ML17353A270
| ML17353A270 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 07/26/1995 |
| From: | FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17353A269 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9507310200 | |
| Download: ML17353A270 (98) | |
Text
R ACTIYITY CONTROL SYSTEMS 3 4. 1.3 MOYABL CONTROL ASSEMBLIES
~
GROUP HEIGHT T dhttt
~~
LIMITING CONOITION FOR OPERATION W<~~w+ 8
,3.1.3.1 All full length/(shutdown and control) rods shall be OPERABLE and d; ,d,'tht A%I-d d.dh h counter demand position within one hour after rod motion.
~ht t: ddhdt t d t.
ACTION:
- a. With one or more full length rods inoperable due to being immovable as a result of excessive friction or mechanical interference or known to be untrippable, determine that the SHUTOOWN MARGIN requirement of Specification 3. 1. 1. 1 is satisfied within 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> and be in HOT STANDBY within 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br />.
- b. With more than one full length rod inoperable or misaligned from the group step counter demand position by more than + 12 steps
Rod-Pos+t-'4n-4ndiea+ion-l ,be ie-He~AND
'
- Wreak Q.
With one full length rod inoperable due to causes other than addressed by ACTION a, above, or misaligned from its group step counter demand position by more than
+ lZ-s4eps-(Analog-Rod-Posi-t4o Wu&b In'-catalog~ POWER OPERATION may continue provided that within one hour either:
The rod is restored to OPERABLE status within the-above a44gnmsat~~mea4s, or The remainder of the r s in t e bank with the inoperable rod are aligned to within of the inoperable rod while maintaining the rod sequence and insertion limits of Specification 3.1.3.6; the THERMAL POWER level shall be restricted pursuant to Specification 3. 1.3.6 during subsequent operation, or
- 3. The rod is declared inoperable and the SHUTOOWN MARGIN requirement of Specification 3. 1. 1. 1 is satisfied. POWER OPERATION may then continue provided that:
i
'315073 0200 950726 PDR ADQCK 05000250 P PDR
- See Special Test Exceptions 3 . 10. 2. and 3. 10.3 .
TURKEY POINT - UNITS 3 5 4 3/4 1-17 AMENOMENT NOS 167 ANp 161
0 h,
REACTIVITY CONTROL SYSTEMS LIMITING CONDITION FOR OPERATION Continued a) The THERMAL POWER RATED THERMAL POWER level is reduced to less than or equal to within one hour and within the next 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> the 75'f power range neutron flux high trip setpoint is reduced to less than or equal to 85K of RATED THERMAL POWER. THERMAL POWER shall be maintained less than or equal to 75K of RATED THERMAL POWER unti l compliance with ACTIONS 3. 1. 3. l. g. 3. c and 3. 1. 3. l. g. 3. d below are demonstrated, and d d b) The SHUTDOWN MARGIN requirement of Specification 3.1.1.1 is determined at least once per 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />, and c) A power distribution map is obtained from the movable incore N
detectors and F~(Z) and F H
are verified to be within their limits within 72 hours, and d) A reevaluation of each accident analysis of Table 3.1-1 is performed within 5 days; this reevaluation shall confirm that the previously analyzed results of these accidents remain valid for the duration of operation under these conditions.
SURVIELLANCE RE UIREMENTS zjvs~ c:
- 4. 1.3. 1. 1 The position of each full ' length ' rod shal e determined to be within of the group step counter demand position at least once per 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> (allowing for one hour thermal soak after rod motion) except during time invervals when the Rod Position Deviation Monitor is inoperable, then verify the group positions at least once per 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br />.
- 4. 1.3. 1.2 Each full length rod not fully inserted in the core shall be deter-mined to be OPERABLE by movement of at least 10 steps in any one direction at least once per 31 days.-
TURKEY POINT - UNITS 3 8; 4 3/4 1-18 AMENDMENT NOS AND
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGES PAGES 3/4 1-17 AND 3/4 1-18 INSERT A the Allowed Rod Misalignment between the Analog Rod Position Indication and INSERT B The Allowed Rod Misalignment shall be defined as:
a ~ for THERMAL POWER less than or equal to 90% of RATED THERMAL POWER, the Allowed Rod Misalignment is + 18 steps, and
- b. for THERMAL POWER greater than 905." of RATED THERMAL POWER, the Allowed Rod Misalignment is + 12 steps.
INSERT C and THERMAL POWER greater than 90% of RATED THERMAL POWERS within 1 hour either:
- 1. Restore all indicated rod positions to within the Allowed Rod Misalignment, or 2, Reduce THERMAL POWER to less than 90% of RATED THERMAL POWER and confirm that all indicated rod positions are within the Allowed Rod Misalignment, or
- 3. Be in HOT STANDBY within the following 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br />.
c ~ With more than one full length rod inoperable or misaligned from the group step counter demand position by more than +
18 steps and THERMAL POWER less than or equal to 90% of RATED THERMAL POWER, within 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> either:
- 1. Restore all indicated rod positions to within the Allowed Rod Misalignment, or 2.. Be in HOT STANDBY within the following 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br />.
INSERT D the Allowed Rod Misalignment of Specification 3.1.3.1 INSERT E the Allowed Rod Misalignment
'h REACTIVITY CONTROL SYSTEMS POSITION INDICATION SYSTEMS - OPERATING LIMITING CONDITION FOR OPERATION
- 3. 1.3.2 The Analog Rod Position Indication System and the Demand Position Indication System shall be OPERABLE and capable of determining the respective actual and demanded shutdown and control rod positions as follows:
- a. Analog rod position indicators, within one hour after rod motion (allowance for therm soak .
~sm F All Shutdown Banks: + of the group demand counters for withdrawa ranges of 0-30 steps and 200-M~ps. I SCA+
wed-Control Bank A and B: of the group demand counters for wsthdrawa ranges o 0- s and 200-228-steps.
gv5gW F ~+ g Control Banks C and D: of the group demand counters for withdrawa range o -2 X~s'em+ 4
- b. Group demand counters; + 2 steps.
ACTION:
- a. With a maximum of one analog rod position indicator per bank inoperable either:
- 1. Determine the position of the non-indicating rod(s) indirectly by the movable incore detectors at least once per 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> and within one hour after any motion of the non-indicating rod which exceeds 24 steps in one direction since the last determination of the rod's position, or
- 2. Reduce THERMAL POWER to less than 75K of RATED THERMAL POWER within 8 hours.
- b. With a maximum of one demand position indicator per bank inoperable either:
Verify that all analog rod position indicators for the affected 1.
bank are OPERABLE and that the most withdrawn rod and the least eachother at least once per 8 hours, or
~ p
- 2. Reduce THERMAL POWER to less than 75K of RATED THERMAL POWER within 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br />'URKEY POINT - UNITS 3 & 4 3/4 1-20 AMENDMENT NOS. l37AND l32
0 0
REACTIVITY CONTROL SYSTEMS SURVEILLANCE RE UIREMENTS 4.1.3.2.1 Each analog rod position indicator shall be determined to be OPERABLE tion Indication System agree w'allowing by verifying that the Oemand Positi n Indication System and the Analog Rod Posi-for one hour thermal soak after rod motion) at least once per 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> except during time intervals when the Rod Position Oeviation Monitor is inoperable, then compare the Oemand Posi-tion Indication System and the Analog Rod Position Indication System at least once per 4 hours'.
1.3.2.2 Each of the above required analog rod position indicator(s) shall be determined to be OPERABLE by performance of a CHANNEL CHECK, CHANNEL CALIBRA-TION and ANALOG CHANNEL OPERATIONAL TEST performed in accordance with Table 4.1-1.
TURKEY POINT - UNITS 3 8 4 3/4 1-21 AMENOMENT NOS.137 ANO l32
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGES PAGES 3/4 1-20 AND 3/4 1-21 INSERT F within the Allowed Rod Misalignment of Specification 3.1.3.1 INSERT G All Rods Out as defined in the Core Operating Limits Report
r 1I,
R A T V TY NTR YST M
~II Y T (C tl n The charging pumps are demonstrated to be OPERABLE by testing as required by Section XI of the ASHE code or by specific surveillance requirements in the specification. These requirements are adequate to determine OPERABILITY because no safety analysis assumption relating to the charging pump performance is more restrictive than these acceptance criteria for the pumps.
The boron concentration of the RMST in conjunction with manual addition of borax ensures that the solution recirculated within containment after a LOCA will be basic. The basic solution minimizes the evolution of iodine and minimizes the effect of chloride and caustic stress corrosion on mechanical systems and components. The temperature requirements for the RMST are based on the containment integrity and large break LOCA analysis assumptions.
The OPERABILITY of one Boron Injection System during REFUELING ensures that this system is available for reactivity control while in NODE 6.
The OPERABILITY requirement of 55 F and corresponding surveillance intervals associated with the boric acid tank system ensures that the solIIbility of the bsron solution will be maintained. The temperature limit of 55 F includes a 5 F margin over the 50 F solubility limit of 3.5 wt.X boric acid. Portable instrumentation may be used to measure the temperature of the rooms containing boric acid sources and flow paths.
(*)One channel of heat tracing is sufficient to maintain the specified temperature limit. Since one channel of heat tracing is sufficient to maintain the specified temperature, operation with one channel out-of-service is permitted for a period of 30 days provided additional temperature surveillance is performed.
3 4. 1.3 HOVAB CONTRO ASS HB S The specifications of this section ensure that: (1) acceptable power distribution limits are maintained, (2) the minimum SHUTDOWN HARGIN is maintained, and (3) the potential effects of rod misalignment on associated accident analyses are limited. OPERABILITY of the control rod position indicators is required to determine control rod positions and thereby ensure compliance with the control rod alignment and insertion limits continue.
OPERABLE condition for the analog rod position indicators 'ined as bein of the deman coun er capable of indicating rod position to within osition. For the Shutdown Banks and Control Banks A and B, the Position ndication requirement is defined as the group demand counter indicated balsas esiti een 0 and 30 steps withdrawn inclusive, and between 200 and-2kk-steps withdrawn inclusive. This permits the operator to verify that the control rods in these banks are either fully withdrawn or fully inserted, the normal operating modes for these banks. Knowledge of these bank positions in t
these two areas satisfies all accident analysis assumptions concerning their position. For Control Banks' and 0, the Position Indication requirement is withdrawn 'u defined as the group demand counter indicated position between 0
'eek and~ steps
(*)This is no longer applicable once boric acid tanks inventory and boric acid source and flow path inventories have been diluted to less than or equal to 3.5 weight percent (wtX).
167 161 TURKEY POINT - UNITS 3 5. 4 B 3I4 1-4 AMENDNENT NOS. ANO
REACTIVITY CONTROL SYSTEMS BASES MOVABLE CONTROL SSEHBLIES (Continued)
~)V~+ M Compar>s up demand counters to the bank insertion limits with verification of rod position with the analog rod position indicators (after thermal soak after rod motion) is sufficient verification that the control rods are above the insertion limits.
Rod position indication is provided by two methods: a digital count of actuating pulses which shows demand position of the banks and a linear position indicator Linear Variable Differential Transformer which indicates the actual rod position. The relative accuracy of the linear position indicator Linear Variable Differential Transformer is such that, with the most adverse error, an alarm will be actuated if any two rods within a bank deviate by more than 24 steps for rods in motion and 12 steps for rods at rest. Complete rod misalignment (12 feet out of alignment with its bank) does not result in exceeding core limits in steady-state operation at RATED THERMAL POWER. If the condition cannot be readily corrected, the specified reduction in power to 75X will insure that design margins to core limits will be maintained under both steady-state and anticipated transient conditions. The 8-hour permissible limit on rod misalignment is short with respect to the probability of an independent accident.
The ACTION statements which permit limited variations from the basic requirements are accompanied by additional restrictions which ensure that the original design criteria are met. Misalignment of a rod requires measurement of peaking factors and a restriction in THERMAL POWER. These restrictions pro-vide assurance of fuel rod integrity during continued operation. In addition, those safety analyses affected by a misaligned rod are reevaluated to confirm that the results remain valid during future operation.
The maximum rod drop time restriction is consistent with the assumed rod drop time used in the safety analyses. Measurement with T avg greater than or equal to 541 F and with all reactor coolant pumps operating ensures that the measured drop times will be representative of insertion times experienced during a Reactor trip at operating conditions.
Control rod positions and OPERABILITY of the rod position indicators are required to be verified on a nominal basis of once per 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> with more fre-quent verifications required if an automatic monitoring channel is inoperable.
These verification frequencies are adequate for assuring that the applicable LCOs are satisfied.
TURKEY POINT " UNITS 3 4 4 B 3/4 1-5 AMENDMENT NOS.137 AND 132
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGES PAGES B 3/4 1-4 AND B 3/4 1-5 INSERT H the Allowed Rod Misalignment of Specification 3.1.3.1 INSERT I and All Rods Out (ARO)
INSERT J The increase in the Allowed Rod Misalignment below 90% of Rated Thermal Power is as a result of the increase in the peaking factor limits as reactor power is reduced.
0 0 (Continued)
G C 0 Factor Limit Report, the Peaking Factor Limit Report shall be provided to the NRC Document Control desk with copies to the Regional Administrator.and the Resident Inspector within 30 days of their implementation, unless otherwise approved by the Commission.
The analytical methods used to generate the Peaking Factor limits shall be those previously reviewed and approved by the NRC. If changes to these methods are deemed necessary they will be evaluated in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59 and if if submitted to the NRC for review and approval prior to their use the change is determined to involve an unreviewed safety question or such a change would require amendment of previously submitted documentation.
CO E 0 E TI G I S 0 6.9.1.7 Core operating limits shall be established and documented in the CORE OPERATING LIMITS REPORT (COLR) before each reload cycle or any remaining part of a reload cycle for the following:
- 1. Axial Flux Difference for Specifications 3.2.1.
- 2. Control'od Insertion Limits for Specification 3.1.3.6.
- 3. Heat Flux Hot Channel Factor - Fo 2) for 3 eclflcatlon 3/4.2.2.
/III .oo/s os~ibm s. Sooooi g~o.+doo s i 3.>.
The na ca metMo s used to determfne the AFO ITmlt~YII be those previously reviewed and approved by the NRC in:
- 1. MCAP-10216-P-A, "RELAXATION OF CONSTANT AXIAL OFFSET CONTROL F~
SURVEILLANCE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION," June 1983.
- 2. MCAP-8385, "POWER DISTRIBUTION CONTROL AND LOAD FOLLOMING PROCEDURES
- TOPICAL REPORT,'eptember 1974.
The analytical methods used to determine the K(Z) curve shall be those previously reviewed and approved by the NRC in:
- 1. WCAP-9220-P-A, Rev. I, "Westinghouse ECCS Evaluation Model 1981 Version," February 1982.
- 2. MCAP-9561-P-A, ADD. 3, Rev. I, 'BART A-I: A Computer Code for the Best Estimate Analysis of Reflood Transients - Special Re ort:
Thimble Modeling W ECCS Evaluation Model."
>+ ~~ g//Ads dub stoa The analytical methods used to determine the Rod Bank Insertion Limitsgshall be those previously reviewed and approved by the NRC in:
t I. MCAP-9272-P-A, 'Mestinghouse Reload Safety Evaluation Methodology,'uly 1985.
The ability to calculate the COLR nuclear design parameters are demonstrated in:
I. Florida Power i Light 2
Company Topical Report NF-TR-95-0I, "Nuclear Physics Methodology for Reload Design of Turkey Point E St. Lucie Nuclear Plants'.
TURKEY 'POINT - UNITS 3 K 4 6-20 AMENDMENT NOS. 174 AND 168
ATTACHMENT 4 TURKEY POINT UNITS 3 AND 4 RELAXATION OF THE CONTROL RODS MISALIGNMENT REQUIREMENTS ANALYSIS
L-95-160 Page 1 of 49 RELAXATION OF THE CONTROL RODS MISALIGNMENT REQVIREMENTS ANALYSIS The current Technical Specifications allow an individual Rod Cluster Control Assembly (RCCA) to be misaligned from the bank demand position if the misalignment is less than + 12 steps'he Analog Rod Position Indication (ARPI) system is designed to an accuracy of 12 steps. Therefore, in order to guarantee a rod misalignment of less than 24 steps (12 steps misalignment + 12 steps ARPI uncertainty), the individual ARPI readings must be no larger than 12 steps. The Technical Specifications allow reactor operation with the control rods at the Rod Insertion Limit (RIL) .
The Technical Specifications also provide limits for peaking factors Fq and FdZ. As the power level is lowered, the limits for Fq and FbH increase according to the following expressions:
Fq" (Z) < [Fq] ~/P * [K (Z) ] for P > 0. 5 (TS 3. 2. 2)
FdH < 1.62 [1.0 + 0.3*(1-P) ] (TS 3.2.3) where P = Thermal Power/Rated Thermal Power
[Fq]" = measured heat flux hot channel factor
[Fq]~ = heat flux hot channel factor limit FdZ = nuclear enthalpy rise hot channel factor K(Z) for a given core height, is specified in the K(Z) curve, defined in the Core Operating Limits Report (COLR)
These increases in the limit for Fq and FhH can be used for accommodating a larger than + 12 steps misalignment at a reduced power level. In order to justify the increase in allowable rod misalignment at a reduced power level, the following parameters were evaluated:
- 1. Reactivity Control
- 2. Control Rod Misoperation (i.e., dropped rods and static rod misalignment for Condition II events)
- 3. Rod Ejection 4 ~ Power Operation with Misaligned Rod The principal tool used in this analysis is the Westinghouse Advanced Nodal Computer (ANC) code (WCAP-10965-P-A, September 1986) exercised in a three dimensional mode. Full core and quarter core models were used in the analyses. In these models, each fuel assembly is described by four nodes in the xy plane and 24 axial nodes. The macroscopic cross-sections for ANC were generated by PHOENIX-P (WCAP-11596-P-A, "Qualification of the PHOENIX-P/ANC Nuclear Design Systems for Pressurized Water
t L-95-160 Attachment Page 2 of 4
49 Reactor Cores, " June 1988) . The calculations were performed by FPL using NRC approved methods per Amendments 174 and 168, issued by the NRC on June 9, 1995. ANC also has the capability of calculating discrete pin power and pin burnup from the nodal information. It should be noted that as far as this analysis is concerned, we are interested in changes in peaking factors rather than absolute values of the peaking factors.
The Unit 3 Cycle 14 model was used in the subsequent analysis since this cycle contains all fuel assemblies with axial blankets and is representative of expected future core designs. In order to demonstrate that the calculational tools used in the analysis are reasonable, the Unit 3 Cycle 14 ANC model was depleted and the results of the power distribution and boron letdown predictions were compared to the measured values. This is presented in the Appendix. The loading pattern and burnable poison loading is presented in Figures 1 and 2 while the control rod location is presented in Figure 3.
j t
L-95-160 Attachment 4 Page 3 of 49 FIGURE 1 TURKEY POZNT UNZT 3, CYCLE 14 REFERENCE CORE LOADZNG PATTERN 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 I I I DD22 DD19 DD23
,C-7 K-& C-9 DD02 EE52 FF26 EE33 PF28 EE47 DD14 F-9 '*B>>9, FEED aT-7 PEED;B;.7'-7 DD47 PP42 FP18, EE37 PP29 EE42 PF20 'PP4'4 DD52 E-4 FEED REED K-13 PEED K-3 FEED PEED E-12 DD45 RF45 EE02 EE16 EE28 DD44 EE23 EE12 EE20 RF50. DD51
,D-5 FEED K-11 L-8 E-3 R-6 E-13 0-12 K-5 ;PEED. D-11 DD07 PP51 EE10 EE24 DD34 PP37a DD16 EE32 EE17 DD01-
.iT-6 FEED L-10 N-& L 5 FEED, H-.9 8-3 L"6 aT-10 EE50'P21 EE18 DD31 'D43 DD30 EE11 PR22 EE49, 2 PEED v'"aT D-7 P-&. K-2 H-5 PEED J 14 DD17 PF34 EE34 EE27 DD13 EE56 EE08 EE55 DD29 EE29 EE36 RP35 DD21 6-3 FEED N-10 C-5 .0 8 D-4 M-7 D-12 E-5 C-11 N-6 FEED 0-13 DD26 EE43 FP25 'D37 DD39 EE04 DD10, EEO? DD38 RP39 DD41 FP36 EE35 DD24 FR4,8'-14 H-10 J-9 FEED PEED P-10 iT-12 P-6 0-4 B-6 FEED F-2 PEED 0-7 8-6 DD25 FP27 EE38 EE25 DD33 EE54 EE19 EE53 DD03 EE22 EE39 PP32 DD28 N-5 L-11 'T-8. N-11
'-9 REED C 10 M-4 D-9 M-12 PEED aT-13 EE45, EE14 DD32 DD42 DD36 EE03 FF1?, EES1
,6,2.g H-11 H-14 FEED '0-,'la F-14'D12 DD06 PP52 EE15 EE21
. 0-'6 FEED E-10 8-13 8 7 VF40, DD35 PEED, E-ll'-8 EE26 EE05 PP43 DDO&
C-8 E-6 PEED 0-10 DD50 PP48 EE09 EE13 EE31 DD40 EE30 EE06 EE01 PP49 DD49 PEED P-11 J-4 L-3 B-10 L-13 E-& F-5 FEEn DD48 PP46. FP24'E40 FF33 EE41 FP19 PP47 DD46'-4
. FEED REED F-13 PEED P-3 'FEED REED L 12 DD05 EE46 RP30 EE44 PP31 EE48 DD09 K,9 P "9 PEED 0-9 PEED P,7, K-7 DD18 DD27 DD20 N-7 F 8 N-9 180o
~w REQZON 14A (3 408aa/o) REOION 15B (3.605~/o) REOZON 16C (4.000 /o)
~ao REOION 14B (3 413~/
~ ) REOION 15C (3.606~/ ) PF ". REOION 16D (4.000m/
REOZON 14C (3,415'/o) REOION 15D (4 007m/ PP REOZON 16E (4 ~ 000 /o)
REOZON 14D (3.812m/ REOZON 15E (4 010m/
REOION 14E (3 ~ 813~/o) REOION 16A (3.600'/o)
~ra REOION 15A (3. 605'/ REOION 16B (4.000 /o)
O WESTINCHOUSE ASSEMBLY ZD Z-ZZ PREVIOUS CYCLE LOCATION
L-95-160 Page 4 of 49 FIGURE 2 TURKEY POINT UNIT 3, CYCLE 14 BURNABLE ABSORBER AND SOURCE ROD LOCATIONS 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 20FS 20FS 20PS I
16I 16X 16Z I;48X ':16W N 16W
. 48X;,'
48X';
20F8 16I 16X 20FS aT 16Z "'32I 16I 20FS 20FS H
'aa'8W a .. '8W':"
20FS 16I 16Z 20FS G l6W- 16W;.
.48X
'8W 48X'48X
'"48X-'.16W 16I
'16W'8X 16Z 16Z B E,.
20PS 20PS 20PS 180o TYPE TOTAL
¹¹W...(NUMBER OP WABA RODLETS) ....... . .... 416
¹¹Z...(NUMBER OF ZPBA RODS).................. 896
¹¹PS..(NUMBER OF PLUX SUPPRESSZON RODLETS)... 240
L-95-160 Attachment 4
~
Page 5 of 49 FIGURE 3 TURKEY POINT UNIT 3~ CYCLE 14 CONTROL AND SHUTDOWN ROD LOCATZONS 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 I I
, lg SA ,
.'.
A'...'N SA
',~
I"'B 0
D ":.'".. -" SB D'. D C
- ,,'B ';-
180o BANK NUMBER OF BANK NUMBER OF IDENTZFIER LOCATIONS IDENTIFIER LOCATIONS A 8 SA 8 B 8 SB 8 C 8 D 5
0 L-95-160 Page 6 of 49
- 1. Reactivit Control At all times it is necessary to maintain enough control rod worth out of the core to safely shutdown the reactor with a suitable margin allowed for accidents. In order to maintain this required shutdown margin, the RIL is implemented. The amount of reactivity associated with this insertion limit is called the rod insertion allowance. RCCAs which are misaligned inward from their bank demand position will add to the rod insertion allowance. The reactivity of a misaligned bank (Control Bank D) by 30 steps past the insertion limit was calculated to be 130 pcm (Reference 6.1) . The calculation was performed at 90% of RTP at End of Life (EOL) with the D-bank positioned at 151 steps, which corresponds to the RIL at 90-'o of RTP and 121 steps. This calculation was performed at EOL since it represents the point in the cycle with the least available excess shutdown margin. The approach is conservative since the calculation assumed the entire bank (5 RCCAs) was misaligned. The 130 pcm is substantially less than the excess shutdown margin available for past cycles in both units (see Table 1.1 and Table 1.2 for Unit 3 and Unit 4, respectively obtained from Reference 6.1) . Therefore, it can be concluded from Tables 1.1 and 1.2 that reactivity control is not significantly impacted by rod misalignment.
L-95-160 Page 7 of 49 TABLE 1.1 Unit 3 Excess Shutdown Mar in Cycle Parameter 10 12 14 Net Rod 5890* 5850* 6000 5860 5930 Worth Less Uncertainty (pcm)
Total 3440 3390 3350 3180 3360 Requirements (pcm)
Required 1770 1770 1770 1770 1770 Shutdown Margin (pcm)
Excess 680 690 880 910 800 Shutdown Margin (pcm)
- Based on 10% rod worth uncertainty rather than 7% currently used.
L-95-160 Page 8 of 49 TABLE 1 . 2 Unit 4 Excess Shutdown Mar in Cycle Parameter 12 13 14 15 Net Rod 5770* 6070* 5610 6250 5710 Worth Less Uncertainty (pcm)
Total 3620 3220 3150 3210 3340 Requirements (pcm)
Required 1770 1770 1770 1770 1770 Shutdown Margin (pcm)
Excess 380 1080 690 1270 600 Shutdown Margin (pcm)
- Based on 10% rod worth uncertainty rather than 7% currently used.
L-95-160 Page 9 of 49
- 2. Control Rod Miso eration The Turkey Point design-bases RCCA misoperation events are categorized as events which could be initiated by the movement or displacement of one RCCA bank or RCCA rod from its normal or allowable RCCA bank position. These events result in reactivity and power distribution anomalies. The events are defined as follows:
- a. Dropped RCCAs
- 1. Single and double rod dropped
- 2. An entire dropped bank
- b. Statically misaligned RCCA
- 1. One rod fully inserted while D-bank is fully withdrawn.
- 2. D-bank at the RIL and one rod fully withdrawn.
- 3. D-bank at the RIL and one rod fully inserted.
Dro ed Rods A dropped RCCA or assembly bank are detected by the following:
- a. Sudden drop in the core power level as seen by the Excore Nuclear Instrumentation System
- b. Asymmetric power distribution as seen by the Excore Nuclear Instrumentation System
- c. Rod bottom light(s)
- d. Rod deviation alarm
- e. Rod position indication Each reload is analyzed for dropped rod and dropped bank events to ensure that the Departure from Nucleate Boiling (DNB) acceptance criteria are met. The impact due to the power distribution is minimal since the additional misalignment of six steps (18 steps less the 12 steps) is allowed only below 90% of RTP where there is sufficient margin to the Fq and FhH limit. Power distribution calculations were performed and are detailed in Section 4.
L-95-160 Page 10 of 49 Because Turkey Point has disconnected and removed all circuity associated with automatic rod withdrawal, the possibility of an automatic rod withdrawal as a result of a dropped RCCA has been eliminated.
Staticall Misali ned A statically misaligned RCCA is detected by the following:
- a. Asymmetric power distribution alarm as seen by the Excore Nuclear Instrumentation System
- b. Rod deviation alarm
- c. Rod position indication In the case of a statically misaligned RCCA, an analysis is performed each reload to show that the Departure from Nucleate Boiling Ratio (DNBR) does not fall below the limiting value. The most severe misalignments with respect to DNBR are the cases where one RCCA is fully inserted with control bank D to the RIL or the ARO position, or where control bank D is inserted to the RIL with one RCCA fully withdrawn. Multiple independent alarms are available which alert the operators well before the postulated condition is approached. Therefore, the additional misalignment of six steps (18 steps less the 12 steps) below 90% of RTP is well within the current analysis and thus remains bounded.
- 3. Rod E 'ection The design-basis Rod Ejection event is defined by an assumed failure of a control rod mechanism pressure housing such that the reactor coolant system would eject the control rod and drive shaft to the fully withdrawn position. The consequences of this mechanical failure is a rapid positive reactivity insertion together with an adverse core power distribution, possibly leading to localized fuel rod damage.
The analysis is performed at Hot Zero Power (HZP) and Hot Full Power (HFP), Begining of Life (BOL) and EOL physics parameters of interest are the ejected rod worth conditions'he and the post-ejection Fq. The calculation is performed with the control rods at the RIL for HZP and HFP conditions.
A control rod which is misaligned from its bank at the RIL can slightly, increase the available ejected rod worth. With the control rods positioned at the RIL corresponding to HZP, control bank D is fully inserted, however, control bank C is
e L-95-160 Attachment Page 11 of 4
49 only partially inserted. Calculations were performed at BOL and EOL HZP conditions (Reference 6.1) which indicate that the ejected rod worth of the control bank D rods (except center RCCA) from the fully inserted position was always higher than that of the control bank C rods at six steps (18 steps less than 12 steps) below the RIL. In comparison with the worth of the center bank D RCCA, the additional ejected rod worth of the bank C rods is calculated to be approximately 31 pcm. This calculation is conservative since the entire control bank C was positioned six steps below the rod insertion limit which increases the ejected rod worth of the ejected control bank C rods.
At HFP the on 1 y contro l bank inserted is contro 1 bank D .
g Calculations were performed (Reference 6.1) which indicate that positioning the bank six steps below the RIL will insignificantly increase the ejected rod worth. This calculation is conservative since the entire control bank D is positioned six steps below the RIL which increases the ejected rod worth.
The ejected Fq is insensitive to the initial position of the rod being ejected and slightly sensitive to the position of the other rods in the core at the time of the rod ejection.
If the entire bank is misaligned six steps below the RIL, the ejected Fq for any of these rods will be slightly higher (less than 2% increase at HFP) . However, calculations (Reference 6.1) showed that even with this conservative assumption, the ejected Fq was below that assumed in the Safety Analysis and consequently, the average fuel pellet enthalpy and centerline temperature remained below their limits ~
Power 0 eration with Misali ned Rod Operation with an RCCA significantly misaligned from its bank demand position would normally be detected and promptly realigned. In the unlikely event that operation with a control rod misalignment of greater than 24 steps (12 steps per the Technical Specifications and 12 steps for the ARPI uncertainty) would occur, the impact on the power distribution would be a concern. The increase in peaking factors due to a single RCCA may be small but misalignment of one group of RCCAs may contribute to increases in peaking factors. Power distributions with control rod misalignment of 30 steps (18 steps misalignment + 12 steps for the ARPI uncertainty) were therefore evaluated in detail.
L-95-160 Page 12 of 49 Neutronic analyses were performed to evaluate the impact of RCCA misalignment on steady state power distribution and normal operational transients such as load follow operations. Calculations were performed for both inward and outward misalignments from the demand counter position.
Current Technical Specifications require that the reactor operation be restricted to the Relaxed Axial Offset Control (RAOC) AFD band limit specified in the Core Operating Limits Report (typically +7/-10 at 100% of RTP and +25/-30 at 50%
of RTP for Turkey Point) . Operation within these limits ensures that the power distributions will meet the limit on heat flux hot channel factor. The Technical Specifications on quadrant power tilt ratio ensures that the radial power distribution does not deviate substantially from the measured steady state power distribution between flux maps.
Therefore, limits on axial offset and quadrant power tilt ratio are vital to maintaining satisfactory power distribution and ensures that most of the RCCA misalignments are detected and corrected in a timely manner.
The change in peaking factors due to operation at lower power levels without RCCA misalignment was investigated. As seen in Table 4.1 through 4.3, peaking factors Fq and FdH do not change substantially with power level, provided that the Axial Flux Difference (AFD) is maintained approximately constant. On the other hand, the limits change significantly according to the equations provided in the Technical Specifications. Specifically, at 90% of RTP, the Fq limit increases by 11.1% while the FhH limit increases by 3.0%.
This increase in the limit can be used to accommodate the increase in rod misalignment of 30 steps (18 step indicated
+ 12 steps ARPI uncertainty) . Multiple RCCA misalignment was addressed by analyzing misalignments of RCCA groups in the control banks (e.g., Groups 1 and 2 in Control Bank D).
Group misalignment was considered since it is more realistic to assume that the RCCAs in one group mis-step rather than multiple RCCAs from different groups would mis-step. Also, single RCCA misalignments were performed. Tables 4.4 through 4.15 present the results of the comparison in peaking factors assuming an initial Control Bank D position at the RIL corresponding to 90% of RTP. A comparison was made between the 30 step case (18 step misalignment + 12 step ARPI uncertainty) and the allowed 24 step case (12 step misalignment + 12 step ARPI uncertainty) and their differences with the Base case (control bank D at the RIL) .
The results indicate that the incremental increase in Fq and FbH due to the additional misalignment of six steps is 0.78%
L-95-160 Page 13 of 49 and 0.53%, respectively. The maximum increases from the base case are 4.46% 'and 2.42% for Fq and FhH, respectively.
Sensitivity runs were also performed for similar RCCA misalignments from 200 steps rather than from the RIL. This is considered the most realistic approach since the plant normally operates significantly above the RIL. Tables 4.16 through 4.27 present the results. The results show that the incremental increase from the additional six steps misalignment is 1.08% and 0.27% for Fq and FhH, respectively. The maximum difference between the misalignment cases and the base case (i.e., all RCCAs at 200 steps) is 7.33% and 2.57% for Fq and FBHg respectively.
The effect of load-follow maneuvers and misalignment on peaking factors was also investigated with a variety of axial power distributions which can be obtained by skewing the EOL xenon distribution to the bottom and top of the core. An option in the ANC code was used to get the skewed xenon distribution. The results of the analyses are presented in Tables 4.28 through 4.35. The results indicate that the incremental increase in Fq and FbH due to the additional misalignment of six steps is 2.05% and 0.65%,
respectively. The maximum increase from the base case is 6.51% and 2.58% for Fq and FbH, respectively. The available margin from 100% of RTP at 90% of RTP is 11.1% and 3.0% for Fq and FbH, respectively. The available margin at 90% of RTP can be used to accommodate the increase in peaking factors presented in the previous analyses. Therefore, it can be concluded that an 18 step misalignment up to 90% of RTP is acceptable.
L-95-160 Page 14 of 49 TABLE 4. 1 BOL Control Bank D Inserted to Hold Constant AFD Description Fq* Fq Margin FM Margin Limit (~) Limit (>)
100% of RTP 2.001 2.320 15.96 1.515 1.620 6.91 90% of RTP 2. 025 2.578 27.32 1.514 1.669 10.19 80% of RTP 2.047 2.900 41.65 1.514 1.717 13.40 70% of RTP 2. 070 3.314 60.11 1.514 1.766 16.61 60% of RTP 2.094 3.867 84.67 1.514 1.814 19.82 50% o f RTP 2. 122 4. 640 118. 67 1.516 1.863 22.86 Predicted Fq is multiplied by 1.05 and 1.03 for measurement and engineering uncertainties.
Predicted FbH is multiplied by 1.04 for measurement uncertainty.
L-95-160 Page 15 of 49 TABLE 4.2 MOL Control Bank D Inserted to Hold Constant AFD Description Fq* Fq Margin FM Margin Limit () Limit (>)
100% of RTP 1.894 2.320 22.51 1.518 1.620 6.69 90% of RTP 1.885 2.578 36.75 1.529 1.669 9.14 80% of RTP 1.898 2.900 52.79 1.539 1.717 11.56 70% of RTP 1.914 3.314 73.14 1.550 1.766 13.95 60% of RTP 1.935 3.867 99.85 1.562 1.814 16.15 50-: of RTP 1.960 4.640 136.77 1.571 1 ~ 863 18.55 Predicted Fq is multiplied by 1.05 and 1.03 for measurement and engineering uncertainties.
Predicted FbH is multiplied by 1.04 for measurement uncertainty.
t L-95-160 Attachment Page 16 of 4
49 TABLE 4.3 EOL Control Bank D Inserted to Hold Constant AFD Description Fq* Fq Margin FM Margin Limit (~) Limit (>)
100% of RTP 1.897 2 '20 22.30 1.534 1.620 5.61 90% of RTP 1.862 2.578 38.42 1.534 1.669 8.77 80% of RTP 1.853 2.900 56.54 1.548 1 717 10.96 70% of RTP 1.846 3.314 79.53 1.563 1.766 12. 97 60% of RTP 1.841 3 '67 110.06 1.582 1.814 14.70 50% o f RTP 1.913 4.640 142 '3 1.612 1.863 15.57 Predicted Fq is multiplied by 1.05 and 1.03 for measurement and engineering uncertainties.
Predicted FhH is multiplied by 1.04 for measurement uncertainty.
L-95-160 Page 17 of 49 TABLE 4.4 BOL Control Bank D at RIL 90% of RTP Inward Misali nment Description Misalignment Misalignment Percent by 18 Steps by 12 Steps Difference Fq Fq 1.857 1.857 0.00 Base (Bank D at RIL, 1.945 1.945 0.00 151 steps)
Misalignment of H-8 1.948 1.948 0.00 Misalignment of H-4 1.974 1.969 0.25 Misalignment of 1.961 1.959 0.10 Group 1 Misalignment of 1.970 1.967 0.15 Group 2 Maximum Increase 1.49 1.23 N/A From Base Case (0)
Maximum Percent Increase 0.25 Note: Control Bank D Locations Group 1: Rods D8g M8 Group 2: Rods H4, H8 and H12
L-95-160 Page 18 of 49 TABLE 4.5 BOL Control Bank D at RIL 90% of RTP Outward Misali nment Description Misalignment Misalignment Percent by 18 Steps by 12 Steps Difference Fq Fq ARO 1. 857 1. 857 0.00 Base (Bank D at RIL, 1. 945 1. 945 0 F 00 151 steps)
Misalignment of H-8 1.940 1. 942 -0.10 Misalignment of H-4 1.947 1. 947 0.00 Misalignment of 1.918 1.925 -0.36 Group 1 Misalignment of 1.919 1. 923 -0.21 Group 2 Maximum Increase 0.10 0.10 N/A From Base Case (0)
Maximum Percent Increase 0.00
L-95-160 Page 19 of 49 TABLE 4.6 MOL Control Bank D at RIL 90% of RTP Inward Misali nment Description Misalignment Misalignment Percent by 18 Steps by 12 Steps Difference Fq Fq ARO 1.701 1.701 0.00 Base (Bank D at RIL, 1.944 1.944 0.00 151 steps)
Misalignment of H-8 1.962 1.958 0.20 Misalignment of H-4 1. 977 1.971 0.30 Misalignment of 1.999 1.991 0.40 Group 1 Misalignment of 2. 019 2.008 0.55 Group 2 Maximum Increase 3.86 3.29 N/A From Base Case (5')
Maximum Percent Increase 0.55
L-95-160 Page 20 of 49 TABLE 4.7 MOL Control Bank D at RZL 90% of RTP Outward Misali nment Description Misalignment Misalignment Percent.
by 18 Steps by 12 Steps Difference Fq Fq 1.701 1 '01 0.00 Base (Bank D at RIL, 1.944 1.944 0.00 151 steps)
Misalignment of H-8 1.915 1.921 -0.31 Misalignment of H-4 1.909 1.917 -0.42 Misalignment of 1.867 1.885 -0.95 Group 1 Misalignment of 1.841 1.864 1 ~ 23 Group 2 Maximum Increase 0.00 0.00 N/A From Base Case (0)
Maximum Percent Increase 0.00
L-95-160 Page 21 of 49 TABLE 4.8 EOL Control Bank D at RIL 90% of RTP Inward Misali nment Description Misalignment Misalignment Percent by 18 Steps by 12 Steps Difference Fq Fq ARO 1 '02 1.702 0.00 Base (Bank D at RIL, 1.973 1.973 0.00 151 steps)
Misalignment of H-8 1.995 1.992 0.15 Misalignment of H-4 2.007 2.000 0.35 Misalignment of 2.036 2.026 0.49 Group 1 Misalignment of 2 '61 2 '45 0.78 Group 2 Maximum Increase 4.46 3.65 N/A From Base Case (0)
Maximum Percent Increase 0.78
L-95-160 Page 22 of 49 TABLE 4.9 EOL Control Bank D at RXL 90% of RTP Outward Misali nment Description Misalignment Misalignment Percent by 18 Steps by 12 Steps Difference Fq Fq ARO 1.702 1.702 0.00 Base (Bank D at RIL, 1.973 1.973 0.00 151 steps)
Misalignment of H-8 1.940 1.947 -0.36 Misalignment of H-4 1.927 1 '39 -0.62 Misalignment of 1.881 1.903 -1. 16 Group 1 Misalignment of 1.849 1 '78 -1.54 Group 2 Maximum Increase 0.00 0.00 N/A From Base Case (0)
Maximum Percent Increase 0.00
L-95-160 Page 23 of 49 TABLE 4.10 BOL Control Bank D at RXL 90% of RTP Inward Misali nment Description Misalignment Misalignment Percent by 18 Steps by 12 Steps Difference Fbi FBH ARO 1.457 1.457 0.00 Base (Bank D at RIL, 1 '51 1. 451 0 F 00 151 steps)
Misalignment of H-8 1 '54 1.453 0.07 Misalignment of H-4 1.472 1.469 0.20 Misalignment of 1.464 1.461 0.21 Group 1 Misalignment of 1.467 1.464 0.20 Group 2 Maximum Increase 1.45 1.24 N/A From Base Case (0)
Maximum Percent Increase
L-95-160 Page 24 of 49 TABLE 4.11 BOL Control Bank D at RIL 90% of RTP Outward Misali nment Description Misalignment Misalignment Percent by 18 Steps by 12 Steps Difference FM ARO 1.457 1.457 0.00 Base (Bank D at RIL, 1.451 1.451 0.00 151 steps)
Misalignment of H-8 1. 467 1. 462 0.34 Misalignment of H-4 1. 473 1.468 0.34 Misalignment of 1.452 1.452 0.00 Group 1 Misalignment of 1. 461 1.457 0.27 Group 2 Maximum Increase 1.52 1.17 N/A From Base Case (%)
Maximum Percent Increase 0.34
L-95-160 Page 25 of 49 TABLE 4.12 MOL Control Bank D at RIL 90% of RTP Inward Misali nment Description Misalignment Misalignment Percent by 18 Steps by 12 Steps Difference FhH FBH 1.466 1.466 0.00 Base (Bank D at RIL, 1.490 1.490 0.00 151 steps)
Misalignment of H-8 1.496 1. 495 0.07 Misalignment of H-4 1.509 1.506 0.20 Misalignment of 1.510 1.507 0.20 Group 1 Misalignment of 1.516 1.511 0.33 Group 2 Maximum Increase 1.74 1.41 N/A From Base Case (0)
Maximum Percent Increase 0.33
e L-95-160 Attachment Page 26 of 4
49 TABLE 4.13 MOL Control Bank D at RIL 90% of RTP Outward Misali nment Description Misalignment Misalignment Percent by 18 Steps by 12 Steps Difference FAH FBH ARO 1.466 1.466 0.00 Base (Bank D at RIL, 1.490 1.490 0.00 151 steps)
Misalignment of H-8 1.485 1.486 -0.07 Misalignment of H-4 1.526 1.518 0.53.
Misalignment of 1.506 1.502 0.27 Group 1 Misalignment of 1.500 1.498 0.13 Group 2 Maximum Increase 2. 42 F 88 N/A From Base Case (%)
Maximum Percent Increase 0.53
L-95-160 Page 27 of 49 TABLE 4.14 EOL Control Bank D at RIL 90% of RTP Inward Misali nment Description Misalignment Misalignment Percent by 18 Steps by 12 Steps Difference FAH FAH 1.481 1.481 0.00 Base (Bank D at RIL, 1. 495 1.495 0.00 151 steps)
Misalignment of H-8 1.500 1.499 0.07 Misalignment of H-4 1.511 1.509 0.13 Misalignment of 1.513 1.510 0.20 Group 1 Misalignment of 1.517 1.514 0.20 Group 2 Maximum Increase 1.47 1.27 N/A From Base Case (0)
Maximum Percent Increase 0.20
L-95-160 Page 28 of 49 TABLE 4.15 EOL Control Bank D at RIL 90% of RTP Outward Misali nment Description Misalignment Misalignment Percent by 18 Steps by 12 Steps Difference Fbi FAH 1.481 1.481 0 F 00 Base (Bank D at RIL, 1. 495 1. 495 0.00 151 steps)
Misalignment of H-8 1. 490 1.491 -0 '7 Misalignment of H-4 1.527 1.519 0.53 Misalignment of 1.509 1.506 0.20 Group 1 Misalignment of 1.504 1.501 0.20 Group 2 Maximum Increase 2.14 1.61 N/A From Base Case (0)
Maximum Percent Increase 0.53
e L-95-160 Attachment Page 29 of 4
49 TABLE 4.16 BOL Control Bank D at 200 Ste s 90% of'TP Inward Misali nment Description Misalignment Misalignment Percent-by 18 Steps by 12 Steps Difference Fq Fg ARO 1.857 1.857 0.00 Base (Bank D at 200 1.875 1.875 0 F 00 steps)
Misalignment of H-8 1.873 1.874 -0.05 Misalignment of H-4 1.887 1.885 0.11 Misalignment of 1.893 1.889 0.21 Group 1 Misalignment of 1. 897 1. 892 0.26 Group 2 Maximum Increase 1.17 0.91 N/A From Base Case (0)
Maximum Percent Increase 0.26 Note: Control Bank D Locations Group 1:
Group 2:
L-95-160 Page 30 of 49 TABLE 4.17 BOL Control Bank D at 200 Ste s 90% of RTP Outward Misali nment Description Misalignment Misalignment Percent by 18 Steps by 12 Steps Difference Fq Fq 1.857 1. 857 0.00 Base (Bank D at 200 1.875 1. 875 0 00 F
steps)
Misalignment of H-8 1.874 1.874 0.00 Misalignment of H-4 1.873 1.873 0.00 Misalignment of 1 '67 1.868 -0.05 Group 1 Misalignment of 1. 865 1.867 -0.11 Group 2 Maximum Increase 0.00 0.00 N/A From Base Case (0)
Maximum Percent Increase 0.00
L-95-160 Page 31 of 49 TABLE 4.18 MOL Control Bank D at 200 Ste s 90% of RTP Inward Misali nment Description Misalignment Misalignment Percent by 18 Steps by 12 Steps Difference Fq Fq ARO 1.701 1.701 0.00 Base (Bank D at 200 1.759 1.759 0.00 steps)
Misalignment of H-8 1.786 1.782 0.22 Misalignment of H-4 1.798 1.791 0.39 Misalignment of 1.835 1.822 0.71 Group 1 Misalignment of 1. 863 1.845 0.98 Group 2 Maximum Increase 5.91 4.89 N/A From Base Case (0)
Maximum Percent Increase 0.98
L-95-160 Page 32 of 49 TABLE 4.19 MOL Control Bank D at 200 Ste s 90% of RTP Outward Misali nment Description Misalignment Misalignment Percent by 18 Steps by 12 Steps Difference Fq Fq 1.701 1.701 0.00 Base (Bank D at 200 1.759 1 '59 0.00 steps)
Misalignment of H-8 1.745 1.746 -0.06 Misalignment of H-4 1.740 1.742 -0.11 Misalignment of 1 '19 1.721 -0.12 Group 1 Misalignment of 1.704 1.708 -0.23 Group 2 Maximum Increase 0.00 0.00 N/A From Base Case (0)
Maximum Percent Increase 0.00
L-95-160 Page 33 of 49 TABLE 4.20 EOL Contxol Bank D 200 Ste s 90% of RTP Inward Misali nment Description Misalignment Misalignment Percent by 18 Steps by 12 Steps Difference Fq Fq 1.702 1.702 0.00 Base (Bank D at 200 1.747 1.747 0.00 steps)
Misalignment of H-8 1.780 1.775 0.28 Misalignment of H-4 1.794 1.787 0.39 Misalignment of 1.841 1.826 0.82 Group 1 Misalignment of 1.875 1. 855 1.08 Group 2 Maximum Increase 7.33 6.18 N/A From Base Case (0)
Maximum Percent Increase 1.08
L-95-160 Page 34 of 49 TABLE 4.21 EOL Control Bank D at 200 Ste s 90% of RTP Outward Misali nment Description Misalignment Misalignment Percent by 18 Steps by 12 Steps Difference Fq Fq 1.702 1.702 0.00 Base (Bank D at 200 1.747 1.747 0.00 steps)
Misalignment of H-8 1.724 1. 725 -0.06 Misalignment of H-4 1.722 1.717 0.29 Misalignment of 1.725 1.716 0.52 Group 1 Misalignment of 1.741 1.731 0.58 Group 2 Maximum Increase 0.00 0.00 N/A From Base Case (0)
Maximum Percent Increase 0.58
L-95-160 Page 35 of 49 TABLE 4.22 BOL Control Bank D at 200 Ste s 90% of RTP Inward Misali nment Description Misalignment Misalignment Percent by 18 Steps by 12 Steps Difference FM FhH ARO 1.457 1.457 0.00 Base (Bank D at 200 1.454 1 ~ 454 0.00 steps)
Misalignment of H-8 1.432 1.435 -0. 21 Misalignment of H-4 1.465 1.463 Misalignment of 1. 463 1. 461 Group 1 Misalignment of 1.442 1.442 0.00 Group 2 Maximum Increase 0.76 0.62 N/A From Base Case (0)
Maximum Percent Increase
L-95-160 Attachment '4 Page 36 of 49 TABLE 4.23 BOL Control Bank D at 200 Ste s 90% of RTP Outward Misali nment Description Misalignment Misalignment Percent
, by 18 Steps by 12 Steps Difference FM Fha 1.457 1.457 0.00 Base (Bank D at 200 1. 454 1.454 0.00 steps)
Misalignment of H-S 1. 465 1.464 0.07 Misalignment of H-4 1.456 1.456 0.00 Misalignment of 1.451 1.451 0.00 Group 1 Misalignment of 1. 462 1. 462 0.00 Group 2 Maximum Increase 0.76 0.69 N/A From Base Case (0)
Maximum Percent Increase 0.07
Z,-95-160 Page 37 of 49 TABLE 4.24 MOL Control Bank D at 200 Ste s 90% of RTP Inward Misali nment Description Misalignment Misalignment Percent by 18 Steps by 12 Steps Difference FM FBH 1.466 1.466 0.00 Base (Bank D at 200 1.473 1.473 0.00 steps)
Misalignment of H-8 1. 478 1.477 0.07 Misalignment of H-4 1. 492 1.489 0.20 Misalignment of 1.493 1.489 0.27 Group 1 Misalignment of 1.498 1. 494 0.27 Group 2 Maximum Increase 1.70 1.43 N/A From Base Case (0)
Maximum Percent Increase 0.27
L-95-160 Page 38 of 49 TABLE 4.25 MOL Control Bank D at 200 Ste s 90% of RTP Outward Misali nment.
Description Misalignment Misalignment Percent by 18 Steps by 12 Steps Difference FM Fbi ARO 1.466 1.466 0.00 Base (Bank D at 200 1.473 1.473 0.00 steps)
Misalignment of H-8 1.470 1.469 0.07 Misalignment of H-4 1.490 1.489 0.07 Misalignment of 1.479 1.479 0.00 Group 1 Misalignment of 1.476 1.476 0.00 Group 2 Maximum Increase 1.15 N/A From Base Case (0)
Maximum Percent Increase 0.07
L-95-160 Page 39 of 49 TABLE 4. 26 EOL Control Bank D at 200 Ste s 90% of RTP Inward Misali nment Description Misalignment Misalignment Percent by 18 Steps by 12 Steps Difference FBH FM 1.481 1.481 0.00 Base (Bank D at 200 1.477 1.477 0.00 steps)
Misalignment of H-8 1.483 1.483 0.00 Misalignment of H-4 1.498 1.494 0.27 Misalignment of 1.499 1. 495 0.27 Group 1 Misalignment of 1.504 1.500 0.27 Group 2 Maximum Increase 1.83 1.56 N/A From Base Case (0)
Maximum Percent Increase 0.27
L-95-160 Page 40 of 49 TABLE 4.27 EOL Control Bank D at 200 Ste s 90% of RTP Outward Misali nment Description Misalignment Misalignment Percent by 18 Steps by 12 Steps Difference Fbi FAH ARO 1.481 1.481 0.00 Base (Bank D at 200 1.477 1.477 0.00 steps)
Misalignment of H-8 1.474 1.474 0.00 Misalignment of H-4 1.515 1 ~ 512 0.20 Misalignment of 1.503 1.500 0.20 Group 1 Misalignment of 1.499 1.496 0 '0 Group 2 Maximum Increase 2.57 2.37 N/A From Base Case (0)
Maximum Percent Increase 0.20
L-95-160 Page 41 of 49 TABLE 4.28 EOL Control Bank D at RIL 90% of RTP Inward Misali nment Positive AFD A roximatel +12%
Description Misalignment Misalignment Percent by 18 Steps by 12 Steps Difference Fq Fq 1.702 1.702 0.00 Base (Bank D at RIL, 1. 967 1. 967 0.00 151 steps)
Misalignment of H-8 1. 976 1. 975 0.05 Misalignment of H-4 1. 981 1.979 0.10 Misalignment of 1.985 1.983 0.10 Group 1 Misalignment of 1.992 1.985 0.35 Group 2 Maximum Increase 1.27 0.92 N/A From Base Case (%)
Maximum Percent Increase 0.35
L-95-160 Page 42 of 49 TABLE 4.29 EOL Control Bank D at RIL 90% of RTP Outward Misali nment Positive AFD A roximatel +12%
Description Misalignment Misalignment Percent by 18 Steps by 12 Steps Difference Fq Fq 1.702 1.702 0.00 Base (Bank D at RIL, 1.967 1.967 0.00 151 steps)
Misalignment of H-8 1.980 1.976 0 '0 Misalignment of H-4 2. 093 2.053 1.95 Misalignment of 2.085 2.047 1.86 Group 1 Misalignment of 2. 095 2.053 2. 05 Group 2 Maximum Increase 6.51 4.37 N/A From Base Case (0)
Maximum Percent Increase 2.05
L-95-160 Page 43 of 49 TABLE 4.30 EOL Control Bank D at RIL 90% of RTP Inward Misali nment Ne ative AFD A roximatel -13%
Description Misalignment Misalignment Percent by 18 Steps by 12 Steps Difference Fq Fq ARO 1.702 1.702 0.00 Base (Bank D at RIL, 2.074 2.074 0.00 151 steps)
Misalignment of H-8 2.099 2.094 0.24 Misalignment of H-4 2.113 2.106 0.33 Misalignment of 2.143 2.133 0.47 Group 1 Misalignment of 2.167 2.152 0.70 Group 2 Maximum Increase 4.48 3.76 N/A From Base Case (0)
Maximum Percent Increase 0.70
L-95-160 Page 44 of 49 TABLE 4.31 EOL Control Bank D at RIL 90% of'TP Outward Misali nment Ne ative AFD A roximatel -13%
Description Misalignment Misalignment Percent by 18 Steps by 12 Steps Difference Fq Fq ARO 1. 702 1.702 0.00 Base (Bank D at RIL, 2. 074 2. 074 0.00 151 steps)
Misalignment of H-8 2.043 2. 051 -0.39 Misalignment of H-4 2.033 2.043 -0.49 Misalignment of 1.987 2.008 -1.05 Group 1 Misalignment of 1.955 1.984 -1.46 Group 2 Maximum Increase 0.00 0.00 N/A From Base Case (%)
Maximum Percent Increase 0.00
L-95-160 Page 45 of 49 TABLE 4.32 EOL Control Bank D at RIL .90% of RTP Inward Misali nment Positive AFD A roximatel +12%
Description Misalignment Misalignment Percent by 18 Steps by 12 Steps Difference FM FBH 1 '81 1.481 0.00 Base (Bank D at RIL, 1.509 1.509 0.00 151 steps)
Misalignment of H-8 1.515 1.514 0.07 Misalignment of H-4 1.526 1.524 0.13 Misalignment of 1.529 1.527 0.13 Group 1 Misalignment of 1.536 1.531 0.33 Group 2 Maximum Increase 1.79 1.46 N/A From Base Case (0)
Maximum Percent Increase 0.33
L-95-160 Page 46 of 49 TABLE 4.33 EOL Control Bank D at RIL 90% of RTP Outward Misali nment Positive AFD A roximatel +12%
Description Mi,salignment Misalignment Percent by 18 Steps by 12 Steps Difference FBH FBH ARO 1.481 1.481 0.00 Base (Bank D at RIL, 1.509 1.509 0.00 151 steps)
Misalignment of H-8 1.503 1.504 -0.07 Misalignment of H-4 1.548 1.538 0.65 Misalignment of 1.526 1.521 0.33 Group 1 Misalignment of 1.519 1.516 0.20 Group 2 Maximum Increase 2.58 1.92 N/A From Base Case (0)
Maximum Percent Increase 0.65
e L-95-160 Attachment Page 47 of 4
49 TABLE 4.34 EOL Control Bank D at RIL 90% of RTP Inward Misali nment Ne ative AFD A roximatel -13%
Description Misalignment Misalignment Percent by 18 Steps by 12 Steps Difference FLOE FBH ARO 1.481 1.481 0.00 Base (Bank D at RIL, 1.496 1.496 0.00 151 steps)
Misalignment of H-8 1.501 1.500 0.07 Misalignment of H-4 1.512 1.509 0.20 Misalignment of 1.514 1.511 0.20 Group 1 Misalignment of 1.518 1.515 0.20 Group 2 Maximum Increase 1.47 1.27 N/A From Base Case (0)
Maximum Percent Increase 0.20
L-95-160 Attachment 4 Page 48 of 49 TABLE 4.35 EOL Control Bank D at RZL 90% of RTP Outward Misali nment Ne ative AFD A roximatel -13%
Description Misalignment Misalignment Percent by 18 Steps by 12 Steps Difference FLOE FhH ARO 1.481 1.481 0.00 Base (Bank D at RIL, 1.496 1.496 0.00 151 steps)
Misalignment of H-8 1.492 1.493 -0.07 Misalignment of H-4 1.527 1.519 0.53 0 Misalignment of Group 1 Misalignment of 1.510 1.504 1.506 1.502 0.27 0.13 Group 2 Maximum Increase 2.07 1.54 N/A From Base Case (0)
Maximum Percent Increase 0.53
L-95-160 Page 49 of 49
- 5. Conclusions RCCA misalignments up to 30 steps (18 steps indicated + 12 steps ARPI uncertainty) were evaluated for impact on peaking factors and reactivity worth. A review of the results of the transient analyses showed that adequate conservatism exists in the analyses to offset the penalties associated with an increased rod misalignment.
Power distributions were evaluated under steady state and load follow conditions with a rod misalignment of 30 steps (18 step indicated + 12 steps ARPI uncertainty) showing that the increase in peaking factors could be accommodated at or below 90% of RTP.
Typical plant operation is with control rods essentially fully withdrawn. Continuous plant monitoring of power tilts and AFD coupled with the fact that actual control rod misalignments are rare, make the results of the analyses presented here conservative. An actual control rod misalignment would be promptly realigned upon verification of its position.
- 6. References 6.1 JPN Calculation PTN-BFJF-95-001, "Physics Parameters to Support Rod Misalignment T/S Change from 12 to 18 Steps," Rev. 0, Approved Ol/20/95 6.2 Liu, Y. S. et al., "ANC: A Westinghouse Advanced Nodal Computer Code," WCAP-10965-P-A, September 1986 6.3 Nguyen, T. Q., et al, "Qualification of the PHOENIX-P/ANC Nuclear Design Systems for Pressurized Water Reactor Cores," WCAP-11596-P-A, June 1988
APPENDIX APPLICABILITY OF ANC TO TURKEY POINT UNIT 3 CYCLE 14
L-95-1t 0 Appendix Page 1 of 7 APPLICABILITY OF ANC TO TURKEY POINT UNIT 3 CYCLE 14 The results of the Unit 3 Cycle 14 core design using the Westinghouse code system PHOENIX-P/ANC and methodology are compared to measured data. The results from the Zero Power Physics Testing are given in Table 1. Hot Full Power (HFP) critical boron concentration obtained from ANC was compared to measured critical boron and is presented in Figure 1. The comparison of measured and predicted peaking factors is presented in Figures 2 and 3. The Beginning of Life (BOL) and Middle of Life (MOL) radial assembly power distributions are presented in Figures 4 and 5. Review of this data indicate that the ANC model is adequate for power distribution analyses. Additional comparisons between ANC and measured data is available in Topical Report NF-TR-95-01, "Nuclear Physics Methodology for Reload Design of Turkey Point & St. Lucie Nuclear Plants," January 1995.
L-95-160 Appendix Page 2 of 7 HZP MODERATOR TEMPERATURE COEFFICIENT Measured (pcm/F) Predicted (pcm/F) Difference (pcm/F)
+0.793 +0.771 +0.022 HZP ROD WORTH Bank Measured Worth Predicted Percent (pcm) Worth Difference (pcm) (P/M-1)*100 CBD 652 674 3.37 CBC 1192 1295 8. 64 CBB 390 441 13.08 CBA 891 916 2.81 SBB 1130 1192 5.49 SBA 934 1002 7.28 Total 5189 5520 6.38 HZP BORON ENDPOINT MEASUREMENT Condition Measured Predicted Difference (ppm) (ppm) (ppm)
ARO 1665 1653 -12 CBC Inserted 1521 1493 -28
L-Ap Page 3 of 7 0
ix FlG I O.
TURKEY POINT UNIT 3 CYCLE 14 Critical Boron vs. Exposure 1200
~ Measured Data 1000 + FPL E
aQ.C 600 O
8 600 O
C 0
O CQ o 400 C
O 200 6000 8000 Cycle Exposure (EFPH)
L-95-160 FtGURE 5 Appendix page 7 of 7 TURKEY POINT UNIT 3 CYCLE 14 15 14 13 12 10 I I I I I I I I I 0248 0275 0.247 I I I I 0.250 0278 0250 I I I I 4.80% .1.08% -1.20%
I I I I 0.368 0.802 1.117 0.905 1.105 0.775 0.360 I I I I 0.366 0.786 1.106 0.907 1.106 0.787 0.366 I I I 0.55'lo 2.04'Yo 0.99'/o 4.22'/o 4.09a%%d 1.52% -1.64%
I I OA76 1.151 1.345 1.163 1.129 IM7 1.124 0.475 N I I OA79 1.142 1.318 1.146 1.147 1318 1.143 0.479 I I 4.63a/a 0.79% 2.05% 1A8'Ya -157% ~ 1.59% -1.66% 4.84%
I 0.471 1.146 1.125 1.187 1.175 1.080 1.161 1.157 1.110 1.129 0.479 I 0.479 'I.147 1.118 1.168 1.154 1.074 1.151 1.167 1.118 1.147 OA79 I -1.67% 4.09'/o 0.63o/o 1.63% 1.82% 0.56% 0.87'/o %.72% -1.57% 0.00%o 0.356 1.112 1.123 1.177 0.956 1496 0.950 1978 1.132 1.080 1.144 0~
0~ 1.143 1.'118 1.171 0.938 1~ 0.923 1337 1.171
-3.33%
1.118 1.142 0~
-2.73 -2.71'Yo OA5%%d 0.51% 2.14% 2.35% 2.93% 3.07% 4AOa% 0.18 0.00%
0.776 1204 1.172 1.340 1.013 1M1 1.114 1.362 1.003 1.339 1.138 1265 0.754 0.787 1.318 1.167 1.337 1.006 1246 1.105 1844 1.006 1.341 1.168 1918 0.786
-1.40% -1.06% 0.43% 0.22% 0.70% 1.11 %%d 0.81'Yo 1.34o/o 4.30% 4.15a/o .2.57'la <.02% <.07'/o J 0248 0250
%.80%
1.119 1.106 1.18%
1.163 1.147 1.39%
1.156 1.151 0.43%
O.S34 0.923 1.19%
1.342 1344 4.15%
1245 1247
%.16%
1.091 1.096 4.46'/o 1242 1247
%.40a/a 1.353 1.346 0.52%
O.S32 0.936 4.43%
1.145 1.154
%.78'/o 1.100 1.146
<.01%
1.094 1.106
-1.08%
0240 0250
<.00a/a 0276 0.917 1.384 1.096 1.123 1.105 0.843 1.111 1.127 1.377 1.095 1279 0.898 02B3 H 0278 0.907 1.352 1.074 1.105 1.096 0.833 1.096 1.105 1064 1.074 M52 0.907 0278 4.72% 1.'l0% 2.37'Ya 2.05'/a 1.63% 0.82 1.20% 1.37% 1.99% 0.95o/o 1.96'/o 2.00% 1.80%
I~
%%d 0248 1.129 1.171 1.186 0.967 1269 1.117 1278 0.919 1.138 1.110 0246 0-1.134 0.250 1.106 1.146 1.154 0.936 1.346 1247 1.096 1247 0.923 1.151 1.147 1.106 0.250
%.80% 2.08% 2A8% 2.77% 3.31% 3.19% 1.76% 1.92% 2.49% 4.43 -1.13% -1.13 0.36'/o -1.60%
0.802 1~ 1.19S 1385 1.035 1AOO 1.096 1.360 1.017 1.316 1.119 1282 0.777 0.786 1.318 1.168 1WI 1.006 1444 1.105 1246 1.006 1M7 1.167 1418 0.787 2.04'%273 2.05'%.167 2.65'/a 3.26% 2.88 4.17'Yo 4.81% 1.04% 1.09% -1.57% Q.11% -2.73% ~ 127%
1.147 1.209 1.320 0.900 O.S39 1.342 1.150 1.095 1.112 0.361 0~ 1.142 1.118 1.171 1337
-127%
0.923
-2A9%
0.936 1.341 1.171 1.118 1.143 0.366 1.91% 2.19o%%d 2.59% 3.25'/o 0.32% 0.07% ~1 79% 2.06% '2.71 -1.37%
0.484 1.160 1.062 1.042 1.161 1.163 1.116 1.137 0.478 0.479 1.147 1.118 1.167 -10.69'.080 10.71'%.028 1.151 1.074 1.154 1.168 1.118 1.147 0.479 1.04'Yo 1.13% .5.01'Yo ~ 0.56'Ya 0.81% AA3%%d 4.18% %,87a/a 421'Ya 0.485 1.107 1.247 1.089 1.296 1.138 1.334 1.160 OA86 0.479 1.143 1.318 1.147 1~ 1.146 1218 1.'1 42 0.47S 1.25'Yo -3.15% 5.39% -5.06'Yo 4.14% 4.70% 1.21'lo 1.58'la 1.46%
0.368 0.786 1.093 0.869 1.119 0.803 0.377 0~ 0.787 1.106 0.907 1.106 0.786 0~
0.55% 4.13o/o .1.18% <.IFYo 1.18% 2.16'Yo 3.01% INCOR E 0.249 0274 0246 ANC 0.250 02TB 0250 '/o Dill.
%AO'/o -1.44%%d -1.60%
Average Percent Ditference ~ 4.001 Standard Deviation ~ 0.023 BURNUP= 6147 MWGNTU POWER LEVEL = 99.8 o/o 0 Bank at 228 Steps
Z.-9 Appen ix Page 5 of 0
7 FIG TURKEY POINT UNIT 3 CYCLE 14
.
Measured Data Peak Fq vs. Exposure FPL FPL+5O/
FPL 5'I 1.95 1.90
'
1.85 O
'
1.80
'
'
'
1.70 '\
1.65 1.60 1.55 1.50 0 4000 6000 12000 Cyde Exposure (EFPH)
Page 1
L-95-160 FlGURE 4 Appendix page 6 of TURKEY POINT UNIT 3 CYCLE 14 15 14 13 '12 11 10 5 4 I I I I I I I I R I I
I
-I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I 0.230 0.231 4.43'/a 0252 0.253 4.40%
0230 0231 4A3%
I I
I I
I I
P I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
0.332 0~
0.61 0.783 0.764 2.49%
1.122 1.101 1.91%
O.S04 0.901 0.33%
1.106 1.102 0.36%
0,761 0.765 0.332 0.331 0.30%
N I I
I I
OA41 0.446 1.080 1.071 1286 1253 1203 1.175 1.308 1277 1.155 1.175 I 246 1253 1.078 1.071 OA46 0.446 M
I I
I I
I I
OA35 0.446
~ 1.12%
1.097 1.099 O.S4 1.165
'l.157 2.63 1 234 1220 2.38'/o 1232 1203 2.43%
1.119 1.104
-1.70%
I
'.199
~ 456%
1216 1218 0.65%
1.161 1.157 0.00%
1.093 1 099 OA42 0.446 I I -2.4P/a 4.1S% 0. 1.15 2A1% 1.38% 1.75% 4.16 0.35% 4.55% 4.90%
'217 1~ 1~
L I I
I 0.331
<.23o%%d 1.027 1.071 4.11%
1.164 1.157 0.61%
1240 1233 0.57'%~
1.320 0.53%
0.951 0.949 0.21%
'l.323 4.76%
0.967 0.936 3.31%
1.342 1314 2.13 1213 1233
-1.82%
1.139 1.157
-1.56%
1.064 1.071 465%
K I I
I 0.750 0.765
~ 1.96%
1225 1253
-223%
1.219 1418 0.08%
1.314 0.84%
'1.031 1.021 0.98%
1.366 2A0%
1.189 1.162 2.32'/o 285 1.370 1~
%
1.021 1.021 1413 1220 453'/a 1200 1220
-1.64%
1237 1.253
-128%
0.'754 0.764
-1.31%
1962 1230 1~
0230 0231 4A3%
1.118 1.102 1.45'Yo 1.188 1.175 1.11'Ya 1.194 1.19S 4.42%
0.948 0.936 l~
2M 1'257 2.21 1208 1.82%
1957 1.84%
1231 1234 0.929
-2.11'%.1S5 0.949 1203 4.67%
1.159 1.175 1.096 1.101 4A5%
0222 0231 4.90%
t 0.256 0.917 1.119 1.353 1.181 1224 0.925 1217 1.155 1.086 1210 0896 0244 0~ 0.901 1.104 1~ 1.162 1208 0.915 1208 1.162 1.104 1277 0.901 0253 1.19% 1.78% 1.36% 2.27% 1.64% 1.32% '1.09% 0.75% 4.60% -1.63% 2.58% 4.55% -3.56%
0237 1.129 1~ 1228 0;964 M54 1~ 1ZIS '1 272 1235 0.929 1.1S9 1.173 1.098 0225 0 0.231 1.101 1.175 1203 O.S49 1234 1DSl 1208 1232 0.936 1.199 1.175 1.102 0231 0.66% 1'.11% 023 4.75%
2.60a/ 2.54% 2A7% 2.08'Yo 1.58% 1.50% 0.52% 0.00% 4.17% 2 60a/
0.783 12B8 1241 1.333 1.033 1.364 1.147 1.021 IM7 1206 1242 0.757 0.764 1253 1 220 1~ 1.021 1.182 1.021 1414 1218 1.253 0.765 2A9% 2.63'Yo 1.7P/a 0.98 1.18 2A0% -12$ 0. 483% 4.99'Yo 4.88% ~ 1.05 0.338 1.099 1.177 1244 1916 O.S31 I M4 0.942 1.309 1221 1.141 1.058 0.326 E 0.330 1.071 '.157 I 233 1214 0,936 0849 1233 1.157 1.071 OW1 2.4 2.61% 1.73 0. 0.15% 0.08% 4.74% 4.83% 4.97 -1 A% ~ 121% ~ 151%
OA24 1.046 1.113 1.183 1.166 1.093 1.191 1204 1.136 1.082 OA38 0.446 1.099 1.157 1218 1.199 1.104 1~ 1220 1.157 1.099 0.44S 4.93o%%d 4.82% -3.80% .2.87% -2.75%%d -1.00% ~ 1.00'Ya -1 31 -1.82% -1.55% -1.79%%d 0.424 1.034 1219 1.141 1.237 1.159 1228 1.032 0.446 1.071 1253 1.175 1277 1.175 1253 -3.64'%,432 1.071 0.44S 4.93% -3.45% -2.71 -2WYo 4.13% -1.36'/o .2 OQYo 4.14o/o ODI S 0.744 1.072 0.872 1.104 0.744 0.312 0.331 0.765 1.102 0.901 1.101 0.764 0~
4.93% -2.75% -2.72a%%d 0.27'/a -2.62Yo -5.45% INCOR E 0225 0248 0228 ANC A 0231 0253 0231 % Diff.
-2 60% ~ 1.98% -1.30%
Average Percent Dillerence ~ 4.002 Standard Deviation a 0.020 BURNUP-" 300 MWD/MTU POWER LEVEL = 99.9 '/a D Bank at 228 Steps
c,~