ML20071G192
| ML20071G192 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 05/12/1983 |
| From: | ARKANSAS POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20071G188 | List: |
| References | |
| WP-0676, WP-676, NUDOCS 8305230725 | |
| Download: ML20071G192 (34) | |
Text
9 E ImES$555320255523552325502EE550 5555020S3250520E52520U5202523e525SIAfe 0$
02 8@2 82 82
- 2 2
E)
E5 ES 95 E5 ARKANSAS P'%'ER & LIGHT COMPANY E5 E5 E5 e5 ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE ES 95 ES E5 STEAM ELECTRIC STATION
'5 f'5
')
e E5 UNIT TWO 5
55 5
E#
CYCLE THREE E5 3
E5 E3 E5 STARTUP REPORT ES E5 E3 E3 55 E3 55 ES E3 R"3 E5 E5 LICENSE NO. NPF-6 ES E3 55 E5 DOCKET No. 50-368 pS 95 15 Co Le (2
(2 FOR THE PERIOD ENDING JANUARY 4, 1983 2
oa E
e2 c2 22 p
52 Em 2
E'2
]
J E]:
a O
ES E5 E3 EQ E3 Ea WP-0676 93^ons"unnamp2pDeneCaCone~eneOunmanne^mOsCeCoOm g o, a wousamLaLeamumcousamJeamusamaWasumascesegmusamQays;]e nmTenenenere^mnmOmCo m
- s. m Os_m;mambe.m_e_mwe m
m 9305230725 B30512 PDR ADOCK 05000368 P
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1 2.0 PRECRITICAL TEST SUMMARIES 2
2.1 CEA Trip Test 2
2.2 Reactor Coolant Flow Coastdown 2
3.0 LOW POWER PHYSICS TEST SUMMARIES 3
3.1 Determination of Critical Boron Concentration 3
3.2 CEA Symmetry Test 3
3.3 Temperature Reactivity Coefficient 4
3.4 Part-Length Control Element Assembly (PLCEA) Reactivity -
7 Wcrth 3.5 Regulating CEA Group Reactivity Worth 7
3.6 Individual Control Element Assembly (CEA) 6-1 Reactivity 9
Worth 3.7 Sequential Regulating Groups Reactivity Worth 9
4.0 POWER ESCALATION TEST SUMMARIES 9
4.1 Reactor Coolant Flow at 50% and 100% Full Power 9
4.2 Core Power Distribution at 50% and 100% Full Power 10-4.3 Shape Annealing Matrix (SAM) and Boundary Point Power 23 Correlation (BPPC) Verification at 50% Full Power 4.4 Radial Peaking Factor and CEA Shadowing Factor 25 Verification at 50% Full Power 4.5 Reactivity Coefficients at 50% and 100% Full Power 28
5.0 CONCLUSION
31 WP-0676.
i f
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES EAgE Table 3.3-1 Isothermal Temperature Coefficient Measurement 6
Table 3.5-1 Regulating CEA Group Worths 8
Table 4.1-3 Reactor Coolant Flow at 50% and 100% Full Power 11 Table 4.2-1 Core Power Distribution at 50% Full Power 13
(
Table 4.2-2 Core Power Distribution at 100% Full Power 18 Table 4.3-1 Shape Annealing Matrix (SAM) and Boundary Point 24 Power Correlation Coefficients Table 4.4-1 Radial Peaking Factors 26 Table 4.4-2 CEA Shadowing Factors 27 Table 4.5-1 Reactivity Coefficients at 50% and 100% Full Power 30 Figure 4.2-1 (a) - 4.2-1 (d) Radial Power Distribution at 50% Full 14-17 Power Figure 4.2-2 (a) - 4.2-2 (d) Radial Power Distribution at 100% Full 19-22.
Power e
r I
h t
i l
l WP-0676
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Post fuel load startup testing of Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 commenced November 8,1982 with the performance of precritical tests. Low power physics testing began on November 10, 1982. On this date at 0744 Cycle 3 initial criticality was achieved. Low power physics testing proceeded to completion at 1900 on November 13, 1982 at which time power ascension testing commenced. The first power ascension test plateau (50% full power) was attained on November 25, 1982. Follow.ng completion of testing at 50% full power on December 16, 1982, reactor power was raised to 100% full power and testing continued. The power escalation test program was completed on January 4, 1983.
5 1
e 4
PAGE 1 WP-0676 u.- -.
w
2.0 PRECRITICAL TEST SUMMARIES 2.1 CEA Trip Test 2.1.1 Purpose The CEA trip test was performed to verify that the. elapsed time between initiation of a CEA trip and 90% insertion of the CEA was 5 3.0 seconds.
2.1.2 Test Method l
Initial reactor coolant system conditions were established with Tavg 2 525'F and four reactor coolant pumps operacing. One CEA group was then fully withdrawn. As each CEA in that group was dropped (by removing electrical power from the drive mechanism), the elapsed time between j
initiation of the trip and 90% insertion of the CEA was recorded. After completing drop time testing on one CEA group, the next CEA group was tested. Drop time testing proceeded in this manner until all designated CEAs had been tested.
l 2.1.3 Results and Evaluation l
The measured individual full length CEA drop times from a fully withdrawn position to 90% insertion were < 3.0 seconds.
I 2.2 Reactor Coolant Flow Coastdown 2.2.1 Purpose The reactor coolant flow coastdown test was performed to verify the response time of Channel C core protection-calculator to a two out of four reactor coolant pump trip and flow coastdown.
l 2.2.2 Test Method Initial reactor coolant system conditions were established with four reactor coolant pumps running. Recording l
instrumentation was connected to the status contacts of two separate-loop RCP motor power supply breakers and CEDM coil monitors. With a;propriate test software loaded in CPC Channel C, the two reactor coolant pumps were tripped simultaneously. The elapsed time between initiation of the pump trip and receipt of a low DNBR trip from the core l
protection calculator was measured.
WP-0676 PAGE 2
- 2. 9. 3 Results and Evaluation The measured response time of CPC Channel C to a two pump loss of flow transient was 0.295 seconds. The maximum acceptable response time is 0.80 seconds.
3.0 LOW POWER PHYSICS TEST SUMMARIES l
3.1 Determination of Critical Boron Concentration 3.1.1 Purpose The reactor coolant system boron concentration required to maintain criticality of the reactor at the beginning of Cycle 3 under hot zero power xenon-free conditions was measured. The results of this measurement were compared to predictions to verify design, fabrication and proper loading of the core.
3.1.2 Test Met *aod l
Criticality of the reactor was obtained by deboration of the reactor coolant system at a constant dilution rate.
All CEAs were fully withdrawn prior to deborating the RCS with the exception of regulating group 6 which was 75" withdrawn. Once criticelity was achieved, the dilution was terminated and the RCS boron concentration allowed to equilibrate. The critical boron concentration was calculated by correcting the measured equilibrium boron concentration for deviation of CEA position from the reference (ARO) CEA position and compared to the predicted critical ARO boron concentration.
3.1.3 Results and Evaluation The measured critical boron concentration of 1272 ppm agreed well with the predicted value of 1275. Acceptance criteria state that the measured critical boron concentration shall be within 100 ppm of the predicted j
critical boron concentration.
3.2 CEA Symmetry Test 3.2.1 Purpose A CEA symmetry test was performed to verify that all CEAs were coupled to their extension shafts and.to verify correct loading of the core.
WP-0676 PAGE 3
3.2.2 Test Method l
The symmetry checks were performed by inserting the reference CEA of a group to its lower electrical limit and compensating for the reactivity change by withdrawing CEA regulating group 6.
Symmetric CEAs in the group were subsequently traded with each other and the reactivity l
deviation from the reference CEA measured. The reference l
CEA was finally traded for the last symmetric CEA in the group to measure reactivity drift. The adjusted deviation was calculated by adding the appropriate drift correction to the CEA worth deviation from the reference CEA. CEA l
coupling was verified by noting a change in reactivity l
when a CEA was inserted.
3.2.3 Results and Evaluation The absolute value of adjusted reactivity deviation for I
all CEAs from their respective references was less than the maximum acceptable value of 1.5 cents. All CEAs were verified to be coupled.
j 3.3 Temperature Reactivity Coefficient 3.3.1 Purpose The isothermal temperature coefficient (ITC) measurement was performed during low power physics testing to verify conformance with Technical Specifications on the moderator temperature coefficient (MTC).
Comparison of the measured ITC to predictions was also performed to demonstrate proper design and fabrication of the core.
3.3.2 Test Method r
The isothermal temperature coefficient was measured at two CEA configurations: essentially all rods out (CEA group 6
> 130" withdrawn) and the zero power insertion limit.
At the specified CEA configuration, the test was initiated by decreasing average reactor coolant temperature by l
l approximately 10 F and then increasing the temperature to I
its initial value. During the change in' temperature, reactivity feedback was compensated for by CEA regulating group movement..This compensation was required to maintain reactor power within the acceptable test range.
The reactivity change associated with the change in RCS average temperature was obtained from the reactivity l
computer and used to calculate the ITC.
WP-0676 PAGE 4
.m
After the ITC had been measured, a' predicted value of the fuel temperature coefficient was subtracted from the ITC to obtain-the MTC.
i 3.3.3 Results and Evaluation Table 3.3-1 tabulates the results of the temperature reactivity coefficient measurement. All applicable acceptance criteria were met.
i i
I
{
I l
WP-0676 PAGE'S
le I
l I
TABLE 3.3-1.
I i
I I
I ISOTHERMAL TEMPERATURE COEFFICIENT MEASUREMENT l
f I
I
.~
m 1
I I
I l
I l
l I
MEASURED I
PREDICTED I ACCEPTANCE-1 i
1-1 I (x 10-4 Ak/k/ F)
I (x 10-4 Ak/k/*F) 'l CRITERIA I-1 I
I i
1 l
1.
ARO I
ITC 1
-0.01 1
-0.01 I
.(a) l I
I I
I l-1 I
I MTC l
+0.15 I
+0.15 I
(b) l I
I I
I I
2.
ZPIL l ITC 1
-0.13 l
- 0.1.*
l.
(a) l
't 1
I I
I I
l I
{
l l MTC I
+0.03 I
+0.05 I
(b)
I I
I I
I I
I l
l i NOTES:
I I
l I (a) Measured value must b within 1 0.3 x'10-4 Ak/k/*F of predicted value. I i
I I
i I (b) Measured value must be less positive than + 0.5 x 10-4 Ak/k/*F.
I I
I 2
7 I'
f 4
L l
5 1
t WP-0676
'PAGE 6 F
a
-.-w._,
3.4 Part-Length Control Element Assembly (PLCEA) Reactivity Worth 3.4.1 Purpose This test was performed for information only. The results will be utilized in reactivity balance calculations.
3.4.2 Test Method PLCEA group reactivity worth to 75" withdrawn was measured at hot zero power conditions using the boron /PLCEA swap method. This method consists of establishing a constant deboration rate in the RCS and compensating for the reactivity chaage by inserting the PLCEAs in incremental steps. This process was reversed to obtain the withdrawal measurement of PLCEA reactivity worth.
The reactivity change values that occurred during these measurements were obtained from the reactivity computer and were correlated with PLCEA group position.
3.4.3 Results and Evaluation This measurement was made for information only. Hence, no quantitative acceptance criteria were applied.
3.5 Regulating CEA Group Reactivity Worth 3.5.1 Purpose The reactivity worths of the CEA regulating groups were measured to verify calculations of available shutdown margin. The results of this test were compared to vendor predictions of regulating group reactivity worth.
If sufficient agreement between prediction and measurement is demonstrated for the regulating CEA group reactivity worths, the reactivity worth predictions for the shutdown CEA groups are deemed adequate. Additionally, the measured values of regulating CEA reactivity worth can be utilized for reactivity balance calculations.
3.5.2 Test Method The regulating group reactivity worths were measured at hot zero power conditions using the boron /CEA group swap method. Reference section 3.4.2 for the test method.
3.5.3 Results and Evaluation Table 3.5-1 tabulates the results of the regulating CEA group reactivity worth measurement. All applicable acceptance criteria were met.
WP-0676 PAGE 7
l-1 I
l l
TABLE 3.5-1 I
i I
i l
l REGULATING CEA GROUP WORTHS I
l l
1 l
l l
REGU W ING MEASURED WORTH PREDICTED WORTH ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA (Mk/k)
( W /k)
(Mk/k) fB R 1
1 I
I 6
1.
0.51 1:
0.56 1
0.10 1
1 I
I l
I I
I 5
1 0.47 0.54 1
0.10 l
I I
-l l
l-l l
4 1
0.47 l
0.43 I
i 0.10 l
l l
l i
l l
l 3
1 0.85 1
0.95 l
0,14 i
i I
l I
I I
2 1
0.61 1
0.63 1
0.10 I
i l
I l
1.
i 1
1 1.08 l-1.14 1
0.17 I
t i
I l
l l
TOTAL I
3.99.
l 4.25 I
i 0.42 l-t i
I I
I l
i t
a e
s f
i 1
l l
WP-0676 PAGE 8' V
l 3.6 Individual Control Element Assembly (CEA).6-1 Reactivity Worth 3.6.1 Purpose l
This test was performed for information only. The results were utilized in the 50% power ITC/MTC measurement.
l 3.6.2 Test Method 4
l CEA 6-1 reactivity worth was measured at hot zero power l
using the reactivity computer. Reactivity changes were l
measured and correlated with CEA 6-1 positions during both l
insertion and withdrawal of CEA 6-1.
l i
3.6.3 Results and Evaluation
[
t This measurement was made for information only.
Hence, no i
quantitative acceptance criteria were applied.
l 3.7 Sequential Regulating Groups Reactivity Worth I
l 3.7.1 Purpose I
This test was performed for information only.
3.7.2 Test Method i
Sequential reactivity worth was measured at hot zero power from the zero power dependent insertion limit to all rods out. A constant boration rate was maintained to group 6 at approximately 130" withdrawn and then an incremental pull made to determine worth of group 6 from 130" to all rods out.
i' 3.7.3 Results and Evaluation I
This measurement was made for infomation only. Hence, no l
quantitative acceptance criteria tare applied.
4.0 POWER ESCALATION TEST SUMMARIES l
4.1 Reactor Coolant Flow at 50% and 100% Full Power 4.1.1.
Purpose i
Heasurement of reactor coolant flow was carried out at 50%
i and 100% full power utilizing calorimetric methods. The results were used to verify the conservatism of the Core
-Operating Limit Supervisory System (COLSS) and the Core Protection Calculator (CPC) measurements of reactor coolant flow.
l WP-0676 PAGE.9
4.1.2 Test Method A calorimetric measurement of reactor coolant flow was performed at steady state conditions. After establishing initial conditions for test performance, reactor core AT, primary system pressure, and secondary calorimetric power were recorded. From these state parameters, RCS mass flow was computed from the following:
[
m = Q/Ah
{
where Q = Secondary calorimetric power (BTU /hr)
Ah = h
-h
= difference between hot leg and cold leg H
c specific enthalpy (BTU /lb,)
m = RCS mass flowrate (1b,/hr) t The calorimetric RCS mass flow was then compared to COLSS RCS mass flow and appropriate adjustments to COLSS flow constants were made. CPC RCS mass flow was next compared to COLSS RCS mass flow. Adjustments to the appropriate CPC constants were made to maintain the CPC value of RCS t
flow conservative with respect to the COLSS value of RCS 7
flow.
j 4.1.3 Results and Evaluation Acceptance criteria applied to this test at 50% and 100%
full power state that for COLSS operable, measured RCS i
flow must be greater than COLSS calculated RCS flow which in turn must be greater than CPC calculated RCS flow.
Table 4.1-1 summarizes the results of this test.
Applicable acceptance criteria were met at 50% and 100%
full power.
a WP-0676 PAGE-10
i l
l I
i l
TABLE 4.1-3 I
l I
l REACTOR COOLANT FLOW Af 50% AND 100% FULL P0kIR l
l l
l II) l TEST PLATEAU l II) lCOLSS FLOWII) ll CPC FLOW l (PERCENT. lifEASURED FLOW l
l.
l l
l t
4 l FULL POWER) l l
l A
l B
l C
l D
l l
l-i l
l 50%
l 107.86 106.02 101.86
'101.78
'101.66 101.52 l 1
l I
l l
100%
l 113.57 l
113.38 1113.15 1113.12 l113.13 l113.16 l I
l (1) Flow values reported in percent of design mass flow.
I l
i l-l
-t i
O i
2 e
j
't i
1 l
l
~ WP-0676 PAGE 11 e
4.2 Core Power Distribution at 50% and 100% Full Power 4.2.1 Purpose Steady state core power distribution was measured at 50%
and 100% full power to verify core nuclear and thermal-hydraulic calculational models, thereby justifying use of these models for performing the cycle 3 safety analysis.
This test also serves to verify acceptable operating conditions at each test plateau.
4.2.2 Test Method
- I Steady scate reactor power was established at the appropriate test plateau with equilibrium xenon.
Incore detector data was then collected and analyzed using an incore analys.s computer code. Specified power distribution parameters were obtained from the code and compared to predictions to verify the acceptability of the i
measured power distribution.
4.2.3 Results and Evaluation Tables 4.2-1 and 4.2-2 tabulate the results of the core power distribution tests. Figures 4.2-1 and 4.2-2 depict the measured radial power distributions at 50% and 100%
full power. All applicable acceptance criteria for this test were met.
Deviation of predicted versus measured radial relative power density did not atet the requirements of the additional J
review criteria 1aee note 6 of Table 4.2-1) for all fuel assemblies. Eval'ation by the Nuclear Engineering section of Arkansas Power ; Light and Combustion Engineering was performed and prestited to the Plant Safety Committee. The PSC concurred that all acceptance criteria were met and that the minor deviations frem predicted relative power densities-did not constitute a safety concern.
I WP-0676 PAGE 12
I l
l TABLE 4.2-1 1
l l
4' l
CORE P0k'ER DISTRIBUTION AT 50% FULL P0kIR l
l--
l l
PARAMETER l MEASURED l PREDICTED l DIFFERENCE l ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA (6) ;
l -
I r
l RMSII) (axial) 4.9422
$ 5.000 l
i RMSII) (radial) 4.9997 5 5.000 l
(2) l 7
l _
xy 1.4880 1.50
.008 1 0.16 l
l (3) l p
l r
1.4683 1.45
+.0126 0.16 l
l (4) l 7
l z
1.2858 1.22
+.0539 0.12 l
i l
(5) l p
l Q
l 1.9050 l
1.75 l
+.0886 l
1 0.19
_l l
l n
2 1
l l (1) RMS = [ I (100h.) /n] /2 l
l i=m l
1 l
l l
where h. = dtfference between the predicted and measured relative l
l th power density for the i axial or radial node.
I m,n = 1,101 for the axial distribution l
l l
l m,n = 1,177 for the radial distribution l
(2) p
= Planar radial peaking factor l
xy l (3) p
= Integrated planar radial peaking factor r
(0) F
= Core average axial peaking factor z
l(5)Fq = Three dimensional power peaking factor l
l (b) Additional review criteria requires that for each assembly with a l
predicted relative power density 2 0.9, the measured relative power l
l density (RPD) must agree with the predicted RPD to within 10% of the l
l predicted value. For each assembly with a predicted RPD < 0.9, the l
l measured RPD must agree with the predicted RPD to within i 15% of the l
l predicted value.
-l l_
l WP-0676 PAGE 13
i FIGURE 4.2-1 (a) i RADIAL POWER DISTRIBUTION AT 50% FULL POWER A
B C
D E
F G
l l
-j
(.
l
.729 l 1.01 l
l 1
l
.691-l
.945 l l
5.50. I 6.90 l
l l
l l
l l
.768 l 1.04 l
.919 l 1.18 l
2 l
.725 l
.977 l
.882 l 1.12 l
l 6.10 l 6.46-l 4.17 l
5.38 l
l l
l
.853 l 1.12 l
1.03
. l i
l
. l 1.26 l
.981 l 3
l
.805 l 1.06 l
.998 l 1.232 l
.983 l 5.96 l
5.63 l
3.22 l
2.31 l
.39 l
l l
l
.768 l 1.11 l
1.17-l 1.29 l
.916 l 1.22 l
4 l
.728 l 1.050 l 1.123 l 1.255 l
.933 l.
1.245 l l
l 5.48 l
5.71 l
4.21 l
2.76 l
-1.84 l
-1.99 l
l l
-1 l
l i
1.04 l
1.03 l
1.29 l
.922 l
.985 l
.871 l l
5 l
.996 l 1.003 l 1.267 l
.946 l 1.033 1
' 939 l_
l 4.38 l
2.72 l
1.78 l
-2.51 l
-4.61 l- -7.23 l
l l
-l l
.727 l
.917 l 1.26 l
.915 l
.985 l 1.09 l
.815 l-6 l
.692 l
.898 l 1.23 l
.934 l 1.029 l 1.166 l
.926 l i
l 5.07 l
2.13 l
2.10 l
-2.01 l
-4.30 l
-6.53 l -12.00 -l l
l l
.818 l-1.04 l
l 1.01 l
1.17 l
.984 l 1.22' l
.870-l l
7 l
.968 l 1.171 l
.989 l 1.240 l
.931 l
.904 l
-1.159 l l
4.38 l
.06 l
.48 l
-1.59 l
-6.52-l
-9.51 -l -10.24
-l l
l l
1 l
l l
l l
l l
l l
x.xxx l Predicted I'
NW l.
y.yyy l Measured l
z.zzz l Percent Difference l
l l
l I
WP-0676 PAGE 14
FIGURE 4.2-1 (b)
RADIAL POWER DISTRIBUTION AT 50% FULL POWER H
J K
L M
N P
R l
l I
.l l
1.05 l
1.01 l
.727 l l
.987.l
.955 l
.699 l 1
l 6.44 l 5.77 l
4.07 l
l l
l l
l
.946 l 1.17 l
.917 l 1.04 l
.768 l l
.921 l 1.142 l
.892 l
.983 l
.734 l 2
l 2.74 l 2.48 l
2.78 l
5.80 l 4.58 l
l l
l l
1.02 l
.984 l 1.26 l
1.03 l 1.11 l
.853 l l
1.023 l
.989 l 1.243 l 1.011 l 1.081 l
.828 l 3
l
.33 l
.52 l
1.38 l
1.86 l 2.66 l
3.02 l
l l
l l
l
.921 l 1.22 l
.915 l 1.29 l
1.17.
l 1.12 l
.769 l l
.960 l,1.239 l
.939 l 1.279 l 1.150 l 1.089 l
.751 l 4
l -4.08 l -1.53 l -2.60 l
.87 l
1.70 l
2.84 l
2.44 l l
l.
l l
l 1.06 l
.870 l
.985 l
.922 l 1.29 l
1.03 l
1.04 l
l 1.126 l
.937 l 1.038 l
.961 l 1.298 l 1.035 l 1.021 l 5
l -5.89 l -7.14 l -5.10 l -4.05 l
.65 l
.45 l
1.87 l
l I
l l
l
.911 l
.818 l 1.09 l
.985 l
.916 l 1.26 l
.919 l
.729 l l
1.009 l
.918 l 1.168 l 1.044 l
.955 l 1.285 l
.908 l
.703 l 6
l -9.71 l-10.90 l -6.65 l -5.61 l -4.06 l -1.97 l
1.26 l
3.67 l
I l
l l
l
.910 l 1.04 l
.815 l
.871 l 1.22 l
.987.l 1.18 l
1.01 l
l
.918 l 1.144 l
.897 l
.929-l-1.248 l
.995-l 1.13 l
.952 l 7
l-11.76 l -9.07 l -9.10 l -6.27 l -2.22 l
.82
- l. 4.40- l 6.12 l
l 1
I I
I I
I I
l l
l l'
l x.xxx l Predicted l
NE l y.yyy l Measured l
z.zzz l Percent Difference l
l l
l WP-0676 PAGE 15 -
l FIGURE 4.2-1~(c)
RADIAL POWER DISTRIBUTION AT 50% FULL POWER l
l I
l l
l l
l l
1.05 l
.946 l 1.02 l
.921 l 1.06 l
.911 l
.810 l 8 l 1 002 l
.931 l 1.001 l
.951 l 1.119 l 1.001 l
.938 l l
4.02 l
1.60 l
1.89 l
-3.19 l
-5.29 l
-9.00 l'-13.63 -1 I
I l
l-l l
1.01 l
1.16 l
.981 l 1.22 l
.871 l
.815 l 1.04 l 9
l
.965 l 1.144 l
.987 l 1.233 l
.917 l
.895 l
_1.154 l_
l 4.66 l
2.73 l
.03 l
-1.014 l
-5.06 l
-E.95 l
-9.8o l
l l
l l
l l
.729 l
.919 l 1.26 l.
.916 l
.985 l 1.09 l
.818 l 10 l
.706 l
.903 l 1.256-l
.927 l
.984-l 1.141 l
.923.l l
3.20 l
1.81 l
.29 l
-1.13 l
.09 l
-4.48 l -11.40. l~
l l
l l
1.04 l
1.03 l 1.29 l
.922 l
.985 l
.870 l-(
11 l
1.006 l 1.012 l 1.256-l
.916 l 1.009 l
.927-l l
3.33 l
1.75 l
2.72 l
.68 l
-2.37 l
6
'-l.10 l
l l
l l
l l
.769 l 1.12 l 1.17 l
1.24 l
.915 l 1.22 l
l 12 l
.740 l 1.073 l 1.109 l 1.195 l
.909 l 1.225 l l
3.93 l
4.35 l
5.51 l
7.96 l
.63 l
.39
.l l
l l
l
.853 l 1.11 l
1.03 l
1.26 l
.984 l 13 l
.811 l 1.052 l
.981-l 1.213 l
.974 l l
5.19 l-5.49 l
5.03 l
3.86 l
1.06 l
l l
l l
l l
7.68 l
1.04 l
.917 l 1.17 l~
l 14 l
7.26 l
.988 l
.880 l 1.121 l i
l 5.63 l
5.32 l
4.21-l 4.41 l
l l
l l
l
.727 l 1.01 l
l 15 l
.681 l
.943 l i
l 5.45
-l 7.13 l
l l
l L
A B
C D
E F
G l
l
'l-l x.xxx l Predicted l
l y.yyy l-Measured l
l z.zzz l Percent Difference l
l l
SW l
l WP-0676 PAGE'16
FIGURE 4.2-1 (d)
RADIAL POWER DISTRIBUTION AT 50% FULL POWER l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l
.584 l
.810 l
.911 l 1.06 l
.921 l 1.02 l
.946 l 1.05-l l
.673 l
.906 l
.982 l 1.098 l
.949 l 1.011 l
.917 l
.984 l 8
l-13.25 l-10.5 7 l -7.21 l -3.43 l -2.99 l
.93 l
3.22 l 6.66 l
i I
l l
l
.810 l 1.04 l
.818 l
.870 l 1.22 l
.984 l 1.17 l
1.01 l
l 913 l 1.136 l
.883 I
.907 l 1.226 l
.982 l 1.127 l
.946 l 9
l-11.28 l -8.42 l -7.40 l -4.07 l
.46 l
.20 l
3.60 l
6.74 l.
l l
l I
I
.911 l
.815 l 1.09 l
.985 l
.915 l 1.26 l
.917 l
.727 l l
1.002 l
.910 l 1.134 l
.976 l
.923 l 1.250 l
.892 l
.690 l 10 l -9.08 l-10.47 l -3.91 l
.92 l
.89 l
.77 l
2.80 l 5.42 l
l l
l l
1.06 l
.871 l
.985 l
.922 l 1.29 l
1.03 l
1.04 l
l 1.116 l
.927 l 1.016 l
.931 l 1.264 l 1.010 l 1.000 l 11 l -4.98 l -6.06 l -3.06 l
.95 l
2.08 l 1.98 l
4.05 l
l l
l l
l l
l
.921 l 1.22 l
.916 l 1.29 l
1.17 l
1.11 l
.768 l l
.951 l 1.234 l
.929 l 1.258 l 1.128 l 1.068 l
.735 l 12 l -3.16 l -1.12 l -1.36 l 2.52 l
3.74 l 3.98 l
4.46 l
l 1
l l
l 1.02 l
.987 l 1.26 l
1.03 l
1.12 l
.853 l l
1.015 l
.982 l 1.23! !
1.001 l 1.066 l
.814 l 13 l
.493 l
.56 l 2.33 l
2.92 'l 5.12 l 4.86 l
l l
l l
.946 l 1.18 l
.919 l 1.04 l
.769 l l
.916 l 1.130 l
.887 l
.983 l
.729 l 14 l
3.33 l 4.39 l 3.67 l 5.83 l 5.55 l
l l
l l
l 1.05 l
1.01 I
.729 I l
.981 l
.948 l
.694 l
' 15 -
l 7.00 l
6.59 l 5.10 l
l l
l l
H J
K L
M N
P R
i l
1 l-l x.xxx l Predicted l
l y.yyy-l Measured l z.zzz l Percent Difference l
l l
SE l
WP-0676 PAGE 17 i
i f.
F l
~l l
TABLE 4.2-2 j
i
-l l
l CORE POWER DISTRIBUTION AT 100% FULL POWER l
l 4
l l
l l
l l
l MEASURED l PREDICTED l DIFFERENCE l ACCEPTAN l
PARAMETER g
i l
l RMS(1) (axial) 2.85 5 5.000 l
lRMS(I)(radial)
~4.25 l
5 5.000 1
(2)
I l
y l
xy 1.49 1.47
+.0136
.15 l
5 l
(3) l 7
l r
1.47 1.45
+.0138 1.14 l
l (4)
~l p
l 1.18 1.19
.0084 i.12 l
I (5) l y
1 l
Q l
1.76 l
1.71 l
+.0292 l
t.17 l
1
-l l Note: Superscripts refer to footnotes of Table 4.2-1 l
l l
i k
i 4
i i
i e
WP-0676 PAGE 18
FIGURE 4.2-2 (a)
RADIAL POWER DISTRIBUTION AT 100% FULL POWER A
B C
D E
F G
l l
l l
.677 l
.923 l 1
l
.704 l
.957 l l
-3.89
.l 3.58 l
7 l
l l
l l
.707 l
.945 l
.862 l 1.09 l
2 l
.740 l 1.00 l
.897 l 1.14 l
l
-4.49 l
-5.47 l
-3.96 l
-4.46 l
l 1-l l
l l
.787 l 1.04 l
.977 l 1.21 l
.975 1 3
l
.819 l 1.07 l
1.01 l
1.24 l
.989 l l
-3.90 l
-3.09 l
-3.28 l
2.14 'l. -1.44 l
l t
l l
l
.714 l 1.02 l
1.10 l
1.23 l
.934 l 1.26 l
4 l
.74 l
1.07 l
1.13 l
1.27 l
.935 l 1.24 l
l
-3.54 l
-4.52 l
-2.44 l
-2.795 l
.107 l 1.92 l
l I
l l
l l-l
.980 l
.987 l 1.26 l
.952 l
-1.05 l
.964 l 5
l 1.00 l
1.01 l
1.27 l
.944 l 1.02 l
.921 l l
-1.97 l
-2.31 l
-1.02 l
.805 l 3.19 l
4.70 l
l l
l l
.680 l
.882 l 1.22 l
.941 l 1.07 l
1.21 l
.978 l 6
l
.703 l
.896 l 1.24 l
.934 l 1.02 l
1.14 l
.879 l l
-3.26 l
-1.55 l
-1.74 l
.760 l 4.58 l
6.21 l
11.26 l
l l
l l
l
.950 l 1.141 l
.989 l 1.26 l
.960-l
.945 l 1.23 l
7 l
.956 l 1.140 l
.987 l 1.24 l
.920 l
.882 l 1.12 l
l
.638 l
.105 l
.187 l 1.68 l
4.38 l
7.17 l
10.09 l
l 1
l l
l l
l l
1 l
l l
x.xxx l Predicted l
NW l
y yyy l Measured l
z.zzz l Percent Difference l
l l
l WP-0676 PAGE 19 f
t FIGURE 4.2-2 (b)
RADIAL POWER DISTRIBUTION AT 100% FULL POWER l
H J
K L
M N
P R
l 1
l l
l l
.963 l
.930 l
.682 l l
.993 l
.956 l
.703 1 1
l -3.00 l -2.72 l -3.04 l
I I
~
l i
I l
l
.900 1
-1.11 I
.867 l
.945 l
.713 l i
l
.926 l 1.14 l
.896 l 1.00 l
.740 l 2
l l -2.85 l -3.00 l -3.23 l -5.49 l -3.68 l
i l
l l
I l
l 1.02 l
.977 l 1.22 I
.985 l 1.05 l
.81 l
l 1.03 l
.987 l 1.24 l
1.01 1
1.07 l
.819 l 3
l -1.46 l -1.03 l -1.74 l -2.50 l -1.50 l -1.06 l
l l
l l
.971 l 1.25 l
.934 l 1.25 i
1.13 l
1.06 l
.736 l l
.954 l 1.24 l
.934 l 1.27 l
1.13 l 1.07 l
.740 l 4
l 1.75 l
.879 l
.04281 -1.57 l -0.389 l '
.495 l
.595 l l
I I
l l
1.16 l
.957 l 1.05 l
.958 l 1.28 1
1.011 l
.998 l I
1.11 l
.920 l 1.02 I
.944 l 1.27 l
1.01 l
1.00 1
5 l 4.20 1 4.00 l 2.48 l
1.50 l
.583 l
.109 l
.21 l
l l
l l
1.06 l
.96 l
1.20 l
1.07 l
.950 1 1.25 l
.882 l
.685 l l
.98 l
.882 l 1.14 l
1.02 l
.935 l 1.24~l
.897 l
.704 l ~6 l
7.82 l
8.89 l 5.27 l 4.53 l
1.57 l
.653 l -1.68 l -2.70.
l l
1 l
l l
.971 l 1.21 I
.93 l
.950 l 1.25 l
.979 l 1.09' l
.924 l l
.890 l 1.12 l
.879 l
.921 l 1.24 l
.989.I 1.14 l
.957 l 7
l 9.15 l
8.11 l 5.84 l
3.14 l
.984 l
.991 l -4.32 l -3.41' l
l l
l l
l l
1-l l
1 l
l l
x.xxx l Predicted-l NE l y.yyy l Measured l
z.zzz l Percent Difference l
1 I
I l
WP-0676 PAGE 20
FIGURE 4.2-2 (c)
RADIAL POWER DISTRIBUTION AT 100% FULL'F0WER I
l l
l l
l l
l l
.9879l
.922 l 1.028 l
.973 l 1.16 l
1.05 l
1.01 l
8 l
.9930l
.926 l 1.03
.l
.954 l 1.11 l
.980 l
.890-l l
l
.514 l
.410 l
.214 l 2.03 l
4.44 l
7.58 l 13.82 l
l l
l l
l
.950 l 1.125 l
.990 l 1.26 l
.948 l
.938 l 1.23 l
9 l
.957-l 1.14 l
.989 l 1.24 l
.921 l
.879 l
-1.12 l
l
.700 l
-1.32 l
.071 l 1.23 l
2.93 l
6.70 l
9.83 l
l l
l l
l l
l l
.698 l
.889 l 1.244 l
.936 l 1.023 l 1.19 l
.980 l l
10 l
.704 l
.897 l 1.24 l
.935 l 1.02 l
1.14 l
.882 l l
.909 l
.870 l
.323 l
.096 l
.284 l 4.34 l
11.10 l
l l
I l
l l
l
.989 l
.996 l 1.25 l
.929 l
-1.03 l.
.954 l l
11 l
1.00 l 1.01 l
1.27 l
.944 l 1.02 -l
.92 l
i l
-1.12 l
-1.44 l
-1.64 l
-1.61 l
1.39 l
3.71 l
l l
l l
l l
.721 l 1.03 l
1.09 l
1.20 l
.918 l 1.242 l 12 l
.740 1 1.07 l
1.13 l 1.27 l
.934 l 1.240 l.
l
-2.55 l
3.36 l
-3.27 l
-5.82 l
-1.70 l
.145 l l
l l
l
.790 l 1.03 l
.97 l
1.21 l
.975 l 13 l
.819 l 1.07 l
1.01 l
1.24 l
.987 l l
-3.50 l
-3.42 l
-3.96 l
-2.63' l
-1.25 l
1 l
l.
l
.711 l
.962 l
.871 l 1.11 l
14 l
.740 l 1.00 l
.896 l 1.14 l
l
-3.86 l
-3.80 l
-2.79 l
-2.35 l
l l
l l
l
.686 l
.937 l l
15 I
.703 l
.956 l l
l
-2.46 l
-1.95 l
l l
l A
B C
-D E
F G
l l
l l x.xxx l Predicted l
l y.yyy l Measured l z.zzz l Percent Difference l
__l SW l
l WP-0676 PAGE 21
i l
FIGURE 4.2-2 (d) i RADIAL POWER DISTRIBUTION AT 100% FULL POWER l
1 l
l l
i l
l l
l l
-l
.72301
.975 l 1.03 l
1.13 l
.959 l 1.01 l
.894 l
.958 l i
.656 l
.890 l
.980 l 1.11 l
.954 l 1.03 l
.926 l
.993 l 8 l,
l-10.20 l -9.53 l 4.94 l
2.21 l
.503 l -2.06 l -3.43 l -3.50-l i
l l
l l
l
.967 l 1.20 l
.917'l
.930 l 1.23 l
.970 l 1.09 l
.919 l l
.890 l 1.12 l
.682 l
.920 l 1.24 l
.987 l 1.14 l
.956'l 9'
l l 8.60 l
7.20 l 4.01 l
1.03 l
.565 l -1.80 l -4.29 l -3.85 l
l l
l l
l l
1.05 l
.947 l 1.17 l
1.01 l
.922 l 1.22 l
.868.l
.670 l l
.980 l
.879 l 1.14 l
1.02 l
.934 l 1.24 l
.896 l
.703 l 10-l l
7.07 l
7.68 l 2.43 l -1.44 l -1.28 l -1.49 l -3.13 l -4.77 l
l l
l l
l l
1.15 l
.946 l 1.03 l
.933 l 1.25 l
.986 l
.975 l.
I 1.11 l
.921 l 1.02 l
.944 l 1.27 l
1.01 l
1.00 l
11 1 3.26 l 2.71 l
.941 l -1.22 l -1.95 l -2.43 l -2.53 l
l l
l l
l
.963 l 1.243 l
.927 l 1.24 l
1.10 l
1.03 l
.715 l l
.954 l 1.24 l
.935 l 1.27 l
1.13 l
1.07 l
.74 l
12 l
.902 l
.226 l
.834 l -2.36 l -2.37 l -3.74 l -3.42 l
l l
l l
1.02 l
.976 l 1.21 l
.980 l 1.04 l
.791 l l
1.03 l
.989 l 1.24 l
1.01 l
1.07 l
.819 l 13 l -1.46 l -1.29 l -2.02 l -2.97 l -2.87 l -3.42 l
c l
l l
l l
.909 l 1.11 I
.871 l
.951 l
.710 l l
.926 l 1.14 l
.897 l 1.00 l
.740 l 14 t
l 1 -1.87 l -2.38 l -2.95 l -4.94 l -4.12 l
l l
l l
l
.974 l
.937 l
.686 l l
.993 l
.957 l
.704 l 15 l -1.92 l -2.07 l -2.63 l
l l
l l
H J
K L
M N
P R'
l l
l l
x.xxx l Predicted l
l l y.yyy l Measured l
l z.zzz l Percent Difference l
l l
SE l
WP-0676 PAGE 22 l
4.3 Shape' Annealing Matrix (SAM) and Boundary Point Power Correlation (BPPC) Verification at 50% Full Power 4.3.1 Purpose Measurement of the SAM elements and BPPC constants was performed to determine acceptable values of these constants for a wide range of core axial power shapes.
4.3.2 Test Method The SAM elements and BPPC constants were determined from a least squares analysis of the measured excore detector readings and the corresponding power distribution determined from the incore detector signals.
Since these values must be representative of the range of axial power distributions expected throughout cycle 3, it was desirable to measure these parameters within the expected range of axial shapes.
This was done by initiating an axial xenon oscillation and periodically recording incore, excore and reactor state l
parameters during the oscillation. The incore data was analyzed using an incore analysis computer code to obtain third core peripheral power integrals, third core detector fractional response, upper and lower third core integrals of core average power and upper and lower core boundary point powers. A least squares analysis was then performed to obtain the optimum set of SAM elements and BPPC constants characterizing the correlation between the excore detectors measured response and the corresponding incore detectors power distributions. The analysis was performed for each-CPC channel.
4.3.3 Results and Evaluation Acceptance criteria for this test required that new SAM l
values be installed in each CPC. An identical acceptance criteria required new BPPC coefficients to be installed in each CPC also.
For each SAM calculated, a test value characterizing the
" goodness of fit" of each matrix was computed. Acceptable test values were obtained for each matrix. Hence, no.
further adjustments to the CPCs were necessary.
Table 4.3-1 tabulates the results of the test.
WP-0676 PAGE 23
I I
l TABLE 4.3-1 I
I i
l SHAPE ANNEALING MATRIX (SAM) AND l
1 I
l BOUNDARY POINT POWER CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS I
I
-1 MEASURED VALUE CPC CONSTANT PID CHANNEL A CHANNEL B CHANNEL C CHANNEL D l
SC11 6.6590 8.0331 7.4801 8.1628 l
l SC12 82
-0.34392
-2.7589
-2.2663
-3.6006' l
l SC13 83
-3.34951
-2.0730
-2.0708
-1.2090 l'
l SC21 84
-0.79157
-2.2349
-2.3979
-2.3527 l
l SC22 85 4.1830 6.9794 7.1580 7.0390 l
l SC23 86
-0.10430
-1.7922
-1.7992
-1.7236 l
l SC31 87
-2.8675
-2.7982
-2.0823
-2.8101 l
l SC32 88
-0.83909
-1.2205
-1.8917
-0.4384 l
l SC33 89 6.4538 6.8651 6.8700 5.9326 l
l BPPCC1 99 0.80603 E-2 0.80589 E-2 0.80601 E-2 0.80589E-2l
[
l BPPCC2 100 0.30067 E-1 0.30039 E-1 0.'30061 E-1 0.30039 E-1 l i
5 l
BPPCC3 101 0.89769 E-2 0.89812 E-2 0.89773 E-2 0.89774E-2l
~
l BPPCC4 102 0.42395 E-1 0.42537 E-1 0.42405 E-1 0.42415E-1l l(I)TestValue 4.3675 4.7597 4.7431 4.7006 l
l l
l(1) No further CPC adjustments required if test value 6 6.1313.
l l
l 4
l WP-0676 PAGE 24 i
4.4 Radial Peaking Factor and CEA Shadowing Factor Verification at 50%
i Full Power 4.4.1 Purpose Performance of this test at 50% full power assured conservatism of the radial peaking factors (RPFs) utilized l
by the CPCs and COLSS in the power distribution systhesis algorithms.
In addition, the adequacy of the predicted CEA shadowing factors (CSFs) installed in the CPCs was demonstrated.
4.4.2 The performance of this test involved establishing the following CEA configurations:
f All CEAs out Group 6 at LEL (Lower Electrical Limit)
Group 6 at LEL, Group 5 at LEL withdrawn Group 6 at LEL, Group 5 at LEL, Group P at 37.5" wd.
Group 6 at LEL, Group P at 37.5" wd.
l Group P at 37.5" wd.
At each CEA configuration, incore and excore data were recorded. This data was analyzed to determine the planar l
radial peaking factors and CEA shadowing factors for the l
particular CEA configuration. Appropriate corrections were applied to the RPF and CSF multipliers (ARM. i = 1 to 6; ASM. i = 2 to 7) to guarantee conservatism of*the j
applieh RPFs and to assure the adequacy of the applied-j CSFs.
(
4.4.3 Results and Evaluations Tables 4.4-1 and 4.4-2 summarize the results of the radial peaking factor and CEA shadowing factor test. All necessary adjustments to appropriate CPC and COLSS constants were made based upon measured RPFs and CSFs.
i WP-0676 PAGE 25
I i
l TABLE 4.4-1 1
I I
l RADIAL PEAKING FACTORS I
l
'l Fw CEA GROUP / POSITION MEASURED PREDICTED I
l l ARO 1.4790 1.50 l
l l
l 6/LEL i
1.6188 1.70 l
I I
I l 6/LEL, 5/LEL i
1.6695 1.61 I
l l
l l 6/LEL, S/LEL, P/37.5" 1.6722 1.56 i
l I
l_6/LEL, P/37.5" 1.6625 1.78
-1 I
I I P/37.5" l
1.4985 l
1.57 i
s j
4 9
9 F
T WP-0676 PAGE 26
l I
-l TABLE 4.4-2 l.
l l
l CEA SHADOWING FACTORS l
l l-PREDICTED MEASURED CSF CEA GROUP / POSITION F
CHANNEL A CHANNEL B CHANNEL C CHANNEL D I
~
l I 6/LEL 1.05
.99933 1.00209 1.00604
.99139 l l
I I 6/LEL, 5/LEL 0.92
.92395
.92215
.91015
.91752 l l
l l
l 6/LEL, 5/LEL, P/37.5" 0.98
.90897
.90681
.89953
.89953 l-1 I
l 6/LEL, P/37.5" 1.11 1.04180 1.04573 1.04755 1.0305 l
l l
l P/37.5" l
1.05 l
N/A l
N/A l
N/A I
N/A l
WP-0676 PAGE 27~
_.. ~. _ -
4.5 Reactivity Coefficients at 50% and 100% Full Power 4.5.1 Purpose Temperature reactivity coefficients were measured at 50%
and 100% full power to verify that these parameters were within the range specified in 'lechnical Specifications. A power reactivity coefficient measurement was performed in conjunction with the temperature reactivity coefficient measurement at 50% full power.
In addition to verifying compliance with Technical Specifications, these measurements aid in verifying proper design and fabrication of the reload core and provide an expanded data base for reactivity balance calculations.
4.5.2 Test Method Two methods were used to determine the isothermal temperature coefficient (ITC) and power coefficient (PC);
one method relies upon center CEA movement while the other method does not utilize movement of the center CEA.
4.5.2.1 Reactivity Coefficient Measurement with Center CEA Movement at 50% Full Power Measurement of the isothermal temperature coefficient (ITC) and power coefficient (PC) using center CEA movement was performed in two stages.
Initial conditions were established with the reactor at steady state, equilibrium xenon and CEA group 6 at 120 inches withdrawn.
The ITC portion of the test was started by initiating a small increase in turbine load.
Reactor power was held essentially constant by insertion of the center CEA while reactor coolant temperature was allowed to decrease.
After the system had stabilized at the new steady state conditions, data was collected and the process described above reversed.
This sequence was repeated to assure data was consistent and to reduce experimental uncertainty.
Following completion of this phase of the test, initial conditions were re-established for the PC portion of the teat.
This phase of the measurement was initiated by decreasing turbine load while withdrawing the center CEA to maintain reactor coolant temperature constant. Reactor power was allowed to increase and stabilize at a new steady state. This process was reversed following a short data collection period at the new steady state. The entire cycle was then repeated to WP-0676 PAGE 28
assure data was consistent and to reduce experimental uncertainty. Data obtained from the test was reduced to obtain two equations in which the ITC and PC were independent variables.
These equations were solved simaltaneously utilizing an iterative solution-technique to obtain the ITC and PC.
The moderator temperature coefficient (MTC) was calculated by subtracting the predicted fuel temperature coefficient from the measured ITC.
4.5.2.2 Temperature Reactivity Coefficient Measurement without Center CEA Movement at 100% Full Power With the reactor at steady state, equilibrium xenon and CEA group 6 at 120 inches withdrawn, a small step change in the turbine control valve position was made and then adjusted to establish a new coolant inlet temperature. This change produced a small turbine load-reactor power I
mismatch. The temperature change resulted in a reactivity feedback and a resultant power change. The power change produced an opposite reactivity feedback and the reactor settled out at.a new power and temperature condition. The cycle was then reversed by making a small step-change in the turbine control valve position in the opposite direction. The ITC was calculated iteratively using the resultant power and temperature changes along with an assumed power coefficient. The moderator temperature coefficient (MTC) was then calculated by subtracting the predicted fuel temperature coefficient (FTC) from the measured isothermal temperature coefficient (ITC).
4.5.3 Results and Evaluation Acceptance criteria state the following:
The measured ITC shall agree with the predicted a.
values within 1 0.3 x 10-4 Ak/k/'F; b.
The measured power coefficient should agree with the predicted values within 0.3 x 10-4 Ak/k/% power;Jand c.
The MTC shall be less positive than + 0.5 x 10-4 Ak/k/*F when reactor power is 5 70% of rated thermal power and less positive than 0.0 when reactor power is > 70% of rated thermal power and less negative than - 2.8 x 10-4 Ak/k/'F at rated thermal power.
These criteria were met at both the 50% and 100% test plateaus. Table 4.5-1 tabulates the results of the reactivity coefficient measurements at 50% and 100%
full power.
WP-0676 PAGE 29 j
l
I I
l TABLE 4.5-1 I
l l
l REACTIVITY COEFFICIENTS AT l-I 1
l 50% AND 100% FULL POWER l
1 l
WITHOUT CENTER H CENTER CEA M0 m m CEA M0 M NT PARAMETER P
AU PREDICTED MEASURED PREDICTED MEASURED l
I N/A l
l 50%
IITC (Ap/ F)
.57 x 10-4
.31 x 10-4 N/A
-l l Full 1
l Power lPC (Ap/% Power)
.94 x 10-4
-1.07 x 10-4 N/A N/A l
l l
I i
l l
MTC (Ap/ F)
.43 x 10-4 l
.17 x 10-4'l N/A l
N/A I
l*
1 1
I I
I l 100% lITC (Ap/ F) l N/A N/A
-1.11 x 10-4
.96 x 10-41 l
I Full I
l l
4 l Power lPC (Ap/% Power)
N/A N/A
.81 x 10-4' N/A l
I 1
I I
IMTC (Ap/*F) l N/A l
N/A I
.98 x 10-41.83 x 10-41 h
1 4
/
'PAGE 30 WP-0676
-m f
5.0 CONCLUSION
The results of the Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 2 Cycle 3 reload test program summarized in the body of this report:
(1) Verify that the core was correctly loaded with regard to the-utilized fuel management plan and that there are no detectable anomalies present which would result in unsafe operation of the plant during the length of the cycle.
(2) Calculational models utilized in designing the reload core and performing.the safety analysis for Cycle 3 adequately predict core behavior during this cycle.
The ANO-2 Cycle 3 reload core was demonstrated to be properly designed, fabricated and-installed. The unit can be operated in a manner that should not pose undue risk to the health and safety of the public.
b WP-0676 PAGE 31 d
e