ML19209A514
| ML19209A514 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 09/25/1979 |
| From: | ARKANSAS POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19209A513 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910040272 | |
| Download: ML19209A514 (26) | |
Text
-
ARKANSAS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNIT ONE CYCLE 4 STAhTUP REPORT TOTE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION LICENSE NUMBER DPR-51 DOCKET NUMBER 50-313 FOR TE PERIOD ENDING 4 July 1979 f
goio040r7A
TABLE OF CONTENTS e
PAGE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1 2.0 PRECRITICAL TEST SUMMARIES -1 2.1 Control Rod Drive Trip Time Test 1 2.2 RCS Flow and Flow Coastdown Test 2 3.0 ZERO POWER PHYSICS TEST SUMMARIES 2 3.1 Determination of Critical Boron Concentration 3 3.2 Determination of Mcderator Temperature Coefficient 4 3.3 Control Rod Reactivity Worth Measurements 5 3.4 Ejected Rod Worth Measurement 6 4.0 POWER ASCENSION TEST SUMMARIES 4.1 Core Power Distribution Test 8 4.2 Power Imbalance Detector Correlation Test 10 4.3 Determination of Reactivity Coefficients at Power 11
5.0 CONCLUSION
12 e
4 Page 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
On March 30, 1979, the third refueling outage of ANO Unit 1 began. Follow-ing the refueling outage, ANO Unit 1 achieved criticality during zero power physics testing on June 20, 1979.
Zero Power Physics Testing, which commenced on June 19, 1979, was success-fully completed on June 22, 1979. This program was conducted at a nominal reactor coolant temperature of 532 F and below the level of nuclear heating to eliminate any temperature feedback effects.
Power escalation was begun on June 22, 1979. This testing program was carried out at three power plateaus during the power ascension:
Power Level (%FP) Date 40 June 26, 1979 75 June 29, 1979 100 July 2-4, 1979 The startup and power escalation testing sequence was completed on July 4, 1979.
2.0 PPICRITICAL TEST SUMMARIES 2.1 Control Rod Drive Trip Time Test 2.1.1 Purpose The purpose of the Control Rod Drive Trip Time Test was to verify the integrated, functional trip capability of the Con-trol Rod Drive System and to determine for each control rod assembly, the total elapsed drop time frem the initiation of the trip signal until the control rod assembly was three-fourths inserted.
2.1.2 Test Method Initial Reactor Coolant System (RCS) conditions were established at a temperature of approximately 532 F, at a pressure of 2155 +
30 psig, all four (4) reactor coolant pumps running, with Boror at a concentration of 1848 ppmB. Control Rod Groups 1 through 7 were fully withdrawn and Group 8(APSR's) was at 5% withdrawn.
The Control Rod Drive Mechanisms (CRDM) were then tripped via the manual trip button. The insertion time for each control rod from its initial position to its 3/4 insertion point was mea-sured by the plant computer Rod Drop Timer program. The print-out of this program includes trip initiation time, initial position and trip insertion time for each control rod (excluding Group 8).
1090 136
Page 2 2.1.3 Results and Evaluation An analysis of the drop times indicates that rod 5-8, was fastest at 1.100 1 0.017 seconds and rods 1-4, 1-5, 3-4, 4-3 and 6-5 were the slowest at 1.167 1 0.017 seconds.
2.1.4 Conclusions The rod drop times were well below the criteria stated in Section 4.7 of the Technical Specifications, which specifies a maximum rod drop time of 1.46 seconds at full flow conditions.
2.2 RCS Flow and Flow Coastdown Test 2.2.1 'urpose The purpose of this test was to determine reactor coolant system four pump, steady-state flow and to determine flow versus time during two pump coastdown.
2.2.2 Test Method The steady-state four pump flow was determined by collecting plant computer calculated flow rates over a six minute time period. These values were then adjusted to account for uncer-tainties and compared to the acceptance criteria. After the steady-state flow was determined, the pump with the higher ow in loop A (P32C) and the pump with the higher flow in oop B (P32A) were simultaneously tripped and flow recorded uring pump coastdown.
2.2.3 asults and Evaluation 5
The measured steady state flow of 3.86 x 10 GPM after uncertainty adjustment was within the acceptance criteria of greater than 374,880 GPM and less than 405,150 GPM. The flow coastdown during the two seconds after flow reached 94% of initial steady state flow, was also acceptable. The acceptance criteria and the measured data are shown in Figure 2-1.
3.0 ZERO POER Ph73ICS TEST SUMMARIES 3.0.1 Purp..se The p rpose of the Zero Power Physics Test was to verify the nur' wr design parameters used in the safety analysis, the Technical Specification limits, and operating procedures.
A1: acceptance criteria established for this test must be setisfied prior to commencing power escalation.
1090 1 H
Page 3 3.0.2 Test Method Criticality was achieved by control rod withdrawal and Boron dilution of the RCS after system conditions had been established at 532*F and 2155 psig. During the approach to criticality, a plot of inverse neutron count rate ratio versus Boron concentra-tion was maintained by using NI-1 and NI-2 of the nuclear instrumentation, and a plot of boron concentration versus time was also maintained. After achieving criticality, nuclear power was increased and the source and intermediate range nuclear instrumentation overlap was verified to be in excess of cae decade. During this same increase in poyer, the point of sensi-ble heating was determined to be 1 X 10 amps. The power established8 as the upper limit for Zero Power Physics testing was 5 X 10 amps.
Physics testing was then conducted which included the following measurements, listed in chronological order:
A. The "all rods out" Critical Boron Concentration.
B. Moderator Temperature Coefficient of Reactivity at the "all rods out" condition.
C. Differential and Integral Rod Worth of Control Rod Groups 7, 6, and 5 by the rod versus Boron swap technique.
D. Critical Boron Concentration at the regulating rods inserted condition.
E. Moderator Temperature Coefficient of Reactivity at the regulating rods inserted condition.
F. Ejected Rod Worth by the Boron swap and rod swap techniques.
3.1 DETERMINATION OF CRITICAL BORON CONCENTRATION 3.1.1 Purpose The purpose of this test was to determine the Boron concentrationrequiredtomagntaincriticalityatHot Zero Power (approximately 10 amps) with all control rods withdrawn and Xenon free. The resultant value was used to verify the predicted fuel depletion curves used in OP 1103.15, Reactivity Balance Calculat. ion, and to verify the accuracy of the "all rods out" Boron con-centration predicted by the fuel vendor.
3.1.2 Test Method Initial RCS conditions were established at a temperature of 532 + 2 F. Equilibriumboronconcentragionwasattainedat 1524 ppm Boron with power stable at 10 amps, and control rod groups 1-6 at 100% withdrawn, group 7 at approximately 85% withdrawn, and group 8 at approximately 37.5% withdrawn.
1090 138
Page 4 The remaining reactivity held in the inserted portion of Group 7 was measured by withdrawal of Group 7 to its out limit and concurrent reactivity measurements. The reactivity was converted to equivalent Boron concentra-tion change using the predicted Boron differential -
worth. The "all rods out" Boron concentration is the sum of the measured equilibrium Boron concentration and the equivalent Boron from the reactivity measurement.
The Critical Boroa Concentration at the regulating rods inserted condition was determined af ter the Control Rod Reactivity Worth Measurements had been made. The pre-dicted Critical Boron Concentration was determined by correcting the predicted all rods out boron concentration for control rod insertion using predicted rod worths.
This reactivity worth was then converted to an equivalent Boron concentration change. The Critical Boron Concentration is the sum of the measured Boron concentration and the equivalent Boron concentration change.
3.1.3 Results and Evaluation The results of the predicted Critical Boron Concentration and measured Critical Boron Concentration for "all rods out" and " regulating rods inserted" conditions are listed in Table 3-1. Both measured Critical Boron Concentrations are within +100 ppm 3 of the predicted values, and there-fore satisfy the acceptance criteria.
3.2 DETERMINATION OF MODERATOR TEMPERATURE COEFFICIEhT 3.2.1 Purpose The purpose of this test was to determine the moderator temperature coefficient of reactivity at Hot Zero Power.
The values measured are used to verify that the moderator temperature coefficient is within Technical Specitication limits, that the moderator temperature coefficient is within specified limits of predicted values in the Physics Test Manual and to provide verification of the data used in OP 1103.15, Reactivity Balance Calculation.
3.2.2 Test Method The moderator temperature coefficient at Hot Zero Power was measured by using a Reactivity Calculator.
Thefirststepwastoachievesgeadystatecritical conditions at approximately 10 amps on the intermediate range detectors. The Reactivity Calculator methed measures reactivity changes as T is varied in small increments (5-10'F). The reactivily* change associated with the temperature change provides the data necessary to determine a moderator temperature coefficient.
1090 139
Page 5 The moderator temperature coefficient of reactivity at hot conditions with regulating control rod assembly groups inserted was measured.after the Control Rod Reactivity Worth Measurements were made utilizing the same method.
3.2.3 Results and Evaluation The measured and predicted values of moderator temperature coefficient for the conditions of "all rods out" and regulating rods inserted are listed in Table 3-2. The measured values of moderator temperature coefficient are within the acceptancecriteriaof+0.4XIg"AK/K/FatHotZeroPower*
values and less than + 0.5 X 10 AK/K/*F of t conditions. Extrapolation of the moderator coefficient to 95% of full power indicated that the coefficient would be negative for all expected Boron concentrations and allowable control rod configurations. See Table 3-3.
3.3 CONTROL ROD REACTIVITY WORTH MEASUREMENT 3.3.1 Purpose The purpose of this test was to determine the integral worth of the regulating control rods at Hot Zero Power for the purpose of updating the integral control rod worth curves in the Reactivity Balance Calculation and for comparison with the predicted worths. This data was also used to verify the adequacy of the shutdown margin analysis for the reload core.
3.3.2 Test Method This test was performed with Group 8 at its predicted maximum worth position. The initial Boron concentration of the RCS was first determined by sampling. Then, using the predicted control rod worths from the fuel vendor, the amount of Boron dilution required to bring the control rods from the "all rods out" conditions to the all regula-ting rods inserted configuration, was determined. Debora-tion was initiated agd the reactor was maintained critical at approximately 10 amps by insertion of Group 7 until it war fully inserted then by periodic insertion of groups 6 and 5(without overlap), while making concurrent reactivity measurements, until deboration was complete.
Frequent sampling of the RCS and Make Up Tank during debora-tion was done so that the Boron concentration versus time would be known.
Then using reactivity measurements and recorded positions of the CRA groups, the reactivity worth versus CRA group position was determined.
1090 i40
Page 6 3.3.3 Results and Evaluation The predicted and measured control rod group worths are tabulated in Table 3-4. The individual CRA group worths measured were within the acceptance criterion range of 1 15% of the predicted values and the total Group 5, 6 -
and 7 worths were we,11 within the 1 10% acceptance criterion.
3.4 EJECTED R0D k' ORTH MEASUREMEh7 3.4.1 Purpose The purpose of this test was to determine the reactivity worth of the worst case ejected control rod as specified by the Cycle 4 Reload Report, to verify its worth is less than 1.0% AK/K at Hot Zero Power and that it is within acceptable agreement with the value predicted by the fuel vendor.
3.4.2 Test Method Initial conditions wgre established with the Reactor critical at approximately 10 amps, Regulating Groups at approximately 0% wd, Group 8 at its maximum worth and Boron concentration at equilibrium. The initial (steady state) Boron concectra-tion of the RCS uas determined by sampling. Then, using the predicted ejected rod worth the amount of Boron addition required to bring the worst case ejected rod, Contr :1 Rod 7-3, to 100% withdrawn was determined. Borationwas,gniti-ated and the reactor was maintained critical near 10 amps by withdrawal of Rod 7-3. Frequent sampling of the Reactor Coolant System and Makeup Tank during boration was done so that Boron concentration versus time would be known.
The rods were fully withdrawn and additional reactivity compensation was made by withdrawal of Group 5. khen steady state Boron concentration was re-established, Control Hod 7-3 was returned to 0% wd by using Group 5 withdrawal for reactivity compengation. The reactor was maintained critical near 10 amps during the swap.
The other three rods quadrant-wise symmetric with 7-3 were also swapped for comparison. During the symmetric rod swap, rod 7-7 was found to have the maximum worth for an ejected rod.
1090 141
Page 7 Using reactivity measurements, the differential boron worth, and the position of control rods involved, the worst case ejected rod worth was determined.
3.4.3 Results and Evaluation -
The measured worth of the worst case ejected rod, control rod 7-7 was compared acceptably with the predicted value and its worth met the acceptance criterion of < l.0% AK/K.
The test results are tabulated in Table 3-5.
1090 142
Page 8 4.0 POWER ASCENSION TEST GUMMARIES 4.1 CORE POWER DISTRIBUTION TEST 4.1.1 Purpose The objective of the Core Pcwer Distribution Test was to measure the power distribution of the reactor core at the power plateaus of 40%, 75% and 100% full power during power escalation in order co verify that the DNBR, LHR, quadrant pcwer tilt, and power peaking factors did not exceed al-lowable limits.
The limits placed on the measured parameters were as fol-laws:
i) The maximum linear heat rate, LHR, in the core is less than the LOCA limit per Technical Specifications for the axial location of the peak. When testing at a power level below rated power, the maximum LHR when extrapolated to rated power must also meet this cri-terion.
ii) The minimum DNBR must be greater than 1.30 at rated power conditions and when extrapolated to rated power conditions.
iii) The quadrant power tilt must not exceed the value allowed by the Technical Specifications.
iv) The highest measured radial and total power peaking factors shall not exceed the highest predicted peaks by more than 5% and 7,5% at the 75% and 100% power plateaus, respectively(8% and 12% at the 40% power plateau). The acceptance criteria for the power peaking factors is a comparison of highest predicted to highest measured and not a grid to grid comparison.
These acceptance criteria are established to verify that core nuclear and thermal hydraulic calculational models are conservative with respect to measured conditions there-by verifying the acceptability of data from these models for input to safety analysis. The acceptance criteria also serve to verify acceptable operating conditions at each test plateau and eventually at rated power conditions.
4.1.2 Test Method Equilibrium conditions were established at 75% and 100% FP ensuring that Xenon was in three-dimensional equilibrium (equilibrium Xenon was not required for the 40% tests) with no APSR motion and minimal power fluctuations and/or con-trolling rod group motion. The incore monitoring system and the plant computer were used for data collection and 10190 143
Page 9 4.1.3 Results and Evaluation A summary of the test results is given in Table 4-1. This table indicates that all measured DNBR's were greater than the 1.30 minimum, all linear heat rates were less than the Technical Specification LOCA limit, Figure 3.5.2.4, (Attachment A) and all quadrant tilts were below the Technical Specification limits. The measured and total power peaking factors were with-in the acceptance criteria.
Figure 4-1 shows the core grid /Self Powered Neutron Detector (SPND) string correlation for the core locations used to measure the radial and total power peaking factors. The results of the power distribution measurements are tabulated in Figures 4-2 and 4-3 for the 40% FP plateau, Figures 4-4 and 4-5 for the 75%
FP plateau, and in Figures 4-6 and 4-7 for the 100% FP plateau.
These figures indicate that the predicted power peaking factors are in good agreement with measured values. All measured peaking factors were within acceptance criteria limits.
4.1.4 Conclusions Measured DNER's, Linear Heat Rates, and Quadrant Tilts verified that the core can be operated at rated power without exceeding Technical Specifications or ECCS LOCA power distribution criteria.
The measured power distributions verified the predicted distribu-tions and the largest radial and total peaking factors were with-in the acceptance criteria.
The measured DNBR and Linear Heat Rates verified that the Reactor Protection System setpoints are sufficient to protect the core against exceeding DNBR or maximum linear heat rate limits and that Technical Specification Figure 3.5.2-3 limits are sufficient to protect against exceeding the LOCA limit heat rate.
IU'!O 144
Page 10 4.2 POER IMBALANCE DETECTOR CORRELATION TEST 4.2.1 Purpose The Power Imbalance Detector Correlation test determined -
the relationship between out-of-core detector and incore detector measured imbalance.
4.2.2 Test Method Imbalance measurements were made to determine the acceptability of the out-of-core detectors to detect imbalance. Prict to testing, the delta flux imbalance amplifier gain setting was adjusted to obtain an expected out-of-core to incore slope of 1.20 to allow for uncertainty in predicting the amplifier gain necessary to obtain the required out-of-core to incore slope of 1.15. The measurements were made by obtaining various core imbalance conditions at 75%FP while at equilibrium Xenon conditions by adjusting the axial power shaping rod positions.
From this data plots of incore imbalance versus out-of-core imbalance were maintained and the slope was determined.
4.2.3 Results and Conclusions The relationship between out-of-core imbalance and incore imbalance was found to be linear with an average slope of 1.23. The minimum slope was 1.22 on channels B and D, and the maximum was 1.24 on channels A and C. These values as-sure the RPS trip limits resulting from imbalance indications would be conservative since the RPS indication is from out-of-core detectors.
1090 145
Page 11 4.3 DETERMINATION OF REACTIVITY COEFFICIENTS AT POWER 4.3.1 Purpose The purpose of this test was to measure the moderator temperature coefficient and power doppler coefficient at full power and to compare the results with predicted values.
power doppler Acceptance coefficient becriteria for the test more negative thanwere
-0.55that thg(AK/K)/%FP, and X 10 that the moderator temperature coefficient measured at power operating conditions be non-positive above 95% FP.
4.3.2 Test Method The moderator temperature coefficient at power operating condi-tions was measured by varying T using the T setpoint con-troller on the Reactor Demand Sla! ion and mainfaIning constant power with the ICS in automatic. The corresponding control rod motion is related to the reactivity change which is used to determine the moderator temperature coefficient.
The power doppler coefficient is measured by varying reactor power using the Integrated Control System Unit Load Demand (ICS ULD) station and recording the corresponding control rod motion.
The corresponding control rod motion is related to reactivity change which is used to determine the power doppler coefficient.
The control rod reactivity worth was determined by a differential worth measurement with an on-line reactivity calculator.
4.3.3 Results and Evaluation The results of the reactivity coefficients test are summarized in Table 4-2.
The power doppler coefficient at full power was below the maximum acceptable value. The moderator temperature coefficient was well below the non-positive limit.
4.3.4 Conclusion The measured values of all reactivity coefficients were within the acceptable limits. The acceptance criteria of this test were met in full without deficiencies.
1090 146
Page 12
5.0 CONCLUSION
The results and conclusions summarized in the body of this report demonstrate that the Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 1 Cycle 4 reload has been properly designed and the unit can be operated in a manner that will not endanger the health and safety of the public. -
1090 147
Figure 2-1 RCS Flow Coastdown Test.
d
- M *s 360 , _
.a -
3 ._ _ . _ . _ __
- -Nx x ._ __
.x x 350 'x 'x
's x X
's
'.x 's __ _
'y x -.
'x x 's
's
's x ;--
d 340 'x x '
-x
- x s N x _=_--
x' ~' _ _ . _ . _
q s s e
o - -
xx ._ .
5 o
330, '
's' _
S '
s \',_ _
_- - _ w
- = s
~
x
'x ~x 7 'x '
. ' Measured Flow x'.
x r_._._._ '
'T minus 2.5%
320 .
N
-~~
'x' Acceptance Criterion 310
.= .
I 4.h
~-
300' -
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 Time After F)cw Equals 94% of !mitial Flow Rate (Sec.)
1090 148 g e I
s s E E C2 a G
%WW 4 4 CHO QUA N 4 Z-< @ m N 4 WO> c N O O
>Wg
- - x N N E=
Z o
4 o
M M a N N W N N
~ g - - - M w 7 A c L U N N g
W 4 4 =
C O H I I
- 6 = U C C C W W - - - m W 4 4 O N OW O
= WD X X C U C' C' W F= :: 4 i= -
- N C A< A M
= > - - C X X F= 0: @ W C e f- C C. - E- N N
= 5 < C C C <
J N @
3 Z t *
- H H W C C C
< 34 Z W
> b i 8
- Z m. N - M 20 e O N c: C e U A A I ia m - M O E E m - o o m X E- WW 4 L N N N W W
u
< / %= 4 L W W M W W X 34 3 W N N 4 !=
c: t- CC U: < N cc :l: C W M M 23 Z
< Z A W
<> N c
O < U = < 4 < W H t.a.:
p N E= 4 4 4 6 -
C.J Z - - :.C *C I I U Z C x
c > C C -
O 3 - -
U U H O 6 v < W X X W z 2: % C *O C W O d u *J 0 cf.: A y: C cc Z = a C Z < - @ X C C u
:.r.: W
C - O
!= Z C C H E~ m a J t f - T C
< x . = c -
U C W Z %
- H O C m
!= < C U - 7 o
- 7 % Z -
Z v W = -
U C J J C =J G
- = m C = _
Ea C 0 Z Z C 6
- a C G
.
. m Z = - = =
C O - C =
U % . C Of.
7 z m M o C - t M % U - C
< < Of.:
10'/U 149
TABl.E 3-4 CONTROL ROD REACTIVITY W0llTilS VENDOR IN-IIOUSE % ERR 05 BETWEEN CRA HEASURED WORTil PREDICTED WORTil PREDICTED VALUE HEASURED & VENDOR GROUP (MK/K) (MK/K) (MK/K) PREDICTED VALUES 5 0.92 0.96 1.01 4.3 6 1.16 1.09 1.09 -6.0 7 0.91 0.95 0.91 4.4 Total 5-7 2.99 3.00 3.01 0.3 TABl.E 3-5 EJECTED CONTROL ROD WORTil HEASURED val.llE PREDICTED VENDOR % ERROR BETWEEN CHA/ CORE CRID W RCN SWAP ROI) SWAP VALUE HEASURED & VENDOR PREDICTED VALUES Il0RON SWAP ROD SWAP 7-3/11-14 0.582K/K 0.65MK/K 0. 76MK/K 31.0 16.9 7-5/P-8 N/A 0.66MK/K 0. 76MK/K N/A 15.2 7 - 7 / 11 - 2 N/A 0. 70MK/K 0.76MK/K N/A 8.6
]
7-1/B-8 N/A 0.68MK/K 0. 76MK/K N/A 11.8 c Average N/A .67%K/K 0. 76MK/K N/A 13.4 C .
TABLE 4-1
SUMMARY
OF POWER TESTING RESULTS DATE 6/26/79 6/29/79 7/2/79 TIME 0349 2211 1935 Power Level (Nominal %) 40 75 100 Group 1-5 (%w/d) 100 100 100 Group 6(w/d) 88.2 90.7 89.9 Group 7 (%w/d) 10.1 11.0 8.4 Group 8 (%w/d) 21.2 12.8 9.1 Core Burnup (EFPD) 0.6 2.6 5.3 Boron Concentration (ppmB) 1118 989 951 Axial Imbalance (%FP) -0.2 -1.1 -3.1 Max Quadrant Pwr Tilt (%) +2.76 +2.62 +2.44 (Incore Detectors)
DNBR 8.64 4.44 3.17 LHR 5.19 9.27 12.11 Max Measured Radial Pwr Peak 1.452 1.430 1.386 Max Measured Total Pwr Peak 1.811 1.765 1.709 Max Peak Measured At Core Grid / Level M-4/5 E-4/5 d-12/5 Max Predicted Radial Pwr Peak 1.436 1.412 1.401 Max Predicted Total Pwr Peak 1.718 1.709 1.756 Max Total Peak Predicted at Core Grid L-ll L-ll L-ll Percent Error
- Max Radial Peak -1.10 -1.26 -1.08 Percent Error
- Max Total Peak -5.14 -3.17 -2.75 Equilibrium Xenon NO YES, 3-D YES, 3-D
- Percent Error =
Predicted-Measured X 100%
Measured
} O lb 3
TABLE 4-2
SUMMARY
OF MEASURED AhT) PREDICTED REACTIVITY COEFFICIENTS AT P0kIR PARAMETER VALLT 6 89 Control Rod Assembly Group (% Withdrawn) 7 10 8 10 Boron Concentration (ppmB) 936 Measured -1.03 X 10
Temperature Coefficient Vendor -4 Predicted -1.32 X 10 AK/K F
Measured -1.04 X 10
Power Doppler Coefficient AK/K Vendor -
% Full Power Predicted -1.30 X 10 '
Measured -0.86 X 10
Moderator Coefficient AK/K "F l Predicted Vendor -1.17 X 10' 1090 Ib2
FIGURE 4-1 CORE SPND STRING / CORE GRID CROSS REFERENCE H-8 H-9 F-8 H-5 N-8 H-13 B-8 H-1 1 2 4 10 14 21 30 37 G-9 F-7 E-9 K-12 C-9 B-7 R-7 3 6 5 20 29 31 45 L-6 M-10 D-10 C-10 P-6 R-10 12 17 27 28 44 46 E-ll D-5 0-5 M-14 26 33 42 49 N-4 0-12 D-14 41 48 51 C-13 52 -
X-X CORE GRID LOCATION XX DETECTOR NLHBER
- The radial and total peaking factors at these core locations were calculated using the average readings from all detectors symmetric to this location.
.k )
FIGURE 4-2 C7. PARIS 0N OF PREDICTED AND CALCULATED STEADY STATE TOTAL PEAK POWER LISTRIBUTION AT 40% FP, EQUILIBIIUM XENON MEASUREMENT CONDITIONS Control Rod Group Positions Core Fower Level 40.3%FP Gps 1-4 100%wd Boron Concentration 1118.0 ppm Gp 5 100%wd Core Burnup 0.6 EFPD Gp 6 88%wd Axial Imbalance -0.2%FP Gp 7 10%wd Max Quadrant Tilt 2.76%
Gp 8 21%wd X.XXX Measured Values X.XXX Predicted Value Core 6 Centerlines 0.917 1.06 1.203 1.515 1.320 1.463 0.958 0.486 0.776 0.993 1.182 1.466 1.294 1.392 0.739 0.474 0.899 1.466 1.239 1.527 1.112 1.485 0.697 0.706 1.488 1.266 1.534 1.256 1.404 0.666 1.566 1.722 1.323 1.633 1.221 0.543 1.643 1.718 1.387, 1.572 1.202 0.502 1.430 1.763 1.404 0.631 1.396 1.642 1.390 0.655 1.610 1.239 0.591 1.611 1.228 0.540 0.53?
0.500 i
ii 1090 154
FIGURE 4-3 COMPARISON OF PREDICTED AND CALCULATED STEADY STATE RADIAL PEAK POWER DISTRIBUTION AT 40% FP, EQUILIBIIUM XENON MEASUP.EMENT C0hTITIONS Control Rod Group Positions Core Power Level 40.3%FP Gps 1-4 100%wd Boron Concentration 1118.0 ppm Gp 5 100%wd Core Burnup 0.6 EFPD Gp 6 gg%wd Axial Imbalance -0.2%FP Gp 7 10%wd Max Quadrant Tilt 2.76%
Gp 8 21%wd X.XXX Measured Values X.XXX Predicted Value Core Centerlines 0.784 0.943 0.983 l.281' l.091 1.225 0.717 0.405l ;
0.711 0.904 1.010 1.270 1.081 1.190 0.669 0.416!
0.681 1.263 1.078 1.260 1.056 1.216 0.606 l 0.641 1.312 1.089 1.274 1.067 1.197 0.568 1.350 1.398 1.057 1.305 1.008 0.442 I1.412 1.436 1.061 1.298 1.013 0.425 l 1.172 1.383 1.150 0.547 1.176 1.349 1.159 0.558 i 1.283 0.980 0.487 1.314 1.021 0.452 0.442 0.432 l
10'90 155
FISURE 4-4 COMPARISON OF PREDICTED AND CALCULATED STEADY STATE TOTAL PEAK P0kIR DISTRIBUTION AT 75% FP, EQUILIBIIUM XENON MEASUREMENT CONDITIONS Control Rod Group Positions Core Power Level 74.1%FP Gps 1-4 100%wd Boron Concentration 989 ppm Gp 5 100%wd Core Burnup 2.6 EFPD Gp 6 90.7%wd Axial imbalance -1.1%FP Gp 7 ll.0%wd Max Quadrant Tilt 2.62%
Gp 8 12%wd X.XXX Measured Values X.XXX Predicted Value Core i Centerlines 0.926 1.120 1.201 1.490 1.345 1.446 0.960 0.492 0.811 1.024 1.211 1.471 1.309 1.393 0.749 0.492 0.892 1.459! 1.255 1.536 1.259 1.453 0.715 0.735 1.495 1.278 1.540 1.271 1.402 0.688 1.549 1.707 1.379 1.602 1.208 0.538 1.626 1.709 1.418 1.575 1.216 0.523 1.429 1.680 1.391 0.693 1.408 1.640 1.397 0.676 1.619 1.053 0.593 1.602 1.234 0.562 0.546 0.521 1090 156
FIGURE 4-5 COMPARISON OF PREDICTED AND CALCULATED STEADY STATE RADIAL PEAK P0kIR DISTRIBUTION AT 75% FP, EQUILIBIIUM XENON MEASUREMENT CONDITIONS Control Rod Group Positions Core Power Level 74.1%FP Gps 1-4 100%wd Boron Concentration 989 ppm Gp 5 100%wd Core Burnup 2.6 EFPD Gp 6 90.7%wd Axial Imbalance -1.1%FP Gp 7 ll.0%wd Max Quadrant Tilt 2.62%
Gp 8 12.8%wd X.XXX Measured Values X.XXX Predicted Value Core '
Centerlines 0.804 0.968 0.996' l.276 1.096 1.227 0.721 0.432 0.729 0.914 1.014 1.261 1.085 1.189 0.678 0.431 0.691 1.267 1.083 1.254 1.062 1.207 0.616 0.646 1.297 1.088 1.265 1.072 1.201 0.587 1.355 1.375 1.037 1.285 1.013 0.446 1.398 1.412 1.056 1.289 1.021 0.441 1.168 1.352 1.146 0.565 1.168 1.330 1.155 0.570 1.298 .9786 0.502 1.301 1.023 0.466 0.455 0.443 1090 15/
FIGURE 4-6 COMPARISON OF PREDICTED AND CALCULATED STEADY STATE TOTAL PEAK P0kT.R DISTRIBUTION AT 100% FP, EQUILIBIIUM XENON MEASURET.NT CONDITIONS Control Rod Group Positions Core Power Level 99.7%FP Gps 1-4 100%wd Boron Concentration 989 ppm Gp 5 100%wd Core Burnup 5.3 EFPD Gp 6 89.9%wd Axial Imbalance -3.1%FP Gp 7 8.4%wd Max Quadrant Tilt 2.44%
Gp 8 9.1%wd X.XXX Measured Values X.XXX Predicted Value Core i Centerlines
'O.930 1.122 1.236 1.545 1.323 1.393 0.956 0.517 0.843 1.057 1.249 1.540 1.341 1.435 0.774 0.507 0.868 1.445 1.266 1.476 1.237 1.077 0.722 0.720 1.555 1.342 1.582 1.302 1.446 0.706 1.564 1.635 1.362 1.566 1.214 0.523 1.679 1.756 1.438 1.605 1.242 0.538 1.407 1.694 1.4'01 0.645 1.438 1.668 1.416 0.697 1.614 1.154 0.590 1.632 1.273 0.580 0.559 0.560 1UK10 158
FIGURE 4-7 COMPARISON OF PREDICTED AND CALCULATED STEADY STATE RADIAL PEAK POWER DISTRIBUTION AT 100% FP, EQUILIBIIUM XENON MEASUREMENT COND1rIONS Control Rod Group Positions CorePowerLevel99.h%F?
Gps 1-4 100%wd Boron Concentration 951 ppm Gp 5 100%wd Core Burnup 5.3 EFPD Gp 6 89.9%wd Axial Imbalance -3.1%FP Gp 7 8.4%wd Max Quadrant Tilt 2.44%
Gp 8 9.1%wd X.XXX . Measured Values X.XXX Predicted Value Core i Centerlines 0.812 0.970 1.017 1.299 1.0851 1.192 0.740 0.458 0.734 0.916 1.014 1.256 1.084 1.186 0.683 0.440 0.689 1.29 1.089 1.231 1.058 1.227 0.619 0.650 1.288 1.087I 1.262 1.071 1.195 0.593 1.360 1.347 1.029 1.282 1.026 0.443 1.375 1.401 1.059 1.285 1.023 0.450 1.162 1.372 1.139 0.549 1.165 1.325 1.154 0.580 1.303 0.961 0.497 1.296 1.026 0.475 0.454 0.452 10'10 159