Text

Notification of 900516-17 Meeting W/Ge in San Jose,Ca to Discuss NRC Review of Advanced Bwr,Including Drywell Head Failure,Containment Overpressure Protection,Source Term & Shutdown Risk.Agenda Encl
	ML20042H077
Person / Time
Site:	05000605
Issue date:	05/14/1990
From:	Scaletti D; Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Miraglia F, Murley T, Russell W; NRC
References
	NUDOCS 9005170166
	Download: ML20042H077 (5)
	v • d • e

,. ~ -

/'p*Caoug'g e

UNITED STATES

[' 3 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION p,

-(

, )[ '

t W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 May 14. 1990 s...+

3 1

Docket No. STN 50 605 1

I MEMORANDUM FOR:

T, Murley

'B. Grimes.

P. McKee

[

F. Miraglia F. Congel A. Thadani t

W. Russell, ADT J. Roe Actir.g Chief. EAB

(

u J. Particw ADP C. Grimes J. Dyer EDO l-

)D.CrutchfIeld,ADSP B. Boger Operations Center i

S. Varga G. Lainas F. Gillespie G. Holahan M. Virgilio-W. Bateman C. Rossi B. D. Liaw L. Reyes, RI!

J. Richardson-E. Butcher T. Cox J. Zwo11nski L Lanning W. Travers j

THRU:.

Charles L. Miller, Director Standardization Project Directorate' Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV, V and Special Projects FROM:

Dino C. Scaletti, Project Manager Standardization Project Directorate Division of Reactor Projects

'III, IV,

~

V and Special Projects

SUBJECT:

DAILY HIGHLIGHT - FORTHCOMING MEETING WITH GENERAL ELECTRIC l

COMPANY (GE) TO DISCUS $ THE STAFF'S REVIEW OF THE ADVANCED i

BOILING WATER REACTOR.

(SEEATTACHEDLISTOFDISCUSSION TOPICS) l DATE & TIME:

May 16-17, 1990 9:00 A.Ng 4:3Q p,M, l

LOCATION:

General Electric Company 175 Curtner Avenue i

San Jose, California b

b t

gx ny g\\'

j

1 Daily Highlight May 16-17, 1990 May 14. 1990 PARTICIPANTS *:

NRC GE-C hadani E Quirk T. Pratt NRR J. Duncan J..Kudrick, NRR-

-J. Fox G. Bagchi, NRR-C.: Sawyer M. Rubin, NRR W. Hardin, RES-J. Lee, NRR..

D. Scaletti, NRR.

& c. SM Dino C. Scaletti, Project Manager Standardization Project Directorate Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV, Y and Special Projects cc: See next'page

Meetings between NRC technical staff and applicants or-licensees are open i

for-interested members of the public parties to attend as observers pursua.. petitioners, intervenors, or other l

nt to "Open Meeting Statement of NRC~

Staff Policy," 43 Federal Register 28058,6/28/78.

However portions of this 1

meeting may be closed to the public to protect General Electric Company proprietary information. Menbers of the public who wish to attend should contactD.C.Scalettiat(301)492-1104.

I l

l 3

)

I j

i

-21

.1

s,

. Mr. P. W. Marriott Docket No. STN 50-605

.' General Electric Company cc::.Mr. Robert Mitchell General Electric Company-175 Curtner Avenue San Jose, California 95114 Mr. L. Gifford, Program Manager Regulatory Programs GE Nuclear Energy 12300 Twinbrook Parkway Suite 315 Rockville, Maryland 20852 Director Criteria & Standards Division Office of Radiation Programs U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 401 M Street, S.W.

Washington, D.C.

20460 Mr. Daniel F. Giessing Division of Nuclear Regulation and Safety Office of Converter Reactor Deployment, NE-12 Office of Nuclear Energy Washington, D.C.

20545 Mr. Patrick W. Marriott. Manager Licensing &nd Consulting Services GE Nuclear Energy General Eicctric Company 175 Curtner Avenue San Jose. California 95125 1

_l

AGENDA STAFF /GE..-

4 MAY 16-17, 1990 ABWR SEVERE ACCIDENT RESPONSE:-

1.-

Drywell head failure Seal leakage e

Structural failure i

2.

Containment over pressure protection i

Thermalhydraulicresponseofpool(flashing) l Need for demister Manualoperation(bypassofsecondrupturedisk)

Sequence specific timing to disk rupture 3.

Source Term Delayed tission product release Source term into containment, credit for nonsafety systems Concern over ability to meet 25 rem at one-half mile 3

i 4

Shutdown Risk I

GE's view on shutdown risk - why is it not considered in ABWR PRA i

References:

1.

A.

C. Thadani to J. H. Taylor, Acceptance for i

Referencing of Licensing Topical Report BAW-10175, " Rod Exchange Methodology," August 7, 1989.

2.

J.

H.

Taylor to J.

A.

Norberg, Rod Exchange-Methodology Topical Report, BAW-1017 5, JHT/89-l 204, October 6, 1989.

{

3.

A.

C.

Thadani to J.

H.

Taylor, Rod Exchange l

Methodology Topical Report, BAW-10175, December 6,

1989.

Dear Mrs. Wilson:

Enclosed are 12 copies of topical report BAW-10175-A, " Rod Exchange i

Methodology." Reference 1 wh6 the original SER for this report and j

approved the rod exchange atthodology for use on the Catawba and

)

l McGuire Nuclear Units.

Reference' 2 requested that the SER be revised to include applicabiltiy to all other Westinghouse PWRs and

]

included a technical justification for the request.

Reference 3 amended the SER to include applicability to all current classes of Westinghouse PWRs.

l i

i i

i 900G17C234 900507

/

DR TOPRP EMVB D

j Y

p-.

In accordance with procedures established in NUREG-0390, the SER and the amendment (references 1 and.3) are included in the accepted version of the report.

Reference 2 is also included.

urs,

'lg4]

. TQ1or, Manager Licensing Services cc:

Dan Fleno, NRC R.

C. Jones, NRC R.

B.. Borsum T. L. Baldwin

-J

t BAW-10175-A May 1990 I

)

-"l ROD EXCHANGE METHODOLocy

! 9005170236 900507~

B&WFuel @gg pn Torneenveyoc

'I.

axw-1on s-x May 1990 I

I I

I 9005170236 900507 B&W Fuel Company l

g-gna.ToeseEMvey.oc

i BAV-10175-A g

3 May 1990 8.

i i

g 1

ROD EXCHANGE METHODOLOGY l

'I I

by i

G. H. Hobson i

S, T. Robertson~

I l

I I

i 3

B&W TUEL COMPANY P. O. Box 10935 l

Lynchburg, Virginia 24506-0935 I

J

=

.dcec%%

UNITED STATES

.4

[

g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g

a WASHINGTON, D. C 20655

}

%\\

August 7, 1989 Mr. J. H. Taylor, Manager Licensing Services Nuclear Power Division Babcock & Wilcox Fuel Company P. O. Box 10935 Lynchburg, Virginia 24506-0935

Dear Mr. Taylor:

SUBJECT:

ACCEPTANCE FOR REFERENCING OF LICENSING TOPICAL REPORT BAW-10175,

" ROD EXCHANGE METHODOLOGY" The staff has completed its review of the subject topical report submitted by the Babcock & Wilcox Fuel Company (BWFC) by letter dated May 22, 1989.

The staff finds the report to be acceptable for referencing in license applications to the extent specified and under the limitations delineated in the report bnd the associated NRC evaluation, which is enclosed.

The evaluation defines the basis for acceptance of-the report.

The staff does not intend to repeat the review of the matters that are described in the report and that were found acceptable when the report appears as a reference in license applications, except to ensure that the material presented is applicable to the specific plant involved. The staff's acceptance applies only to the matters described in the report.

In accordance with procedures established in NUREG-0390, it is requested that BWFC publish an accepted version of this report within 3 months of receipt of this letter.

The accepted version shall incorporate this letter and the enclosed evaluation after the title page. The accepted version shall include an -A (cesignating accepted) following the report identification symbol.

Should the staff's criteria or regulations change so that its conclusions as to the acceptability of the report are invalidated, BWFC and/or the applicants referencing the topical report will be expected to revise and resubmit their respective documentation, or submit justification for the continued effective applicability of the topical report without revision of their respective documentation.

Sir.cerel 8(

d ^

Ashok. Thadani, Assistant Director for Systems Division of Engineering & Systems Technology Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosure:

Topical Report Evaluation

s ENCLOSURE SAFETY EVALUATION OF TOPICAL REPORT BAW-10175,

" ROD EXCHANGE METHODOLOGY" l

1.0- INTRODUCTION BAW-10175 (Ref.1) cescribes Babcock & Wilcox-Fuel Company's '(BWFC's) control-rod exchange methodology or, as it is more commonly known, rod swap method.

I This is an alternative method to the dilution /boration method for determining the reactivity worth of control rod groups or banks during startup of either the initial or reload cycles of a reactor. The reactivity infonnation provided by either of the two measurement methods can be compared to calculations that simulate the particular measurement method.

Because startup test predictions l

are made using the same calculational methods.as those.that are used to design the reactor cycle in question, the comparison of calculated and measured.

control rod bank worths provides a limited check of the bank worths ~ used in the core design. The rod swap method provides a number of advantages over the dilution /boration mathod, not the least of which is reduced startup testing time.

The report presents information that is similar to that in other reports on the rod swap method that the staff has reviewed and approved.

It describes the measurement procedure that leads to the determination of the (1) integral and differential worths of the reference bank, which is obtained by the l

dilution /borationmethod;(2)measuredcriticalpositionforeachtestbank fully inserted with the reference bank withdrawn so that the reactor is'just critical; (3) adjustments that are made to the measured reactivity for reactor conditions that differ from nominal test conditions; and (4) reactivity worth of the test banks. The report describes the calculations that must be j

1

-performed to obtain the predicted reference and test bank reactivity worths and compares the predicted with the measured control rod bank reactivity I

L

I!

2 II worths, obtained using the rod swap method, for three reactor startups in a l

Westinghouse four-loop pressurizeo water reactor.

3i 5i e

I:l The staff's evaluation of this licensing topical report follows.

I 2.0 EVALUATION The staff has, in past reviews, established positions on the rod swap method l

(Refs.2,3,4,5and6).

It hat, reviewed all major aspects of this method gl including.(1)testprocedures,(2)testanalysismethods,(3) calculational i

nethods, (4) results of sensitivity studies, (5) test acceptance criteria, and I

I (6) comparisons of measured control rod bank reactivity worths with predicted worths. The staf f also has reviewed and approved with consnents (Ref. 7)-the 1

American Nuclear Society Standard ANS 19.6.1 " Reload Startup Physics Tests for f'

Pressurized Water Reactors." This standard provides for the use of either the dilution /boration or. rod swap method for the determination of control rod bank h;

l worths.

It is the staff's position that the rod swap method is a well established and acceptable nethodology for determining control rod bank worths that is based on the current start-of-the-art PWR calculation methods and types i

of core designs in use for the various classes of PWRs.

The staff., in this 4

evaluation, will establish the acceptability of the BWFC rod swap method.

BAW 10175 discusses the test procedures.

A reference control rod bank 1s chosen on the basis of the predicted worth of each bank inserted individually into the core, with the boron concentration adjusted to achieve a just critical l1 reactor. This reference bank is the predicted highest worth control rod bank.

Thetestingbeginsfromanessentiallyall-rods-out(ARO)criticalreactor.

l The reference bank is stepped-in and the boron concentration is adjusted to keep the reactor nearly critical. The process continues until the reference bank is fully inserted. During this process a reactivity computer logs the information from which the integral and differential worths of the reference g,

bank are determined. The final boron concentration and reactor temperature are Bl

logged, in the next phase of the rod swap method, a control rod bank, called the test bank, is stepped-in until it is fully inserted while the reference ll

3 I

bank is stepped-out to a position at which the reactor is just critical.

This final position of the reference bank is called the measured critical position I

for that test bank.

This rod swap process is repeated for each control rod bank to be measured. All of the rod swap measurements are done at the nominal boron concentration and reactor temperature that were logged when the reference bank was fully inserted.

These test procedures are similar to those used in l

other approved rod swap methodologies and are, therefore, acceptable.

Corrections, usually smell, are applied to account for deviations from nominal

,g test conditions.

For example, if the reference bank is not fully inserted at f

the start of the testing, a correction is applied to the worth of the reference r sp r nA nd

,a ec o s

e te or of he ty e o su men ha d ec par n

he a eu a rs s

]

be made they are, therefore, acceptable.

l l

The BWFC test analysis method to determine the measured reactivity worth of a control rod bank is the same as a methodology described in Reference 8 that has been reviewed and approved by the staff (Ref. 9).

In the BWFC test I

analysis method, the measured worth of a control rod bank is a function of (1) the measured total reactivity worth of the reference control rod bank fully inserted alone, (2) a calculated parameter, and (3) the worth of the reference bank inserted alone from the measured critical position to the ARO position.

The calculated parameter is the ratio of the integral of the reference bank l

worth with the test bank inserted to the integral of the reference bank worth g-with the reference bank inserted only, with the limits of integration going from the predicted critical position to the ARO position.

This BWFC test analysis method is, theretore, acceptable.

Test predictions are based on core design methods.

Calculations are performed lI to determine the following:

(1) the total integral reactivity worth of. each I

control rod bank individually inserted in the core, (2) the integral reactivity worth of the reference bank as a function of bank position with all other banks l

I

.I

f 4

I['

withdrawn from the core, and (3) the integral reactivity worth of the reference bank as a function of bank position with each test bank indivicually inserted g!

in the core.

Because the staff's bases for accepting the rod swap method are W;

core design methods that have been reviewed and approved and because the calculations are a simulation of the measurements, the staff concludes that the BWFC rod swap calculational methodology is, therefore, acceptable.

I' BAW-10175 discusses both acceptance and review criteria that are used to g l evaluate the acceptability of test results.

The acceptance criteria are a gross check of the test results.

From-the staff's point of view, meeting the more stringent review criteria will provide an appropriate measure of the acceptability of test results. These review criteria are:

i (1) The absolute value of the difference between measured and predicted total integral reactivity worths divided by the predicted total integral reactivity worth for a reference bank, expressed as a percentage, shall l,

be less than or equal to 10 percent.

I,'

(2) For each test bank either:

(a) The absolute value of the difference between measured and predicted i

total integral reactivity worths divided by the predicted total 4

integral reactivity worth, expressed as a percentage, shall be less than 15 percent, or Ei (b) The absolute value of the difference between measured and predicted total integral reactivity worths shall be less than or equal to 0.1 percent reactivity.

(3)

(a) The difference between measured and predicted total integral

(

reactivity worths for all of the control rod banks divided by the predicted total integral-reactivity worth for all of the control rod i

banks, expressed as a percentage, shall be less than +10 percent, 31 I

~

l

f.

5 E

.(b)

In addition, according to the acceptance criteria, the difference between measured and predicted total integral reactivity worth for all of the control rod banks divided by the predicted total integral reactivity worth for all of the control rod banks, expressed as a percentage, shall be greater than -10 percent.

f These criteria are comparable to those used when the control rod bank reactivity worths are measured by the dilution /boration tiethod. Criterion 2b has usualiy been applied to low reactivity worth control rod banks.

The criteria are sufficient for the purpose of providing a limited check on the design control rod worth calculations for the cycle in question. BWFC states in the report that, on failure to meet the criteria, the data will be analyzed and satisfactorily resolved. The staff concludes that the criteria proposed by

)

BWFC for its rod swap method are acceptable because the same criteria are used in other approved rod swap methods.

The report presents the results of rod swap measurements and predictions for three reactor startups in a PWR, Results are presented for Cycles 2, 3.-and 4 of McGuire Unit 1.

The mean percent difference between predicted and measured test banks for the three reload cycles is -2.90 percent and the standard deviation for this sample of 24 test banks is 6.98 ' percent.

All of the review criteria were met for the test and reference banks-as well as for the total bank worths for the three reload cycles analyzed.

Results are also presented in the report on the comparisons of predicted versus measured critical heights.

The overall mean of the absolute differences between predicted and measured critical heights' is only 0.5 steps with a. standard deviation of 7.6 steps, where i step is equal to 5/8 inches. Although the number of cycles of data and.

the number of reactors analyzed are limited, the staff concludes that the-results indicate that the.B&W rod exchange methodology can provide acceptable results.

3.0 CONCLUSION

_S The staff has reviewed BWFC's control rod exchange methodology On the basis of this review, the staff concludes that this methodology is acceptable for use

6 El by BWFC for determining control rod bank reactivity worths at McGuire Units 1 1

and 2 and Catawba Units 1 and 2.

The staff's acceptance requires that the g

following two conditions be met-W (1) All control rod groups or banks, that is, both shutdown and regulating control rod groups or banks, must be measured when using this rod exchange methodology, f

(2) Because of the limited number of cycles of data that were presented in the report, 8WFC should acquire additional cycles of data to confirm the adequacy of the 8WFC rod exchange methodology.

4.0 REFERENCES

1.

" Rod Exch6nge Methodology," BAW-10175, Babcock & Wilcox Fuel Company, April 1989.

2.

Letter from R. L. Tedesco (NRC) to W. N. Thomas (VEPCO), " Acceptance for g'

Referencing of Topical Report VEP-FRD-36, ' Control Rod Reactivity Worth Determination by Rod Swap Technique,'" November 7, 1980.

3.

MemorandumfromL.S.Rubenstein(NRC) tog.C.Lainas(NRC),"RevisedRod Exchange Methodology for Salem (TACS 49269)," February 25, 1983.

4.

Memorandum from L. S. Rubenstein (NRC) to F. Miraglia (NRC), "SER for Westinghouse Topical Report Entitled ' Rod Bank Worth Measurements j

Utilizing Bank Exchange,' WCAP-9863, (TACS 43488)," March 10,1983.

l L

5.-

Memorandum from L. S. Rubenstein (NRC) to G. C. Lainas (NRC), " Rod Swap L

Analysis Method for Commonwealth Edison (TACS 52620 and 52621),"

I December 1, 1983.

I 6.

Memorandum from L. S. Rubenstein (NRC) to G. C. Lainas (NRC), " Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant Rod Swap Methodology (TACS 55767 and 55768)," October 5, 1984.

t;

7 s

7.

Letter from R. E. Carter (NRC) to T. M. Raby (Secretary N-17 Standards Consnittee), April 18, 1985 6.

Letter from H. B. Tucker (Duke Power Company) to NRC (Attention:

B. J.

f Youngblood), December C. 1986 9.

NRC Safety Evaluation Report, " Rod Swap Methodology for Startup Physics Testing - McGuire and Catawba Nuc1 car Station, Units 1 and 2," May 22, 1987.

I I

i I

l I

I 1

\\

Babeock & Wilcox now, e

, oww 3315 Old Forest Road a McDe*mott company P.O Box 10935 Lynchburg, V A 24506 0935 (804) 385-2000

JHT/89 204 October 6, 1989 Mr. James A. Norberg, Special A'ssistant Division of Engineering and System Technology Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555

Subject:

Rod Exchange Methodology Topical Report, BAW.10175

References:

1.

J. H. Taylor to J. A. Norberg, JHT/89-98, May 22, 1989.

2.

A. C. Thadani to J. H. Taylor, Acceptance for Referencing of Topical Report BAW 10175, " Rod Exchange Methodology",

August 7, 1989,

Dear Mr. Norberg:

Reference 1 transmitted the subject topical report to the NRC for review.

Subsequently, Reference 2 provided the Safety Evaluation Report (SER) and approval for that application.

This SER concludes that the rod exchange methodology is acceptable for use' by BWFC for McCuire Units.1 and 2 and Catawba Units 1 and 2.

B&W requests that the SER be revised to include applicability to all other Westinghouse PWRs.

Justification-for this extended applicability is included with the attachment to this letter.

y truly yours, h W, 7

.H.

aylor

/

Manager, Licensing Services cc:

w/ attach R.B. Borsum

-T.L. Baldwin D.B. Fieno, NRC R.C. Jones. NRC

Application of che Rod Exchange Methodology to Gther Westinghouse PWRs The ability to calculate the necessary information to support control rod worth measurements by rod exchange centers on accurately determining calculated individual bank worths and integral bank worth shapes.

This calculational process basically consists of three inter-connected analytical techniques: 1) the development of specific fuel nuclear cross sections; 2) the development of specific control rod cross-sections; and 3) the development of a core model for calculations of individual control rod bank worths and integral rod worth shapes.

BWFC has successfully demonstrated the ability to calculate the information required to support control rod worth j

measurements using the rod exchange method for Westinghouse designed plants in BAW-10175.

Presented on the following page are calculated and measured rod worths for three cycles each of two different Westinghouse-designed plants and for the three most recent B&W 177 F.A.

plant reloads.

Also attached are representative examples of measured integral rod worth versus predicted g

integral worth for three different types of plants.

Measured rod worths were determined by the standard boron exchange method.

This data demonstrates that BWFC has the ability to accurate'.y calculate control rod worths and integral worth shapes for a variety of fuel types, control rod types, and core designs.

The techniques approved in BAW-10175 are insensitive to global parameters that may dif fer in Westinghouse-designed pressurized water reactors (PWRs) other than the McGuire and Catawba units, such as the number of reactor coolant system loops, the fuel assembly design (eg., 15x15 vs. 17x17), and the number of fuel assemblies in the core (eg.,

Westinghouse 157 vs.

Westinghouse 193).

Since BWFC can accurately determine individual control rod bank worths (and integral shapes), and since BWFC has demonstrated technical support for control rod worth measurements by the rod exchange

method, the applicability for BAW-10175 should be extended to any Westinghouse reactors which BWFC.may support in the future.

3 M

2 s

i I:

McGuire l'Cy 2 McGuire-1 Cy 3' McGuire 1 Cy 4 hanh litA1 EI.24 RDiff AAnh titAE EIt.d 1Di(4.. 1Anh MEAR ZIts 1Diff i

CC 788 801 1.6 SB 779 844 7.7 CC 778 819 5.0 l

CD 586 656 10.7 CD 483 509

.$.1 CD

$80 573

+1.2

% Diff Mean -.4.8%

4.2%

Std. Dev.

I:

Conn Yankee Cy 12 Conn Yankee Cy 13 Conn Yankee Cy 14 Eanh 112.11 2I24 tDiff lanh 111A1 IIt4 iDiff AAnh dtAE EIAd 4Diff CD 2068 2050

+0.9 CD 2319 2122

+9.3 CD 2114 2183 3.2 CA 1813 1818 0.3 CA 1872 1813

+3.3 CA 1929 2008 3.9 CB 767 776 1,2 CB 802 748

+7.2 CB 929 961 3.3 l

t Diff Mean - 1.0%

i Std. Dev.

- 4.7%

IM1-1 Cy 7 D B Cy 6 ANO.1 Cy 9 f.ank titAA EItd %Diff AAnh lit.A1 EIts tDiff Ranh lis.AA IInd iDiff W

5 1220 1208

+1.0 5

1445 1326

+9.0 5

1380 1294

+6.6 r

6 934 971 3.8 6

1083 1111 2.5 6

1012 1057' 4.3 7

926 978 5.3 7

954 943

+1.2 7

825 867-4.8 4 Diff Mean -.0.3%

5.2%

i Std. Dev.

Il NOTES:

1) All Predicted rod worths calculated by BfR/BWFC.

]

2) All rod worths presented above are in urtits of PCM.

l

3) 1 Diff - (M P)/P x 100%

g; l

'E

?

W E

0 l

2_

3 M

i 0

8 i

2 i

7, 0

/

i 4 2

I i

i l

/

i i

W I

p/

i 0 R

0 I

.+

4 d

/[/

i S e 2

e 1

s t

p

./

ic c

ei

[/

d t

t yc r

.P

/

n ee

. 0 o

k i 6 i

1 it l

o o

+

n s

i Y

P

~.

i d

o n

o o

R l

C 0

I

/-[

i 2 1

e z

i 0 8

W R

I i

de V

i 0 s

ru 4

a

~

e M

l i

l O

0 0

2 3

4 5

6 7

8 9

1 1

0 gu8 rD 2 O ' p oa Wo 5

O, N

^

El

\\s w.\\

3

.'\\

y-

\\s O

x c

3.

Q %

4 O

x.

s

.. cr Q

N

-N

\\

t o

q f.3.

N m

u y=

e g!

e

@ A.

g v.

L x

c Q

f 0.'

~

O-

.. o E

L

+

N l!

O {

.g +

l 3

0 w

'5 CL -

g!

V O

7 O.5 c@

gj

~

E i

\\

o

_ O Bi L

CO g-l

.D i

-. i, 5

. Ct' I

_. O, V,

c

.m b

B s

O l

O I

i l

I i

i I

"i i

C-O O

O O

O l

O O-O

-O O

O O

i N

r7

. 't u7 O

N CO C) 3 i

l l

l I

l i

I BJ

.cc -

,~,

B I

s 0

23 P

_V 8

y 0

i 8 2

e 0

B i 4 2

/

kn i

a

/ '/

WR B

g ',

0 I

0 e

r 4

d 2

e

/ !

1 o

s l

/,?

t p

f e

c ei t

d c

2 S e h

y C

r t

,P r

'n e

0 o

'D i 6 it o

e k

W

/

1 is+

n a

o

=

Y P'

^

d i

n

/

d o

n o

R o

R C

0

~-

l d

2

~-

/,

a 1

~

rq e

i z

tn I

0 i 8 W

R I

der u

i 0 s

4 ae M

i x, :

O i

0 0

0 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 1

1 0

n joED 2oa i uOT ob* 5

=

[

integral Rod Worth ANO-1 Cy 9 ll CRGs' 5-7 in overlap a

O

- 0. 2 -

W'7

_ o.

- 0.6 -

l

- 0. 8 -

l 2

-1 j

i

- 1.2

//.# -

i l

Eg

_)4 7

l y

3:

- 1. 6 o

m o 2,

- 1.8 It t 1

-b

-2 4

e i

?

- 2.2 -

E

- 2.4

[

l

-2.6

-2.8

-3

- 3. 2

-t

- 3.4 i

i i

i f

I O

40.

8 01 120

.160 200 240 280 t

~

Rod index, 7.WD :

O Measured IRW-

,+

Predic ted IRW'.

4 s

f

%',y '

UMTED STATES -

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t

g WASHINGTON, D. C. 20666

-December 6, 1989 L

Mr..J. H. Taylor, Manager Licensing Services

. Nuclear Power Division:

Babcock & Wilcox' P. O.-Box =10935 Lynchburg : Virginia _ 24506-0935

Dear Mr.L Taylor:

SUBJECT:

R00 EXCHANGE METHODOLOGY TOPICAL REPORT,.BAW-10175 a

References:

1.

" Rod Exchange Methodology," BAW-10175, B6bcock & Wilcox Fuel Company,' April-1989.

2.

Letter from A. C. Thadani (NRC) to J. H. Taylor (B&W),

" Acceptance for-Referencing of Licensing Topical: Report BAW-10175, ' Rod Exchange Methodology, August 1989.

3.

Letter (JHT/89-204) from J. H. Taylor (B&W) to James A. Norberg (NRC), October 6, 1989.,

1 We had previously reviewed your licensing topical report on the rod'exchan

-f methodology-(Ref. 1) and issued a safety evaluation report (SER)-(Ref.'2) ge accepting the topical report for referencing-in licensing actions. The SER concludes that the rod-exchange methodology is acceptable for use by the Babcock & Wilcox Fuel Company (BWFC) for McGuire, Units 1 and 2 and Catawba, Units 1 and 2.

Your. letter of October 6, 1989 (Ref. 3) requests that the SER y

be revised to include applicability to all other Festinghouse PWRs. The l

1etter includes a justification for'this extended applicability.. We have i

reviewed the applicable information-and concur with your assessment that your q

rod exchange methodology is applicable to all current classes of Westinghouse

- i PWRs. Therefore, by this letter, the SER is amended to include applicability-of Topical Report BAW-10175 to all current classes of Westinghouse PWRS.

}

l l

Sincerely,

{

Ashok C. Thadani,-Director Division of Systems Technology Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation i

l l

l

l B & W FUEL COMPANY Lynchburg, Virginia Topical Report BAW-10175 A May 1990 ROD EXCHANGE METHOD 01DGY G. H. Hobson S. T. Robertson Kev Words: Rod Exchange. Rod Worth ABSTRACT The B & W Fuel Company (BWFC) has developed a calculational nethodology to support the measurement of control rod worth utilizing the rod exchange test method during post refueling low power physics testing. The adequacy of the BWFC rod exchange methodology is assessed by comparing predicted bank worths to measured worths for three reload fuel cycles.

These benchmark comparisons demonstrate the validity of the BWFC methodology for providing calculated pasameters required by utilities for performing control rod worth measurements using the rod exchange technique.

i

l TABLE OF CONTENTS Page-

' 1. - Introduction and Summary.

1-1 i 1:.

j 1.1 Introduction Ik1

1. 2 < S umma ry...... -... -... -......

2-1

!2.

Rod Exchange Calculational Methodology 72-1 2.1 Calculational Method overview

2 1

2.2 Calculational. Details

.s.

i 31

-l 3.

Rod Exchange Measurement Procedure 3.1 Test Method.

3-1 3.2 Data Analysis.

3-2.

3.3 -Acceptance Criteria.

3.....................

i 4.

Comparison to Measured Data 4-1 l

4.1 Benchmark Method 4.......................

4.2 Discussion of Results.

41 5.

Conclusions 5-1 6-1 6.

References.

.......................... ~.

t 1

LIST OF TABLIS

{

t Table-i 4-1.

Control Rod Worth by Rod Exchange for McCuire 1 Cycle 2 43 1

4 2.

Control Rod Worth by Rod Exchange for McCuire 1 Cycle 3 4-4 4-3.

Cont'rol Rod Worth by Rod Exchange for McGuire 1 Cycle 4 4-5 i

4-4.

Critical Height Comparison for McGuire 1 Cycle 2.,..

.4-6 l

4-5.

Critical Height Comparison for McGuire 1 Cycle 3.

4-7 4-6.

Critical Height Comparison for McGuire 1 Cycle 4.

4-8 i

l 1

-l

'1 11 1

l LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1.

. Definition of Critical Height 2-4 25 2 2.

Critical Height Calculation..................

2-6:

2 3.

Correction Factor-Calculation.

3 1.

Alpha Factors Vs. Critical Height for M-1 Cycle 3...

3-5.

4 l

4 i

1 j

1 l

1 111

~

4 1.

INTRODUCTION AND-

SUMMARY

- 1.1 Introduetion-

~ Control rod worth determination (both calculated and -measured) isLrequired for each nuclear reactor fue1~ cycle to verify acceptable shutdown margin.

Measurement of control rod worth = during-reload startup physics testing at '.-

pressurized water reactor-(PWR) facilities is typically-accomplished by_one of three methods (Reference 1):

1) Boron dilution = technique (boron swap),

2) Rod exchange (rod swap) technique, or

3) Boron endpoint method.-

The purpose of this report is to present the.B&W Fuel Company (BWFC) methodology.

to support performance of control rod worth measurements _ using. the - rod exchange technique.

This methodology involves the'use of.-approved computer codes to-determine both calculated control rod worths arid correction factors-for application to measured data to establish measured control rod worths.

' The validity of ' the BWFC rod exchange metho'dology is assessed'~ by examining j

calculated (or predicted) rod worth versus measured rod worth from zero -

+

power physics testing performed for three PWR reload fuel cycles. -These' benchmark calculations compare the BWFC predicted control rod (or bank) worths to measured worths inferred from applying BWFC-calculated correction factors to the raw, measured test results.

Additionally, _ this report provides a discussion of the rod worth by rod exchange test metho'd,.which I'

includes a test abstract, data analysis guidelines, and.the appropriate test acceptance criteria.

1.2 Summary The BWFC methodology for calculating rod worths and correctioj (a) factors to support the measurement of control rod worth by rod ' exchange utilizes approved codes and is outlined in Section 2.

The test method for performing rod worth measurements by rod exchange outlined herein (Section 3) is consistenc with the test procedure outlinod in References 1 and 2.

Benchmark data presented in Section 4 compares LWFC-predicted bank worths to 1-1

ib

~

infe rred, -. measured ' worths - using _ BWFC calculated a ' factors for three-different reload fuel cycles.

'The. results -are-consistent with data I

b summarized-in Reference 2, e

B g

I; g

3 g

i I;

51 Il

,I' I

l I

B :

1-2

.g B

g m-2.

ROD EXCHANGE CALCULATIONAL METHODOLOGYf i.1 Calculational Method Overview I

This section -outlines.the; calculational procedure used for generating information to ~ support the measurement 'of control rod worth utilizing the i

rod exchange test method.

Calculations are performed using the approved-nodal codes NOODLE- (Reference 3) : and ' FLAME -(References. 4' and 5).

The following information is generated'to support the. rod exchangeltest method.

Each rod bank worth is calculated with all' other banks withdrawn.

The. rod,.

i bank with the maximum calculated worth.is - defined as - the Reference, Bank.

The remaining banks are defined as' the test banks.

The critical height of the Reference Bank with each test bank: fully inserted I

3 is calculated.

" Critical height" is defined.as the endpoint position of the

[

y Reference Bank for which the fc11owing condition holds; the' calculated: core' i

reactivity with the Reference Bank at the critical height and the test bank-fully inserted equals the calculated core-reactivity with the Reference Bank fully inserted and the test bank fully withdrawn (sce-Fi ure 2-1).

E 4

1 I

-(k. ^1)

Calculated core reactivity (PCM) -

105 k

j where k is the calculated eigenvalue.

- l 1

During the rod exchange measurement process, the Reference Bank total (integral) worth is first measured by boron dilution with all other banks '

withdrawn.

The measured test bank worth is determined with the test bank

]

fully inserted and the Reference Bank at its critical height.

The test bank worth is equal to the withdrawn worth of the Reference Bank.

Since the ri 2-1 l

. ~i insertion of the test bank influences the integral worth of the Reference f

Bank, a correction factor is applied to the measured Reference Bank integral.

l

~

worth for determiningL the measured. test bank worth.

The~ correction factor-

- accounts for the ratio ' of the. Reference Bank integral worth with the test bank fully inserted to-the Reference Bank' integral worth'with all test banks out.

The correction factor.for each bank is, calculated at the' corresponding calculated critical height.-

2.2 Calculational Details-This-section provides the detailed calculational procedure used to calculate bank worths, critical heights, and correction factors.

I l

1) calculate the bank worth for bank x (W ).

The bank-worth is determined x

by the difference be*; ween the. core reactivity at all rods out (ARO)

E' condition and the core reactivity with bank x. fully inserted. ' Repeat wj the calculation for each bank (control and\\ safety).

Define the Reference-Bank as the' bank with the maximum.calcul ted worth (WREF) -

2) calculate the bank worth for the Reference Bank with bank x_(or, test bank) fully inserted (WREF,x).

The Reference Bank worth -is determined

~

by the difference between the core reactivity with-the test bank fully inserted and the core reactivity with both the Reference Bank and the test bank fully inserted.

Repeat the calculation for each test bank.

3) Calculate the integral bank worth for the Reference Bank with all test.

banks withdrawn.

The Reference, Bank is,modeled by inserting the bank in small increments to provide a set of worths versus insertion.

Fitting routines are used to provide a table of the integral bank worth at very fine insertion spacings.

i.

4) Calculate the integral bank worth for the Reference Bank with bank x l

fully inserted.

Repeat the calculation for each test bank.

5) Calculate the critical height (z) of the Reference Bank when bank x is fully inserted.

The critical height is defined as the position of the i,

Reference Bank at which the withdrawn worth of the Reference Bank equals I:

2-2 i

ggi

l

- the worth of bank. x (see Figure 2 2),.

Wx"WREF ' (f

WREF,x )

REF,x 8

f*EF J the. relative integral worth of the reference bank at

-l where 8

height z with bank x fully inserted. (0.0 s f* p,x s-

'1,0)

Repeat the calculation for each test bank,

6) Calculate the correction factor for bank x'(a ).

The correction factor x

is defined as the ratio of : the Reference Bank integral worth at. the calculated critical height with bank x fully inserted to-the Reference l q

Bank integral worth;at the calculated critical height with. bank x fully withdrawn (see Figure 2 3),

f W

REF,x REF,x l

5 ax-g f

WREF REF f*EF

~

where the relative integral worth of the reference bank at height z with all other banks - fuliy withdrawn ~

(0.0 s f I

}

REF Repeat the calculation for each test bank.

s 2-3 I

[

t Figure 2-1.

Definition of Critical Height

~

l l

t Statepoint 1 Statepoint 2 228

~

i Critical 4 eg Bank Height l

Position i

(steps) 4 i

i i

i~

0 Reference Test Reference Test Bank Bank Bank Bank i

' Core Reactivity at Statepoint 1.-

' lore Reactivity at Statepoint 2 4

4 e.

]W - W W. W W l: M W WW W

W -W M

W W

M'W

]

B W

I I

W 0

4 2

S S

8 00 3

2 no i

ta 3

luc

)

d D

la e

0 W

t 6

=

r C

e 1

s s

p n

e t

N t

i h

S x

t

(

g h

k g

n ie n

i o

a e

i H

B l

t

=

E i

s l

o l

h a

G P

a it 2

c i

w i

1 c

t p

i k

i u

t n

r o

C r

i B

G C

i e

do cn R

e l

2 o

r e

0 r

i 8 n

f t

e 2

R oC e

r i

u g

iF

=.

0 i

4

=

x, i

FE zR 7

K 0

0 0

0' o

0.

O 9

8 7

6 5

4 3

7, 1

t 't o 3 x'*.2.. g e t oIo

- u 9. '5 [E> Z n

i Y v.

Figure 2-3.

Correclion Factor Calculotion Reference.Bonk integral Worths j

1.1 N

1 Reference Bank Integral Uortin with Bank x Fully Inserted 0.9 g

n 3

0.8 i

it Reference Bank Integra b

O7 -

Worth with All Test Banks Out og SO O.6 c

bo a

.E $

'd

~

to 0.5 -

E ",E f*EF,x o

W O4 REF,x R

I h

os N

3 o,3 _.

z REF REF l

0.2 l

0.1

.l

.- s Critical Height NI O -

i i

i i-i i

O 40' 80-

-120 160 200 240 Control Rod Group _ Position-(Steps WD)'

j L,:

8?

}

t I

'3.

ROD EXCHANGE MEASUREMENT PROCEDURE I

-l 3.1 Test Method i

The rod exchange _ test method during zero power physics testing begins with'

[

I the measurement.of the highest predicted worth bank (the " Reference B'ank")

by boron -dilution.

Rod worth measurement by ~ boron dilution involves'

?

inserting the Reference Bank in = smallgincrements starting from equilibrium, near. all rods.out (ARO) conditions.

Continuous coolant system-. boron.

dilution during control rod insertion. results in a reactivity' trace from which incremental control rod-worths are determined for each rod insertion.

The test procedure ensures that the deboration rato during the Reference'-

f Bank worth measurement is less. than ~ 500 PCM/hr.

The differential boron worth is calculated by' dividing the ' measured, Reference Bank worth by. the difference in the ARO and Reference Bank-in boron. endpoints, il When the incremental rod worths are added and plotted.versus Reference Bank position, an integral rod worth curve results. 'The total' measured integral

i

]I Reference Bank worth at 0 steps withdrawn (WD) is' compared to the predihted-l

'~

Reference Bank worth.

Equilibrium conditions are obtained at 'a-Reference -

Bank position near fully inserted.

J Correction (s)' for. deboration over (or

[

under) shoot may be made, but equilibrium = conditions'are typically obtained at a final Reference Bank position of 0 30 Steps withdrawnf(WD).

.If the equilibrium conditions are obtained at a Reference Bank' position > 0 Steps WD, then the worth from that position to O Steps WD may be determined}y -

4 reactimeter measurement.

Similarly, the worth of the Reference-Bank - fr6m o

near all-rods-out ' conditions to fully withdrawn may be determined by_

t I

reactimeter measurement prior to deboration.

The test procedure' ensures -

that the entire Reference Bank integral worth is-determined.

I Fra the initial condition of the Reference Bank near full insertion, each remaining control and shutdown bank is inserted (exchanged) versus Reference Bank withdrawal to determine the Reference $ank critical height. for each

[

I 3-1 E

l j

-bank.

" critical height"- is defined -as the ~ endpoint' position of the Reference Ba s -for exactly critical conditions with - the measurement (or test) bank.at - 0 Steps VD.

Following the determination of critical height for each test bank, that bank is alternately withdrawn versus Reference' Bank 1

insertion.until the test bank is fully withdrawn, and the final Reference.

I Bank position ' is c recc,rded'.

3.2 Data Analysis This section outlines the basic procedure for calculating inferred. rod -

worths by rod exchange once all data-is collected for all test banks.

t The measured (inferred) bank worth is determined by the followihg equation for any given~ test bank, x:

l (Eq.3-1)

W UREF ' "x-(0#}x where The: measured (inferred) test bank worth.

W Th. measured worth of th. Reference Bank d..rm,n.d fre.l r

<g, the average of' initial (prior to rod exchange of the test.

W bank) and final (following rod exchange of-the test bank) positions of the Reference Bank to ARO.

Calculated correction ' factor; the ratio of' the calculatsi i

a-Reference Bank integral rod worth 'at the. predicted t

critical height with the test _ bank fully inserted to the Reference Bank. integral-rod worth at the same positum with all other banks fully withdrawn.

l (op)*

Measured integral rod worth of the Reference : Bank Drom L

the measured critical height to ARO.

I The determ nation of W for each test bank-involves the following

~

x assumptions:

1) The' values calculated for and (Ap) are typically determined using EF linear : interpolation from a table of measured Reference Bank integral l'

rod worth (with all other banks out) versus position.

I L

2) The predicted o ea he gwhd M & huMude d b

K, 8

3-2

..e,

Y 4

calculated. at the predicted critical height.

Measured reactivity to which this a factor adjustment is applied.. (Ap),, is determined from the

'g measured critical height.- Variation of'the-calculated _a factor versus critical-height - is depicted in Figure 31 for = several' different test banks for McCuire 1 Cycle 3.

The' impact on. the calculated a factor due

~

=

toivarying the critical height-20 Steps WD is small (less than 24) for-three of the test-banks shown.

The a factor for Control Bank C< varies more significantly over a similar range, but these - calculations were performed at a Reference Bank position of nearly fully-withdrawn'.l'While

~

M

' the - a factor changes more rapidly versus-position for Reference Bank positions near fully withdrawn, the corresponding (Ap)x. values.of the Reference - Bank for this situation will, be small (the ' (Ap)x value was less than 6 PCM for Control _ Bank C M 1 Cycle 3).

Therefore,: variation of - the calculated a ' factor versus critical height, considering the '

~

expected deviation between measured-and predicted critical' heigh't, = is -

sufficiently small such that the impact.of;this assumption on the final Wfvaluesisnegligible.

3) W worth values are reported.to the nearest whole PCM.-

3.3 Acceotance-Criteria All measured values (M) will be compared to the' predicted. data -(P)

~

i calculated using techniques-described in Section 2.

. Acceptance and review.

criteria based on these comparisons are then evaluated.- If any? acceptance criterion is not met, an evaluation is performed, before the startup test i_

program is continued.

Further specific' ~ actions, ~ which may include additional startup testing, depend on the evaluation ~results.

Ifiany review criterion-is not met, an evaluation is performed which.may take place during continued startup testing.

Also, final documented resolution' of a failed

=

acceptance criterion is typically required within 30 days, while final documented resolution of a failed review criterion -is typically required within 60 days.

2 i

Acceptance criteria are listed below.

Any comparisons that do not agree

=

within the following acceptance criteria ahall be analyzed and

~

satisfactorily resolved. Measured values should agree with predicted values 3-3

-s l

-um-==

'i 3:

f to within the following tolerances:

l' 1.-

' Reference Bank Worth ltDeviationl.-<

154:

2.

Total Rod Worth n Deviation >. 10t I

3.

Individual Bank Worth-ltDeviationl'<

306 (other than Reference-Bank) satisfies either

's-lMPl<-200PCM 4.

Differential-BoronWorth'ltDeviationl

~ 15%:

Note:

4 Deviation -

x 1004 E

~

Predicted g.p This definition of 4 deviation is consistent 'with-Reference 2.-

Review criteria are listed below. ' Comparisons of_ predicted and measured rod

=

worths that a're not within the review criteria shall be analyzed; and satisfactorily resolved. Measured values should agree with predicted values to within the following tolerances:

1.

Reference Bank' Worth ltDeviationl-<-

.104' 2.

Total Rod Worth n Deviation

< + 10%

3.

Individual Bank Worth ltDeviationl (other than Reference

'15%

Bank) satisfies either g

)

lM Pl < 100 PCM I

Il E

t 3-4

j

~

y 1

0 i

3 2

u m

0 1

2

/

3 e

'g E.

l B

c 0

k.

t y h 9

k n C

ig 1

n o e

D aB B

H W

n 1

lo w la 4

i pr o s

e c

t d

e nt i

r t

i it S. ou r

u C

Ch 0

S G

t s

i 7 h

1 g

c V

i4 M

s e

a H_

ro 1

I la tc i

c a

i F

itr o

C m

h 0

e lp r

A i 5 1

u g

i l

i F

P

. 0 i 3

'A'C 1.

k nk a n B o_

B p*

i lol is w

=

u r o t

r nt on m,.

0 C o P4 m

C 1

+

1 s,

w D

8 6

4 2

2 8

6 4

2 9

8 6

4 2

o 1

1 m

0 0

9 9

0 8

8 8

8 1

1 0

0 0

0 1

1 1

m, u

fI, o aa y u-

l

)

4 COMPARISON TO MEASURED DATA 4.1 Benchmark Method Measured data in the form of completed plant procedure packages containing control rod worth measurements performed using the rod exchange technique for three McCuire Nuclear Station Unit I reload fuel cycles (Cycles 2-4) were used for benchmarking.

From data available in these procedures, the

([REF ""

appropriate measured data

(

x "" "**

- - D extracted.

Once a factor values were calculated in accordance with Section 2,

inferred worths for these reloads were obtained using Equation 3-1 in Section 3.2.

Only measured (inferred) bank worths using BWFC-calculated a factors are compared to BWFC predicted bank worths.

BWFC-predicted critical heights are also compared to the measured critical heights from these startups for each test bank.

4.2 Discussion of Results Comparisons of predicted versus measured bank worths for the three reload cycles evaluated are presented in Tables 4-1 through 4-3.

The maximum percent difference between a predicted and measured test bank is -18.9%

(Control Bank A, M-1 Cycle 3 on Table 4-2), but this bank is a relatively low worth bank having an absolute difference between predicted and measured worth of only 67 PCM.

The maximum absolute difference between a predicted and measured test bank worth is 79 PCM (Control Bank D, M-1 Cycle 2), with a corresponding 12.0%

difference.

The mean percent difference between predicted and measured test banks for these three reload cycles (24 test banks) is -2.90% and the standard deviation of this sample (n-1 weighting) is 6.98%.

The mean percent difference value of -2.90% and the mean absolute difference of 17. 7 PCM (Std Dev. - 32.1 PCM) for these test banks compare favorably to the respectivc review criteria of 15% difference or 100 PCM, as presented in Section 3.3.

In fact, all individual test banks evaluated for BWFC benchmarking meet the review criteria.

4-1

g I'

Each of the Reference Banks measured by : boron = dilution for these reloads meets' both the acceptance and thel aore - restrictive review criterion (

15%

and t lot, respectively from Section 3.3) when compared to BWFC predictions.

Similarly the measured total 1 rod worth 'obtained by - summing the measured-B i

Reference Bank worth and the inferred test bank worths is acceptable. for

=these=three benchmark cycles, since the: percent difference when compared to' predicted-is > (more positive than) -10% in all cases.

Comparisons of _ predicted < versus measured - critical heights for McGuire 1

- Cycle --2-4 are contained in-Tablies. 4-4 through 4-6.

.No adj ustment. to the measured critical _ height; ' data obtained _during. testing-was-made_:when comparing.to BWFC calculated critical; heights.

_However, it'is recognized

'f that-a slight bias between measured and calculated critical heights exis'ts due to the Reference = Bank-being slightly less than fully inserted prior to

-rod exchange measurements, while the calculations' assume the Reference Bank is fully inserted.

Excellent agreement between predicted and - measured l

critical heights exists as only - three of 24 test - banks ~ have ' an absolute difference exceedin5 10 Steps withdrawn (WD).

The - ~ overal1 J aean - of the-1

_.i absolute differences between predicted and measured critical heights =is only j

l

-0.5 Steps WD, with a standard deviation - of - 7.6 Steps WD.

Adequacy of I

critical height calculations - gives_ added ' assurance that the. assumption associated with using the calculated a factor _ at the predicted ' criticall height to infer measured bank worth is valid.

Il 8

I ;

I l I

I I

4-2 1

I e

~

c, q <-

q la s~

g e-l t

I L.

'l l

I

!g

-Table'4a1 g

. Control Rod' Worth by.

l-Rod Exchange'for,

.McGuire 1 Cycle 2-lI Predicted'. Measured-Diff 2

Bank-Alpha Worth,PCM. Worth,PCM (M P)-

tDiff *

D 1.157 656 577

' 79 12.0%

'I -

C'(REF) 801-788.

13

- 1, 6 4 '-

B 1,680 627 596;

-31

-4.94-i A.

-0.812 281 279-2 0.7%

SE-0.902 233.

233

.O

.0.04-lW '

SD-1.173 383'

'385 2

0.54.

'g SC

l'.169 377.

372 5

1.3%

1 g

.SB

'O.952 496 495 1

-0.2%'

j SA 1.706 561

'533 28'

-5.04-l Total 4415 4258 157 3.6%

l l

t Difference - (M-P)/P f

a l

)

.. }

k IC H

l.

4-3 I

L,

8

.)

Table 4 2

'l Control; Rod Worth by Rod Exchange for-McCuire 1 Cycle 3

1 lD Predicted -Measured-Diff Bank Alpha Worth,PCM Worth,PCM (M.P)' - tDiff*

W 9.4%

l D

1.181 509.

461 48 C.

1.020' 805 744 61 7.6%

I B

0,841 598 615 17 2.8%-

-A 1.082 355-288

~. 6 7

.18.9%

i SE 0.868-463 406-57 12.34 SD --

1.051-371 383 12-3. 2 % --

li SC 1.055 369~

372 3

0.8%-

Wi SB (REF) 844 779-65 7.7%

SA 1.058 276

-304

.28 10.14-1 Total 4590 c4352 238 5.2%-

. I 4

6

-. t Difference - (M.P)/P I i Is!

B, I

I 4-4 I

g --

I4 l

r 4

lI; r

Table 423

[

l Control Rod Worth by

'g

' Rod Exchange for-

,3.

McGuire>1'. Cycle 4 8

l 8

Predicted. Measured-Diff Bank

. Alpha Worth,PCM. Worth,PCM (M-P)

4Diff

D 1.146 573 564 9

-1.6%

C (REF) 819 778-41:

-5.06.

g

-B

'1.300 685 678 7.

1.0%

g.-

A

-0.899 309-295-

-14

.4.5%-

SE.

0.924 505 471

.-34 6.7%

i j,

SD 1.119 361 327

-34 9.4%

W-SC'

~1.117-357 390~

33-

'9124 l

.SB 1.055 816

752.

64 7.8%

lm-SA "1.153 297 318 21.-

7.'1%

g i

Total 4722' 4573

-149

' 3.2%

lI l.

1 l

l

\\

.I:

l

-- t Difference - (M-P)/P

.lI N

I lI b-4-5 t

t g

g

~

B 8

Table 4 4l Critical Height'

-Comparison for McGuire 1 Cycle 32 Predictedi Measured Difference g!

Critical Hei,.

Critical' Ht.,

. (P.M)',-

gl Bank Steps WD Steps WD Steps WD D-

194, 183 11 i

,!~

C (REF) lB 198 197 1

g A

90 83' 7

gi L

SE' 92

'86 6

SD 149 147

-2 i

SC 148 144 4

SB 156 156 0

SA 192 191 1

Mean -

4.00 g

S. Dev.=

3.78

- g.'

I l i 4I 8

I 1

4-6 s

x

'e-3

.o, J

e l

l l

j

~ Table 4 5 g

Critical kleight Comparison for:

McCuire.1 Cycle'3 Predicted Measured Difference-Critical Ht.,-.

' Critical Ht..

(P-M),

Bank Steps WD Steps WD-Steps WD D

-162 163 1

C 209 224'

-15 B

161-180

. 19 A

133 127' 6

SE 135:

132

-3 I

'SD 133-

"141

.8 SC 133 139

-6 SB (REF)

SA 118 127 9

I

.i l

Mean.-

6.13 S. Dev ='

8.56-a 1

. i I

1 4-7

^

I!

I Table 4 6 g

Critical lleight 5

Comparison for McGuire 1 Cycle 4 I,

Predicted Measured Difference' Critical Ht.,

Critical Ht.,

(P.M).

gj Bank Steps WD Steps WD Steps VD gl D

179 179 0

C (REF)

B' 198 201 3'

A 116 108 8

SE 154 151 7

SD 146 136 10 l

SC 145 147 2

l SB 226 218 8

l SA 138 136 2

1 Mean.-

3.75 S. Dev -

5,09

,Il I

li I

I Il I!

l 4-8 I<

......u.

]..

5.

CONCLUSIONS I

The BVTC meth.dology to support measurement of cot. trol rod worth utilizing the tod exchange technique has been developed and verified using measured data.

The results of side-by side comparisons of BWFC calculated worths and critical heights versus operating plant data demonstrate that the BWFC rod exchange calculational methodology is adequate to support startup physics I

testing where rod worth measurements are determined using the rod exchange test method outlined herein.

I I

I l

l l

l 5-1

A s

o 5

6.

REFERENCES 1.

"American National Standard Reload Startup Physics Test for Pressurized Water Reactors",

ANSI /ANS.19.6.1 1985, American National-Standards Institute, Inc., December 1985.

2.

J.

H.

Randles and R.

J.

Tomonto, " Rod Swap Methodology Report for.

Startup Physics Testing" DPC.NE.1003-A, REVISION 1. December 1986, 3.

C.

W. Mays, et al.,

" NOODLE.. A Multi Dimensional Two Group Reactor Simulator", BAW 10152A, Babcock & Wilcox, Lynchburg, Virginia, June 1985.

4.

C. W. Mays, "FIAME 3.. A Three. Dimensional Nodal Code for Calculating Core Reactivity and Power Distributions", BAW 10124A, Babcock 6 Wilcox, Lynchburg, Virginia, August 1976.

5.

C. W. Mays, " Verification of Three Dimensional FLAME Code", BAW-10125A, Babcock & Wilcox, Lynchburg, Virginia, August 1976.

I I

l I

I I

!

ML20042H077

Contents

Text

SUBJECT:

References:

Dear Mrs. Wilson:

Dear Mr. Taylor:

SUBJECT:

Enclosure:

3.0 CONCLUSION

4.0 REFERENCES

Subject:

References:

Dear Mr. Norberg:

Dear Mr.L Taylor:

SUBJECT:

References:

SUMMARY

Navigation menu

ML20042H077

Text

SUBJECT:

References:

Dear Mrs. Wilson:

Dear Mr. Taylor:

SUBJECT:

Enclosure:

3.0 CONCLUSION

4.0 REFERENCES

Subject:

References:

Dear Mr. Norberg:

Dear Mr.L Taylor:

SUBJECT:

References:

SUMMARY

Navigation menu

Search