ML20212Q027
| ML20212Q027 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Brunswick  |
| Issue date: | 03/11/1987 |
| From: | Zimmerman S CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| NLS-87-056, NLS-87-56, NUDOCS 8703160483 | |
| Download: ML20212Q027 (18) | |
Text
._ _____ ______ _
J c
Cp&L Carolina Power & Light Company MAR 11 EST SERIAL: NLS-87-056 10CFR50.90 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTENTION: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNIT NO.1 DOCKET NO. 50-325/ LICENSE NO. DPR-71 SUPPLEMENT TO REQUEST FOR LICENSE AMENDMENT FUEL CYCLE NO. 6 - RELOAD LICENSING Gentlemen:
i On March 5,1987, a conference call was held to discuss reload licensing for Cycie 6 s
operation of the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Unit No.1 (BSEP-1). During this call, the staff requested additional information regarding the methods used to establish the minimum critical power ratio operating limits specified in the Company's October 21, 1986 license amendment request. Enclosure 1 provides a summary of the calculational methods used to establish the proposed MCPR limits.
I Please refer any further questions regarding this matter to Mr. Stephen D. Floyd at (919) 836-6901.
Yours very truly,
[
S. R. Zimmerman Manager Nuclear Licensing Section MAT /ccj (5151 MAT)
Enclosure cc:
Dr. J. Nelson Grace (NRC-Ril)
Mr. W. H. Ruland (NRC-BNP)
'Mr. E. Sylvester (NRC) 8703160433 870311 PDR ADOCK 05000325 P
PDR Ii 411 Fayetteville street e P. O Box 1551. Ralesgn, N C. 27602
%f
~-.
-n
ENCLOSURE 1 to SERIAL: NLS-87-056 l
l l
(5151 MAT /ccj)
Form 244
.:,...~..-n.-
Carolina Power & L!ght Company Company Correspondena Raleigh, North Carolina July 24, 1986 FILE: NF-403.0603 SERIAL: NF-86-355 MEMORANDUM TO:
Mr. E. B. Wilson FROM:
K. E. Karcher ff '
SUBJECT:
Proposed Operating MCPR Limits for Brunswick 1 Cycle 6 4.s INTRODUCTION The purpose of this study is to establish bounding Minimum Critical Power Ratio (MCPR) operating limits for Brunswick Unit 'l utilizing GE6 (8X8R) and/or GE7 (BP/P8X8R) fuel designs. This evaluation is based on a review of recent reload safety analyses performed for both Brunswick units that have been previously approved by the USNRC.
No major changes in the transient modeling of the Brunswick units has occurred for the past several cycles. With the exception of unit-specific differences, cycle-by-cycle variations.in MCPR have 7.)
been mainly due to reload specific differences in fuel loading and Eurnup.
n Therefore, a sufficient history exists, over a range of core loadings, to' establish MCPR operating limits which bound reasonable expectations of normal Unit 1 operations for current fuel loading philosophies.
The establishment of these' limits will allow Cycle 6 to start up under.the provisions of 10CFR50.59, which provides for increased flexibility in the timing of core n['
design decisions.
0 An additional goal is to establish the MCPR Operating Limits with sufficient conservatism to bound the potential use of operation flexibility options without adversely impacting normal operations. Operation flexibility options include, but are not limited to, recirculation pump out of service, main steam line out of service, hard bottom burn, end of cycle (EOC) extension with reduced feedwater temperature and/or increased core flow, etc.
This approach assumes that some small potential for EOC derate due to insufficient MCPR margin is preferable to a mandatory derate and/or technical specification change required when exercising one of these flexibility options.
If in fact the proposed EOC 6 limits prove to be overly conservative such that a significant E0C derate la projected, then it is still possible to resubmit Cycle 6 technical specifications to incorporate more appropriate EOC 6 operating MCPR limits. This resubmittal can be made subsequent to startup in a time frame consistent with approval and implementation prior to EOC - 2,000 MWD /ST.
Mr. E. B. Wilsen
-2" July 24,1986 4
PROPOSED MCPR LIMITS FOR BRUNSWICK 1, CYCLE 6 Based on an evaluation of past Brunswick 1 and Brunswick 2 licensing analyses and the Cycle 6 core design work completed to date, a set of MCPR limits for Brunswick 1, Cycle 6 operation are proposed in Table 1.
The basis for the selection of these limits is explained below:
1.
Non* Pressurization Transients (BOC to ECC) l Tables 2 and 3 are a compilation of results presented in References 1 and 2 and represent summaries of the licensing analyses pertermed for Brunswick 1. Cycles 4 and 5 and Brunswick 2, Cycles 5, 6, and 7.
Table 2 presents the reload transient ACPR's for the limiting fuel type which, except as noted, is BP/P8x8R.
Table 3 presents the difference in dCPR's for the BP/P8x8R and 8x8R fuel for the pressurization transients listed in Table 2.
Examination of Table 2 indicates that the most limiting non-pressurization event is either the Rod Withdrawal Error (RWE) or the Loss of Feed Water Heating (LFWH) event. The maximum uncorrected ACPR observed for these transients is 0.22 and 0.17, respectively. Since the maximum observed ACPR for the RWE bounds the maximum observed ACPR for the LFWH, bounding the RWE will bound both of these events. To bound the RWE, it is. proposed to employ General Electric's (GE's) generic RWE analysis. This analysis is valid for all fuel types, exposure ranges, and modes of operations. For a Rod Block Monitor (RBM) setpoint of 107 percent, which is customary at Brunswick, the generic analysis (Reference 3) provides a ACPR of 0.22 for the RWE.
2.
Pressurization Transients (BOC to EOC - 2,000 MWD /ST) 2a.
Optio,n A MCPR Limits l
Table 2 indicates that the most limiting Option A pressurization transient for the BOC to EOC
- 2,000 MWD /ST exposure range is the Load i
Rejection without Bypass (LRw/oB). With the exception of Brunswick 2, Cycle 7, the maximum observed uncorrected ACPR for the LRw/oB is 0.16 with a cycle"to-cycle variation of 0.01 ACPR.
For Brunswick 2, Cycle 7, the uncorrected ACPR for the LRw/oB is 0.19 which represents a 0.03 ACPR increase from Brunswick 2, Cycle 6.
This rather large increase in ACPR stems from a much weaker mid-cycle scram reactivity insertion rate for Brunswick 2, Cycle 7.
The weaker scram is a result of the fact that the axial power peaking 'for Brunswick 2, Cycle 7 is reduced relative to Brunswick 2, Cycle 6 requiring fewer shallow control rods in the SAVOIA rod pattern. The SAVOIA rod pattern is developed on a cycle 9to' cycle basis for the purpose of generating a conservative scram reactivity insertion rate for use in mid* cycle transient analysis. As such, it consists of only fully inserted rods to control reactivity ~and the minimum number of shallow rods (NorCH 36) f required to maintain thermal limits (MFLPD) below technical specification i
limits. It is the reduced axial peaking and its impact on the number of shallow control rods in the SAVOIA rod pattern that is responsible for I
the weaker Brunswick 2, Cycle 7 mid* cycle scram.
,-, ~ _.,. _ ----.,, _. - -,..-,. -._,-- -,
n,. - -. -,. - -
i
~
Mr. E. B. Wilson July 24, 1986 a
The reason for the reduced Brunswick 2, Cycle 7 mid-cycle axial i
peaking is not fully understood.
It could be the result of the highly optimized loading pattern, the large burnable poison content of the i
reload bundle, the' increased full power exposure capability, or the variability in setting SAVOIA rod patterns. Whatever the reason, the potential for a larger cycle-to-cycle mid-cycle ACPR. increase must be accounted for in the Brunswick 1 Cycle 6 50.59 determination.
It is proposed to conservatively bound the Brunswick 2 Cycle 7 uncorrected ACPR for the Lhw/oB by imposing a O.04 ACPR adder. This adder is comprised of three compcnents: 1) a 0.01 ACPR to account for the GETAB rcund-off precess; 2) a 0.01 ACPR to account for mid-cycle exposure shape and scram reactivity differences from cycle to cycle; and 3) a 0.02 ACPR adder to provide a high assurance, without an adverse impact on operations, that the proposed MCPR limits bound any reasonable variation in Cycle 6 designs and potential use of operation flexibility options.
2 Application of this adder gives an uncorrected ACPR of 0.23 and a corrected for Option A MCPR operating limit of (1.07 + 0.23) x 1.044 = 1 36 for BP/P8X8R fuels. Table 3 indicates that the difference between BP/P8X8R and 8X8R fuel type uncorrected ACPR's for the LRw/oB in 1
the BOC to EOC-2,000 MWD /ST exposdre range is 0.02.
Therefore, the Option A MCPR operating limit for 8X8R fuels in this exposure range is (1.07 + (0.23-0.02)) x 1.044 = 1 34.
2b. Option B MCPR Limit Table 2 indicates that the most limiting Option B pressurization transient for the BOC to EOC - 2,000 MWD /ST exposure range is the Feed Water Controller Failure (FWCF). The maximum observed uncorrected ACPR for the FWCF is 0.11 and 0.07 for Brunswick Units 1 and 2 respectively, with a cycle-to-cycle variation of 0.02 ACPR.
Tne'0.04 difference in ACPR between the two Brunswick units'is due to the differences in the bypass flow capacity of the units. Unit 2 has approximately 90 percent bypass flow capacity while Unit 1 has only approximately 25 percent bypass flow capacity.
It is proposed to conservatively bound the maximum observed Unit 1 uncorrected ~ ACPR for the FWCF by imposing the 0.04 ACPR adder described in Section 2a.
Application of this adder gives'an uncorrected ACPR of 0.15 for the Unit 1 FWCF transient. The formula to correct this ACPR to the Option B operating limit MCPR is:
OLMCPRB = SLMCPR (1.0/1.0-x) where x
= the calculated uncorrected ACPR AF
= an additive factor of -0.009 for a mid-cycle BWR/4 without RPT FWCF transient SLMCPR = the safety limit MCPR of 1.07 which gives an Option B operating limit of 1.21 for BP/P8X8R fuel.
Table 3 indicates that there is no difference between BP/P8X8R and 8X8R fuel type uncorrected ACPR's for the FWCF in the BOC to E0C-2,000 MWD /ST
Mr. E. B. Wilson July 24, 1986 exposure range. Therefore, the Option B MCPR operating limit for 8X8R fuel in this exposure range is identical to that of BP/P8X8R fuel, i.e.,
1.21.
3 Pressurization Transients (EOC - 2,000 MWD /ST to EOC) 3a. Option A MCPR Limits Table 2 indicates that the most limiting Option A pressurization transient for the EOC - 2,000 MWD /ST to ECC exposure range is the LRw/oB. The maximum observed uncorrected ACPR for the this event is 0.23 with a cycle-to-cycle variation of 0.01 to 0.02 ACPR.
The observed
-0.02 ACPR variation ccourced for Brunswick 1 Cycles 4 and 5 and is due largely to the short Cycle 5 full power exposure capability resulting from the long Cycle 4 coastdown.
The short Cycle 5 endurance results in an EOC 5 Haling axial power distribution which is significantly more bottom peaked than the EOC 4 Haling power distribution as shown in Figure 1.
This significant power shape difference results in a significant scram reactivity difference, directly impacting the calculated transient ACPR. Consequently, the LRw/oB for Brunswick 1, Cycle 5 is significantly (0.02 ACPR) lower than that for Brunswick 1, Cycle 4.
For Brunswick 1, Cycle 6, the EOC Haling power distribution is e'xpected to be less bottom peaked than that of Brunswick 1. Cycle 5 and very similar to that of Brunswick 1, Cycle 4, as shown in Figures 2 and 3
Therefore, from an EOC axial power distribution standpoint, the EOC 6 LRw/oB transient ACPR is expected to be very similar to the Brunswick 1, Cycle 4 value.
In addition to the EOC axial power distribution and its impact on the EOC scram reactivity insertion *other parameters that impact the transient ACPR calculations are the core average void fraction'and the void coefficient of reactivity.
These parameters are summarized in Table 4, which indicates that the core average void fraction and void coefficient vary only slightly from cycle to cycle.
It is not expected that any. changes in these parameters from Brunswick 1, Cycle 5 to Brunswick 1. Cycle 6 will result in a significant change in the AC"'
calculation.
Based on the above discussion, the expected. uncorrected ACPR for the Brunswick-1 EOC 6 LRw/oB is that observed for Brunswick 1 at EOC 4. that is 0.28.
To cover other potential uncertainties in the ACPR calculation such as"the OETAB round-off and code convergence, etc., a 0.01 adder to this value is proposed.
Furthermore, in an effort to bound potential use of operation flexibility options, an additional 0.02 ACPR adder is proposed.
Application of these adders gives an uncorrected ACPR of 0 31 and a corrected for Option A MCPR operating limit of (1.07 + 0 31) x 1.044 - 1.44 for BP/P8X8R fuels. Table 3 indicates that the difference between BP/P8X8R and 8X8R fuel type uncorrected ACPR's for the LRw/oB in the EOC-2,000 MWD /ST to EOC exposure range is 0.03 Therefore, the Option A MCPR operating limit for 8X8R fuels in this exposure range is (1.07 + (0 31-0.03)) x 1.044 - 1.41.
, ~ -,
Mr. E. B. Uilson
'5-July 24, 1986 3b. Option B MCPR Limit Table 2 indicates that the LRw/oB and FWCF are the limiting Option B transients for Brunswick 1 in the EOC - 2,000 MWD /ST to EOC exposure range.
The FWCF is not limiting for Brunswick 2 at EOC because of Unit 2's large bypass capacity as discussed above in Section 2b.
Since the ODYN Option B adjustment factor for the FWCF is numerically much smaller than that for the LRw/oB, a smaller uncorrected ACPR results in a larger corrected for ODYN Option B operating MCPR limit. Therefore, bounding the FWCF will bound the LRw/oB.
It is proposed to conservatively bound the maximum observed Unit 1 uncorrected ACPR for the FWCF oy imposing the 0.03 ACPR adder described in Section 3a. Application of this adder gives an uncorrected ACPR of 0.26 for BP/P8x8R fuel types and a corredted for Option B operating limit MCPR of 1 32. Table 3 indicates that the difference between BP/P8x8R and 8x8R fuel type uncorrected ACPR's for the FWCF in the EOC-2,000 MWD /ST to EOC exposure range is 0.02.
Therefore, the Option B MCPR operating limit for 8x8R fuels becomes 1 30.
SUMMARY
Table 1 summarizes the proposed operating MCPR limits for Brunswick 1, Cycle 6.
The set of conservative limits proposed are expected to bound the final reload licensing analysis results with high confidence and allow Cycle 6 to startup under the provisions of 10CFR50.59 without adversely impacting plant operations. Furthermore, the proposed limits have made allowance for potential use of operation flexibility options. If the proposed EOC 6 limits prove to be overly conservative such that a significant EOC derate is projected, then it will be possible to resubmit Cycle 6 technical specifications to incorporate more appropriate EOC 6 operating MCPR limits.
This resubmittal can be made subsequent to startup in a time frame consistent with approval and implementation prior to EOC'2,000 MWD /ST.
Table 5 summarizes the effective " adders" to the Brunswick 1, Cycle 5 MCPR operating limits required to arrive at the proposed Cycle 6 MCPR limits of Table 1.
This table indicates that the " adders" range from 0.05 ACPR at l
EOC to 0.09 ACPR at the mid* cycle exposure.
The large midacycle adder reflects the large uncertainty in projecting mid' cycle results as evidenced by l
Brunswick 2, Cycle 7.
As Table 2 indicates, the maximum observed cycle-tod cycle variation in EOC MCPR operating limits is 0.02 ACPR and the maximum observed cycle-to4 cycle variation in mid' cycle MCPR operating limits is 0.04.
Therefore, the Brunswick 1, Cycle 6, adders are judged to be more than adequate to conservatively bound the Cycle 6 licensing results and any potential use of operation flexibility options.
Finally, Table 6 presents a comparison of the proposed Brunswick 1, Cycle 6 and the current Brunswick 2, Cycle 7 operating MCPR limits. This table also indicates the differences between the two. These differences are due to the fact that, at EOC, the FWCF is limiting for Brunswick 1 while the LR w/oB is limiting for Brunswick 2.
Also, the Brunswick 1 limits allow for l
Mr. E. B. Wilson July 24, 1986 more uncertainty in mid-cycle transient results. Otherwise, the limits are fairly consistent with each other as would be expected due to the similarity l
of the Brunswick cores.
% ~~.
Il > <.,,,
/
MJD/ad1/ des
,/
Attachments 2384ICA s
O l
i l
l l
l l
l
Table 1 Proposed Operatic.g Limits.
Brunswick.1 Cycle 6 Fuel Type BP/P8XBR 8X8R Unc.
MCPR MCPR Unc.
MCPR MCPR A
g A
g Non-Pressurization 0.22 1.29 0.22 1.29 (BOC-EOC)
~
Pressurization (BOC to EOC-2,000 MWD /ST)
LRw/oB D.23 1.36 NL' O.21 1.34 NL FWCF O.15 NL 1.21 0.15 NL 1.21 (EOC-2,000 MWD /ST.to EOC)
LRw/oB 0 31 1.44 NL 0.28 1.41 NL FWCF 0.26 NL 1.32 0.24 NL 1 30
- NL = Not Limiting
Table 2 Summary of Licensing Analyses (For Limiting Fuel Type')
4 BOC To EOC - 2000 MWD /ST EOC - 2000 MWD /ST to EOC Event Unc.# Opt. A Opt. B Event Unc. Opt. A Opt. B B1C4 LRw/oB 0.16 1.28 1.09 LRw/oB 0.28 1.41 1.29 FWCF 0.11 1.23 1.17 FWCF 0;23 1;36 1.29 RWE 0:18 1;25 1:25 LFWH 0.14 1.21 1.21 FLE-0:15 1;22 1.;22 B1C5 LRw/oB 0.15 1.27
<1.08 LRw/oB 0.26 1 39 1.27 FWCF 0.09 1.21 1.15 FWCF 0.21 1 34 1.27 RWE 0;15 1:22 1;22 LFWH 0.17 1.24 1;24 FLE 0;13 1:20 1 20 B2C5 LRw/oB 0.16 1.28 1.09 LRw/oB 0.28 1.41 1.29 FWCF 0;07 1;19 1;13 FWCF.
0:07 1:19 1;13 RWE 0:22 1.29 1;29 LFWH 0.13 1.20 1.20 FLE 0.15 1:22 1;22 B2C6 LRw/oB 0.16 1.28 1.09 LRw/oB 0.27 1.40 1.28 FWCF 0.05 1.17 1.11 FWCF 0.05 1;17 1.11 RWE 0 17 1;24 1;24 LFWH 0.16 1;23 1.23 i
FLE 0 13 1;20 1:20 B2C7 LRw/oB 0.19 1.32 1.12 LRw/oB 0.28 1.41 1.29 FWCF 0.07 1.19 1.13 FWCF 0.07 1;19 1;13 RWE 0;13 1.20 1:20 LFWH 0;16 1.23 1.23 FLE 0:13 1;20 1;20
- With the exception of the B2C5 RWE, the limiting fuel type is BP/P8X8R.
For the B2C5 RWE the limiting fuel type is 8 x 8.
- Unc - the' uncorrected (for ODYN Option A and B) ACPR as calculated by OETAB.
_ _ _ _. _.. ~, - _. _ _... _ _ _. _ _, -
Table 3 Summary of Licensing Analyses Differences Between BP/PSX8R and 8X8R ACPR's for Pressurization Events 4
BOC to EOC-2000 MWD /ST EOC-2000 MWD /ST to EOC Event Unc.
Opt A Opt B Event Unc.
Opt A gj B1C4 LRw/oB 0.01 0.01 0.01 LRw/oB 0.03 0.03 0.03 FWCF 0 01 0.01 0.01 FWCF 0 02 0:02 0.02 B1C5 LRw/oB 0.02 0.02 0.00 LRw/oB 0.03 0.03 0.03 e
FWCF 0:00 0;00 0;00 FWCF 0;02 0.02 0;02 B2CS LRw/oB 0.02 0.02 0.01 LRw/oB 0.03 0.03 0.03 FWCF 0.00 0;00 0;00 FWCF 0;01 0;01 0;01 B2C6 LRw/oB 0.02 0.02 0.01 LRw/oB 0.03 0.03 0.03 FWCF 0:00 0:00 0;00 FWCF 0;00 0;00 0.00 B2C7 LRW/oB 0.02 0.03 0.02 LRw/oB 0.03 0.03 0.03 FWCF 0;01 0;01 0 01 FWCF 0;01 0.01 0.01
- Uno = the uncorrected (for ODYN option A and B) delta CPR as calculated by OETAB.
\\
e Table 4 Void Reactivity Core Average Void Fraction 3D void Coefficient B1C4 39.25 (39.77)*
.00125 B1C5 40.54 (40.54)
.00125 B1C6
?
(39.87)
?
l B2C5 38.82 (39.96)
.00126 E2C6 40.06 (40.63)
.00127 B2C7**
39.98 (40.10)
.00130
- Values in ( ) are PRESTO Results
- GE values obtained from Reference 4.
I
Table 5 Summary of " Adders" to 81C5 OLMCPR's Fuel Type BP/P8X3R 8X8R MCPR MCPR MCPR MCPR A
B A
B Non-Pressurization 0.05 0.05 (BOC to EOC)-
Pressurization (BOC to EOC-2,000 MWD /ST)
LRw/oB 0.09 NL' O.09 NL FWCF NL 0.06' NL 0.06-(EOC-2,000 MWD /ST to EOC)
LRw/oB 0.05 NL 0.05 NL FWCF NL 0.05 NL 0.05
- NL = Not Limiting 9
Table 6 Comparison of Proposed Brunswick 1, Cycle 6 and Brunswick 2, Cycle 7 OLMCPR's PRESSURIZATION EVENTS Exposure: BOC to EOC-2K FuS1 Type Proposed Brunswick 1, C6 Brunswick 2, C7 Difference Notes MCPR /MCPR MCPR /MCPR MCPR /MCPR A
B A
B A
B BP/P8x8R 1 36/1.21 1 33/1.17
.03/.04 (1 )
8x8R 1 34/1.21 1 31/1;17
.03/.04 Exposure:
EOC-2K to EOC Futi Type Proposed Brunswick 1, C6 Brunswick 2, C7 Difference Notes MCPR /MCPR MCPR /MCPR MCPR /MCPR A
B A
B A
B BP/P8x8R 1.44/1 32 1.44/1.32
.00/.00 (2) 8x8R 1.41/1.30 1.41/1;29
.00/.01 Non-Pressurization Events Exposures BOC to EOC Fusi Type,
Proposed Brunswick 1, C6 Brunswick 2, C7 Difference Notes i
BP/P8x8R 1.29 1.29
.00 (3)
I 8x8R 1.29 1.29
- 00 NOTES
(1) MCPR : Accounts for larger uncertainty in projecting mid-cycle results.
A MCPR : Brunswick 1 FWCF is.04 worse than Brunswick 2 FWCF.
B (2) BP/P8x8R - 8x8R fuel type difference for limiting transient is.02 ACPR for Unit 1 FWCF and.03 ACPR for Unit 2 LRw/oB.
(3') Limit set by Generic RWE.
4 4
GE HALING AXIAL POWER DISTRIBUTION
=B1C4
-=B1C5 1.4-
- ~~.~~~.-
/
r I 2-l
~
n-
_~
/
~~~ -
l R
,/ /
_'.'s N
s E
1.0-j/
N A
,j
's, N
j L
I N
\\
m J
s 4
T 0.8-s/
\\g g
7 t
.s
'/
\\\\
J
~
V s
E 0.65
,Il
\\,\\
p il
\\\\
s i
\\\\
0 0.4-s\\
M a
\\
E i3 1
R 0.2-1 i
i 1
0.0-0 2
4 6
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 l
N0 DES I
Il 1
,1 s]* "
4 i
1' 2
\\
\\
\\
\\s s
2 i
\\
2 s
s' 0
i 2
~
8 N
i O
~
1 N
I T
U 6
B i
I 1
~
R 6
~
T C S
I 4
I i
1 B
~
D 1
S R=
E E
2 D
W i
O OP-N L
.i. 0 A
x
~_
I 1
S X
C A
I B
8 G
N I=
L A
~
H 6
L P
C
/,
4 2
I 0
i
-. - k.: -
4 2
0 8
6 4
2 0
0 0
0 0
0 1
1 1
RELATIVE P0uER il l
llll1 ll, l
l?
lE
}
CPL HALING AXIAL POWER DISTRIBUTION
= BIC4
= B1C6 i
1.4-1 4
1.2-
--~~~_ ---
R
~ ~
s E
1.0.
s~s 1
L N\\
1 A
N i
g m
l T
0.8-
\\
j
\\
-l
\\
m l
V
\\
l E
0.6-
\\
i i
P
{
0 0.4-w l
E I
j R
0.2-I 0.0-0 2
4 6
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 4
NODES i
}
I I
I
References 1.
Memorandum from K. E. Karcher to E. B. Wilson, " Proposed Operating MCPR Limits for Brunswick 2. Cycle 7", December 17, 1985, NFS File Number 402.0703. (USNRC Docket No. 50-324/ License No. DPR-62, March 28, 1986.)
2.
Supplemental Reload Licensing Submittal for Brunswick Steam Electric Plant Unit 2, Reload 6, General Electric Company Document 23A4748, March 1986.
3 General Electric Standard Application for Reactor Fuel (Supplement for United States), General Electric Co., Document NEDE-24011-P-A-7-US.
August 1985.
4.
Brunswick 1, Reload 6, Nuclear Design Report, General Electric Company, Document NEDE-31053P, July 1986, 2384ICA 1
O 9