.

. +

,-j.

y l*:J i.!*l nh:p;,n:ni r;.n:!:

.!*},*

.n "tu i.

, '. !~:l::, n,j }.* ! nit l

, +.

T ;. ! ;, * ; pa nn nqu n"? pp';{:n r'l*;1.i!;

, o,nt n,.,

3.

!.p, hti

j. n:i.

j,.,::

,t;,t+!

+lhi l

." ' +

t.+:

p luN 1i:4' i; :

..j..;i

!i t.

gj!

ntn:l.

t nnn. nu ;m*n' f 1n "j.mp. 1!!"n!"ia

.;t

.: j."j mcCmn tm:<eH u bOM.d.

,. t n :,.

n

.,n r !

I t

t*l.tpu nonnmyAnroo u O*ee@o

,H p[..

.nn.nn.f!+

it f,;.i

.

• n.'nEm!.I, l:t r:

.3.

?. nn..

t,.

,.I t,:"

ut

+ }. " p:.

aN n O.No moOoUDU

pnM.

.)

j.m+f ::;e u::*^q' net.

':'! ni.

.jI

..,",*;!"d;-

.;,iao

.g;t,!

.!i,,.t.

..i.+ f ! t

";.t'y:t,

n!

r;ntn ;.

n. rn.~!!p!

'lt;

,' i. : :nn u~mn =-

?.p,n.nm 'p ai::

.}

!! i :'j.r 7:.n w::!j nr. 'n ' !.; m:7[*

n. *!j,.p: ;.

1+.

n u tHb.

j

r ;

.,;n.$* h i

i.

1NCD t.;:

!!:f t

• ,a g,

-. i

t

. :b-(+ j.?.

e rwe map

.n T n:ne, ' ". * '

I'7f:n.'.-.

2m ;r "n'!nn.+ l*

r.n' i.p:.n +:jm tt{:.nnm:t b.

1

t+!e p;,n ut

!i

+

c g

.i-

,!.!f.upa+n t p.

'r 1!!+

,. ', n!.

!;!!,: t'!

!!m:.

n 6nI

.+!.

n.!!i.

+

j p,

p,++..

.ni nin'up.* inn:nem4.yyma.d,.n.hg** :m:mtn t!

n

M T.n y;.

-:!t n. :

+

+

T 4l

+.

"!n*p.,:n i: :!ny.,[,.!.np!.

Tp'.m;.,

1

'!u:1

n. :.t :

. ;n+ n

.

j,: y,n. ; -

n.

. r:.,th  !..

t n.' n. np:3'

nnn. pn.,tn+*j!jft;

n n + '

u

'!n,.*i 1"n 7i. u"u mi p. ;e:..n

.nn.

j;. - t n!+

";n g

n.;::

+::

1. .t

.n'ln:u +im a : n++p!.p:g::mtt

!g f.

n un.;.;

: [a TW:,. o.

.';1 :?

j

+!:

• .::i. r;.

p:. !n n'..'!

y

u,.

ut. :.t:*;i;,.i!

.fU.!

nn

• 1:;

iNp i :

n* ;.',:" M.

ntmn. ;u;j.-'f trl.~.!.

t:

,,.!}:.t:*Ii; g,#,.t -

p:mh nm~ 4;n:r..

n!!

)

i+

^ c ;.

p;.,i*

.t.

.i yt.

o2 -l:.unmnn.tnnl'llt"

.j:!

[t

• g

t in. !

i.:

.!^'

+ [nn;!.

r:

.tt*:{,..+1j,.r jb n:. tn. i+

• j.nt + ggnl in; ';.nau: ;y. 7.::n. iUn,.mi ;n.* : a. jai ^ 1;*;1... ! f. ; r.%!

j.

l l

, :*m!.!;i.*

am..t.

.~ iu.,dt + j.;;*l.i+

.j t

7 i.Ii mn rn*:j.

p.

j;!'

lnt ^ ".n" i^

p:.;p:. u n 4:n.nu +*nup. ;ty'.

. mp.'t

,l-

,t;-:*r!

/ p:,

t.

.tt+

t!r 1

+

n+ rmt. :mt. n rTy,+p"!.**M.q:.:

.'.tt

' i:',

p:,. j, ".

.n:

l'j Le

,,1:.

."l

.+:j

(

.i;

fL,. :, a;;.

i

: n u.

t :. j. + !:t

,*!t

+

1;

• j. n.nin ;:.n

• n:

'p'

!.;u mp.:/ *;:nmm.

!g p + :::

lnmm. n n '.'.n g.

7!'

p i j

, :,m i:.'h.o1:.

t:.(:+

rm!.

IJ.

u.

t 'n 1 n t.

i 1;j

^ :

iI' l

7,*

M INQ

t

h n:,

.i1 jn;.

I

.+j.+ n4 1.;:.npt{e

paun p..p:.!O

."anm. ' 91. I!.+n :4n !i}Mg.e l7i

t ntnaamen.muaj.

i I'; ::.i6nI!;

r p.

I.:.!

C

c;n i.., tn + 'l

;.T,t i *j t.1'

}1.!

!tnn;.

i'

.' n,tn.

'..L*

P p.

' i.-

.!+

.:.:;*j t.*

.1*{:np.rm.

.::.1:'jihp,t gT;+

J

• nt'c[!

. i, p'. r.,. 7,r '

• p't j

n:

,.m.t.

"M *.,.j. ;, t *jru.j.*j t,:i.*

n pI.

.[1..

,!i

;,jr i.!

t

'. !u" n " u;'..

-g:::

.'io::4t,!

i y

.::* nn++ :..' pap!r:j.w m" m:"g. t t

T{;:;;p t..t' h.1:

n m.. np

. '. ';t,';t.'.

e:mnua.;* j n**;.1, 1!m l',1n,n':

, :n

u +

t;..

4 1

.t

.! !n, i.nn,!."!l.

or

T j

.;:.+

,i.

!'

i'..

U

+i::-:

.;;,.t i

"j:

n.*i.t t.t,.:n n+

i.':

v

• } p:..,

h.

t

i *

..)

... t;.

D..

n.m:L." a. : :.m.n n:;. t I'f rj +lttpl,!j. : a "n;mm t.

.pa ' m: + d' 1,* h :tn'I jJ !n

},a.

r in!

q.

.i.:j T'

ia;!

i i+

j..'!Ij,

-t IHB t

+j,.*.:; ;

. ' n+ *fnn.. * !ntp',;p:. pr,"nm m m=':le a ha.p. **. '

+1 u:::

p.

n..

l n '

.^

i',

• 'I!.:. : n. fIe!*f i f:. ':

.*t,:t:

c

!: g; : -+

':i:*"u:

Mlj

• i;.

I

^

.p1

'.!. "i. ;h p',}t T,!

ti a

+j,t..*1!

.,!i

,:n + p*t4"Uaj.t.*

i :

,n. ;i. i n

1 i.

!n n[:.t'1 j:..!' 1fu*,t"

.n 0:

nht+P..l,nn ' ;! nt.

e

..j..

':j.a *

!i.: nnu*t.. u j. :

i'.

1

?g!

l'.!i1

'. n n + '. i t"'

. R

.nn.

dn

• 1np:,*.:

4I j,

p1t"1;i rhuon :n.mUajn:h."'

.'I j

,' t'.n.?in!-

!:::~n

. +,.

• ^.:

1'

.c

+lnl

.p

' r t-

.' : * '.' u: ** tnm ' : :

a

tnn.

u.: : + !

r n.

1,!+a *!

i.s:-,

-n j!.+

a i-t j.::.. p 1,,:tt3.rn.n+! ;1br:.ne ;.t nmn;,'j,m c;c./.*,:;nn.I.in.:1*n!!.

!n'n, r q,.

7:

!j

':t i f.pt Tg. }.!,i"n!

!tnu;n.nI:i.,::t l

...j, 1WN

' N 7j.'

i.'

.,' I[p7-.

e

' + m.. ".' !.i* *:.

?,: ps.n" s p:.m.. :r!a.nn. j.n@,..p',!,n n p ig.

t.

pi :

" +

.. n' n.!n :n,, '.

D

n h,::;

mqj.u;." a

'.at.

.n -

t t

a't !..,p:,.}!t+:::nn.!.

!.t nn,.;p.om

a;;;,ma.!uat'm.

,p:. !!

. j.

h *T': e.*

i l

.. '.n

!,l t

T'

. n'..

.,7. :.n :

+q.+

.ir.

i..

,. th7.1

p!

.':'t. : + a q:'

..!,l:

n!'.

-l.

.,m.m j,

't' j.. [:.

t lr.. *,

. n;:. ;:p.n.n;u,;;u'.t. mma :.!

7

!i;.:

• }:

. m. ' :: :

.n

+n

t.

n+.u:;nn.

• on** aM:rj.;. n :t

..i'

-t J.n

m:

1 t :;..

i.

?;.eo!ntn::n p.m1uj mn.i.n' y;t,.1 tn jtnni!. * ' M ;.: :ntpa ia.:

.mmu:'g:

• u n.t:-

!*n LIyll

.;1

u.p.;.

• i!

i

• n".*

,n:n'f. :;..'!+,

t uln y:. !n:

T i

1

..t:.

n p. *. c. 'i.!,: np;. p. n._ mh:+ p

! p

. -

.;r

f n!+ p1,

rm..=i.; " lmO:". -

..l

t n *

• .

!* q,-

• l t+!. :i j,. a q.

tj.

mcp:'

..-.a

7. : p;,.+ f!

.+j j.;t.

.j, t:+'::

nn:p:. nnh;a.. nm' m.'!.

. ;.n i.l*

,o n:.nn.n;h,:e:!.*!:*

in.I:.j 1:

n nnnO.n+;!'

T.t

, n:

+

Ot

n. }.um ",* :. ' a ;I

.:..'.'*.:m'

,: p. al:

t.l*

+;: '

l:n;:n:u u :ug-

!r !

,p:.,-

e:

• j

'l+mp..

n.tn. '.*nM1:! n,. "

.l'

.i ;

,.ft-nn nm

}.

u!:}. : ;m"T.. !;-n' n. !

.n :.

• jF:

i* ;

n.

t' au u Pf

i. p..

• p:,'.:n:

+

m n1 t

.!n. :. +

1

+

.I;t+

mt.

.F';

• . +

n:Mtr t

,..tn.n

. ::.n.np.mn nd n

. : ;p i t;.m:n.;

1t t

.  ;,nn.. : j. l!7+'..

l p;,.;.

." f a'l.' ". ;*+.'.- ::,.

!T.

+.

hn; i.

j::.i:.M u

l V

.+

'.?!

a*tnm. :n':t.lnn..m! h:

. ?p

.g "i,!1 nmtu"!h. n@. ;

rt

- i l.:

' u. +

• !s. ; n: +*,

• n. 7g:. ;!*

.::+: -- :".

.'f.

.;'

on n!.

' :. ::.l:+

t "nn

.:n.j!' :*

! + !! p!

t

..:l I

.e 1*

1 nty:.imn.:.:'. t.n n,"I t.!!;t r!,,t !p.m )1,.p.p.unM,.unan ;nn!r p. ;' r.n.inu:!t"[.:."

a!;

t t

t si'

. u 'i.

.ll

.r

.+

• i!.

"1nt P

nnn..t

.jg

. j.i :,:it

.i:

!t: m::.. j:!.-!in ;'. n:,..+n p;.p:,:;. ipane.nnp:..

j!.amtnn:.mp nn" n:u ;*

pf.; '.: ;

+1n:

.i.n*,inunin.;oop un u!' mj.n.. : ~ ' : n!1'

... nt.:

i;:.. n ';1

';h mm.

t i

,:n"n.tt

.;': t'i n.'.f1.!

n.i.. i nnnnne a*,m'n'.,:n.nn:m r.

• p,';n i.

U.ni. nu.c0':m';

a o

lm u *!.

1*

i:m

.n.;1.!

i :

O j

t ;. ;; e.!

..:+ a y:.m.m.mwntu':lnn " uu.i."f'p;.:n ' p:.r r. '.

.t

.*i

!m;._j...j.

[.

8'j.n.n..:.:* j. 'n.n

m+fal!'hua.r t

iM ; : n" g,

. c ;l2 l" paa I' * *,

4

.t+

tu. n *. _' ;

g..j,t :' ':*.

4:T

.!t

+;.n..tt.

t. 7., n!'2,M.

.un. -. ;.me.

. +,.

, m =mnnni; :!n n. "". !.;7;t;,:

. r : i;

!1.c

aii t

.:.:li,-. ';*.

t,

,"!..:L::*j. t rl.

j

• • . 'j t

O,O go,b a.m

,s.o gH*O O

gO~nu ycm~ mo gn, a ym fw3.

f. &-% s. '.

i 5

(-

mr cnm u.,gv m

5.6 REACTIVITY COEFFICIENTS AT FOLTER 5.6.1 FURPOSE Four coefficients of reactivity normally associated with light water reactors are defined as follows:

(a) The Temperature ccefficient of reactivity is defined as the fractional change in core net ree.ctivity per unit change in fuel and moderator temperature.

(b)

The Moderator Temperature coefficient of reactivity is defined as the fracticn-al change in core net reactivity per unit change in moderator temperature.

(c) The powe; doppler coefficient of reactivity is defined as the fractional change in core net reactivity per unit change in core power.

(d) The doppler ecefficient of reactivity is defined as the fractional change in core net reactivity per unit change in fuel temperature.

The purpose of this test was to measure the temperature and the Power Doppler coeffi-cients of reactivity at LO, 75, 90 and 100 percent full power.

The moderator temperature coefficient, which has implications in Safety Analysis, was then calculated by application of the teasured temperature coefficient and the predicted dop:'?r coefficient.

5.6.2 TEST METROD Reactivity ccefficient measurenents were nade during the Power Escalation Test Program at core pcwer levels of LO, 75, 'O and 93 percent full power.

For the temperature coefficients at LO and 75 percent full power reactor average coolant O

temperature was stabilized at 582 F and increased / decreased S F.

At higher power levels of 90 and 93 percent full power due to restrictions on 21xinun ecre cutlet temperature being less than 608 F, the above method was modified to start at a average coolant temperature of 580 r and increased / decreased / increased it h/6/h F respectively.

For the Power Doppler Coefficients at all power plateaus, power level was decreased / increased 5 percent full power from the test pcVer level.

To mininite reactivf ty effects not directly related to the coefficient being measured, steady state conditions were established and maintained for approximately eight hours prior to the measurements.

A summary of the conditions are listed below:

(a) Equilibrian rencn ecnditi:ns were established -- less then 6 PCM/hr.

(b) Stable unit operating conditicus were maintained -- Reactor power constant within + 17 full power in 10 ninutes, reactcr coolant tempera-ture and pressuri et 582 + 2 F and 2155 + 25 psig, APSR's pcsitioned 0

to mininite,xial :sre intalance (c) The soluble bcron concentration differences between the reactor coolant,

the makeup tank and the pressuriser were maintained in equilibriun with sufficient makeup tank level to eliminate the necessit" to add water during the test.

p r.

- 4 < r j;:)

1. ' t i 5.6-1

During the test differential rod worth measurements were executed at each steady state plateau in order to generate the required rod worth data for the specific test conditions.

5.6.2.1 TEMPERATURE AND MODERATOR COEFFICIENTS The temperature coefficient of reactivity is defined as the fractional change in the reactivity of the core per unit change in fuel and moderator temperature.

The temperature coefficient is normally divided inte two components as shown ir.

equation 5.6-1.

T=

M + "D EO (5.6-1)

Where:

"T = Temperature Coefficient of Reactivity "M = Moderator Coefficient of Reactivity "D = Doppler Coefficient of Reactivity The moderator coefficient cannot be directly measured in an operating reactor because a change in the moderator temperature also causes a similar change in fuel temperature.

Therefore, the moderator coefficient must be calculated using Equation 3.6-1 with the predicted doppler coefficient after the tempera-ture coefficient has been determined. Technical Specifications, Section 3.1.1.3, requires that moderator coefficient on TMI 2, Cycle 1 must meet the following requirements during Zero and Power Operations.

(a)

Less positive then 9 PCM/ F whenever thermal power is less than 95% of rated thermal power.

(b)

Less positive than 0 PCM/ F whenever thermal power is greater than or equal to 95% of rated thermal power.

(c)

Less negative than -30 PCM/ F at rated thermal power.

Temperature and moderator coefficiCats were theoretically predicted at various power levels and boron concentration as shown in Figure 5.6-2.

For these pre-dictions, a distributed moderator and fuel temperature was assumed with the average core moderator temperature set equal to 582 F.

During testing, to that agreement between measured and predicted temperature coefficients ensure were present, a limit of + 4 PCM was procedurally imposed as an acceptance criteria.

The measurement method used at power was to change the moderator temperature setpoint at the reactor control station while holding core thermal power constant within + 1% FP.

The reactivity change cauced by the temperature change of the core was measured by recording the change in the position of the controlling control tod group and coverting this change to reactivity using differential rod worth measured as part of Rod Worth At Power -- Section 5.5.

A typical example of the approach is presented in Table 5.6-3 and was developed frca data logged on the reactimeter. For the temocrature coefficients at 40 and 75% FP reactor coolant average temperature was stabilized at 582 F and increased /

decreased 5 F.

At higher power levels of 90 and 98 percent full power, due to Technical Specification restrictions on the maximum core outlet temperature not exceeding 608 F and operational ICS BTU cross limits occurring when the average moderator temperature fell below 578 F, the above method was altered.

In the 1C f "f3 5.6-2

modified method the average coolant temperature was re.

d to 580 F eight hours m

prior to performing the test.

The average coolant temp-r ;ure was then increased /

decreased / increased 4/6/4 F respectively, while staying within the above noted limits.

5.6.2.2 POWER DOPPLER COEFFICIENT The p^wer doppler coef ficient relates the change in core reactivity to a corres-pending change in fuel power. The power doppler effect is a negative reactivity contribution arising from the doppler broadening of the U-238 and Pu-239 neutron capture cross sections in the resonance of high energy regions.

Thus an increase in fuel power / fuel temperature increases the effective absorption of neutrons within the fuel which decreases the core excess reactivity.

Theoretical predic-tions of the power doppler coefficient were made using a three-dimensional PDO code with thermal feedback. The predicted power doppler coefficients using this code are presented in Figure 5.6-3.

The measurement method used was to change the reactor power level 5 percent full power.

This change in power level was initiated by manually decreasing the reactor power at the reactor master control station. After obtaining approxi-mately ten minutes of steady state data at the reduced power level, reactor power was returned to the initial power.

During thz measurement reactor coolant average temperature was maintained constant within + 1 F.

The calculation of the power doppler coefficient used the measured change in the controlling rod group position converted to an equivalent reactivity worth, the measured change in reactor power determine by a normalized core GT primary side heat balance, and the measured change in xenon worth calculated using a xenon code (Xeph2...) on the measured power change.

A typical example of the approach is presented in Table 5.6-4 and was developed from data logged on the reactimeter.

5.6.3 TEST RESULTS The results of the reactivity coefficient measurements et power are listed in Table 5.6-1 which present both the measured and predicted temperature and power doryle coefficients results along with unit conditions during the test.

From these results and the predicted doppler coefficient the moderator coefficient was then :alculated and are listed in Table 5.6-2.

The measured coefficients are aise plotted in Figures 5.6-2 and 5.6-3.

Examination of the measured temperature coefficients indicated that all fell well within their acceptance criteria limit of 1 4 PCM/ F of the predicted value.

In addition, the moderator coefficients calculated from the test results at 40, 75, 90 and 98 % FP were all negative which satisfies the requirement that the modera-tor coefficient must be non positive above 95% FP.

It should be noted that since TMI 2, Cycle 1 operates in an "all rods out" mode which results in higher boron concentrations, these moderator coefficients represent the most positive values present in the core.

Thus the moderator coef ficient will not be positive during power operation at or above 95% FP and will tend to become more negative with core Jifetime.

Comparison of the measured and predicted power doppler coefficients as showa in Table 5.6-1 and Figure 5.6-3 indicated favorable agreement was present with all values within i 2.1 PCM/% FP.

The major dif ference observed betueen measured s n..

b. U )

5.6-3

and predicted power doppler coefficients was in their functional dependence to power. The difference was attributed to t're fat.... it the predicted curve did not incorporate core lifetime effects. The acceptance criterien for the measured pcwer doppler ccefficient is that the coefficient must te more necative than - 6.33 PCM/5 FP-Figure 5.6-3 shows that all measure 5 coefficients are belcw this value and that the acceptance criteria is ade uatel,r cet.

p. o. 4>

C v-Lg r,u,o-r m.,

me The measured results at LO, 75, 90 and 93 percent full power indicates that the moderator coefficient of reactivity will be negative during power cperaticn above 95 percent full power.

Comparisen between predicted and measured tercerature coefficients of reactivity showed fabcrable agreement well within + L'FCM/ 7 Analyzed data for the pcwer doppler coefficient tersus power level indicates that the ceasured least negative coefficient of -10.60 PCP/5 FF was more negative than the acceptance criteria of -6,33 FC:!/5 FP, as required.

=n-4 Y Ca

,1:a.:

5. 5-a,

Measured Coefficients Of Reactivity At Power A.

Temperature Coefficient Of Reactivity Average RCS Average RCS Baron Differential Core Temperature Coefficient Power Temperature Concentration Rod Position, % wd Rod Uorth Ournup Measured Predicted

(% FP)

(OF)

(ppmB)

(1-5)

(6/7)

(8)

(PCM/% ud)

(EFPD)

(PCM/"F)

(PCM/ F) 40.3 583.2 1186 100 88 27 14.80 3.3

-2.76

-1.90 73.2 582.9 1089 100 86 16 12.60 10.6

-3.54

-3.05 Yg 90.7 581.3 1068 100 92 26 9.57 19.5

-2.93

-3.30 a

yn 96.9 580.3 1068 100 94 24 9.80 29.1

-3.60

-3.40 i

B.

Power Doppler Coef ficient Of Reactivity Average RCS Average RCS Baron Differential Core Power Doppler Coefficient Power Temp"erature Concentration Rod Position, % vd Rod Worth Burnup Measured Predicted (t FP)

( F)

(ppmB)

(1-5)

(6/7)

(8)

(i'Of /% vd)

(EFPD)

(POf/ F)

(PCM/ F) 37.4 579.9 1186 100 86 27 15.55 3.3

-14.27

-12.20 71.5 579.9 1089 100 85 16 13.50 10.6

-10.75

-11.90 p'.86.8 578.0 1068 100 89 26 11.90 19.5

-10.60

-11.70 C)i93.8 579.9 1068 10L 91 24 11.85 29.1

-11.43

-11.50

.a s

Sumnary Of Reactivity Joefficients At Power Power RCS Boron Core Coefficient of Reactivity Plateau Concentration Burnup Temperature Moderator Power Doppler Doppler (y)

(% FP)

(ppmB)

(EFPD)

(PCf!/"F)

(PCbf /"F)

(POf/% FP)

@f / F) j 40 1186 3.3

-2.76

-0.61

-14.27

-2.15 E

75 1089 10.6

-3.54

-1.89

-10.75

-1.65 Y'

{

90 1068 19.5

-2.93

-1.40

-10.60

-1.53 98 1068 29.1

.60

-2.12

-11.43

-1.48 Note (1):

The doppler coefficient present above is the predicted value for 711I Unit 2 at normal temperature and pressures at BOL conditions.

---

See Figure 5.6-1

/

p Q

,5

,:s

Temperature Coeffcient Measurement Calculation at 40'. FP TEMrERATt:RE COEFFICIENT ANALYSIS.

PEACTIVITY CONTROI f.ING PAR AM!:TFRS (Down)

( l'p )

(NTTS T (initial avg. reactor coolant temp.)

585.78 580.82 og g

T2 (final avg. reactor coolant temp.)

580.24 585.78 o p AT (Tl-T)

+5.54

-4.96 og 2

OO*2b 07*30 11 (initial. controlling CRA Croup Position) g.a 87.57 88.26 H2 (final contr Iling CRA Croup Position)

Iwd

-0.69

+0.M All (change in rod position during measurement)

Iwo 0.0146 0.0150 Ax/r/A i (dif ferential rod worth values) j P (initial powr level) gpp g

c-7 P2 (final power level) 40.38 40.24 tr?

[

AP (chango in power due to temperature change) 40.14

-0.26 IrP m

b

.cPD (Pcwer doppler coefficient)

-0.0143

-0.0143 t ax/r/trP Baron Concenti ation 1186 1186 ppa 5 xe 1 (initial xenon reactivity vorth)

-2.1329

-2.1329 P

g ayjg

-2.1329

-2.1329 O

2 (final menon reactivity worth) g ggj g xe (A x/x/A H) (An)

(*)

-0.0101

+0.0132 g g gj g

-0.0020 40.0037 03PD) (AP)

(*),

g ggjg 0.0000 0.0000 d.1,, (avg. reactivity char.ge due to Xe)

(*)

g ggj g Apexcess reactivity inserted due to temperature change

(*)

I AK/ K Rito = total of above (*) ite=a

-0.012]

0.0169 tagfx g4 (temperatua e coe f ficient) = R110/ AT

-0.0022

-0.0034 tor /r/O r a

C T(#* #'S ) ~ ( T("2) + T(Jown))/(2)

-0.0028

% Ar/K/*P

'A\\

-0.0006

% AK/#6F T(* J

t f f i" l "") ~ "T (""* E*) ~ D(fin ca S.6 1) a

Power Doppler Coefficient Measurement Calculation At 40% FP

, POWER Det'PLER COErrICIENT ANALYSIS R F ACTIVITY COtTTROI f.INC PAR AMETFRS

(!h wn)

(l'p) t9N! TS P (initial power level) 40.45 34.58 g

IrP P2 ( inal Power level) 34.58 40.02 trP AP (Pg-P)

+5.87

-5.44 2

33, li (initial controlling CRA Croup Position) 87.98 83.57 g

., d s

II2 (final c utt lling CRA Croup Position) 83.57 88.74 AH (change in roJ position during measurement)

-4.41

+5.52 3,,3 o

Ax/ r/ Alt (differential roJ worth values) 0.0156 0.0155 p

IAx/r/iad 579.80 579.87 T (initial avg. reactor coolant temperature) g o,

u Ty (final ave. reactor coolant temlerature) i P

+0 G/

+0.37 g

AT (change in temperature due to power change) n F a T (teciperatere coe f ficient)

-0.0028

-0.0028 g ggj gj o, Baron concentration 1186 1186

n. a P me 1 (initial menon reactivity worth)

-2.1329

-2.1425 tar /x D me 2 (final menon reactivity worth)

-2.1425

-2,1442 g ggj g

( Ax/K/A u) (AH)

(*)

-0.0688

+0.0856 jg (Q T) ( AT)

(*)

-0.0002

-0.0011

-0.0096

-0.0017 A p xe (avs. reactivity chango due to xe)

(.)

gang O p excess reactivity insarteJ due 0.0000 0.0000 to power change

(*)

g ggj g

),r 010 = total of above (*) items

-0.0786

+0.0823 gggjg

[

"ya (Power Joppler coef ficient - R!iO/A P)

-0.0134

-0.0152

',A "pp(average) - (apg(down) + a I

PD "P))/I2)

-0.010 IMW%n tua

n.

Doppler Coefficient Of Reactivity Versus Power Level For BOL Conditions

.t.-

i. : ~. ;.

.t.

t:

., J, :

t

.I..

.E:

v-t

-0.5

l.

..p

!!M g {i:

!f:i

-[ -

1!:

E;:

!itE

ll::

_1. ; i :

i[2

.i-ql :

l lr Hi::

. : t :: -.:1 1-t--

L:

i.:

t:

l::

^n

-1.0

+

I d::

i.! !

i:

i:- - -. - -

. p:. +i::--

i.'

- F

. !:i

l:!

E ::

l:I i {ii_

E{L li{fi.

l:{::

i:l :

Lj i

!:j :'

Nl: -

a c

-1.5

- j. :-

4......f : ~

.. L. :.

2.

-i w

f:

^

4.

h:

il::

t

1.. !

l-

_ : f_:

_ j::

i'~

.i.

.fi

1 i4 c

3

-2.0 i

-F I :.

: I -.--

I:

1 -

o

fh j.'

I:l:-

W

'f.

I~

i

I

i l-i -

-2.5 E

't:

~

i..

~

t_j:!

Lib

ij :

.' l -

l :

i.

.j; o

4 g

.l:

l::.

-j j

]-.

cj.

lq

{.___

c

. l _-.

i:

.j-:

a

7! ;

I

-3.0

~~

- 4 ~. ~

. j.._.pt..

.t:

l..

q i-

.l.

I:'

Curve Based on Figure 2.4.3 il _.._ _ :} :

Of Physics Test Manual

~

-3. s

'i'

'+'

I i

I.!

.I..

i

((

hs[ b i

t 0

20 40 60 80 100 Power Level,

• FP

.c.-g e-Figure 5.6-1 lu f." 4

Moderator /Tenperature Coefficient Of Reactivity Versus RCS Baron Concentration At Various Power Levels For BOL Conditions d

+-

~

1

+4.0 4

"I': d..

_.._;i -

Predicted toefficients Temperature / Moderator

':1:~

i Tempera ture 4

[:

{-'-Q] --{j..

g

.{

c'

+2.0

- - ~

. [.

I:i

---

.foderator 50% FP

..}

3.

}.-

. :g_,_

3 Q

l :

l :

l::

l.j:.

~l ;

'.}-.

93, f: [

j:'

ll!!

li

_i M.:/.'

f 100*? FP u

.jz

-l::

- l::

. g. :.

,,e,--

,r.{

c o

0*0

.I~

t ji:

liq 3l_ g $ gi s

:-

j _ _

SOE FP i

. l-.

4:

.i..

...g.

1 t y,j.

100% FP

% MOL jb ::.sff '!H w

8 I-

':lE

.h:

-[d..

';-!I:. ( ~ ::l-:

~

}.

~

u

-2.0 a

.g

.,7 B

j.<_ g _ p.'

-- ; ; 1_.

-l :

5 7-{.

7

/.i --

d.! ;

t; O

Li.:., p 4,j i;}l:

~[

fL_

.. [.

,.. f 'l! -.

l~

-. ij.

g.

-c.

E

-4.0

..'y t...

~

M...

o

j..

u

- -----f. -

l:j

f;

!:j!

l i i;

i:'

n 8

~"

]

-6.0

.j_.

q;

l ;

Measured Coefficients Temperature / Moderator 3

J;:.

f{

A

-- 40% FP p

Z t-O

-- 75% FP

If llR O

-- 90'.FP 3

i i@:. j V

-- 93:1 FP fi

-8.0

.g.

L I.

d,i.-

i e

800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 RCS Boron Concentration, ppm B Note:

The predicted values at 50 and 100% FP are based on a group 6/7 position of 62.5 and 87.5 % ud respectively.

.. r - n s..

_.D lJ r

Figure 5.6-2

Power Doppler Coef ficient Of Reactivity Versus Power Level i

-. _ + _.. -

8 f

l a

. l

}.--

a

-4.0 I

'I I

I l

l 1

t--I l

+

t r---- t

-- }-

L

'l I

I i.

l

}

i t

i I

,_..__ L___i 2

L__ _ i i

i l

t

-6.0

j.. _;.

~

i t

4 r

k Acceptance Criteria Of - 6.08 PCM/% FP

. ~ - - a - - - u -

L. - *.- - ' - -

J a

Q

[

y b[

j

[L_f:Ih r

e

-8.0

.l :

l.

i::

^

4:.

L

..!j fl:

r--

l.

C j '.

.l

c-

J)i.

m;..:

.. t, :

l.:

4.;

E.

EH u

.g m ;...

c T-r o

4-i:- --e

e. ! i E d

-10.0 M

!E Y

4

!l-LI !

!3 El : 3 [..,

'T Hi.

Elh E!::

i i... !?.. :Q:. 4 -

-T

1::

d !L we

+

.. I '..

Al::

t-

~-

-l.

f:

O

.t: -O~ w C

j

- t::-

- -i -

.g g

..: j : :

..t_..

1. :

...u _1.1

..t

-f. -

.[

-i ;

y

_ -.;L Predicted Curve

1:

1:

p:

a

-12.0

J.

3 c

.j

.l g

7 _.i -

1_.ai -

y_._.._3. __ _7.__._

t

1... ; p.

I.

i 4

4.

.i.

U

.. : i:

. {::

~!:' i m

.l

l -

.-l.

.i:

j.

1:

-4:

'i G fMeasuredCoefficients a

-14.0

.j :

+--- l.

y.:g.

Power Doppler i.

1l;;

!.l.

. 3 ~-

A

- 40% FP

+

O -- 75% FP 4:

0 -- 90% FP

$+

jj 4:

l

gr.._ egg pp

-16.0

..I

.'h.

l l'

[

f,

+

0 20 40 60 80 100 Pcwer Level, % FP Figure 5.6-3 ec-at-Di

?

5.,,

n r. c. ru, r.. v. D r_o r e r r.I,Len...e n e t.J. n.. J7 mo 5.11.1 FURPOSE The purpose of the Reactivity versus Eurnup test was to deternine the core excess reactivity based upon measured critical boren concentrations at various tLnes in core life.

Once the ccre excess reactivity is kncwn, it can be used as the basis in a reactivity ancmaly calculatien.

.1,.co

-re-v. la. u..rrJ e-1-v6 In order to minimize ccrrections necassary to obtain the reference conditionc of 1005 Full Power with centro 1 rods fully withdrawn, the depletien test was per-fonned with the folleving criteria:

a.

Reactor at or above an indicated 905 Full Pcwer.

b.

Tornal cperating centrol rod configuration with greur 6/7 at least 905 withdrawn.

c.

Establish 2-D equilibrium xenon.

The test was scheduled to be run at 20, 30, LO and 50 Equivalent Full Oover Days (hfPD) during the startup test program.

).,,.3

~. : : =. _ m= u-n i.c n

The test progran va-complete l at approxinately 31.3 EFPD which limited the amount of data availakla. Due to varicus plant conditions existing at the scheduled data intervals, the necessary data could not be acquired.

However, as part of the nonnal plant surveillance testine the required para-neters were collected and have teen utilized in order to prepare a meaningful section.

This data is tabulated in Table 5.11-1 and clotted in Figure 5.11-1.

The curve labeled " Original FT'3" in Figure 5.11-1 is the data cricinally provided by Babcock and 'Jilecx in the Physics Test "anual (FT'4).

As discussed in Section h.k.3 "All Rods out critical Borcn Concentration", the original data was recalculated to account for the following:

a.

The All Rods Out, Hot Zero Power critical borcn concentration at STUD (generically equivalent) was 1553 ppa baron.

b.

A correction of -12 ppa boron to account for the presence of Gadolinium in fcur Fuel Assenblies.

A correction of -18 pp. horon to account #or fuel density and enrichment c.

di fferences.

The net result of (2).nrcugh (c) was tc evise the calculatei critical beren concentration frcr 1560 ppn to 1529 ppm horen Rinre tha nricinal onlculations were perferned several years prior to fael assenbly n1nufacture and Gadoliniun additicn was not planned at that time, the measured versus calculated cenparison chouc pocr agreement.

'.r - 4 3,p 1J

• Ls e.1., -l s.

a Using the above data and totally depletinc the Gadolinium effect hv IL5 EFFD (assumed total burnout of Gd. by 1k5 EFPD) results in the "Revisei PT"

curve of Figure 5.11-1.

In crder to assure clarity of plotted data, cnly the 'irst 100 EFFD are shown in ri,rure 5.11-1.

Infennation to orerare a ulot frcr cero to L21 EFPD (design life of cy r.le 1) is provided in T'able 5.11 3.

, t 5.,1.-

C ~.,c,,a,J-C,,

v 01

.e The ceasured critical boron concentrations through ~o.o FF09, when adiusted to the 1005 FP reference conditions, show excellent agreement wher compared to the Reviced PTM depletion curve.

I ]

.'9 5.11-2

e MEASURED CRITICAL BOROTI C0!!CE'ITRATIO!!S Meastired CR GP.'s 1-5 CR Gp. 6/7 CR OP. 8 Tave Date

% FP EPPD prnn B (T ud)

(% Vd)

(# ud)

(UP)

Cal. ARO ppnB 11-06-78 90.8 16.20 1125 100 9h 22 583 1154 12-11-7C 89.5 23.25 106h 100 97 28 582 1090 3

8 12-28-78 96.95 31.37 106h 100 91 23 582 1109 li 01-13-79 89.32 43.20 1080 100 91 26 581 1112 m

's{

02-06-79 90.95 h9.0 1075 100 93 25 582 1109 02-15-79 92.0 56.05 1071 100 90 2h 582 1106 02-23-79 91.12 63.h3 1069 100 9h.7 26.5 582 1096 03-06-79 97 0 73 97 10h6 100 96 28 582 1090 03-13-79 97.h 79.88 10h1 100 96 28 582 1080 H

e3 9h

[{

C

s C[Lv.,lc,.ab

,h,C.d C m.c _n._,, m I O..

m. o, nIJ ~. w, m.

i V.t v

.4A.

.4

.~.

1300 _

._.e.__.

~ _ _.

1200 -_ _.. ; ~._ _..__. _ ~ ~..--~ ~ ~- -. - --

m. n _..~. y

_..._-_._....__.._._._.-_.._.._.L,......_._

_ n__.

e...._..

_O._...

..._.._O.__._

. A 0 0 _..

._.__.L._...-.__.._.

..u_._.

.._.._.,w____.-

u a_

... __....___._.__._.._.__._xL._ _..

...__.__._-....N...._-__

_ _. - - ~.. _

-- _-..__ _".._.__.. _--._- __..._..__ _- _ ~ - --- _ _

c e

1000 --._. _..

a

~

_. _ - _ _ _. - " _.. _ ~ ~ _ _ ~ _. _ - *.. _. _. _. _.. _ _. _

+

n a

c e

a c

v-c.

o

_...___... - -._ ~... _ ---

c u

900 _

o

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

ca

~

e g

a u

a

,00 -

._. _.. _._ ~. e.~ ~. _ _.+____... - - ~ _ - _ _ _ ~ ~ - ~ _. _ _ _. _ _ _ _. _

3 u

t___....__t___--_..t-y_....._.__..__l_.__.._._

.___i_____4.._. _._ l.. _..

0 10 20 30 ho 50 60 70 30 90 100 Effective Full Power Da.vs Pr g*

9 ty

.pd

.*@UWh

).

g1

.v

,, ys SOLU 3LE BOEC:I CC:!CF";T"dTIO:: VERSUS CYCLE 1 LIFEDE Criginal MM Revised K'4 E.FPJ (ppm 3)

(p"m3) 0 1220 1177 25 1173 1132 50 1163 112h 75 1132 1095 100 1075 10h0 125 1015 962 150 955 92h 175 393 e62 200 830 799 250 697 666 300 555 52L 350 L10 379 h00 262 231 h21 190 159

,. n 9

1']

t' Table 5.11-2

.