ML20044E312
| ML20044E312 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/04/1992 |
| From: | Rosalyn Jones Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Widell R BABCOCK & WILCOX OPERATING PLANTS OWNERS GROUP, FLORIDA POWER CORP. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9305240178 | |
| Download: ML20044E312 (24) | |
Text
,_
)'
L i
l June 4, 1992 i
i i
I Rolf C. Widell, Chairman B&W Owners Group Steering Committee c/o Nuclear Operations Site Support Florida Power Corporation P. O. Box 219-NA-21 l
Crystal River, Florida 32629 l
Dear Mr. Widell:
SUBJECT:
POSSIBLE RECRITICALITY FOLLOWING A.LARGE BREAK LOCA
[
f As a follow up to my staff's recent conversation with you on the subject of possible recriticality following a large break LOCA, we are enclosing a copy of my staff's evaluation on this subject. This evaluation includes the-l Brookhaven National Laboratory report on Post-LOCA Reflood Criticality-Calculations.
f 1
We look forward to hearing from you further with regard to your plans to
(
address this question.
If you need any additional information, please do_ not hesitate to contact us.
I 1
Sincerely, l
ls/
Robert C. Jones, Chief Reactor Systems Branch Division of Systems Technology l
Enclosure:
1 As. stated DISTRIBUTION I
Central Files SRXB R/F
-AThadani RJones I
TCollins I
MChatterton MChatterton R/F M
-i SRXB: DST fri' SRXB: DST S,XB: DST MCHATTERTON:jh TCOLL:;NS RJONES
%4 &-
p[f (V
)j 9305240178 920604 PDR TOPRP ENVBW
-\\{
C pyg j
2 conservatism or non-conservatism in the assumptions (relative to criticality).
This served as the basis for evaluating the overall safety significance of the problem.
This approach was used because performance of transient criticality calculations for a large break LOCA were not considered p'ractical from either a cost or schedule viewpoint, or necessary for an initial study.
Physics calculations were performed at Brookhaven National l
Laboratory.
Their report is attached as Appendix A.
The I
analyses were based on a 193-assembly PWR core model, and a "best estimate" TRAC-PF1/ MOD 1 calculation performed by INEL for the large-break in the cold-leg piping system between the emergency core coolant injection nozzle and the reactor vessel in a 4-loop Westinghouse RESAR-3S PWR (Reference 1).
Using the thermal-hydraulic parameters from the TRAC-PF1/ MODI calculation, a
l
" snapshot" core multiplication factor (keff) for each of five points in the transient was calculated.
These calculations were done with the MCNP4 Monte Carlo code.
t i
l The five core statepoints considered in the analyses were:
Initial critical configuration (t=0.0 sec.)
Core fully voided (t=32.85 sec.)
First major peak in " Core Liquid Mass Fraction" plot (t=56 sec.)
I Second major peak in " Core Liquid Mass Fraction" plot (t=100 sec.)
End of TRAC calculation for transient (t=150 sec.)
l l
3 l
The results for the core multiplication factor (keff) are as follows; t=0.0 sec keff = 1.0 t=32.85 sec keff = 0.49 t=56 sec keff = 1.012 t=100 sec keff = 1.023 t=150 sec keff = 1.016 These very conservative values were used as the baseline numbers for our safety evaluation.
The key analysis assumptions and approximations which were examined for their impact are:
1.
The control rods remained completely withdrawn from the core.
2.
Boron concentration prior to LOCA was used throughout the calculations i.e. no ECCS water mixes with the reactor vessel water.
3.
The calculations were " snapshots" rather than transient reactivity calculations.
4.
No Xenon was assumed present in the core.
5.
The cross sections used were for fuel temperatures of 300 K.
6.
Water properties of the radial and azimuthal nodes were averaged.
4 The effects of each of these assumptions is addressed below.
1.
Control Roo Insertiqn The BNL study assumed that all the control rods remained completely withdrawn from the core.
If only a small portion of the control rods (about 40% depending on the core under consideration) did insert into the core, the excess reactivity 1
would be eliminated and a return to criticality precluded.
However, structural analyses (Reference 2) for the largest double ended hot leg break indicate that control rod insertion, for some of the rods, may be impeded by the hydrodynamic forces associated with the blowdown.
But since it is also unlikely that all of the rods will fail to insert, the BNL assumption is considered to be l
a significant conservatism.
2.
Boron Concentration The boron concentration was not changed throughout the calculations.
All the water entering the core was assumed to be at the boron concentration which was present before the LOCA.
No account was taken of the fact that the ECCS water is at a much higher boron concentration.
The change in the boron concentration would be determined by the amount of water left in the lower plenum after blowdown and the mixing of it and the ECCS water.
If the boron concentration is increased due to the ECCS water mixing with the initial concentration water, the excess reactivity can be eliminated very quickly.
For example, the ECCS water always has a boron concentration at least 800 ppm greater than that of the RCS and boron worth values for PWRs range from 8 to 10 pcm/ ppm.
Assuming a mixing factor of.25 and a boron worth l
of 8 pcm/ ppm, the change in keff would be.016 thus eliminating l
i l
l l
l l.
i i
5 l
^
nearly all the excess reactivity in the worst case calculated.
l A mixing factor of.25 would be comparable to the 1< war plenum l
after blowdown.being 75% full of lower Boron concentration RCS
- water, ECCS water injecting and mixing uniformly until the lower i
plenum is filled, and once the lower plenum is filled the concentration staying the same as the core fills.
In fact the average concentration would be constantly increasing as the f
higher concentration water continues to enter the' lower plenum and. raise the average concentration.
.Hence even if recriticality f
L is achieved, it is likely to be maintained for only a short f
period of time.
However, the amount of water remaining in the vessel after blowdown is not known.
Both test data and-model data vary l
greatly, ranging from lower ;lenum empty to lower plenum
}
1 approximately 90% full at the end of blowdown.
Various assessments of lower plenum liquid inventory following large cold i
leg breaks indicate the residual liquid volume fraction below the
}
core region is between 15 and 75%. (Ref 2).-
The INEL "best f
estimate" TRAC calculations used in the BNL analyses show the j
lower plenum empty at approximately 12 seconds and refilled j
I presumably with ECCS water by about 35 seconds.
i i
There are also questions about the "line water".
In some l
j plants there is a significant volume of water in the HPSI, LPSI and SIS Hea &r plus the SI tank lines (up to the equivalent of l
90%'of the 3cwer plenum volume).
While the "line water" should be at the ECCS boron concentration, it may be at a lower concentration due to RCS water inleakage.
It is unclear how much "line water" is added to the residual water after blowdown and what its boron concentration is.
In addition, it is unclear if
-l this line water has been adequately considered in the tests and f
I calculations of blowdown.
I I
J
l
[
l 6
I l
Finally, it should also be noted that the BNL study was performed for BOC conditions.
Later in the cycle the difference between the P.CS bere-concentration and that of the ECCS vatcr will be greater.
This will require less mixing to produce the same reactivity effect.
However the reactivity effect due to cooling the water from the operating temperature to the post-LOCA temperature will be greater because of the more negative moderator temperature coefficient.
Therefore it is not clear which point in the cycle is most important.
3.
No Transient Reactivity Feedback This study consisted of " snapshots" rather than transient reactivity calculations.
As the core approached criticality heat would be produced and the negative reactivity feedbacks l
would greatly alter the process.
These include the doppler fuel temperature, moderator temperature, and moderator density / void feedbacks.
Once criticality is approached the thermal-hydraulic parameters from the INEL calculation are not representative since that calculation included only decay heat.
This constitutes a very significant conservatism in the calculation.
4.
Cross Sections vs. Fuel Temperature The calculations were performed using cross sections for fuel temperature of 300 K.
Since the fuel te=peratures are above 422 K in all cases, this introduces a conservatism due to doppler broadening.
BNL has stated that the effect of this will be approximately -0.008, -0.005 and -0.005 delta-k for the 56, 100, and 150 second cases respectively.
The calculated Keff with the fuel temperature corrections were 1.004 to 1.018 for the three points 56 seconds, 100 seconds and 150 seconds into the accident.
This is therefore a small conservatism in the calculations.
7 5.
Xenon Considerations The calculations were done tith..o Xenon presant.
BNL has stated that including Xenon would simply lower the boron concentration and would not affect the results.
The effect of this assu=ption was handled by considering the difference between the initial RCS boron concentration and the ECCS boron concentration instead of considering the actual concentrations.
Hence it not believed to introduce any significant conservatism or non-conservatism in the calculations.
6.
Averacina of Water Procerties The water properties of the radial and azimuthal nodes of the INEL results were averaged.
The averaging over the radial and azimuthal nodes may have resulted in a more reactive core.
This assessment is substantiated by the results obtained.
The case at 150 seconds had a lower keff than the one at 100 seconds.
The total water volume was greater but the distribution of voids was more irregular for the case at 150 seconds.
Thus it appears that a case with a more uniform distribution of voids is more reactive.
The uncertainty in this regard however is too large to ascribe any conservatism to this assumption.
CONCLUSIONS The calculations performed by BNL provide a conservative baseline for assessing the potential for a return to critical following a large break LOCA.
Our assessment indicates that although, there is abundant neutron absorption capability in both the control rods and the borated safety injection system, the rate of negative reactivity addition from these sources is uncertain particularly during the early reflood stages of a large break LOCA.
This uncertainty in negative reactivity insertion rate
l l
l.
[
8
}
l f
stems primarily from uncertainty in the amount of initial primary j
system water which remains in the reactor vessel after blowdown, j
and uncertainty in the number of control rods which can be l
inserted.
It iL cur b= lief that the likclihecd.I a large braak LOCA in conjunction with failure of a large number of control l
rods to insert is small. We also recognize that inherent negative feedbacks would result if criticality did occur and that the safety injection boron will limit any return to criticality to the short term.
For these reasons we do not believe that a significant safety concern exists.
However, because of the uncertainties in important parameters noted above, a short term return to criticality cannot be excluded.
l i
Therefore, it is our recommendation that the Owners Groups be contacted.
They could play a significant role in resolving this j
generic concern by demonstrating that there would be no return to criticality or that the consequences of such a return to criticality are insignificant to plant safety.
This could be demonstrated by showing that the control rods will insert prior to reflood, that the thermal-hydraulics processes are such that boron concentration during reflood is sufficient to prevent l
l recriticality, or that the effects of recriticality are not safety significant.
i l
1 REFERENCES 1.
Quantifying Reactor Safety M3rgins, Application of Code Scaling, Applicability, and Uncertainty Evaluation l
l Methodology to a'Large Break, Loss-of-Coolant Accident.
l l
2.
An Assessment of the Return to Criticality Following a Large Break LOCA at the Palisades nuclear Plant, Combustion Engineering, February 1991.
l
1
)
i
(.
APPENDIX A BROOKIIAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY i
MEMORANDUM DATE:
April 15,1992 l
TO:
J.F. Carew q
.t. f. G -
N i
FROM:
A.L. Aronson, M.J. Geiger, M. Todosow l
SUBJECT:
Post-LBLOCA Reflood Criticality Calculations
1.0 INTRODUCTION
i The light water moderator / coolant inventory and density distribution in a typical PWR core and vessel vary dramatically during the course of a post LOCA reflood transient. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the core multiplication factor (k,g) at several i
statepoints in such a transient to determine whether re-criticality might occur.
i The analyses are based on a 193-assembly PWR core model similar to the Zion Unit 2.
Cycle I core developed by BNL, and a "best estimate" TRAC-PF1/ MODI calculation performed by INEL for the large-break, loss-of-coolant accident transient following the double-ended guillotine break in the cold-leg piping system between the emergency core coolant injection nozzle and the reactor vessel in a 4-loop Westinghouse RESAR-3S PWR (NUREG/CR-5249.
EGG-2552).
2.0 CALCULATIONAL METHODOLOGY The multiplication factor (k,g) for the various statepoints considered in this study was determined with the MCNP4 Monte Carlo code. Point-wise cross-sections based on ENDF/B-V were employed along with temperature dependent S(cr,5) thermal scattering kernel data for hydrogen bound in light water. The temperatures at which Doppler broadened cross-section or I
?
thermal scattering data were available are given in Table-l.
The geometry we r.od91ed i. *hree-dimensions with fuel rods burnable poison rods and guide tubes explicitly represented (Figures 1-3). The top and bottom axial reflectors were approximated by homogenized zones (5-zones /- 15 cJn. for the lower reflectors, 3-zones /- 20 The radial reflector cm. for the upper reflectors) based on the data in EPRI NP-1232.
representation considered the stainless steel core baffle, core barrel and thermal shield along with associated water. In this way the flapJ three-dimensional geometry of the cylindrical fuel rods, rectangular fuel assembly lay down, and upper and lower reflectors of the core was preserved in the hiCNP4 neutronics calculations. Vacuum boundary conditions were assumed to apply on the exterior surfaces.
The light water moderator / coolant properties associated with sh unit cell (fuel rod, BPR, guide tube) throughout the core and reflectors were based on the TRAC modelling for the core / vessel. In TRAC, the inside of the vessel was represented by 3 radial,15 axial and 4 azimuthal zones. The core was modelled with 5 axial levels, and the equivalent core was contained within the outer radius of the second radial zone which extended to - the outer surface of the core barrel. The hiCNP4 modelling preserved the essential characteristics of the coolant density distnbution within the core and reflectors as far as their expected impact on the core multiplication factor were concerned.
Consequently, 5 axial coolant zones were accommodated in the hfCNP model corresponding to the discretization in the TRAC-PFl/hf 0D1 representation (Figure-4). Determination of the appropriate number densities for the light water for any given spatial region, however, required averaging of the TRAC results since incorporation of the full set of 5 axial x 4 azimuthal x 2 radial TRAC data was not feasible within the time frame available for the study. In addition, differences between the TRAC and AfCNP4 models for the core (e.g. the TRAC cylindrical vs the hiCNP4 rectangular geometry) would have required further approximations, as well as necessitating a much more costly and complex full-core hiCNP4 model, as opposed to the quarter-core mresentation employed. The full-core model would require 20 unique assembly-types vs the three assembly-types used in the present model, and 40 unique moderator densities vs the five densities used to represent the active core in the present model. These moderator densities must be assigned individually to unit
e 1
cells within each specinc assembly-type. Therefore, while this level of detail is possible, the resulting model is much more complex. and the corresponding running times for each calculation would increase significamly beyond ilie several hours /statepoint already required. It should also be noted, for example, that the one-sigma deviation of the TRAC region-dependent moderator density differed from the planar average by -5% for the t=100 second case. Therefore, the following approach was followed for each statepoint:
the average water density for a given axial level within the active core was obtained by combining the void fraction, and liquid and vapor densities for each planar node from the TRAC results and then appropriately averaging over the 8 nodes (4-azimuthal x 2-radial) within a plane.
the average water densities for the axial reflectors were obtained in the same way by considering the TRAC results for the two axiallevels immediately adjacent to the active core.
the average water density in the radial reflectors was taken as equal to that in the lower axial reflector.
Five core statepoints were considered in the analyses:
Initial critical con 6euration (t =0.0 sec.): The core is assumed to be at operating conditions with cross-sections and S(cr,5) corresponding to the elevated temperatures given in Table-1 (i.e.. Tfavg)=988 K. T (avg)=600 K.
o T,,(avg) =560 K, Tu(avg)= 600 K), a soluble boron concentration of 1300 ppm.
fresh fuel, no xenon and all control rods fully withdrawn.
j Core fully voided (t=32.S5 sec): The soluble boron concentration is assumed to remain at 1300 ppm corresponding to the initial critical state. The average fuel and clad temperatures from the TRAC calculation are 582 K and 566 K.
f respectively. The liquid vapor temperature is -500 K.
First maior ceak in " Core Licuid Mass Fraction" t31ot (t=56 sec.): The soluble
)
boron concentration is assumed to remain at 1300 ppm corresponding to the initial
critical state. The average fuel and clad temperatures from the TRAC calculation are 496 K and 442 K respectively. The liquid temperature is -400 K.
Second maior ceak in " Core Licuid Mass Fraction" clot (t= 100 sec): The soluble boron concentration is assumed to remain at 1300 ppm corresponding to the initial critical state. The average fuel and clad temperatures from the TRAC calculation are 423K and 408K, respectively. The liquid temperature is - 100K.
End of TRAC calculation for transient (t=150 sec3:
The soluble boron concentration is assumed to remain at 1300 ppm corresponding to the initial critical state. The average fuel and clad temperatures from the TRAC calculation are 422 K and 409 K. respectively. The liquid temperature is -400 K.
The MCNP4 calculations for all the transient statepoints 0.s, t> 0.0 sec) were based on 300 K cross-sections, thereby neglecting the negative reactivity due to Doppler broadening of the resonances (primarily those of U-235 and U-238 which have the largest magnitude and i
experience the greatest temperature change relative to the assumed 300 K). This approach was taken because generating temperature dependent nuclear data for resonance isotopes for use with MCNP is an involved and time consuming process. Nuclear data at 300 K is available in the base MCNP library provided by RSIC. In order to minimize the data generation effort for this study, additional data were produced only for the initial operating conditions. These two temperature dependent sets, therefore, bracketed the temperature range expected in the transient.
An ad-hoc correction was determined to account for this difference between the actual and MCNP4 library fuel temperatures. The S(a,S) thermal scattering data were chosen at the closest available library temperature.
l 3.0 RESULTS As noted in the previous section, the MCNP4 transient results must be adjusted to account for the difference between the actual statepoint and the 300 K MCNP4 library fuel temperature. The km correction is given by l
l
l l
i l
icient is more
( AM) 6T 5keff -
37
- oncentrations (4. 0 x 10-5 A k/k/K) - ( T-3 0 0K),
nup, reduced ced p T is the statepoint fuel temperature and the Zion-2, Cycle 1 Doppler coefficient has been boron The k g corrections for the transient statepoints are --0.0ll,- 0.008,- 0.005, and e
n s. The h5 ak,g, for t=33,56,100 and 150 seconds, respectively. The difference between the 00 ppm _ case
)B fuel temperature and the 300 K library temperature is larger for the earlier statepoints entical consequently, the Ak,g corrections are larger. The uncertainty in this correction is I
sted to be 220%', resulting in a maximum k,g uncertainty of 20.2% which is considered 9 within the overall uncertainty of the calculations.
The results for the core multiplication factor (k,g) are given in Figures 5-7 for the sient statepoints at t=56,100 and 150 seconds, respectively. The core k,g is presented as tetion of the boron concentration which is assumed to increase as a result of ECCS boron l
ned with the
- tion. The reduction in core k,g resulting from ECCS boron injection is based on typical based on a s differential boron worths of -10 pcm/ ppm and -8 pcm/ ppm'. The estimated one-sigma lata is based fidence interval on k,g is 0.2% Ak/k. The core multiplication for the highly voided case This TRAC
=33 seconds was calculated to be k,g = 0.49 0.019 (one-sigma). Comparison of Figures he MCNP4 2d 7 at C3 = 1300 ppm indicates that the k,g for the t = 100 second statepoint is slightly draulic state 1er (by ~0.7%Ak/k) than for the t=150 second statepoint. This is noteworthy since the 1 statepoints ferator and fuel temperatures for the two statepoints are essentially identical. This difference ate m at.
.ue to a combination of (1) the MCNP4 calculational statistics ( 0.2 % Ak/k) and (2) the erences between the distribution of the moderator density for the two statepoints. The derator density was relatively smooth in the 100 second case and varied axially from -0.95 ly balanced i
1.75 gm/cc while in the 150 second case there was a substantial variation in the axial include the derator density from -0.95 to 0.20 gm/cc over the axial height of the core.
dbacks. In alculations I
- activity by
'ypical Doppler coefficient uneenainties are < 15%.
TEL LOCA The minimum boron worth given in the W RESAR-3 FSAR is -8 pcm/ ppm.
>nservative
reactivity estimate provided here, and depends on the specine details of the reilood and ECCS
'i boron injection.
i The total reactivity insertion (inrluding both positive and negative commnents) and i
resulting increase in core power following the LOCA may be obtained by performing a time-l dependeni coupled neutronic/ thermal-hydraulic calculation. This calculation should include the time-dependent changes in moderator and fuel temperature, moderator density and ECCS boron injection. The MCNP4 analysis developed in the present study may be used to determine the input reactivity coefficients required to conven these changes into core reactivity, as well as the f
cooldown and reflood reactivity.
l i
i JFC:jg i
i ec:
R. A. Bari, BNL M. S. Chatterton, NRC l
T. E. Collins, NRC H. E. Polk, NRC C. L. Snead, BNL G. J.
Van Tuyle, BNL
}
i I
I i
I i
l
I l
{
l Table-1 AVAILABLE TEMPERATURE DEPENDENT CROSS SECTION AND THERMAL SCATTERING DATA l
l Isotope Cross Section S(a,S)
Temperature (*K)
Temperature (*K) l U-235 988,300 U-238 988,300 0-16 300 H-1 300 600,500,400,300 Zr 600,300 Cr 560,300 Fe 560,300 Ni 560,300 B-10 300 B-11 300
'O00000000000000<
0 0 0 0 0 0,0,0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0<l 000000 000 0000 00 0000000000000 00 000000000000000
<i 0000 00000 000 0 00 000000000000000
(!
O OOOOOOGDOOOOOOO <
000000000 00 00 00 000000000 0 000 00 l
000000000 0 0 0000 h
0000000G30 000'000
(!
00000000 0000000 4
00000000 0000000 4
00000000,00000D0 H
- [
j 5
55 1 it si c
esi si 55 Sis i
-.---....,,-.m,
.,,...,,r
.m.,,
,._,.-.,....,sI
l l
000000000000000
(
CtO O O O O O O O O O.O O O O (
0 0 @lO 0 0,0 0 0 @ O 0 0 0 0 (
000000000000000
(
0000@'0000 0@O000
(
i 0000000000 000,00 000000000000000
(
000000000000000 0000000000 00000 00@,000000 0 0,0 @lO 0 (
00000,0000 0 00000 C40 0 0iO O OO O OOOOOO (
00@:000000@O0@O0 <
000000000 0^O0000 (
000000000000000
(
i; i:"
~
h
!5
$bf
?
^Y 5b5 ilz
$$~e
Assembly Widtli
/
llounda ry
~
N Ilotici t
Vacuum llonnilary Condition w
a.
J,d '
i Figure - 3
.l l
o l MCNP4 PliR Quarter-Core 1.1 Model for LDLOCA I I Criticality Analysis
,ff i '
I n
j
- p i
a l
I
.i I
6 d
[,,
j i
i L
i f
t i
i i.
i w
i 1
..l 3
- l 1
1, 1
i I
n i
, i[
i j
l t l
- {
1 f'"
1 '
n,
> < d
I
[
,1 1
.:_h
[_
3 Model Boundary
--. _.. _ _ ~.. -,
t
(
i e
'l e
s
]
1 0
I 1
v l
i t
i 1
i
\\
i i
l i
?
}
- ^
1 i
l i
l t
d l'l 1
)
T O
p
=
t
}
j 1
ll 0
l
,1 4
L i
+
4 l
I l
i i
l 1
{
)
t.
l 6
1 I
d I
i l'
.?
8 l
t h
m.
t 8
f f
5 1
6 i
l l
1 I
i i
e~b enn mais a
m Ln v.
6 S
S e
0 a
tu Cs en N
w U
a a
etc L-L-U U
U e
w w UU U.ec Q c-J E
a c)
C C&
3-cl
> m *C o>
Ce =
1x CJ 3
O G
Qe O g at O<E e oA w
J
.4 U%
O bw me e
C 4.2
- O
.O P-E CC =
s=
Q La=
t
-a Gm b
U M GJ K Q
.C. 9.e=s= <
6 M"
2 xCe
%~
Cn 4 U Ln CC 33 e
a L
e o e cm AL @ e Z G =r= C U cxo Z%<Z
fIGilRE - 5 VARIATION OF K-EFF VS. BORON CONCENTRATION @ T=56 SEC.
K-EFF 1.04 I
1 1
O.96
--~~
~'~"
1 i~
0.92 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 BORON CONCENTRATION (PPM) e 8 PCM/PPMB
+ e 10 PCM/PPMB ONE SIGMA ERROR = 0,002 4
_,,---.-_,_-_,w-_,---.-+**...:...->.-----+----.-,~em---
e.
r--
- m-
FIGilRE - 6 VARIATION OF K--EFF VS. BORON CONCENTRATION @ T=100 SEC.
K-EFF 1.04 1
~
0.96 i
0.92 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 BORON CONCENTRATION (PPM) i e 8 PCM/PPMB e 10 PCM/PPMB ONE SIGMA ERROR = 0.002
,, - - + - -
t
'l flGtlRE - 7 VARIATION OF K-EFF VS. BORON CONCENTRATION @ T=150 SEC.
K-EFF 1.04 i
f 1
0.96 4
0.92 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 BORON CONCENTRATION (PPM) e 8 PCM/PPMB e 10 PCM/PPMB ONE SlOMA ERROR = 0.002
flGilRE - 8 TRANSIENT CHANGE IN K-EFF VS.
SOLUBLE BORON CONCENTRATION K-EFF(T-150 sec) - K-EFF(T-0 sec)
K-EFF 1.07 0.015
- 1.06
- 1.05
- 1.04 m
- 1.03
-- 1.02 1.01
~
0.005 1
800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 BORON CONCENTRATION (PPM)
TRANSIENT K-EFF
-+-
- T = 0.0 s e c.
-+ e T = 150 s ec.
ONE SIGMA ERROR = 0.002
- ~
.