Text

Transmittal of DPC-NE-2012-A, Dynamic Rod Worth Measurement Using Casmo/Simulate
	ML073100085
Person / Time
Site:	Mcguire, Catawba, McGuire
Issue date:	11/01/2007
From:	Geer T; Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Power Co
To:	; Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
	DPC-NE-2012A
	Download: ML073100085 (44)
	v • d • e

THOMAS C. GEER Vice President EOWnergyo Nuclear Engineering Duke Energy Corporation 526 South Church St.

Charlotte, NC 28202 Mailing Address:

EC08H / PO Box 1006 Charlotte, NC 28201-1006 November 1, 2007 704 382 4712 704 382 7852 fax tcgeer@duke-energy. com U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 ATTENTION: Document Control Desk

Subject:

Duke Power Company LLC d/b/a Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke)

McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Docket Nos. 50-369, 50-370 Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Docket Nos. 50-413, 50-414 Transmittal of DPC-NE-2012-A, Dynamic Rod Worth Measurement Using CASMO/SIMULATE By letter dated February 15, 2000, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) reviewed DPC-NE-2012, "Dynamic Rod Worth Measurement Using CASMO/SIMULATE". In that letter, the NRC staff found it acceptable for Duke to use the DRWM (Dynamic Rod Worth Measurement) technique for rod worth measurements at the Catawba and McGuire units.

Attached is a copy of the above cited report which includes the February 15, 2000 approval letter.

This correspondence contains no regulatory commitments.

If there are any questions concerning this matter, please contact L. B. Jones at (704) 382-4753.

Sincerely, Thomas C. Geer Attachment

-!!x ADO(

www. duke-energy. corn

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission November 1, 2007 Page 2 xc: (without attachment)

W. D. Travers, Regional Administrator U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center 61 Forsyth St., SW, Suite 23T85 Atlanta, GA 30303-8931 J. F. Stang, Senior Project Manager (CNS & MNS)

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11555 Rockville Pike Mail Stop 0-8 G9A Rockville, MD 20852-2738 J. B. Brady NRC Senior Resident Inspector McGuire Nuclear Station A. T. Sabisch NRC Senior Resident Inspector Catawba Nuclear Station

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission November 1,2007 Page 3 bxc: (without attachment)

R. C. Harvey - EC08G G. G. Pihl - EC08G K. L. Ashe - MG01 RC R. D. Hart-CN01RC NCMPA-1 SREC PMPA NCEMC bxc: (with attachment)

MNS Master File 801.01 - MG01 DM CNS Master File 801.01 - CN04DM ELL

Opp DYNAMIC ROD WORTH MEASUREMENT USING CASMO/SIMULATE DPC-NE-2012A Moft Duke rd'VEnerav.

low mw

U-S S

S S

S DUKE POWER COMPANY CATAWBA AND McGUIRE NUCLEAR STATIONS DYNAMIC ROD WORTH MEASUREMENT USING CASMO/SIMULATE DPC-NE-2012A Scott B. Thomas August 1999 Nuclear Engineering Division Nuclear Generation Department DUKE POWER COMPANY

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 February 15, 2000 Mr. H. B. Barron Mr. G. R. Peterson Vice President, McGuire Site Site Vice President Duke Energy Corporation Catawba Nuclear Station 12700 Hagers Ferry Road Duke Energy Corporation Huntersville, NC 28078-8985 4800 Concord Road York, South Carolina 29745-9635

SUBJECT:

MCGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION AND CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION RE: DYNAMIC ROD WORTH MEASUREMENT USING CASMO/SIMULATE (TAC NOS. MA6303, MA6304, MA6305 AND MA6306)

Gentlemen:

By letter dated August 16, 1999, Duke Energy Corporation (DEC) submitted a request for NRC approval of the Westinghouse-developed Dynamic Rod Worth Measurement Technique (DRWM) using the Duke DRWM computational method that makes use of the CASMO/SIMULATE codes. This request was supplemented by a letter dated October 19, 1999.

The DEC's submittals and the enclosed NRC's safety evaluation apply to both the McGuire and Catawba facilities.

The staff has reviewed the information provided by DEC and finds the request to be acceptable.

Specifically, DEC has demonstrated compliance with the five technology transfer criteria for the NRC's approval for a utility to perform their own physics calculations to support the use of DRWM. If you have any questions regarding this transmittal, please contact Frank Rinaldi at (301) 415-1447 or Chandu Patel at (301) 415-3025.

Sincerely,

-*¢z>-,*

L-1:- /1>.--.,:

Frank Rinaldi, Project Manager, Section 1 Project Directorate II Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

l Chandu P. Patel, Project Manager, Section 1 Project Directorate II Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-369, 50-370, 50-413 and 50-414

Enclosure:

As stated cc w/encl: See next page S

0 S

S S

McGuire Nuclear Station cc:

Ms. Lisa F. Vaughn Legal Department (PBO5E)

Duke Energy Corporation 422 South Church Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28201-1006 County Manager of Mecklenburg County 720 East Fourth Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 Michael T. Cash Regulatory Compliance Manager Duke Energy Corporation McGuire Nuclear Site 12700 Hagers Ferry Road Huntersville, North Carolina 28078 Anne Cottingham, Esquire Winston and Strawn 1400 L Street, NW.

Washington, DC 20005 Senior Resident Inspector c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 12700 Hagers Ferry Road Huntersville, North Carolina 28078 Dr. John M. Barry Mecklenberg County Department of Environmental Protection

.700 N. Tryon Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 Ms. Karen E. Long Assistant Attorney General North Carolina Department of Justice P. 0. Box 629 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 L. A. Keller Manager - Nuclear Regulatory Licensing Duke Energy Corporation 526 South Church Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28201-1006 Elaine Wathen, Lead REP Planner Division of Emergency Management 116 West Jones Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-1335 Mr. Richard M. Fry, Director Division of Radiation Protection North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources 3825 Barrett Drive Raleigh, North Carolina 27609-7721 Mr. T. Richard Puryear Owners Group (NCEMC)

Duke Energy Corporation 4800 Concord Road York, South Carolina 29745 Mr. Steven P. Shaver Senior Sales Engineer Westinshouse Electric Company 5929 Carnegie Blvd.

Suite 500 Charlotte, North Carolina 28209

0 S

S S

Catawba Nuclear Station cc:

Mr. Gary Gilbert Regulatory Compliance Manager Duke Energy Corporation 4800 Concord Road York, South Carolina 29745 Ms. Lisa F. Vaughn Legal Department (PB05E)

Duke Energy Corporation 422 South Church Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28201-1006 Anne Cottingham, Esquire Winston and Strawn 1400 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 North Carolina Municipal Power Agency Number 1 1427 Meadowwood Boulevard P. 0. Box 29513 Raleigh, North Carolina 27626 County Manager of York County York County Courthouse York, South Carolina 29745 Piedmont Municipal Power Agency 121 Village Drive Greer, South Carolina 29651 Ms. Karen E. Long Assistant Attorney General North Carolina Department of Justice P. 0. Box 629 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Elaine Wathen, Lead REP Planner Division of Emergency Management 116 West Jones Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-1335 North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation P. 0. Box 27306 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 Senior Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4830 Concord Road York, South Carolina 29745 Virgil R. Autry, Director Division of Radioactive Waste Management Bureau of Land and Waste Management Department of Health and Environmental Control 2600 Bull Street Columbia, South Carolina 29201-1708 L. A. Keller Manager - Nuclear Regulatory Licensing Duke Energy Corporation 526 South Church Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28201-1006 Saluda River Electric P. O. Box 929 Laurens, South Carolina 29360 Mr. Steven P. Shaver Senior Sales Engineer Westinghouse Electric Company 5929 Carnegie Blvd.

Suite 500 Charlotte, North Carolina 28209

U Catawba Nuclear Station cc:

Mr. T. Richard Puryear Owners Group (NCEMC)

Duke Energy Corporation 4800 Concord Road York, South. Carolina 29745 Richard M. Fry, Director Division of Radiation Protection North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources 3825 Barrett Drive Raleigh, North Carolina 27609-7721 S

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR'REACTOR REGULATION RELATING TO THE DYNAMIC ROD WORTH MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUE DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION MCGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION UNITS I AND 2 AND CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-369, 50-370, 50-413 AND 50-414

1.0 INTRODUCTION

By letter dated August 16, 1999 (Reference 1), Duke Energy Corporation (Duke) submitted a request for NRC approval of the Westinghouse-developed Dynamic Rod Worth Measurement (DRWM) technique using the Duke DRWM calculational method. The submittal included topical report DPC-NE-2012, "DYNAMIC ROD WORTH MEASUREMENT USING CASMO/SIMULATE." The proposed Duke DRWM computational method makes use of the CASMO/SIMULATE codes, the reactor physics codes currently used by Duke for reload design of McGuire and Catawba cores. By letter dated October 19, 1999 (Reference 2), Duke requested NRC approval of the use of the S3K code for DRWM applications, as part of the NRC approval of the Duke DRWM calculational methodology for McGuire and Catawba. In addition, some replacement pages for DPC-NE-2012, which include additional discussion and updating of the references were included in the October 19, 1999, submittal.

NRC approval to use DRWM in low power physics tests (LPPT) is based on using the technique outlined in the approved version of the Westinghouse Topical Report WCAP-1 3360-P-A (Reference 3), applying the evaluation criteria and remedial actions contained in Reference 3, and incorporating the corrective actions as outlined in Reference 3. The criteria for technology transfer, by which a utility can perform the DRWM calculations, are set forth in Attachment 1 to a letter from N.J. Liparulo (Westinghouse Electric Corporation) to R.C. Jones (NRC) dated December 9, 1996. This is also included in Reference 3.

2.0 EVALUATION Compliance with the five technology transfer criteria and notification to the NRC of compliance with the criteria, along with the date(s) of the intended first application of the codes to determine Enclosure

S S

the DRWM physics constants for LPPT, were the conditions specified in Reference 3 for NRC approval for a utility to perform their own physics calculations to support the use of DRWM. The five criteria are: (1) eligibility of codes for DRWM computations, (2) application of procedures to DRWM computations, (3) training and qualification of utility personnel, (4) comparison calculations for the DRWM technique, and (5) quality assurance and change control.

Reference 3 states how each criterion is to be met. In the submittals, Duke has addressed all the criteria and provided extensive benchmark data. In addition, Duke has committed to use the acceptance criteria and remedial actions as specified in Reference 3.

2.1 Criterion 1 Only lattice physics codes and methods which have received prior NRC review and approval are eligible to be used in determining the physics constants to be used in DRWM.

Duke uses both the CASMO3 lattice physics and the SIMULATE-3P three dimensional core simulator codes that have been approved by the NRC for use by Duke (Reference 4). The SIMULATE-Kinetics (S3K) code for the dynamic modeling of the DRWM process is a three dimensional transient neutronic version of SIMULATE-3. S3K was approved for Rod Ejection Accident analysis (NRC letter of September 22, 1999, to G.R. Peterson of Catawba Nuclear Station). The S3K code is also necessary for DRWM calculations. The NRC approval of S3K was restricted to Rod Ejection Accident analysis, because benchmarking data was available for only that analysis at the time of review. Duke has supplied extensive DRWM benchmarking data to both Westinghouse predictions and measured data. Based on the good agreement of this data (discussed under Criterion 4), approval to use S3K for DRWM applications for McGuire and Catawba, is acceptable. Thus, Criterion 1 is met.

2.2 Criterion 2 "In a manner consistent with the procedures obtained from Westinghouse, the utility analyses shall be performed in conformance with in-house application procedures which ensure that the use of the methods is consistent with the Westinghouse-approved application of the DRWM S

methodology."

Duke incorporated the Westinghouse-provided DRWM computational procedures into an internal procedure to ensure consistency with the NRC approved methodology. This satisfies Criterion 2.

2.3 Criterion'3 This criterion states that the first application of DRWM will be performed by Westinghouse. This will ensure that DRWM is applicable to the specific plant, provide utility personnel with training in the DRWM technique, and be used to meet Criterion 4.

Duke has exceeded this criterion by having Westinghouse perform computations for the first six DRWM applications at Catawba and McGuire. The station personnel received training in the procedure on the use of the Advanced Digital Reactivity Computer (ADRC), and application of the ADRC to performing LPPT using DRWM, prior to testing at Catawba and McGuire.

S

received calculational procedures from Westinghouse on how to perform DRWM computations. Duke personnel performing computations to support DRWM were initially trained by Westinghouse in these computations. Duke has an established training and qualification program that is used to ensure that only qualified personnel perform reload design calculations. The same training program will be used to ensure that future users of DRWM methodology have the proper working knowledge of the codes and methods. The staff finds this acceptable. Therefore, Criterion 3 is met.

2.4 Criterion 4 "Prior to the first application by a utility using their own methods to perform physics calculations in support of DRWM for LPPT, the utility will demonstrate its ability to use the methods supplied by Westinghouse by comparing its calculated results with the analyses and results obtained by Westinghouse during the first, or subsequent, application(s) of DRWM at the utility's plant. Comparisons of calculated and measured bank worths for individual and total bank worth should be made between the utility values and those of Westinghouse. The criteria of :t2 percent or _25 pcm were given as acceptance criteria."

The complete set of results for the six benchmark cycles was provided. The +/-t2 percent or

+/-25 pcm criterion was met in 114 of the 120 comparisons (54 predicted bank worths, 54 measured bank worths, and six predicted total bank worths and six measured total bank worths). The six comparisons that did not meet the criterion were:

four predicted bank worths from McGuire 2 Cycle13 (Banks CC, CD, SA and SC) two predicted bank worths from Catawba 1 Cycle 12 (Banks CB and SA)

The +/-2 percent or +/-25 criterion was not met in six cases with the maximum deviation being 39.2 pcm. The trend in the predicted bank worth deviations is consistent with the observed differences in the predicted radial Hot Zero Power (HZP) power distribution between Duke and Westinghouse. Relative to Westinghouse, Duke under-predicts the relative power of assemblies located near the core periphery (assemblies containing banks SA, CD, SD, and SC). The measured bank worths for these six banks generally fall between the Duke and Westinghouse predicted bank worths, indicating that this is a bias between predicted bank worths.

The differences between Duke and Westinghouse M2C1 3 and CL C1 2 predicted bank worths were larger than the previous cycle comparisons. Both cycles were reexamined by Duke and Westinghouse to understand the differences. No definitive cause was discovered. However, slightly higher differences in the power distribution comparisons were found for assemblies that operated near the periphery for more than one cycle. Both M2C13 and CLC12 contained more assemblies of this type located at or near the control rod locations than in previous cycles, which might explain the observed larger deviations. The six deviations are acceptable because they represent only a small deviation from an extremely tight criterion, and they are a very small percentage of the total benchmarking data.

S S

SS S

S The differences between the Duke and Westinghouse predicted total bank worths meet the S*+/-2 percent criterion for all six cores analyzed. The differences between the measured bank worths calculated by the Duke and Westinghouse methods met the +/-2 percent or +/-_25 pcm

I criterion for all banks. The maximum difference was -10.6 pcm for Bank CB in McGuire 2, Cycle 13. The measured total bank worth differences between Westinghouse and Duke for

I the six cores ranged from -1.0 to -0.3 percent. These results show excellent agreement. The slight differences observed are well within the expected range for a comparison of two independent core methodologies. Westinghouse uses the ALPHA/PHOENIX/ANC and SPNOVA codes while Duke uses the CASMO/SIMULATE/S3K codes. The results of this comparison show that the Duke methodology is a suitable substitute for the Westinghouse DRWM methodology, and that Duke has implemented the DRWM analytical factor methodology consistent with the Westinghouse approved methodology. Thus, Criterion 4 is satisfied.

2.5 Criterion 5 S

Quality assurance and change control.

The Duke QA program will be used to perform all DRWM computations. As part of the Westinghouse QA procedures regarding technology transfer, they have a requirement to inform utilities of changes to the DRWM process. Therefore, Criterion 5 is met.

3.0 CONCLUSION

S Based on the evaluation as described in Section 2.0, Duke has met the five criteria for technology transfer of the DRWM methodology. The benchmarking data was sufficient and adequate to provide justification for the use of S3K for DRWM. Therefore, the staff finds it acceptable for Duke to use the DRWM technique for rod worth measurements at the Catawba and McGuire units.

4.0 REFERENCES

1. Letter from M.S. Tuckman, Duke to U.S. NRC Document Control Desk, "Dynamic Rod Worth Measurement Using CASMO/SIMULATE," dated August 16, 1999.

2. Letter from M.S. Tuckman, Duke, to U.S. NRC Document Control Desk, "Dynamic Rod Worth Measurement Using CASMO/SIMULATE," dated October 19, 1999.

3. Chao, Y.A., Easter, M.E., Hill, D.J., Chapman. D.M., Grobmyer, L.R., Hoemer, J.A.,

"Westinghouse Dynamic Rod Worth Measurement Technique," WCAP-1 3360-P-A, Revision 1, dated October 1998.

4. "Nuclear Design Methodology Using CASMO3-SIMULATE-3P," DPC-NE-1 104PA, Revision 1, dated December 1997.

Principal Contributor:

M. Chatterton, NRR Date: February 15, 2000

S S

DUKE POWER COMPANY CATAWBA AND McGUIRE NUCLEAR STATIONS DYNAMIC ROD WORTH MEASUREMENT USING CASMO/SIMULATE DPC-NE-2012A Scott B. Thomas August 1999 Nuclear Engineering Division Nuclear Generation Department DUKE POWER COMPANY

S Abstract This report documents the results of an extensive benchmark using CASMO/SIMULATE to calculate cycle specific analytical factors to support Dynamic Rod Worth Measurements (DRWM) at the Catawba and McGuire Nuclear Stations. A comparison of results from six separate startups at Catawba and McGuire is presented to quantify differences between Duke and Westinghouse processed DRWM measured data. This report evaluates the benchmark results and concludes that the Duke DRWM analytical factors calculated using CASMO/SIMULATE produce measured bank worths consistent with the corresponding Westinghouse computations.

This report also addresses the set of five criteria which were approved by the NRC in the Westinghouse DRWM topical report. These criteria are used to assess the ability of a utility to perform independent DRWM computations. The five criteria are specifically addressed in this report to demonstrate, from both a 5

technical and programmatic perspective, that Duke Power's methodology for DRWM computations is acceptable.

The benchmark comparisons documented in this report are more comprehensive than usual, recognizing the.

differences in physics code methodologies between Duke and Westinghouse. Duke gathered additional DRWM benchmark data for Catawba and McGuire to qualify the reactor physics calculations and the technology transfer of the DRWM technique. As expected, this report shows that the independent physics code methodologies used by Duke and Westinghouse produce different analytical factors and measured bank worths. However, the results contained in this report demonstrate that the differences are acceptably small and the CASMO/SIMULATE codes are suitable replacements for the Westinghouse physics codes in 5

the DRWM methodology.

UU U

Table of Contents Page S

1.

IN T R O D U C T IO N............................................................................................................................................

i

2.

COMPARISON OF RESULTS

..................................................... 4

3.

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS.......................................................

5 3.1 C ode M ethodology Evaluation.................................................................................................

5 3.2 Measured to Predicted Evaluation

............................................ 9 S

4.

COM PLIANCE W ITH FIVE DRW M CRITERIA......................................................................................

4.1 ACrIT H FIVEl of CodEs RIA I I

4.1 Criterion 1: Eligibility of Codes for DRWM Computations......................................11..

4.2 Criterion 2: Application of Procedures to DRWM Computations...............................................

11 4.3 Criterion 3: Training and Qualification of Utility Personnel................

.12 4.4 Criterion 4: Comparison Calculations for the DRWM Technique.........................................

12 4.5 Criterion 5: Quality Assurance and Change Control............................................................

13 S

5.

CONCLUSIONS 14

6.

REFERENCES 15 S

A P P E N D IX A.........................................................................................................................................................

2 4 S

ii

List of Tables Page Table I Benchmark Summary of Westinghouse and Duke DRWM Results.................

6 S Table 2 Westinghouse Measured to Predicted DRWM Results......................................................

10 Table 3 Duke Measured to Predicted DRWM Results 10 5 Table 4 Measured and Predicted Rod Worths Based on Westinghouse Predictions...............................

16 Table 5 Measured and Predicted Rod Worths Based on Duke Predictions 18 5

Table 6 Comparison of Predicted Rod Worths Based on Westinghouse and Duke Data 20 Table 7 Comparison of Measured Rod Worths Based on Westinghouse and Duke Data..................22

S S

List of Figures Page Figure 1 Catawba and McGuire Control and Shutdown Bank Locations..........................................................

3

-iv

SS S

1.

INTRODUCTION Duke Power purchased the Dynamic Rod Worth Measurement (DRWM) technology and equipment from Westinghouse in September 1997. Westinghouse has been responsible for performing the DRWM computations for the last six Catawba and McGuire cycles. These startups include Catawba Unit I 5

Cycles 1 & 12, Catawba Unit 2 Cycle 10, McGuire Unit I Cycle 13, and McGuire 2 Cycles 12 & 13.

5 For future DRWM tests, Duke Power intends to perform the analytical computations necessary to support DRWM. Through the information provided in this report, Duke Power intends to demonstrate that the S

analytical computations necessary to support DRWM for future cycles of both Catawba and McGuire can be performed by Duke Power.

Appendix A contains the approved NRC criteria from Reference 1 that must be addressed in order to perform computations to support DRWM. NRC approved these criteria with the intent that successfully meeting these criteria constitutes inherent NRC approval to perform'computations to support DRWM in the Low Power Physics Testing (LPPT). This report demonstrates that the intent of these criteria has been met for the Duke DRWM computations at Catawba and McGuire.

The Catawba and McGuire data for DRWM are presented in Section 2.

S Section 3 of this report evaluates the results of an extensive benchmark using CASMO/SIMULATE to calculate cycle specific analytical factors to support Dynamic Rod Worth Measurements (DRWM) at 6

Catawba and McGuire. A comparison of results from six separate startups at Catawba and McGuire is presented to quantify differences between Duke and Westinghouse processed DRWM measured data.

The benchmark comparisons documented in this report are more comprehensive than usual, recognizing the differences in physics code methodologies between Duke and Westinghouse. Duke gathered additional DRWM benchmark data for Catawba and McGuire to qualify the reactor physics calculations and the technology transfer of the DRWM technique. All four units at Catawba and McGuire are sister units, S*

having the same basic core design, cycle lengths and control bank layout. Therefore, the benchmark data S

can be treated as a collective set of data in which the conclusions are equally applicable to all four units.

S The control bank layouts for all four units at Catawba and McGuire are shown on Figure 1.

Section 4 of this report addresses the set of five criteria which were approved by the NRC in Reference 1.

These criteria are used to assess the ability of a utility to perform independent DRWM computations. The S

SS 5

five criteria are specifically addressed to demonstrate, from both a technical and programmatic perspective, that Duke Power's methodology for performing DRWM computations is acceptable.

S Station personnel received initial training on DRWM procedures, the use of the Advanced Digital Reactivity Computer (ADRC), and application of the ADRC to performing LPPT using DRWM prior to DRWM testing at both Catawba and McGuire. Additional training was also received during each of the six applications of DRWM at Duke. Personnel performing computations to support DRWM were initially trained by Westinghouse in these computations in March 1998 and received procedures on how to perform these computations at that time. This training included the ability to set up input, understand and interpret output results, understand applications and limitations, and to perform analyses in compliance with the procedures provided by Westinghouse.

Duke's DRWM computations make use of the Westinghouse DRWM technique of Reference 1. The steady-state physics calculations to support the Duke DRWM computations are made using the NRC approved CASMO-3/SIMULATE-3P methodology described in Reference 2. To improve DRWM bank worth comparisons, Duke has adopted the Tuttle delayed neutron data from Reference 5 for reactivity measurements.

The dynamic calculations to support Duke DRWM computations are made using the SIMULATE-3 Kinetics (S3K) program. S3K is a three-dimensional transient neutronic version of the NRC-approved SIMULATE-3P code and utilizes the same neutron cross section library. It employs a fully implicit time integration of neutron flux and delayed neutron precursors. The NRC has approved S3K for use in the UFSAR Chapter 15 Rod Ejection Analyses (REA) for Catawba and McGuire (Reference 3). The Duke REA benchmark results and results for industry benchmark problems discussed in Section 6.6 of Reference 3 demonstrate that S3K adequately performs transient neutronic calculations with thermal hydraulic feedback. In comparison, the DRWM calculations are simpler since they are isothermal calculations which do not involve thermal hydraulic feedback. For application to DRWM, the extensive benchmark results contained in this report demonstrate that S3K is suitable to generate analytical constants necessary for DRWM.

Application of these codes and procedures, and the Westinghouse DRWM procedure, is controlled by the Duke Power quality assurance program described in Reference 4. This quality assurance program meets the requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B.

S S

S.

S S

S-S S

S S

S Figure 1 Catawba and McGuire Control and Shutdown Bank Locations R

P N

M L

K J

H G

F E

D C

B A

4-----------~-4.----------4 a

~

4.

4 SA SA 2

3 4

5 6.

7 8

SA CB cc CB SA SD SB I

SA SC SA CD SE CD SA SC SD CB cc CA cc GB SB SB cc SE CA CD CA SE cc SB SB GBcc CA cc GB SD SC 9

10 11 12 13 SA CD SE CD SA SCI SB SB SD 14 15 1--i Bank SA CB cc CB SA 4

~

4 4

4 I~

~

R P

N M

L K

H G

F E

D C

B A

Control Number Shutdown Number Bank of Rods Bank of Rods CA 4

SA 8

CB 8

SB 8

CC 8

SC 4

CD 5

SD 4

SE 4

Total 25 Total 28 3-

6S S

2.

COMPARISON OF RESULTS S

Table 4 provides the DRWM measured and predicted rod worths based on Westinghouse computations for

the Catawba I Cycle 11, McGuire 2 Cycle 12, McGuire I Cycle 13, and Catawba 2 Cycle 10, Catawba I Cycle 12, and McGuire 2 Cycle 13 LPPT programs, respectively. Table 5 provides the DRWM measured 5and predicted rod worths based on Duke Power computations for the same cycles.

S S

Table 6 compares the predicted rod worths for each of the six cycles based on Westinghouse and Duke SPower data. Table 7 compares the rod worths measured by the DRWM technique for. each of the six cycles 0using Westinghouse and Duke Power analytical data.

S S

S 0

S S

0 S

S S

S S

S

3.

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS The DRWM benchmark results documented in this report are evaluated in Section 3.1 below using the criteria contained in the Westinghouse DRWM Topical Report (Reference 1). These criteria were approved by the NRC to assess whether a utility is qualified to perform DRWM c'alculations independent of Westinghouse. The approved criteria are focused on quantifying differences due to code users and code methodologies. An additional evaluation is performed in Section 3.2 using the bank worth review and acceptance criteria from Low Power Physics Testing (LPPT), These criteria were also approved by the NRC in Reference 1, but focus on the differences between measured and predicted bank worths.

3.1 Code Methodology Evaluation The numerical criteria approved by the NRC to assess utilities which intend to independently calculate 5

DRWM analytical factors are shown below. These criteria are contained in Reference 1.

5 DRWM Acceptable Deviations for NRC Notification Letter Parameter Acceptable Deviation Calculated Bank Worth

+ 2% or + 25 pcm (whichever is greater)

Calculated Total Worth of All Banks +2%

Measured Bank Worth

+ 2% or + 25 pcm (whichever is greater).

Measured Total Worth of All Banks

+2%

The individual bank acceptable deviation criterion is setup consistent with criteria used for bank worth measurements during LPPT. The intent is to compare to the larger of the two deviation limits, % or absolute, whichever is greater. For example, if a bank worth of 1000 pcm is measured, the absolute error criterion is 25 pcm (as stated above), and the 2% criterion is 0.02* 1000 = 20 pcm. In this example, the absolute difference criterion of 25 pcm would be used since it is larger than the 2% criterion. Bank worth acceptance criteria such as these are designed to account for the differences in bank worths, which S

range from 200 pcm to over 1000 pcm. For lower worth banks, differences are compared to the absolute S

difference criterion, and for higher worth banks the % difference criterion is used. For a + 2% or + 25 pcm criterion, all bank worths less than 1250 pcm (=25/0.02) are compared to the 25 pcm criteria.

Therefore, since this report contains no banks worth more than 1250 pcm, only the + 25 pcm criterion is applicable.

S S

S Table I provides a summary of the comparison between Duke and Westinghouse DRWM results for the six benchmark cycles. The maximum bank worth differences in Table I were chosen based on the maximum absolute difference between Duke and Westinghouse.

Table 1 Benchmark Summary of Westinghouse and Duke DRWM Results Maximum Predicted Predicted Total Maximum Measured Measured Total Bank Worth Bank Worth Bank Worth Bank Worth Difference Difference Difference Difference Cycle Bank (D-W) pcm

%(D-W)/W Bank (D-W) pcm

%(D-W)/W CIClI SA

-23.2

-1.7 SC

-8.6

-1.0 M2C12 SA

-13.8

-1.0 CB

-7.0

-0.6 MIC13 SB 20.8

-041 CB

-9.3

-0.7 C2CIO SA

-18.7

-1.6 CB

-5.0

-0.5 C1C12 SA

-30.7

-1.9 CB

-4.3,

-0.3 M2C13 SA

-39.2 1.1 CB

-10.6

-0.6 D = Duke W = Westinghouse The complete set of results provided in Table 6 and Table 7 show that the + 2% or + 25 pcm criterion are met in 108 of the 114 comparisons (54 predicted bank worths, 54 measured bank worths, and 6 total bank worths). The 6 comparisons that do not meet the criteria are comprised of the following comparisons:

4 predicted bank worths from M2C13 (Banks CC, CD, SA and SC) 2 predicted bank worths from CIC12 (Banks CB and SA),

Overall, the DRWM benchmark results can be summarized as follows:

1) The differences between Duke and Westinghouse predicted bank worth meet either the + 2% or + 25 pcm criterion in 48 of the 54 cases. A total of 6 predicted bank worths in M2C13 and C1C12 exceed the 25 pcm criterion. The trend in the predicted bank worth deviations is consistent with the observed differences in the predicted radial Hot Zero Power (HZP) power distribution between Duke and Westinghouse. Relative to Westinghouse, Duke typically under predicts the relative power of assemblies located near the core periphery (assemblies containing banks SA, CD, SD, and SC), and over predicts the powers of assemblies near the core interior (assemblies containing banks CC, CA, and SB). Duke typically predicts lower worths for banks SA, CD, SD, and SC than Westinghouse due to differences in the radial power distribution. However, the measured bank S

worths for these six banks generally fall between the Duke and Westinghouse predicted bank worths, indicating that this is only a bias between predicted bank worths.

The M2C 13 and C I C 12 predicted bank worths differences are larger than the previous cycle comparisons. Although the magnitude of the differences is small and acceptable, both Duke and Westinghouse performed a thorough investigation of the M2C 13 predictions, and Duke performed an investigation of the C IC 12 predictions. To understand the cause, the model setup, cross-section generation, core shuffling, core depletion, and design information were examined. No deficiencies were identified in either the Duke or Westinghouse nuclear models that explain the larger than expected power distribution and bank worth differences. The reviews concluded that the differences are the result of code and methodology differences between SIMULATE and ANC, and are not attributable to model or calculational errors. Although the investigations did not uncover the exact cause of the larger differences, slightly higher differences in the power distribution comparison were noted for assemblies that operated near the periphery for more than one cycle. Both M2C13 and CIC12 contained more assemblies of S

these types, located at or near control rod locations, than previous cycles. It is possible that the different spectral history treatments between ANC and SIMULATE are partially responsible for the larger differences in the predicted power distributions.

2)

The differences between the Duke and Westinghouse predicted total bank worths meet the + 2% criterion for all six cores analyzed. The Duke predicted total bank worths are consistently lower than Westinghouse predicted total bank worths (from -0.1% to -1.9%).

As discussed above, the Duke predicted HZP radial power

distribution is typically lower in assemblies located near the periphery. Figure 1 shows that more of the control banks are located near the periphery, which tends to over emphasize the contribution of the peripheral assemblies to the calculation of S

II U

3 the total bank worth. The trend of Duke's predicted total bank worth being slightly I.

lower than Westinghouse is consistent with the HZP radial power distribution U

differences.

U U

3)

The difference between the measured bank worths calculated by Duke and I

Westinghouse methods meet the + 2% or + 25 pcm criterion for all banks. The I

maximum difference is -10.6 pcm for Bank CB in McGuire 2 Cycle 13. This 3

comparison shows excellent agreement between the Duke and Westinghouse data.

U

4) The measured total bank worth differences between Westinghouse and Duke for the 6 cores range from -1.0 to -0.3%. The measured values from Duke calculations are consistently lower than the values from Westinghouse calculations. Since the extent of this under prediction is small, this deviation is acceptable.

The overall comparison between Westinghouse and Duke results is excellent. The differences shown in Table I are well within the expected range for a comparison between two independent core simulator methodologies. The fundamental methodology differences between Duke and Westinghouse are expected to produce differences such as these for predicted bank worths.

Other than using the same loading patterns, plant parameters, depletion step information, and the same methodology to calculate the DRWM analytical factors, the Westinghouse and Duke data were produced independently. Westinghouse used the ALPHA/PHOENIX/ANC (APA) and SPNOVA codes, while Duke used the CASMO/SIMULATE/S3K codes. The comparison shows that Duke and Westinghouse produce very consistent results and that the Duke methodology is a suitable substitute for the Westinghouse DRWM methodology. The results also demonstrate that Duke has implemented the DRWM analytical factor methodology consistent with the approved U

Westinghouse methodology.

-8

UU U

3.2 Measured to Predicted Evaluation The previous section focused on evaluating the differences in bank worth due to code methodology differences between Duke and Westinghouse. This section performs an evaluation of the predicted bank worths relative to measured bank worths. This section uses the data contained in Table 4 and Table 5 to summarize measured to predicted results for each of the six benchmark cycles. For this evaluation, the appropriate review and acceptance criteria are those used in LPPT to assess the accuracy of the measured results. The review and acceptance criteria from Reference 1 are:

DRWM Review Criteria for Low Power Physics Testing (LPPT)

Parameter Criteria Individual Bank Worths Measured worths + 15% or + 100 pcm of their predicted worths, whichever is greater Total Worth of All Banks Sum of measured worths +8% of the sum of predicted worths DRWM Acceptance Criteria for Low Power Physics Testing (LPPT)

S Parameter Criteria S

Total Worth of All Banks Sum of measured worths >90% of the sum of predicted worths For the + 15% or + 100 pcm criterion, all bank worths less than 667 pcm (=100/0.15) are compared to the 100 pcm criterion, and banks with predicted worths greater than 667 ppm are compared to the 15%

criterion.

S Table 2 presents the Westinghouse DRWM results for each of the benchmark cycles. The maximum bank worth differences shown in Table 2 were chosen by comparing each bank worth difference to the appropriate limit; low worth banks (< 667 pcm) were compared to 100 pcm, and high worth banks were compared to 0.15*(predicted bank worth). The banks with the minimum margin to the criterion were selected for inclusion in Table 2.

SS S

S S

U S

S S

S Table 2 Westinghouse Measured to Predicted DRWM Results Total Bank Westinghouse Maximum Bank Worth Worth Difference Difference Predicted IM-P)pcmj %(M-P)IP Cycle Bank Worth (pcm) (N-Ppc_

%(M-P)/P

%(M-P)/P CiCI I CD 631 63.8 10.1 1.7 M2C12 CA 337

-42.9

-12.7 0.2 MICI3 CB 645 25.1 3.9 0.3 C2CIO SB 916 88.3 9.6 2.8 C 1C2 CB 697 22.7 3.3 1.1 M2C13 CB 643 47.1 7.3 2.9 M = Measured (using Westinghouse analytical factors)

P = Predicted Table 3 presents the Duke DRWM results for each of the benchmark cycles. The maximum bank worth differences were chosen similar to Table 2.

Table 3 Duke Measured to Predicted DRWM Results Total Bank Duke Maximum Bank Worth Worth Difference Difference Predicted Cyclej Bank Worth (pcm)j(M-P)pcmj%(M-P)/P

%(M-P)/P CICI I CD 612.9 74.8 12.2 2.5 M2C12 CA 323.8

-30.9

-9.5 0.6 MIC13 CC 740.8

-32.2

-4.3

-0.3 C2C10 CB 543.7 52.4 9.6 4.0 C1C12 CB 667.7 47.6 7.1 2.8 M2C13 CB 630.0 49.8 7.9 3.4 M = Measured (using Duke analytical factors)

P = Predicted The results in Table 2 and Table 3 show that both Westinghouse and Duke meet the + 15% or + 100 pcm LPPT review criterion for individual banks, and the +8% total bank worth review criterion. In addition, the acceptance criterion of > 90% of the sum of the predicted worths is met for all cycles.

Overall, the Duke measured to predicted comparison is very consistent with the Westinghouse results.

4.

COMPLIANCE WITH FIVE DRWM CRITERIA Appendix A contains the five criteria that have been approved by the NRC in Reference I to assess the ability of a utility to perform DRWM computations. This section specifically addresses each criterion.

4.1 Criterion 1: Eligibility of Codes for DRWM Computations Only lattice physics codes and methods which have received prior NRC review and approval are eligible to be used in determining the physics constants to be used in DRWM. For the Duke application of DRWM, both the CASMO lattice physics code and the SIMULATE three dimensional core simulator code have been approved by the NRC for use by Duke in Reference 2.

The SIMULATE-Kinetics (S3K) code for the dynamic modeling of the DRWM process is a three-5 dimensional transient neutronic version of SIMULATE-3, and utilizes the same neutron cross section library. As part of the NRC approval of DPC-NE-2009, S3K has been approved for Rod Ejection Accident analysis (NRC letter of September 22, 1999 to G.R. Peterson of Catawba Nuclear Station). As discussed in Section 1, the S3K code is also necessary for the Duke DRWM calculations. The extensive benchmarking of the Duke DRWM calculations, making use of the S3K code, with the measured data and with the Westinghouse calculations show excellent agreement. Therefore, S3K is seen to be suitable for the Duke DRWM calculations. As part of the Duke request for NRC approval of the Duke DRWM methodology, S3K approval for DRWM applications for McGuire and Catawba is also being requested.

4.2 Criterion 2: Application of Procedures to DRWM Computations S

This criterion states that "In a manner consistent with the procedures obtained from Westinghouse, the S

utility analyses shall be performed in conformance with in-house application procedures which ensure that the use of the methods is consistent with the Westinghouse approved application of the DRWM methodology". Duke has incorporated the Westinghouse provided DRWM computational procedures into an internal procedure to ensure consistency with the NRC approved methodology. Future Duke DRWM analyses will be performed according to the Duke DRWM procedure. The Duke QA program described in Reference 4 will be used to perform all DRWM computations. Therefore, Criterion 2 has 5

been met.

S 4.3 Criterion 3: Training and Qualification of Utility Personnel This criterion states that the first application of DRWM will be performed by Westinghouse, which will ensure that DRWM is applicable to the specific plant, provide utility personnel with training in the DRWM technique and be used to meet Criterion 4. Duke has exceeded these expectations by having Westinghouse perform computations for the first six DRWM applications at Catawba and McGuire. Duke station personnel received training and procedures on the use of the Advanced Digital Reactivity Computer (ADRC), and application of the ADRC to performing LPPT using DRWM prior to testing at Catawba and McGuire. Additional training was received during each of the six applications of DRWM.

Duke personnel performing computations to support DRWM have been initially trained by Westinghouse in these computations. Duke has received calculational procedures from Westinghouse on how to perform the DRWM computations. The Westinghouse training included the ability to set up input, understand and interpret output results, understand applications and limitations, and to perform analyses consistent with the procedures provided by Westinghouse. Duke has an established training and qualification program that is used to ensure that only qualified personal perform reload design calculations. The same training program will be used to ensure that future users of the DRWM methodology have a good working knowledge of the codes and methods. Therefore, Criterion 3 has been met.

4.4 Criterion 4: Comparison Calculations for the DRWM Technique Section 3 provides an evaluation of the results from the six DRWM demonstration cycles. The comparisons show that the individual bank worth criteria of +2% or + 25 pcm were met for all of the measured bank worths and most of the predicted bank worth comparisons. A total of six predicted bank worths, four banks in McGuire 2 Cycle 13, and two banks in Catawba I Cycle 12, exceeded the 25 pcm criterion. As discussed in Section 3.0, the magnitude of the predicted bank worth deviations is 5

acceptably small since the comparison involves two independent physics methodologies. Overall, the comparisons of predicted bank worths between Westinghouse and Duke are considered excellent. The S

differences between Westinghouse and Duke predicted bank worths are consistent with differences in the predicted HZP radial power distribution.

The comparisons in Section 3 show that the total bank worth criterion of +2% was met for both predicted and measured bank worths in all six benchmark cycles.

S SS 5

In conclusion, considering the entire benchmark database, all of the criteria have been met with the exception of six individual bank worths in two cycles. The cause of the larger predicted bank worth differences in the six banks of McGuire 2 Cycle 13 and Catawba I Cycle 12 has been identified as being due to differences in the predicted radial power distribution. The magnitude of the deviations for predicted bank worths are small and are considered acceptable. Overall the comparison between S

Westinghouse and Duke predictions are considered good for comparisons of two independent physics methodologies. The comparisons that exceeded the +25 pcm criterion have been investigated and the reason for the larger deviations is understood and the magnitudes are not unexpected. Finally, all of the review and acceptance criteria for measured to predicted bank worth comparisons were easily satisfied.

Therefore, it is concluded that the intent of Criterion 4 has been met in this evaluation.

4.5 Criterion 5: Quality Assurance and Change Control The calculations for DRWM will be conducted using engineering calculation procedures which ensure conformance with the Duke QA program described in Reference 4. The Duke procedures have provisions for implementing changes to the methods and procedures being used for DRWM. Processes are available which provide a means by which Duke can directly inform Westinghouse and track any problems or errors discovered while performing the DRWM calculations or procedures. Westinghouse also has a requirement to inform utilities that have taken a technology transfer on DRWM of changes to 5

the process as part of their QA procedures regarding technology transfer. Therefore, Criterion 5 has been met.

5.

CONCLUSIONS Based on the results in Section 2 and the discussions of the results in Section 3, it is concluded that the intent of the review criteria in Appendix A has been met. Section 4 showed that Duke has acceptably addressed the five criteria that have been establish to assess a utilities' ability to perform DRWM computations. Therefore, Duke has demonstrated through an extensive benchmark evaluation, that future Catawba and McGuire DRWM applications can be performed using Duke methods. The first application of Duke Power analytical computations to support DRWM in LPPT is scheduled to occur with the startup of McGuire I Cycle 14 which will occur on or about October 31, 1999.

6.

REFERENCES S

1. "Westinghouse Dynamic Rod Worth Measurement Technique", WCAP-1 3360-P-A, Revision 1, October 1998.

2.

"Nuclear Design Methodology Using CASMO-3/SIMULATE-3P", DPC-NE-1004PA, Revision 1, December 1997.

S3.

"Duke Power Company Westinghouse Fuel Transition Report", DPC-NE-2009P, (NRC letter of September 22, 1999 to G.R. Peterson of Catawba Nuclear Station).

4. "Topical Report Quality Assurance Program", Duke Energy Corporation, DUKE-I-A, Amendment 25, May 31, 1999.

5.

"Delayed-Neutron Yields in Nuclear Fission", R. J. Tuttle, Proceedings of the Consultants' Meeting on Delayed Neutron Properties, International Nuclear Data Committee INDC(NDS)-107/G+Special, March 26-30, 1979.

S

S S

Table 4 Measured and Predicted Rod Worths Based on Westinghouse Predictions Catawba I Cycle 11 WORTH (pcm)

DIFFERENCE BANK Measured Predicted

% (M-P)/P

ýcm CA 374.6 397.4

-5.7

-22.8 CB 634.7 610.3 4.0 24.4 CC 889.5 888.0 0.2 1.5 CD 695.0 631.2 10.1 63.8 SA 235.6 232.6 1.3 3.0 SB 889.7 890.0 0.0

-0.3 SC 468.3 443.0 5.7 25.3 SD 462.9 440.1 5.2 22.8 SE 460.8 494.2

-6.8

-33.4

[TOTAL 5111.1 5026.8 1.7 84.3 McGuire 2 Cycle 12 WORTH (pcm)

DIFFERENCE BANK I Measured Predicted

% (M-P)/P pcm CA 293.9 336.8

-12.7

-42.9 CB 667.3 644.2 3.6 23.1 CC 763.0 811.7

-6.0

-48.7 CD 624.0 613.5 1.7 10.5 S A 305.5 288.2 6.0 17.3 SB 1067.4 1040.1 2.6 27.3 SC 511.1 489.8 4.3 21.3 SD 513.1 490.8 4.5 22.3 SE 489.0 506.4

-3.4

-17.4 TOTAL 5234.3 5221.5 0.2 12.8 McGuire 1 Cycle 13 WORTH (pcm)

I DIFFERENCE BANK Measured I

Predicted

% (M-P)/P pcm CA 290.4 304.6

-4.7

-14.2 CB 670.4 645.3 3.9 25.1 CC 709.3 725.4

-2.2

-16.1 CD 569.0 569.9

-0.2

-0.9 SA 262.9 268.4

-2.0

-5.5 SB 994.7 978.1 1.7 16.6 SC 464.1 455.8 1.8 8.3 SD 455.7 455.4 0.1 0.3 SE 513.3 513.2 0.0 0.1 TOTAL 4929.8 4916.1 0.3 13.7 S

S S

S Table 4 (continued)

Measured and Predicted Rod Worths Based on Westinghouse Predictions Catawba 2 Cycle 10 WoRTH (Pcm)

DFFRENCE BANK Measured Predicted

% (M-P)/P pcm CA 377.8 422.1

-10.5

-44.3 CB 601.1 552.9 8 7 48.2 CC 885.9 851.9 4.0 34.0 CD 558.9 563.3

-0.8

-4.4 SA 236.4 240.1

-1.5

-3.7 SB 1004.5 916.2 9.6 88.3 SkC 402.5 393.5

__2.3 9.0 SD 403.5 393.7 2.5 9.8 SE 477.1 477.1 0.0 0.0 TOTAL 4947.7 4810.8 2.8 136.9 Catawba 1 Cycle 12 WORTH (pem)

DIFFERENCE BAN Measured Predicted

% (M-P)/P pcm CA 275.3 288.2

-4.5

-12.9 CB 719.6 696.9 3.3 22.7 CC 780.6 766.1 1.9 14.5 CD 467.2 478.2

-2.3

-11.0 SA 317.0 326.5

-2.9

-9.5 SB 814.6 782.1 4.2 32.5 S C 449.1 457.5

-1.8

-8.4 SD 474.3 461.6 2.8 12.7 SE 511.2 498.3 2.6 12.9 TOTAL 4808.9 4755.4 1.1 53.5 McGuire 2 Cycle 13 WORTH (pcm)

DIFFFERENCE BANK Measured Predicted

% (M-P)/P PCm CA 340.6 352.8

-3.5

-12.2 CB 690.4 643.3 7.3 47.1 CC 815.0 780.9 4.4 34.1 CD 598.9 609.2

-1.7

-10.3 SA 277.6 295.7

-6.1

-18.1 SB 984.6 908.7 8.4 75.9 SC 466.4 463.2 0.7 3.2 SD 478.6 469.2 2.0 9.4 SE 502.9 487.4 3.2 15.5 TOTAL 5155.0 5010.4 2.9 144.6 SS S

S S

S

.S S

S S

S Table 5 Measured and Predicted Rod Worths Based on Duke Predictions Catawba 1 Cycle 11 WORTH (pcm)

DIFFERENCE BANK J-Measured I

Predicted I % (M-P)/P

&cm CA 369.8 396.9

-6.8

-27.1 CB 627.0 587.4 6.7 39.6 CC 886.9 892.5

-0.6

-5.6 CD 687.7 612.9 12.2 74.8 SA 234.5 209.4 12.0 25.1 SB 883.2 888.0

-0.5

-4.8 SC 459.7 428.0 7.4 31.7 SD 458.2 424.3 8.0 33.9 SE 455.5 500.1

-8.9

-44.6 TOTAL 5062.5 4939.5 2.5 123.0 McGuire 2 Cycle 12 WORTH (pcm)

DUFERENCE BANK Measured Predicted

% (M-P)/P pcm CA 292.9 323.8

-9.5

-30.9 CB 660.3 645.6 2.3 14.7 CC 761.3 808.3

-5.8

-47.0 CD 620.2 606.5 2.3 13.7 SA 303.1 274.4 10.5 28.7 SB 1067.1 1045.1 2.1 22.0 SC 505.3 483.2 4.6 22.1 SD 508.1 484.2 4.9 23.9 SE 485.3 500.7

-3.1

-15.4 1TOTAL 5203.6 5171.8 0.6 31.8 McGuire I Cycle 13 WORTH (pcm)

DIFFERENCE BANK Measured Predicted I % (M-P)/P [

e CA 289.5 302.9

-4.4

-13.4 CB 661.1 646.8 2.2 14.3 CC

_708.6 740.8

-4.3

-32.2 CD 564.4 557.1 1.3 7.3 SA 260.5 256.6 1.5

_3.9 SB 993.2 998.9

-0.6

-5.7 SC 459.0 443.8 3.4 15.2 SD 450.3 443.4 1.6 6.9 SE 510.1 521.7

-2.2

-11.6 TOTAL 4896.7 4912.0

-0.3

-15.3 SS S

S S

Table 5 (continued)

Measured and Predicted Rod Worths Based on Duke Predictions Catawba 2 Cycle 10 W.ORT (pc m)

DIFFEiRENCE BANK Measured Predicted

% (M-P)/P p[ m CA 374.2 412.9

-9.4

-38.7 CB 596.1 543.7 9.6 52.4 CC 885.9 857.9 3.3 28.0 CD 556.4 552.8 0.7 3.6 SA 237.1 221.4 7.1 15.7 SB 1001.3 913.5 9.6 87.8 SC 399.6 382.3 4.5 17.3 SD 400.3 382.0 4.8 18.3 SE 472.2 465.5 1.4 6.7 TOTAL 4923.1 4732.0 4.0 191.1 Catawba I Cycle 12 WORTH(pcm)

=

_D__

_____CE BANK I

Measured

[Predicted 1%

(M-P)/P Ic CA 274.9 296.4

-7.3

-21.5 CB 715.3 667.7 7.1 47.6 CC 783.3 771.4 1.5 11.9 CD 464.2 469.5

-1.1

-5.3 SA 317.7 295.8 7.4 21.9 SB 814.1 776.9 4.8 37.2 SC 445.8 437.5 1.9 8.3 SD 470.5 442.9 6.2 27.6 SE 510.1 506.4 0.7 3.7 TOTAL 4795.9 4664.5 2.8 131.4 McGuire 2 Cycle 13 WORTH (pcm)

DIFFERENCE BANK Measured I

redicted I%

(M-P)/P 1pm CA 338.6 363.0

-6.7

-24.4 CB 679.8 630.0 7.9 49.8 CC 816.3 814.2 0.3 2.1 CD 594.6 570.3 4.3 24.3 SA 278.1 256.5 8.4 21.6 SB 979.2 929.5 5.3 49.7 SC 461.4 436.9 5.6 24.5 SD 473.3 444.3 6.5 29.0 SE 500.7 509.3

-1.7

-8.6 TOTAL 5122.0 4954.0 3.4 168.0 SS S

S, S

S S

Table 6 Comparison of Predicted Rod Worths Based on Westinghouse and Duke Data Catawba 1 Cycle 11 Predicted ROD WORTH (pem)F DIFFERENCE BANK Westinghouse Duke

% (D-W)/W pcm CA 397.4 396.9

-0.1

-0.5 CB 610.3 587.4

-3.8

-22.9 CC 888.0 892.5 0.5 4.5 CD 631.2 612.9

-2.9

-18.3 SA 232.6 209.4

-10.0

-23.2 SB 890.0 888.0

-0.2

-2.0 SC 443.0 428.0

-3.4

-15.0 SD 440.1 424.3

-3.6

-15.8 SE 494.2 500.1 1.2 5.9 TOTAL 5026.8 4939.5

-1.7

-87.3 McGuire 2 Cycle 12 Predicted ROD WORTH (pcm)

DIFFTRLNCE BANK Westinghouse Duke

% (D-W)/W pcm CA 336.8 323.8

-3.9

-13.0 CB 644.2 645.6 0.2 1.4 CC 811.7 808.3

-0.4

-3.4 CD 613.5 606.5

-1.1

-7.0 SA 288.2 274.4

-4.8

-13.8 SB 1040.1 1045.1 0.5 5.0 SC 489.8 483.2

-1.3

-6.6 SD 490.8 484.2

-1.3

-6.6 SE 506.4 500.7

-1.1

-5.7 TOTAL 5221.5 5171.8

-1.0

-49.7 McGuire 1 Cycle 13 Predicted ROD WORTH (pem)

DWFRIENCE BANK Westinghouse [

Duke

% (D-W)/W pcm CA 304.6 302.9

-0.6

-1.7 CB 645.3 646.8 0.2 1.5 CC 725.4 740.8 2.1 15.4 CD 569.9 557.1

-2.2

-12.8 SA 268.4 256.6

-4.4

-11.8 SB 978.1 998.9 2.1

.20.8 SC 455.8 443.8

-2.6

-12.0 SD 455.4 443.4

-2.6

-12.0 SE 513.2 521.7 1.7 8.5 TOTAL 4916.1 4912.0

-0.1

-4.1 SS S

S S

Table 6 (continued)

Comparison of Predicted Rod Worths Based on Westinghouse and Duke Data Catawba 2 Cycle 10 Predicted ROD WORTH (pcm)

DIFFERH'N4CE BANK Westinghouse Duke

% (D-W)/W pc CA 422.1 412.9

-2.2

-9.2 CB 552.9 543.7

-1.7

-9.2 CC 851.9 857.9 0.7 6.0 CD 563.3 552.8

-1.9

-10.5 SA 240.1 221.4

-7.8

-18.7 SB 9162 913.5

-0.3

-2.7 SC 393.5 382.3

-2.8

-11.2

.SD 393.7 382.0

-3.0

-11.7 SE 477.1 465.5

-2.4

-11.6 1TOTAL 4810.8 4732.0

-1.6

-78.8 Catawba 1 Cycle 12 Predicted ROD WORTH (pcm)

DIFFERENCE BANK Westinghouse Duke

% (D-W)/W pcm CA 288.2 296.4 2.8 8.2 CB 696.9 667.7

-4.2

-29.2 CC 766.1 771.4 0.7 5.3 CD 478.2 469.5

-1.8

-8.7 SA 326.5 295.8

-9.4

-30.7 SB 782.1 776.9

-0.7

-5.2 S C 457.5 437.5

-4.4

-20.0 SD 461.6 442.9

-4.1

-18.7 SE 498.3 506.4 1.6 8.1 ITOTAL 4755.4 4664.5

-1.9

-90.9 McGuire 2 Cycle 13 Predicted ROD WORTH ( m)

DIFERENCE BANK Westinghouse Duke

% (D-W)/W 0m CA 352.8 363.0 2.9 10.2 CB 643.3 630.0

-2.1

-13.3 CC 780.9 814.2 4.3 33.3 CD 609.2 570.3

-6.4

-38.9 SA 295.7 256.5

-13.3

-39.2 SB 908.7 929.5 2.3 20.8 SC 463.2 436.9

-5.7

-26.3 SD 469.2 444.3

-5.3

-24.9 SE 487.4 509.3 4.5 21.9 TOTAL 5010.4 4954.0

-1.1

-56.4 0

6 S

S S

S Table 7 Comparison of Measured Rod Worths Based on Westinghouse and Duke Data Catawba I Cycle 11 Measured ROD WORTH (pcm)

DUIfRENCE BANK Westinghouse Duke

% (D-W)/W p_ m CA 374.6 369.8

-1.3

-4.8 CB 634.7 627.0

-1.2

-7.7 CC 889.5 886.9

-0.3

-2.6

..1.-

-.1.1-...........

1 CD 695.0 687.7

-1.1

-7.3 SA 235.6 234.5

-0.5

-1.1 SB 889.7 883.2

-0.7

-6.5 SC 468.3 459.7

-1.8

-8.6 S D 462.9 458.2

-1.0

-4.7 SE 460.8 455.5

-1.2

-5.3 TOTAL 5111.1 5062.5

-1.0

-48.6 McGuire 2 Cycle 12

_IMeasured ROD WORTH (pcm)

DIFFERENCE BANK WestinghouseI Duke

% (D-W)/W pcm CA 293.9 292.9

-0.3

-1.0 CB 667.3 660.3

-1.0

-7.0 cc 763.0 761.3

-0.2

-1.7 CD 624.0 620.2

-0.6

-3.8 SA 305.5 303.1

-0.8

-2.4 SB 1067.4 1067.1 0.0

-0.3 SC 511.1 505.3

-1.1

-5.8 SD 513.1 508.1

-1.0

-5.0 SE 489.0 485.3

-0.8

-3.7 TOTAL 5234.3 5203.6

-0.6

-30.7 McGuire I Cycle 13 Measured ROD WORTH (pm DUTRECE BANK Westinghouse I Duke

% (D-W)/W pc CA 290.4 289.5

-0.3

-0.9 CB 670.4 661.1

-1.4

-9.3 CC 709.3 708.6

-0.1

-0.7 CD 569.0 564.4

-0.8

-4.6 SA 262.9 260.5

-0.9

-2.4 SB 994.7 993.2

-0.2

-1.5 SC 464.1 459.0

-1.1

-5.1 SD 455.7 450.3

-1.2

-5.4 SE 513.3 510.1

-0.6

-3.2 TOTAL 4929.8 4896.7

-0.7

-33.1 SS S

S S

Table 7 (continued)

Comparison of Measured Rod Worths Based on Westinghouse and Duke Data S

S S

Catawba 2 Cycle 10 BMeasuredROD WORTH (pcm)

DIFFERENCE BANK Westinghouse Duke

% (D-W)/W pcm CA 377.8 374.2

-1.0

-3.6 CB 601.1 596.1

-0.8

-5.0 CC 8859 885.9 0.0 0.0 CD 558.9 556.4

-0.4

-2 5 SA 236.4 237.1 0.3 0.7 SB 1004.5 1001.3

-0.3

-3.2 SC 402.5 399.6

-0.7

-2.9 SD 403.5 400.3

-0.8

-3.2 SE 477.1 472.2

-1.0

-4.9 TOTAL 4947.7 4923.1

-0.5

-24.6 Catawba I Cycle 12 Measured ROD WORTH (pcm)

DIFFERENCE BANK WestinghouseI Duke

[ % (D-W)/W I pcml CA 275.3 274.9

-0.1

-0.4 CB 719.6 715.3

-0.6

-4.3 CC 780.6 783.3 0.3 2.7 CD 467.2 464.2

-0.6

-3.0 SA 317.0 317.7 0.2 0.7 SB 814.6 814.1

-0.1

-0.5 SC 449.1 445.8

-0.7

-3.3 SD 474.3 470.5

-0.8

-3.8 SE 511.2 510.1

-0.2

-1.1 TOTAL 4808.9 4795.9

-0.3

-13.0 McGuire 2 Cycle 13 IMeasured ROD WORTH (pcm)

DUTERENCE BANK Westinghouse I Duke

% (D-W)/W I pcm__

CA 340.6 338.6

-0.6

-2.0 CB 690.4 679.8

-1.5

-10.6 CC 815.0 816.3 0.2 1.3 CD 598.9 594.6

-0.7

-4.3 SA 277.6 278.1 0.2 0.5 SB 984.6 979.2

-0.5

-5.4 SC 466.4 461.4

-1.1

-5.0 SD 478.6 473.3

-1.1

-5.3 SE 502.9 500.7

-0.4

-2.2 TOTAL 5155.0 5122.0

-0.6

-33.0 O

Criteria For a Utility Performing Dynamic Rod Worth Measurement (DRWM) Computations (reproduced from WCAP-13360-P-A, Revision 1)

APPENDIX A In order for a utility to perform their own physics calculations to support the use of the Dynamic Rod Worth Measurement (DRWM) technique during the Low Power Physics Testing (LPPT), the following five S

criteria must be met. Compliance with the following five criteria demonstrates a utility's qualification and S

constitutes inherent NRC approval to use DRWM in their LPPT. To document its qualification, the utility must send the NRC a notification of compliance with the criteria and the date of the intended first application of the codes to determine the DRWM physics constants for LPPT. Any voluntary limitations or restrictions of the utility's use of the DRWM methodology must also be addressed in the notification. The NRC would then, at their option, audit the application of the utility's DRWM program to ensure compliance.

I Criterion 1: Eligibility of Codes for DRWM Computations 5

Only lattice physics codes and methods which have received prior NRC review and approval are eligible to be used in determining the physics constants to be used in DRWM. The NRC review ensures that the codes being used for the DRWM computations were developed under a qualified QA program and were properly benchmarked and verified.

2)

Criterion 2: Application of Procedures to DRWM Computations In a manner consistent with the procedures obtained from Westinghouse, the utility analyses shall be performed in conformance with in-house application procedures which ensure that the use of the methods is consistent with the Westinghouse approved application of the DRWM methodology.

3)

Criterion 3: Training and Qualification of Utility Personnel The first application of DRWM for LPPT will be performed by Westinghouse. This will ensure that DRWM is applicable to the specific plant, provide utility personnel with training in the DRWM technique and be used to meet Criterion 4 - Comparison Calculations for the DRWM Technique.

The first application of DRWM for LPPT by Westinghouse will be applicable for all of the same plant type at the plant site of application. If the fuel vendor should change subsequent to the first application, a second application by Westinghouse is not required.

Criteria For a Utility Performing Dynamic Rod Worth Measurement (DRWM) Computations (reproduced from WCAP-13360-P-A, Revision 1)

Utilities shall establish and implement a training program to ensure that each qualified user of the DRWM methodology has a good working knowledge of the codes and methods used for DRWM.

This training shall include the ability to set up.input decks, understand and interpret output results, 5

understand applications and limitations, and to perform analyses in compliance with the procedures provided by Westinghouse.

4)

Criterion 4: Comparison Calculations for the DRWM Technique Prior to the first application by a utility using their own methods to perform physics calculations in support of DRWM for LPPT, the utility will demonstrate its ability to use the methods supplied by Westinghouse by comparing its calculated results with the analyses and results obtained by Westinghouse during the first, or subsequent, application(s) of DRWM at the utility's plant. These comparisons must be documented in a report which is part of the utility's QA records. Any S

significant differences between the calculations and the comparison data must be discussed in the 5

report. As a minimum, the following parameters should be compared to the supplier of the DRWM methodology calculations, and should agree within the given acceptable deviation:

Parameter Acceptable Deviation Calculated Bank Worth

+/-2% or +/-25 pcm Calculated Total Worth of All Banks

+/-2%

Measured Bank Worth Obtained for

+/-2% or +/-25 pcm First Application Measured Total Worth Obtained for

+/-2%

First Application S

S S

S Criteria For a Utility Performing Dynamic Rod Worth Measurement (DRWM) Computations (reproduced from WCAP-13360-P-A, Revision 1)

5)

Criterion 5: Quality Assurance and Change Control All calculations for DRWM by a utility using the Westinghouse methodology which has been approved by the NRC shall be conducted under the control of a quality assurance program which meets the requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix. The utility QA program will also include the following:

a)

A provision for implementing changes in the methods and procedures being used for DRWM.

b)

A provision for informing Westinghouse of any problems or errors discovered while using the DRWM' methods or procedures.

Westinghouse has a requirement to inform utilities that have taken a Technology Transfer on DRWM of changes to the process as part of the their QA procedures regarding Technology Transfer.

ML073100085

Text

Subject:

SUBJECT:

Enclosure:

1.0 INTRODUCTION

3.0 CONCLUSION

4.0 REFERENCES

Navigation menu

Search