ML20002D876
| ML20002D876 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 12/09/1971 |
| From: | Sewell R, Wall H CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| To: | Morris P, Skovholt D US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8101230259 | |
| Download: ML20002D876 (17) | |
Text
4 C011SumC[S
,, -=*)t
/
POYar
~
Company a.n.r.i onie..i aim w..t uieniaan av.nu..s.cw.on. uicnia.n 4e2oi. 4r.. coo. ei7 7sa-osso December 9, 1971 gebilnterf IN C'.
Dr. P. A. Morris, Director Re: Docket 50-155 Division of Reactor Licensing DPR-6 ZEK United States Atomic Energy Commission Proposed Tech Washington, DC 20545 Spec Change 27
Dear Dr. Morris:
Attention: Mr. D. J. Skovolt Transmitted herewith are three (3) executed and thirty-seven (37) conformed copies of a request for a change to the Technical Specifications of License DPR-6, Docket No 50-155, issued to Consumers Power Company on May 1,1964, for the Big Rock Point Nucleal Plant.
This proposed change (No 27) will enable Consumers Power Company to insert into the reactor at Big Rock Point a fuel design designated as
" Type J-2-UO2-Pu02." This fuel has been designed and fabricated by the Jersey Nuclear Company. Each fuel bundle (two total) contains approxi-mately 15 kilograms of plutonium, approximately two times the normal end-of-life self-generation level. The plutonium bearing rods are located near the center of the fuel bundles to minimize the effects of plutonium loading on power peaking and control rod worth.
It is our intention to insert " Type J-2-UO2-Pu0 " fuel into the 2
Big Rock Point reactor during our next refueling outage which is currently scheduled for February-March 1972. We would, therefore, be most appre, ciative of an expeditious handling of this Request for a Technical Sp.i-fications Change so that we will receive approval before February 15, 1972.
Yours very truly, RBS/ map e
Ralph B. Sewell 03 Nuclear Licensing Administrator
/
(/ g g
Ec 23 797;,, cy y g[ggj,)9 qu~
chh
<f DEC131971 - fI V
-t m,
- Tw. O s Q
s zy%} lG genseasy
i, p,gpe rj r". ' '.
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
.hta y;:,:: i:::: O -P-7/
Docket No 50-155
~
Request for Change to the Technical Specifications Change No 27 License No DPR-6 For reasons hereinafter set forth, the following changes to the Technical Specifications of License DPR-6 issued to Consumers Power Company on May 1, 196!4 for the Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant are requested:
I.
Section 5 A.
In Section 5 1 5, change (c) to read as follows:
"(c) Fuel Bundles The general design and configuration of the seven types of fuel bundles shall be as shown in Figures 5 2 through S.7 (inclusively) of the specifications. Principal de-sign features shall be as on Table 5.1."
B.
In Section 515, add Figure 5 7, Big Rock Point Type "J-2 (UO -PuO )" Fuel.
2 2
C.
In Section 5 1 5, add the attached column and footnotes to Table 5 1.
D.
In Section 5.2, change Cumn 2 heading of Table 5.2 to read:
" Reload
'E,' 'E-G,'
'F,'
'J-l' and
'J-2.'"
1
(
2 Section 5.15 - Table 5.1 - Add the following colomn and footnotes:
General J-2 (UO -Pu02) 2 Geometry, Fuel Rod Array 9x9 Rod Pitch, Inch 707 Standard Fuel Rods per Bundle 49 Special Fuel Rods per Bundle 32(8)
Spacers per Bundle 3
Fuel Rod Cladding Material Zr-2 Standard Rod Tube Wall, Inches (9)
Special Rod Tube Wall, Inches (9)
Fuel Rods Standard Rod Diameter, Inch 5625 Special Rod Diameter, Inch 5625 Fuel Stacked Density, Percent Theoretical 90 7(7}
Active Fuel Length, Inches Standard Rod 68 Special Rod 62.2 in Cet er Rod Fill Gas Helium e 95%
1
( )3 1s includes: 24 mixed oxide (Pu02-UO2) rods, 4 cobalt bearing 1
corner rods and 4 gadolinia bearing rods.
9)This includes: -44 fuel rods,.050"; 33 fuel rods,.c40"; and 2
4 cobalt rods,.035".
d k
n r '-
?
7 P'.
T-y e
m.m=---+
r e
8 3
3 0
t f 9 A 9 AeRAY lIlll['!l.701PtNM
/
A i
7g;4;i ;n;ry7g,Q 1g,'
ru., ' - -r
~ W1*1"LY%2^
Y h
y C sancee c urver
?. >
r ~,
nev 1s t 1 Gen +1 oo i
x'er 6
G.ir;i{olf
- 'I
- Gig [
.E.,..
- l'50 d
~~
c4C
-x=>
atzm c 3 g'A A.s fc; h
~.
-- [IC V. T(Q-g}'
s Illlllll L
uE..
-A.
JECT /0A/- A-A EA/o v/r w c
@QQOG@QQ@
41+-k W 08G@@@999 09G888880
@@G8@GS@@
@963@@@@@
o 9868333@@
098G8@G90 099@@@G90 whi
-,5-g --
~=
LEGEMO BRRausEveuT)
H HiGM E uRitw hcE NT - 4 to
- 7. ts(y M MEOuM E%Ricav 64T.S* %Q '7. tW y L LO N ENRtCaMENT - 2.55
'7. ESK u P win EO O niD E - t 4,r
- P. A.
p G GADOttw'A 15EARtw4 -) 10 *'. tif u
_.q-h j(
1 C co% AJT TAnc,ET 400 TR tie ROO EC SPACER C ADTuRE Mb l
l l
l l
l l
~~
i Figure 5.7 - Big Rock Point Type "J-2" Fuel
C
- 1 h.
II.
Discussion - Type' "J-2" Fuel A.. Fuel Description The "J-2" fuel is nearly identical in mechanical design to the two type "J-1" fuel bundles currently under irradiation in the Big Rock Point reactor and is compatible with reload "E-G" and "F" fuels. The essential l
-difference cween Type "J-2" and "J-1" fuel is the inclusion of 24 fuel
^
rods in each bundle containing mixed uranium and plutonium oxides. Like the "E" and "E-G" fuels, the "J-2" fuel is a 9 x 9 array of Zirealoy-2 clad fuel rods. The "J-2" fuel has been designed and fabricated by Jersey Nuclear Company, a fully owned subsidiary of Standard Oil Company (New j
Jersey). As with the Type "J-1" fuel, the "J-2" fuel bundles contain a short diffuser at the inlet tie plate co improve flow distribution en-trance of the bundle. Althou6h the diffuser shortens the active fuel length of the "J-2" fuel bundles by about 2" as compared to the existing fuels. its effect on the power generation of this bundle and bundles adja-l cent to it is negligible. Differences in design detail from the "J-1" bundles are discussed below.
1.
Mechanical Design f
Jersey Nuclear mixed oxide "J-2" bundles are similar to the "J-1" design now operating in the Big Rock Point reactor. The significant differences are:
a.
The use of plutonium bearing mixed oxide fuel in a central il 5 x 5 array (except for the central spacer capture rod),
h.
The use of increased cladding thickness on peripheral and selected internal high power fuel rods.
c.
A modification of the upper tie plate design which facili-tates the remote disassembly and removal of fuel rods. This approach re-places the "J-1" upper tie plate design which pemitted the removal of fuel rods only at five specific locations in the bundle array.
l As in the "J-1" design, the "J-2" bundles accommodate four l
cobalt target rods and four gadolinia bearing rods in the same relative positions. Eight tie rods and a central spacer capture rod are also used.
Except for the modified upper tie plate, all mechanical components are identical in. the two designs, including spacers, lower tie plates, fuel rod assembly, fuel column lengths, the use of cold-pressed and sintered pellets,
.and the basic 9 x 9 rod array.
,, ~,
r--
~
y m-
f 5
2.
Nuc1Sar Design The "J-2" bundle, like the "J-1" bundle, is designed to operate for four cycles and is mechanically capable of achieving an average burnup of :25,900 mwd /M'IM. The fissile isotope contents of the "J-2" and "J-1" bundles (Pu-239, Pu-241 plus U-235) are essentially identical, being 3 52.
and 3 53 w/o, respectively. The isotopic content of the plutonium utilized in the "J-2 bundles is:
' Isotope w/o Pu-238
.425 Pu-239 76.241 Pu-240 16.336 Pu-241 5.819 Pu-242 1.179 The distribution of fuel rod types, enrichments, and cladding thickness within.the "J-2" bundle is shown in Figure 2.
The rod power dis-tribution at three different void planes (0, 25%, and 50% voids). is shown
- in Figures 3, 4, and 5'for beginning-of-life conditions; the net effect of gadolinium and fissile isotope burnup is to reduce the local peaking factor.
As the figures indicate, the maximum expected local peaking factor is 1.12, which may be compared to 1.23 in the "J-1" design.
Infinite multiplication factors, reactivity defects and control rod worths for the "J-2" bundles are compared to values for the "J-1" bundles in Table 1.
While the reactivity defects are individually different, the total cold-to-operating reactivity change is nearly the same. The slight-
' increase in the control rod strength adjacent to the "J-2" bundle is attributed to the change from 70 grams to 35 grams of cobalt per foot of rod in the four cobalt rods, and the thermal flux increase at the bundle perimeter which results from slightly increased water to fuel ratio in the vicinity of the thick clad rods.
v y
-yp-.,
~~
Q 6
Table 1 Nuclear Parameters J-2 (UO -Pu0 )
J-l (U0p) 2 2
Reactivity ~(k.)
(35 g/ft Co)
('io g/ft Co) 68 F 1.1h80 1.157h 583 F - Hot Standby 1.lhhh 1.lh81 583 F - Full Power, 0 Voids 1.1380 1.1419
- Full Power, 25% Voids 1.1178 1.1229 Temperature Defect ( AL) 68 F - 583 F
.0036
.0093 Void Defect (A L )
0 - 25% Voids-
.0202
.0190 Doppler Defect (AL )
583 F - 1202 F
.0064
.0062 Total Defects
.0302
.03h5 Control Rod Worth (A L)
One Adjacent Strong Rod; Cold
.1126
.1068 3
Thermal and Hydraulic Design a.
Assembly and Rod Thermal Hydraulics The hydraulic characteristics of the "J-2" bundles are identical to those of the "J-1" bundles. The flow rate through both designs is calculated to be a mass velocity in a hot channel of at least
.8 x 10 lb/hr-ft, which yields an MCHFR of greater than 1.50 at over-power. The spacer loss coefficient calculated for the Types "J-2" and "J-1" fuel is 1 5% greater than the loss coefficient for Type "E-G" and Type "F" fuel. A sensitivity analysis ic.dicated that the MCHFR limit of 150 at overpower is protected under conditions where the Type "J-1" and "J-2" fuel assemblies have a spacer loss coefficient 40% greater than Type "E-G" and Type "F" fuel.
The introduction of a flow diffuser at the inlet of the
- Type "J-1".and "J-2" assemblies improves flow distribution to the peripheral fuel rods in the assembly and has a negligible effect on assembly pressure drop.
J
a t
7 The substitution of the mixed oxide fuel for UO; fuel tends to reduce' the maximum fuel temperature. While the thermal conductivity of the fuel pellets remains essentially unchanged, the neutron flux depression toward the center of the pellets resulting from introducing the higher cross-section plutonium shifts the power generation nearer the pellet sur-face. This results in a calculated reduction in peak pellet temperature of approximately 200 F at equal rod powers. The calculated peak fuel tempera-tures at overpower conditions (21 5 kw/ft) for UO r ds and UO -Pu0 r ds 2
2 2
are 5060 F and 4850 F, respectively. The lower local peaking factor of the "J-2" bundles results in lower maximum heat generation rate for given radial and axial p0wer peaking. Expected maximum fuel temperatures are well below the respective melting points of 5140 F and 5100 F for UO and 3.65%
2 Puo -UO.
2 g
b.
Plutonium Particle Size Analysis The Jersey Nuclear specifications for the Puo particles in 2
the mixed oxide pellets require that, with 95% confidence, 95% of the Pu02 must be in particles less than 100 microns in diameter. Inspection of pilot quan'.ities of pellets for the "J-2" fuel by alpha radiography indicates 95%
of the Pu0 measured must be in particles of 60 microne or less in diameter 2
' in order to meci. the 100 micron limit at the 95% confide.. ce level. This particle size distribution, which is required tu meet Jersey Nuclear speci-i fication, is essentially the same as that found in the EEI Pu0 -UO
- N1 2
2 (95% of the Puo
""U pr bably in particles less than 58 microns in diameter).
2 The discussion of the impact of this particle size distribution on transient behavior and Doppler feedback, which was presented in " Additional Informa-tion for Proposed Technical Specification Change No.19," dated January 28, 1CJ70, therefore applies to the "J-2" fuel. Heat tansfer calculations indicate that, for LOO-micron diameter plutonium particles located at the peak pellet center line, the maximum steady state particle temperature is less than 25 F higher than the surrounding UO temperature. The tempera-2 ture of a LOO-micron particle containing only 25% Pu0 w uld be less than 2
6 F higher than the surrounding UO. In either case, the temperature in-2 crease is much less than the temperature decrease resulting from the rela-tive power depression in the center of mixed oxide pellets and lower local power peaking.
8 s
B.
Accident Analysis 1.
Reactivity Insertion Accident The folicwing table compares the key design and nuclear param-eters of the "J-2" fuel bundles to those of the EEI UO -Pu0 fuel bundles 2
2 which arc-being irradiated as authorized by Change No 19 to License No DPR-6, and to the "J-1" UO bundle:
2 J-1 (UO2)
J-2 (UO2-Pu02) EEI UO2-Pu02 Total UO2 + pug, kg 148.3 141.6 139 7 2
Total Pu, kg 0
1.47 5 33 Fissile Isotopes in Pu, %
82.06 88.9 Total Fissile (U-235 + Pu), %
3 53 3.52 4.84 k., 68 F, BOL 1.157 1.148 1.160 k m, 572 F, 25% Voids, BOL 1.123 1.118 1.158 Delayed Neutron Fraction *, S
.0068
.0057
.00385 Doppler Coefficient, O Voids
-5
-5 ak/k/F
.88 x 10-
.90 x L
-1.05 x 10 Inspection cf these data indicates that the analyses o? tbc EEI UO -Puo fuel bundle for a reactivity insertion accident presented in 2
2 the application for Change No 19 dated December 22, 1969, and additional information dated January 20, 1970, and February 13, 1970, will conser-vatively apply to the "J-2" fuel.
As indicated in the submittal of February 13, 1970, the effect of the delayed neutron fraction, 8, on the enthalpy depot,ition attained during a rod drop accident is very small. The effect of the "J-2" fuel would be smaller than the effect of EEI Pu0 -UO fuel analyzed in that 2
2 submittal.
The table indicates that the Doppler coefficient in the "J-2" Pu0 -UO fuel is slightly more negative than in the "J-1" UO fuel. This 2
2 2
is attributed to the higher Doppler coefficient of Pu-240. The somewhat
. larger difference in Doppler coefficient between the "J-1" and the EEI P10 is partially due to diff erences in the analytical models used.
2
- Infinite lattice calculations.
\\
9
~
- 2. - Loss of Coolant As indicated in Section II above, the N-2" de' sign has' essen-tially the same mechanical and thermal-hydraulic charac ceristics as the "J-1" design and the earlier Reload "E" and "E-G" designs. Fuel weights, and fuel volumes, are very nearly the same. It is, therefore, concluded that a loss-of-coolant accident will cause a similar effect in the "J-2" design as previously licensed uranium fuel in 9 x 9 arrays. These effects are being reanalyzed in accordance with Dr. P. A. Morris' letter dated July 20, 1971. The results of this reanalysis will be submitted to the
- Division of Reactor Licensing prior to January 1,1972.
3 Primary System Integrity Discussions of primary system integrity in the event of a superprompt initial power excursion (rod drop accident) have been pre-sented in previous applications for this plant. It has been shown, for all fuel models considered, N t such excursions do not deposit sufficient energy into the fuel to cause a significtet amount of fuel dispersal into the coolant, which is the only possible mechanism for generation of a 4
serious steam explosion. This conclusion has ben shown to be valid for normal power density UO fuel bundles, for high power density UO bundles 2
2 and for mixed oxide fuel bundles.
Inspection of the design parameters indicates that this conclusion is equally valid for the "J-2" fuel bundles.
Local control rod worths adjacent to the "J-2" fuel bundle are bundles of similar design; essentially the same as those adjacent to U02 hence, the local reactivity inse: tion in the event of a rod drop accident would be very nearly the same.
The larger delayed neutron fraction of the "J-2" fuel compared to the EEI Pu0 -UO fuel will result in a smaller power excursion, given 2
2 the same reactivity insertion incident.
Mixed oxide fuels with particle size distribution comparable to the "J-2" fuel were subjected to SPERT tests and behaved in essentially the same fashion as UO fuels subjected to the same net pellet enthalpy 2
depositions. The presence of large Puo particles (550 p) at or near the 2
pellet surface has been shown experimentally to introduce the possibility
-- (
10 of localized clad penetrations during excursions, at enthalpy Mposition levels only slightly below those where gross cladding failure occurs in both UO and mixed oxide fuels. No significant amount of mechanical energy' 2
-is deposited in the coolant as a result of these localized: penetrations.
The enthalpy deposition levels attained during a 2.1% Ak rod drop -accident are such that a significant fraction of the fuel would undergo i
clad failure, but the fraction exceeding an enthalpy deposition level of 425 ' cal /g, above which prompt fuel dispersal might occur, is only 1 kg.
Prompt dispersal-of this quantity of fuel would not create a steam explo-sion great enough to threaten the integrity of the primary loop.
4.
Off-Site Radiological Effects The additional amount of plutonium added to the reactor inven-tory does not affect radiological doses at the site boundary. The bone dose, shown in the Big Rock Point Final Hazards Summary Report, is always less than 0.1 Rem on all conditions of exposure time, location and diffu-sion regime. The_ plutonium is a nonvolatile solid. For release of non-volatiles, the fuel must vaporize. None of the plutonium in the Type "J-2"
~
fuel is calculated tc vaporize as a result of the postulated.021 Ak rod drop accident.
5 Fuel Handling and critie.lity The cold infinite muitiplication factor (k.) of the "J-2" fuel is 1.148, which is less than the k. of the UO fuels presently being em-2 played; the k. of "E-G" fuel is 1.208*.
The "J-2" fuel will, therefore, be conservatively handled and stored under the criticality control 14catits which apply to "E-G" fuel.
III. Conclusions Btsed on the above data and discussion, it is concluded that:
A.
The "J-2" fuel rod and bundle design is compatible with Tees "E-G," "F," EEI Pu0 -UO, and "J-1" designs. Type "J-1" and "J. 2" designs 2
2
- "E-G" fuel contains four cobalt bearing rods at 35 grams-cobalt /ft.
Adjusting the cobalt loading to 70 grams /ft and computing the k. by
- the same methods utilized for the "J-1" fuel design yields a k. of 1.153.
(
g incorporate an improved. inlet flow distribution feature. This feature Lis expected to-improve' heat transfer and enthalpy distribution within
'the fuel bundles.
B.
The local power factor.in the "J-2" design is lower than in -
previous designs; hence, the assembly maximum heat generation rate.will
~
be lower for given radial and axial peaking factors. In addition, the radial or relative burdle power factor will be lower in any given core location due to the reduced k. The "J-2" bundles will, therefore,. comply -
ai with Technical Specification limits on the MCHFR.
C.
Peak fuel temperature in.the "J-2" _is reduced, and the margin to fuel' melting increased, compared to UO fuels at the same linear power 2
conditions.
D.
The result of a postulated reactivity accident is less severe with the "J-2" fuel, because of a larger 6, than with an equivalent number of. earlier mixed oxide fuel assemblies (EEI Pu0 -UO ), which were found 2
2 to be acceptable. The presence of the increased plutonium inventory has no significant effect on maximum accident consequences.
E.
The results of a postulated loss-of-coolant accident are ' expected 4
to be somewhat less severe in the "J-2" fuel due to the reduced local power factor.
4 F.
Experimental Fuel Rods 4'
' In each assembly, 12 of the.4.2% enriched fuel rods are designated as experimental rods. These rods are in locations corresponding to a power of.99 to 1.05 relative to the assembly average. The following variables are investigated among these fuel rods.
a.
Pariation in prefilm treatment.
1.
389 c, 1500 psi steam.
2.
389 c, loo psi steam.
3 1.s etched only (nonautoclaved).
t b.
Increased pellet OD tolerance, ie, t 15 mils.
1 e
e r
g r
-y,
12 The variation in prefilming conditions is not expected to inter-fere with the performance of the fuel rous. 'the increased pellet tol-erance utilizes existing design margin and is not expected to compromise fuel rod perfomance.
CONSUMERS POWER COMP By H. R. Wall, Senior Vice President Date: December 9, 1971 Swom and subscribed to before me this 9th day of December 1971.
4 1
CL A_ cn3 ?L Notary Public, Jackson County, Michigan My commission expires January 15, 1972
Q FIGURE 2 JERSEY NUCLEAR MIXE0 OXIDE FUEL FOR BIG ROCK POINT ENRICHMENT DISTRIBUTION AND CLAD THICKNESS 7...---__....___________.__._.__________.__________________,__,,,_l, l-I r n --.:.__.-
l N
1 s,
- l C
L L
M M
),3 I
j 35 50 50 50 50 I
/
l' l
t
\\
[ 40 L-M/G H
H I
I
\\
l 50 50 50 40 l
l l
I 1
L H
Pu Pu Pu I
l 50 50 50 40 40 I
I l
l l
H Pu Pu Pu 8
l
(
50 40 40 40 40 i
l l
t
- !1 H
Pu H
I 50 40 40 1
40 I
40 I
I i
l
/O l
)
'}
l OLisNT SYMMETRT Rod T pe I
'l s
l Cla hickness, Mils l
N l
I I
i I
s_/
l t
l
~
r f
l t
.. i,,el l
Q.- _--
~
_,_ _ _._... _._.__.__. _ _.,.. /,
l l-4 Number of Rods Rod Type Clad Thickness j
C - Cobalt Target (35 t 'ft) 4-35 L - 2.55 w/o U-235 16-50 Bundle Parameters M - 3.30 w/o U-235 12-50 Total Pu = 1'47 kg M/G - 3.30 w/o U-235 + 1.0 w/o Gd 023 4-50 Fissile Pu = 1.21 kg H - 4.20 w/o U-235 13-40, 8-50 Fissile Content = 3.52 w/c Pu 3.68 w/o Fissile (3.65 w/o Pu in Natural U) 4-50, 20-40
t L
FIGURE 3 JERSEY NUCLEAR MIXED OXIDE FUEL FOR BIG ROCK POIN1
)
7 - _. - _.- _ _ _ _ _ _LO._ CAL. POWER. DISTRIBUTIONS (WITH GAD 0LI l
l N\\
l l
.]
C L
L M
M
\\.
l 0.0 l
1.049 l
.975
-1.13 1.124
)
I J
I
/
i l
50 50 50 i
I M/G H
H H
[
i
.I I
.512
.998 1.05d 1.040 I
l
),
D I
50 50 40 0
l l
4 I
Pu Pu Pu l
I
<l 1.079 1.049 1.021 l
0 40 1
r I
I
/
Pu-Pu l
i l
I l
.892
.868 I
l l
I l
40 0
-l
~l r
H I
l l
I l
.660 l
I I-b
(
l
{[
i, I
I I
)
(
ij l
OCTANT SYMMETRY 1 I
\\
i I
I l
H Enrichment and/or Rod Type Symbol l
l 1.000 Normalized Local Power l
Clad Thickness, Mils I
l
)b I!
l i
____=.
k L _ _ _ _ --
_ __._._ ___.._ ___ _ ____ _ ____ __ __ _. _..._ _ _ __. __ _ __ _ _._ __._ __ _ __ __...J Number of Rods-Rod Type Clad Thickness
)
C - Cobalt Target (35 gm/ft) 4-35 Bundle Parameters L - 2.55 w/o U-235 16-50 Total Pu = 1.47 kg i
M - 3.30 w/o U-235 12-50 hs 3?52w/o i
M/G - 3.30 w/o U-235 + 1.0 w/o Gd 023 4-50 ontent H - 4.20 w/o U-235 13-40, 8-50 Pu - 3.68 w/o Fissile (3.65 w/o Pu 4-50, 20-40 in Natural U)
M2
= 62.31
~
i
FIGURE 4 JERSEY NUCLEAR MIXED OXIDE FUEL FOR BIG ROCK POINT LOCAL POWER DISTRIBUTION (WITH GAD 0LINIA 25% VOIDS) r------------------------------------------'------------------------"--------1 I
i C
L L
M M
O.0 1.053 j
.969 1.121 1.105
- l 35 50 50 50 5
i M/G H
b H
I i
l
.565 1.013 1.060 l
1.044
.l I
0 0
l Pu Pu Pu l
1.082 1.048 1.017 0
40 l'l
[
Pu l
\\
.857 I
l 40 40 l
. 62 I
l
') O ) C l
l OCTANT SYMMETRY I
I l
)
i i
1 l
H Enrichment and/or Red Type Symbol l
l 1.000 Normalized Local Power
[
i
-l Clad Thickness, Mils
(
l l
1 l
l i
l____..______._______..__..______
Rod Type Clad Thickness C - Cobalt Target (35 gm/ft) 4-35 Bundle Parameters L - 2.55 w/o U-235 16-50 Total Pu = 1.47 kg M - 3.30 w/o U-235 12-50 Fissile Pu = 1.21 kg M/G - 3.30 w/o U-23S + 1.0 w/o Gd 03 4-50 2
Fissile Content = 3.52 w/o H - 4.20 w/o U-235 13-40, 8-50 K.
= 1.1178 Pu - 3.68 w/o Fissile (3.65 w/o Pu 4-50, 20-40 in Natural U)
M2
= 77.71
T
~
FIGURE 5
' JERSEY NUCLEAR MIXED OXIDE FUEL FOR 81G R0Cr. POINT p--
.-. ____._..._.1QCE.EQKB_DISLRIBUTION,(_WITH GADOLINI A-50% V0 IDS) l G
I L
L M
M
\\
l 0.0 1.041
.953 1.093 1.077 i
f
-l 0
0 I
M/G 'N H
H H
~
'\\
l l
.633}
1.026 1.068 1.051 50 50 40 40 h
l
[
Pu
. Pu Pu 1.081 1.047 1.015 l
l l
(
I
.887 I
52 l
40 40 j
I l
H l
I l
.679 I
I l
l OCTANT SYMtETRY l
l
~
I j
x l
/H Enrichment and/or Rod Type Symbol l
I1.000 Normalized Local Power
\\
I l
Clad Thickness, Mils I
40 l
__ _ _ _,,._._ _ J, l
l
- - --. s 1
i L--
._ -_..-._ _________.__.._._ _ _ _ g g g_g m g _ _ _,
_____,,,,_,,___,,,__,,__,__j Rod Type Clad Thickness C - Cobalt Target (25 gm/ft) 4-35 8undle Parameters L - 2.55 w/o U-2?5 16-50 M - 3.30 w/o U-?35 12-50 Total Pu = 1.47 kg M/G - 3.30 w/o U-235 + 1.0 w/o Gd 023 4-50 Fissile Pu = 1.21 kg Fissile Content = 3.S2 w/o H - 4.20 w/o U 235 13-40, 8-50 K
= 1.0886 Pu - 3.68 w/o Fissile (3.65 w/o Pu
=
in Natural U) 4-50, 20-40 M2 = 101.72
...