ML20077E666

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Cycle 9 Core Operating Limits Rept
ML20077E666
Person / Time
Site: Beaver Valley
Issue date: 04/30/1991
From:
DUQUESNE LIGHT CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20077E664 List:
References
NUDOCS 9106110152
Download: ML20077E666 (7)


Text

_

l Deaver Valley IWor Station, Unit 110, 1 Cycle 9 Corn Operating Ljmitn Itoport - April 1931 l

l l

l l

91oe;. i t o i s: /Imno pga p,gr..c n 0' . 000 3 3 4 p P Di<

~

IlFAVER VALLEY Uti1T 1 CYCL 1' 9 j

_QORG_OEEIMTIBl_ LI.lil.IS__.HCI'0]LT Thin Core Operating Limito Report providen the cycle specitic parameter limits developed in accordance with the 11RC approved methodologies specified in Technical Specification Administrative Control 6.9.1.14.

Specificittion 3.' ,5 ';ntt i l9wil_ R9sLilmert191LLimite The sh'Itdown ron a

.. 1 be withdrawn to at leact 225 steps.

E119R111Cli.ti.on.111A_Cnntrol RgsLlfmgrtio11_idniin Control Banks A and B chall be withdrawn to at least 225 uteps.

Control Banks C and D shall be limited in physical insertion as shown in Figure 1.

Snecillciition 3.2.1 AKi!) L TInN_J]i Lt3 rnt1Ee 110TE: The target band is 17% about the target flux from 0% to 100% RATED TilERMAL POWER.

The indicated Axial Flux Difference:

a. Above 90% RATED THERMAL POWER shalI be maintained within the 17% target band about the target ilux difforence,
b. Between 50% and 90% RATED TilERMAL POb ZR is within the limits shown on Figure 2.
c. Below 50% RATED TilERMAL POWER may deviate outside the

~

target band.

Specification 3.2.2 F9(Z) and F xy Limits Fg(Z) $ C.fQ

  • K(Z) for P > 0.5 P

Pg(Z) $ CfQ

  • K(Z) for P s 0.5

0.5 Where

C FQ == 2 . 4 P= TIJ ERMA L_ eor!ER RATED Ti!ERMAL POWER K(Z) = the function obtained from Figure 3.

BEAVER VALLEY - Uti1T 1 1 OF 6 COLR 9 April 1991 l 1

Thua F limits (F x for RATED THERMAL POWER within specific core pY$nes shall be:y(L))

Fxy(L) r Fxy(RTP) (1 + PFXY * (1-P))

Where: For all core planes containing D-DANK:

Fxy(RTP) $ 1.71 For unrodded core planes:

Fxy(RTP) s 1.73 from 1.8 ft. elevation to 2.50 ft. elevation Fxy(RTP) s 1.79 from 2.50 ft, elovncion to 2.75 ft, elevation Fxy(RTP) 5 1.84 from 2.75 ft. elevation to 4.25 ft, elevation Fxy (RTP) 5 1.81 from 4.25 ft, elevation to 7.25 ft. elevation Fxy(RTP) s 1.79 from 7.25 ft. elevation to 9.75 ft, elevation Fxy(RTP) 5 1.76 from 9.75 ft. elevation to 10.2 ft, elevation PFXY = 0.2 P= THERMAL POWER RATED THERMAL POWER Figure 4 provides the maximum total peaking factor times relative T

power (Fg ,prel) as a function of axial core height during normal core operation.

Specification 3.2.3 FNDH FNDH $ CFDH * (1 + PFDH * (1-P) )

Where: CFDH = 1.62 PFDH = 0.3 P= THERMAL POWER RATED THERMAL POWER BEAVER VALLEY - UNIT 1 2 OF 6 COLR 9 April 1991 l

220  ! ((54.53, 225)j

^ 200 /

[ff00,187 h

G 180 ,

l BANK C

/

5 160 /

& / /

/

140 -

3 7

/ /

(0,174)j BANK D b 100 '

O '

CL 80 --

z '

<t 60 f 40 f

20 l ll(8,0)l 0 ,

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 RELATI\/E POWER (Percent) i FIGURE i CONTROL ROD INSERTION LIMITS AS A FUNCTION OF POWER LEVEL 1

l l

3 of 6 COLR 9 APRIL 1991 I BEAVER VALLEY - UNIT i

m 100 W

$ II' S0] II S0] UNACCEPTABLE _

  1. 0 ~ UNACCEPTABLE _

OPERA TION OPERATION 4 80

@ 70 \

E 60 - -

\

9 W ACCEPTABLE OPERA TION H< 50 'i T ( 31, 50) (31, 50)

O #0 H

k 30 o

{a. 20 10 -

0

-50 40 30 20 -10 0 to 20 30 40 50 FLUX DIFFERENCE (AI)%

FIGURE 2 AXIAL FLUX DIFFERENCE LIMITS AS A FUNCTION OF RATED THERMAL POWER BEAVER VALLEY - UNIT 1 4 of 6 COLR 9 APRIL 1991 l

l l

1.2 (0, 1.000) l(6,1.00&

1.0 ~m (10.8, .940);

~

_T

.80 - -

q (12,.647) l q .e0

.40

.20 -

0.00 0 2 4 6 8 to 12 CORE HEIGHT (Feet)

FIGURE 3 FaTNORMAllZED OPERATING ENVELOPE, K(Z)

BEAVER VALLEY - UNIT 1 5 of 6 COLR 9 APRIL 1991 l

~ '~~~~ ~ ~

' ~~~~

~ _. 1.TZ.T ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ L..._E. ZE

.l(0,0, 2,400) _.. - .

J(s,0,2,400)l- - . -. _ . .

2.4 -- --

((10.8, 2.256)}--

'{?. !.&{? N, . ?HW & _.Id

_ __ s _ __ .__. . _ . _ . , . . _ _. _ . . _ _ _.

__. _ . . . _ _ . . . _ . . _ . _ _ _ . _ . . _ . . _ __ __ . ._; { . _._

2.0 1 m ___ - - - . . . - _ . . _ . ,. . _ . _ . . _ . . _ . _ . _ . . _ . _ . .

g .____ _ . _ _ . . . . _ ___ _ . _ _ _ . __

c __q. _ _ _ _ .

LL9 1.6 kl1h0l 53)h l v _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ .._. _ -.._ __ . _ _ _ _ _ . ___ _ . .

4._

E _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ __ _____ _ . . .__ _ . _ . _ _ . . . _ . . _ _ . _ . ~ _

y . . _ . - _ . .

p y,g BASIS Fxy 4 ~~~

1.73 FROAf 1.80 TO 2.50 FEET ~~~ '~ ~ ~

E 1.79 FROAf 2.50 TO 2.75 FEET 1.84 FRO &f 2.75 TO 4.25 FEET - - - - - -

_ _ _. 1.81 FROAf 4.2E TO 7.25 FEET 1.79 FROAf 7.25 TO 9.75 FEET T 80 1.76 FROM 9.75 TO 10.2 FEET t

v

. 40 -- - -- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 CORE HEIGHT (Feet)

FIGURE 4 MAXIMUM (FJ

  • Psa.) VS. AX!AL CORE HEIGHT DURING NORMAL CORE OPERATION BEAVER VALLEY - UNIT 1 6 of 6 COLR 9 APRIL 1991 I

_