Text

Control Bank Reactivity Worth Determination Using Rod Swap Technique Rept
	ML20079D375
Person / Time
Site:	Callaway
Issue date:	06/30/1991
From:	Hock K, Justis P, Passwater A; UNION ELECTRIC CO.
To:	;
Shared Package
ML20079D374	List: ML20079D373; ML20079D375;
References
	NUDOCS 9107120099
	Download: ML20079D375 (89)
	v • d • e

_... _ _.............. _ _..

I I

I l

CONTROL BANK REACTIVITY WORTil DETERMINATION USING TIIE ROD SWAP TECIINIQUE I

I I

I Nuclear Fuel Group l

Licensing & Fuels Department Union Electric Company St. Louis, MO June,1991 I

I I

UNION I

SLECTRIC

E l

.j$71$$$$$0bf>.f$3

- ~

I I

CONTROL BANK REACTIVITY WORTli DETERMINATION USING TIIU ROD SWAP TECIINIQUE Nuclear Fuel Group Licensing & Fuels Department Union Electric Company St. Louis, MO June, 1991 I

I Prepared By:

[.

of 6

J/

P.

G. Justis /

Engineer, Nuclear Fuel Reviewed By: b

/dPr/2 b!25[i/

K.

P.

Ilock Engineer, Nuclear Fuel d!W /

Reviewed Dy:

R. ' J'.

Irwin /

Supervising Engineer, Nuclear Fuel

[

Approved By:

d u a.y E 7[

A.

C.

Passwater

/

Manager, Licensing & Fuels

!I l

.I I

I STATEMENT OF DISCIAIMER Data, methods, conclusions, and other information contained in this report have been prepared solely for use by Union Electric Company (Union Electric), and may not be appropriate for uses other than those described herein.

Union Electric therefore makes no claim or warranty whatsoever, express or implied, regarding the accuracy, usefulness, or applicability of information contained in this report.

In particular, UNION ELECTRIC MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCl!ANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, NOR SilALL ANY WARRANTY BE DEEMED TO ARISE TIIROUGli COURSE OF DEALING OR USAGE OF TRADE, with respect to the contents of this document.

In no event shall Union Electric be I

t i

liable, whether through contract, tort, warranty, or strict or absolute liability, for any damages resulting from the unauthorized use of information contained in this report.

I lI

'i 1I lI I

I I

1 I

E AllSTRACT This report describes Union Electric Company's methodology and techniques for determining control and shr",2 rq bank reactivity worths using the rod swap method.

The methods p.esented are applicable to the callaway Nuc1 car Plant.

As such, benchmark data collected at Callaway in support of the proposed methods are g

also presented.

I I

I l

ii I

J TABLE OF CONTENTS figj;1pl1 Paae 1.0 Introduction 1

~

1.1 Purpose of Bank Reactivity Worth Testing 1

1.2 Dilution Method 1

1 1.3 Rod Swap Method 2

1.4 Similarity to Previously-Licensed Methods 4

2.0 Rod Swap Test Description 5

2.1 Rod Swap Fundamentals 5

2.2 Test Objectives 6

a g

2.3 Test Sequence 6

2.4 Data Interpretation 8

3.0 Calculation Methodology 12 3.1 Overview of Codes and Methods 12 3.2 Required Data 13 3.3 Calculation Sequence 14 4.0 Acceptance and Review Criteria 33 4.1 Typical Criteria Structure 33 4.2 Union Electric Criteria Approach 34 4.3 Remedial Actions 36 5.0 Test Results and Methods Validation 38 5.1 Callaway Cycles 4 and 5 Test Results 38 5.2 Other Benchmarking 38 5.3 Method Equivalency (Rod Swap vs. Baron Dilution) 39 5.4 Benchmarking Conclusions 40 6.0 Conclusions 79 7.0 References 80 8.0 Bibliography 81 iii

LIST OF TAllLES 1.0h12 lblGR 1

Rod Swap Calculation Results 17 2

Acceptance / Review Criteria 37 3

Rod Swap Test Results 41 4

Reactor Description and Cycle Design Summary 57 5

Callaway Cyclo 1 Startup ?hysics Test Results 58 6

Callaway Cyclo 2 Startup Physics Test Results 59 7

Callaway Cycle 3 Startup Physics Test Results 60 8

Callaway Cycle 4 Startup Physics Test Resultr>

61 9

Callaway Cycle 5 Startup Physics Test Results 62 I

I I

I i

1 l

l i

I I

iv i

LIST OF FIGURES Piauro P5Go 1

Rod Swap Illustration and Equations 11 2

Cycle 4 Rod Swap Calculations - RB Integral Worth 18 3

Cycle 4 Rod Swap Calculations - CBD vs. RB Position 19 4

Cycle 4 Rod Swap Calculations - CBC vs. RB Position 20 5

Cycle 4 Rod Swap Calculations - CBB vs. RB Position 21 6

Cycle 4 Rod Swap Calculations - CBA vs. RB Position 22 7

Cycle 4 Rod Swap Calculations - SBE vs. RB Position 23 8

Cycle 5 Rod Swap Calculations - RB Integral Worth 24 9

Cycle 5 Rod Swap Calculations - CBD vs. RB Position 25 10 Cycle 5 Rod Swap Calculations - CBB vs. RB Position 26 11 Cycle 5 Rod Swap Calculations - CDA vs. RB Position 27 12 Cycle 5 Rod Swap Calculations - SBE vs. RB Position 28 13 Cycle 5 Rod Swap Calculations - SBD vs. RB Position 29 14 Cycle 5 Rod Swap Calculations - SBC vs. RB Position 30 15 Cycle 5 Rod Swap Calculations - SBB vs. RB Position 31 16 Cycle 5 Rod Swap Calculations - SBA vs. RB Position 32 17 Cycle 4 Rod Swap Testing - RB Integral Worth 42 18 Cycle 4 Rod Swap Testing - CBD Measurement 43 19 Cycle 4 Rod Swap Testing - CBC Measurement 44 20 Cycle 4 Rod Swap Testing - CBB Measurement 45 l

21 Cycle 4 Rod Swap Testing - CBA Heasurement 46 22 Cycle 4 Rod Swap Testing - SBE Measurement 47 23 Cycle 5 Rod Swap Testing - RB Integral Worth 48 5

24 Cycle 5 Rod Swap Testing - CBD Measurement 49 I

v I

I LIST OF FIGURES (continued)

Flaure pano 25 Cycle 5 Rod Swap Testing - CBD Measurement 50 I

26 Cycle 5 Rod Swap Testing - CBA Measurement 51 27 Cycle 5 Rod Swap Testing - SBE Measurement 52 28 Cycle 5 Rod Swap Testing - SBD Measurement 53 29 Cycle 5 Rod Swap Testing - SBC Measurement 54 30 Cycle 5 Rod Swap Testing - SBB Measurement 55 31 Cycle 5 Rod Swap Testing - SBA Measurement 56 32 Cycle 1 Boron Letdown 63 33 Cycle 2 Boron Lotdown 64 34 Cycle 3 Boron Letdown 65 35 Cycle 4 Boron Letdown 66 36 Cycle 1 BOC Reaction Rate Comparisons 67 37 Cycle 1 MOC Reaction Rate Comparisons 68 39 Cycle 1 EOC Reaction Rate Comparisons 69 39 Cycle 2 BOC Reaction Rate Comparisons 70 40 Cycle 2 MOC Reaction Rate Comparisons 71 41 Cycle 2 EOC Reaction Rate Comparisons 72 42 Cycle 3 BOC Reaction Ra'e Comparisons 73 43 Cycle 3 MOC Reaction Rate comparisons 74 44 Cycle 3 EOC Reaction Rate Comparisons 75 45 Cycle 4 BOC Reaction Rate Comparisons 76 46 Cycle 4 MOC Reaction Rate Comparisons 77 l

47 Cycle 4 EOC Re. action Rate Comparisons 78 I

vi lI l

1

CONTROL BANK REACTIVITY WORTil DETERMINATION USING Tl!E ROD SWAP TECID11QUE i

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose of Bank Reactivity Worth Testing I

control and shutdown bank reactivity worth testing is part of the normal reload physice testing sequence at virtually all commercial nuclear power plants.

The main purpose of bank worth testing is to validate the cycle specific core models used to design the reload and document its acceptability from a safety perspective, particularly in terms of shutdown margin.

Dank worth testing is accomplished by measuring selected bank worths and comparing the values obtained against corresponding predictions generated with design models.

Historically, the two primary methods used to perform bank worth testing are boron I

dilution and rod swap.

I 1

1.2 Dilution Method i

Currently, the boron dilution method of measuring bank I

worths is used at Callaway.

Starting with an all-rods-cut (Ano) configuration, a constant rate of boron dilution is i i 1 I 1

I initiated.

Control banks are periodically inserted to maintain the core near criticality (or within the specified physics testing range).

First, Control Bank D (CBD) is incrementally inserted, then CBC, CBB, and finally, CBA.

When CBA approaches full incertion, the dilution is terminate.d, and the core is allowed to stabilize with CBA at or near full insertion.

Dank worths are determined by analyzing reactivity traces recorded on strip charts.

The periodic negative reactivity insertions of each bank are measured and then summed.

The result is a tabulation of differential and integral bank worths which are then compared to corresponding predicted values.

Note that only the control banks are measured, and each worth measurement is made in the presence of the previously inserted bank (s).

2 1.3 Rod Swap Method I

Rod swap is an alternative method of meacuring bank worths which offers a number of advantages over boron dilution.

The first step in rod swap is to measure the worth of the single highest worth bank (based on predictions) using the boron dilution technique, beginning from an ARO core configuration.

This bank is designated the Reference Bank (RB).

I 3

2 l

I The dilution test produces a curve or tabulation of Reference Bank worth versus position (steps wathdrawn).

After the Reference Bank measurement, the core is allowed to st'abilize with the Reference Bank inserted, all other rods out (ORO), and baron dilution terminated.

While maintaining the core within the specified physics testing range, each other bank is then individually " swapped" with the Reference Bank.

Since the Reference Bank is the highest worth bank, the swapped bank will end fully inserted, while the Reference Bank will be withdrawn to some partially inserted, critical position.

Initial and final positions of the Reference Bank are recorded, and then the swap process reversed to return to the original configuration (RB-in, ORO).

This process is repeated for all remaining banks.

Bank worths (other than the Reference Bank) are determined by combining the Reference Bank worth tabulation with the recorded critical position data.

As described in more detail later in this report, each swapped bank worth is equivalent to the incremental worth of the Reference Bank from its starting point (usually near full insertion) to the respective critical position.

This worth value is based on the Reference Bank worth tabulation, and includes the presence of the Reference Bank at the critical position.

As is done for the boron dilution method, the determined worths are compared against corresponding design predictions.

lI

b~

llI

B The advantages of the rod swap technique are nignificant.

First, rod swap testing requires approximately half the time of conventional boron dilution testing.

This directly translates into reduced replacement power costs by increasing overall plant availability.

Second, rod swap I

involves less water processing, which also reducco costs.

Finally, and most important, since both control and shutdown banks are measured, rod swap represents a not increase in the number and diversity of reactor physics measurements taken during startup physics testing.

Thus, rod swap results in a more encompassing doncription of core behavior than boron dilution, ultimately enhancing plant safety, I

1.4 Similarity to Previously-Licensed Methods 1

It should be noted that Union Electric's proposed rod swap methodology, as described in this report, is equivalent to I

methods previously-licensed for such companies as Virginia Electric Power Co. (VEPC0) and Public Service Electric and Gas Co. (PSE&G)4 Although certain calculation sequences and data nanipulations may differ, the methods are fundamentally the same, particularly in terms of the number of measurements taken, the conservatism of the acceptance / review criteria, and the fact that calculations represent what is actually being measured in the core.

E l

-4 I

I 2.0 EOD. SWAE_.TliET DESCRIPTION 8

2.1 RJ$ Swap Fundamentals I

Rod swap is based on the premise that if the worth of 'no bank is explicitly known (or measured), then the worths of the remaining banks can be inferred by individually exchanging or " swapping" them with the known bank.

Although this seems reasonable intuitively, it is useful to visualize the exchange as two independent steps.

First, assume that Reference Bank worth versus position is known, as well as its critical position for a particular bank.

The exchange begins with a stable, critical core with the Reference Bank inserted alone.

The first step is to withdraw the Reference Bank to the known critical position for the swap configuration.

As a result, the positive core reactivity will equal the known reactivity worth of the Reference Bank from zero steps to the new position.

The second step is to fully insert the unknown bank.

Since the position of the Reference Bant; was known to represent the critical position with the unknown bank fully inserted, the I

core is now theoretically critical, assuming test conditions have not changed.

Also, since the ncgative reactivity of the unknown bank must exactly offset the positive reactivity produced by tne withdrawal of the Reference Bank, the worth of the unknown bank, in the presence of the Reference Bank, is now known.

In equation form, this identity is:

3

.e.

.!I

I W(RB) = (W(x)RBOCP) + (W (RB) CP-ARO) ort W(x)RBOCP = W(RB) - (W(RB)CP-ARO) where; W(x)RBOCP = Worth of Bank (x) with the Reference Bank at the critical position W(RB) = Total Reference Bank worth with no other banks present W (RB) CWARO = Reference Bank worth from the critical position to fully withdrawn I

In reality, both steps proceed at the same time,

llowever, if the core is truly critical at both the starting and ending configurations, the above identity holds true regardless of the path followed.

I 2.2 Test Objectives As previously stated, the objective of rod swap testing is to measure the reactivity worth of control and shutdown banks in the core.

Measurement results are compared against corresponding design predictions through the use of acceptance criteria.

E 2.3 Test Sequence Rod swap begins with a critical and steble core, and all banks withdrawn.

The worth of the most reactive bank, as determined by design predictions, is measured using the I

standard boron dilution technique.

To do this, a stable boron dilution is initiated, equivalent to a reactivity

' L3

I insertion rate of approximately 300 to 500 pcm por hour.

To compensate for the positive reactivity addition, the Reference Bank is periodically incerted to maintain approximate criticality and flux level.

I When the 'teforence Bank nears full insertion, the dilution is terminated and the core allowed to stabilize.

If the Reference Bank is not fully incerted after stabilization, the remaining worth segment is measured by temporarily inserting the Reference Bank, recording the resulting negative corc reactivity, and then returning the bank to its original position.

The Reference Bank worth is subsequently determined by analyzing the reactivity traces, as previously described.

This results in a tabulation of Reference Bank worth versus position.

I Thereafter, the Reference Bank is individually exchanged with each other bank.

Before each exchange, the initial position of the Reference Bank is recorded.

The Reference Bank is then gradually exchanged with the other bank until the other bank is fully incerted and the Reference Bank is at come critical position.

If the Reference Bank finishes i

fully withdrawn and the core is still sub-critical (called the " swap-out" condition), the core's negative reactivity is recorded.

After recording the Reference Bank position (and swap-out reactivity if fully withdrawn), the exchange is i

reversed, thus returning to the original state.

The final I

I

I position of the Roforence Bank is recorded.

This procean is repeated for all remaining banks, with initial, critical, and final Roference Bank positions recorded for each exchango.

After all swap measurements are completod, the core is returned to a stable condition with shutdown banks withdrawn and control banks in normal overlap modo.

During system restoration, rod swap bank worths are determined from the measurement data as described below.

I 2.4 Data Interpretation Reference Bank worth is determined using the standard data analysis techniques associated with the boron dilution method.

All other bank worths are determined through a combination of the F.cference Bank worth data and the Reference Bank's initial, critical, and final positions recorded during each bank oxchange.

Thus, the test data consists of the following information:

1)

RB worth table (pcm versus bank position) 2)

RB position before swap 3)

RB critical position after swap 4)

RB position after swap is reversed (Items 2-4 are collected for each bank exchanged with the Reference Bank)

In addition, the following predicted data are supplied:

l 1)

Predicted Reference Bank integral worth l

i 2)

Predicted Reference Bank critical poFitionS I

I 3

.e.

I I l

I 3)

Prodicted Bank X worth versus Reference Bank position 4)

Test Acceptance / Review Criteria i

(Predicted Reference Bank critical positions are provided as plant information only, and ave not used in the measurement procedure.)

I Bank Worths are obtained by retrieving from the Reference Bank worth measurement the Reference Bank's worth from fully inserted to its adjusted measured critical position, CP.

3 The measured critical position is adjusted to account for any test condition drift as well as a non-fully inserted init1&l Reference Bank position.

Thus, the adjusted critical position represents the critical pcsition that would have boon measured had the Reference Bank started fully inserted and test conditions remained completely stable.

It should be noted that such adjustnents are I

usually very small.

l If the Reference Bank was required to be fully withdrawn during the swap and the reactor was still sub critical (a

" swap-out" condition), then the bank worth is simply the l

Reference Bank worth from the average of its starting 1

positions to fully withdrawn, plus the swap-out reactivity.

I I

I The predicted bank worths, with the Reference Bates; at the adjusted measured critical position, are obtained from curves (or tabulations) of calculated Bank X worth vcrsus Reference Bank position.

Thus, the predicted values are placed directly on the same basis as the measurements.

I The rod swap sequence is illustrated in Figure 1.

lI I

I I

l I

I I

I

I R0D SWAP ILLUSTRATION AND [0JAT10NS W

RB 1

EB 1

RB K

out L- - J L-- J out op (a) 2 I

hf-~~*U~-

CV CV "... - ~.

- ".. ~.. '... - -.. -..

~------~~---

~* - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ - ~

cp cp A

h A

(RB) t(a)

I Rbe CP to (a) h (initial) h (ave) h (final)

U

- o o

T

- o in in I

Stage 1 Sta;e 2 Stage 3 I

W(x) uW(RP)-Delta-Rho (x) p I

where:

n(x)

Worth of Bank 1 with the Reference Bank at the adjusted measured critical position. CP,

A I

n(RB)

Total integral worth of the Reference Bank. t.esed on dilution measurment.

I

&c (a) e Integral worth of the Reference Bank from fully inserted i

to the average test starting point, h (ave) (Db itay not start I

o fully inserted), morth is based on RB dilution measurement.

Lp (x) is csed in cetermining the adjusted measured critical i

posstlon. CP.

I A

40 (a )

Integral worth of the Ref erence Bar k from fully withdrawn 2

I to the adjusted measured critical position. As with op (x).

I 40 (a) is based on the initial RB dilution measurement, 2

CF = Adjusted measured critical position. The nominal critical positicn is adjusted to account for test condithcn drift as well hs a non-fully Ariserted initial FB positiot i

Figafe 1 I

I l.

I "11"

I 3.0 CATCULATION METHOIX) LOGY I

3.1 Overview of Codes and Methods I

The primary reload design codes used by Union Electric are 5

6 CASMO-3 and SIMULATE-3P.

In addition, the code GRPDQ (an advanced version of PDQ-7 with 2D thermal feedback capabilites) is also used for certain model development applications, but not specifically for rod swap analysis.

The state-of-the-art codes CASMO-3 and SIMULATE-3P are products of Studsvik of America, Inc.

These codes are used I

extensively throughout the industry, both in the United States and abroad.

CASMO-3 is a multigroup, two-dimensional transport theory code for performing fuel burnup calculations.

Nuclear data is based on ENDF-B versions IV and V, and is assembled in both 40 and 70 group libraries ranging from 0 to 10 MeV.

CASMO is used for generating cross-section and discontinuity factor data for each nuclour fuel type loaded in the core.

This data is subsequently transferred to SIMULATE-3P though the processing program TABLES-3.

I SIMULATE-3P is an advanced two-group, two and three-dimensional nodal code for performing PWR and BWR core i

analysis.

SIMULATE-3P is based on the QPANDA neutronics I

-m-

.lI

model which represent: both fast and thermal intranodal flux distributions by fourth order polynomials.

SIMULATE-3P also features pin power reconstruction, which makes use of discontinuity factors and heterogeneous intra-assembly flux distributions generated in CASMO.

Due to SIMULATE's R-advanced features, the code requires no normalization. As such, SIMULATE is relatively easy ', 'we, and produces consistently accurate results.

N" rE is the main tool used for performing rod swap calculations.

Union Electric controls the use of the codes described above through firm adherence to procedures governed by Union Electric's Quality Assurance program.

These procedures address such subjects as preparation of calculations; software validation, verification, ins allation, and documentation; software development; and control of nuclear analysis activities.

3.2 Required Data The necessary rod swap calculations include the following:

1)

Reference Bank Identity 2)

Reference Bank Integral Worth 3)

Predicted Reference Bank Critical Positions 4)

Bank X Worths vs. Reference Bank Position 5)

Test Acceptance / Review Criteria 5 I

=

3.3 C:lculction Srquence I

The_ rod swap calculation sequence is as follows:

I 1.

Reference Bank Identity The Reference Bank is the highest-worth bank, assuming all other banks withdrawn.

The Reference Bank is determined by individually inserting each bank into a critical, ARO core model and calculating corresponding eigenvalues.

The bank which produces the largest reduction in k-effective is selected as the Reference Bank.

I 2.

Reference Bank Integral Worth, W(RB)

I Reference Bank integral worth is obtained by essentially modelling the dilution test.

Beginning with a critical, ARO core, the Reference Bank is inserted into each successive node of the 3-D core model.

After each insertion (boron is neld constant), the core eigenvalue is calculated.

Reference Bank integral worth at each position is the sum of all reactivity changes up to that point.

A table of Reference Bank integral worth vs. position (steps withdrawn) is generated from the data.

After the bank is fully inserted, a I

I critical boron calculation is perfomed.

All subsequent SIMULATE calculations for rod swap modelling are performed at this boron concentration.

I 3.

Reference Bank Critical Positions, CP I

SIMULATE-3P features the capability of searching on critical bank positions.

Beginning from a critical core with the Reference Bank inserted, the predicted critical positions are generated by individually inserting each remaining bank, and then instructing SIMULATE to re-establish criticality by iteratively adjusting Reference Bank position.

I 4.

Bank X Worths vs. Reference Bank Position Bank X worths versus Reference Bank position, W(x)RBOCP, are generated by splichly calculadng tne worth of a fully inserted Bank X with the Reference Bank placed at a range of positions.

All other banks remain fully withdrawn, and the boron level is set at the Reference Bank - in, ORO critical boron concentration.

I I

I

- 1e -

I

S.

Test Acceptance / Review Criteria l

I Test acceptance / review criteria percentages are obtained by tightening the base percentages (i.e.,

15% on swapped bank worths and 110% on the sum of all bank worths) based on comparisons of Union Electric and vendor bank worth predictions.

The determination of allow 3d percentages $s addressed in detail in Section 4.0.

Table 1 presents a summary of tho initial bank worth calculations used in selecting the Reference Banks in Callaway Cycles 4 and 5, as well as predicted Reference Bank critical positions for each Bank X.

Predictions of Reference Bank worths and Bank X worths versus Reference Bank position for each cycle are presented in Figures 2-7 and 8-16, respectively.

I Comparisons of predictions against measurements are provided in Section 5.0,

" Test Results and Method Validation."

I I

I I I

I ROD SWAP CALCULATION RESULTS L

(CALLAWAY. CYCLE.4 I

Worth Predicted RB CP Bank (PCM)

(Stem)

CBD 701.0 204 CBC 721.6 202 CBB 700.1 193 CBA 304.8 117 i

SBE 371.5 110 SBB*

780.1 NA CALLAW^Y CYCLE 5 I

Wo th Prodicted RB CP Ban <

(PCM)

[$lem) l CBD 519.5 137 CBC' 882.8 NA CBB 788.4 192 CBA 308.4 80 SBE 431.4 104 SBD 476.4 129 g

SBC 477.8 129 SBB 881.1 218 SBA 313.0 105 g

Designated as the noteronco Bank Tablo1 I

I

.n.

=

I I

-l CYCLE 4 ROD SWAP CALCULATIONS RB INTEGRAL WORTH I

Predicted Worth (pom) l 8 0 0,,-

I

_\\x W(RB) = 780.1 pcm i

N 600 I

I 400 I

I 200

\\

l lI

'\\

RB Shutdown Bank B

\\

lI

'N

!l O

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 Position (Steps Withdrawn) l Figure 2 I

I

-u-

I I

g

' CYCLE 4 ROD SWAP CALCULATIONS CBD WORTH VS. RB POSITION I

Bank X Worth (PCM)

-g 1100 1000 g

900

-~

\\q ll

\\'~x.

800

~

700 "w

I 600 I

600 l

400 l

300 g

200 100 g

0 2

1-

,-l 0

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 RB Position (Steps Withdrawn)

I Figure 3 I

.gl.

e I

I i

l-CYCLE 4 ROD SWAP CALCULATIONS CBC WORTH VS. RB POSITION 4

Bank X Worth (PCM)

>l 1200

' l 1100 1000 g

lI 900 800 I

700 l

=

600 500 I

400 l

soo l-200 100 J

i i

i o

l-0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 RB Position (Steps Withdrawn) g Figure 4 l 3

I I

l CYCLE 4 ROD SWAP CALCULATIONS CBB WORTH VS. RB POSITION I

Bank X Worth (PCM) l 1100 --

1000 g

900 --

800 I

700 l

600 500

/ ',

I 400 -2 l_

300 g

200 100 g

o I

O 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 RB Position (Steps Withdrawn)

I Figure 5 I

I _-

I l

CYCLE 4 ROD SWAP CALCULATIONS CBA WORTH VS. RB POSITION I

Bank X Worth (PCM)

-l 1200-i l

1100 1000 g

900 800 g-700 I

600 500 l

400

\\-

l

~

300

-~

g 200 100 g

g l

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 RB Position (Steps Withdrawn)

I Figure 0 I

l

-n

I l

CYCLE 4 ROD SWAP CALCULATIONS SBE WORTH VS. RB POSITION I

Bank X-Worth (PCM)

I-1200 l

1100 1000 g

900 800 700 I

600 500 I

400 il 300

=f l

200 100 g

0

,l 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 RB Position (Steps Withdrawn)

I Figure 7 I

l

-n.

,I l

CYCLE 5 ROD SWAP CALCULATIONS RB INTEGRAL WORTH I

Predicted Worth (pom)

W(RB) = 882.8 pcm l

800 -

k-

.I 600 I

I 400 I

x 200 N

l

'N' RB = Control Bank C

'N

' \\' =

O l

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 Position (Steps Withdrawn)

I Figure 8 I

I

-u-

B l

CYCLE 5 ROD SWAP CALCULATIONS CBD WORTH VS. RB POSITION l

Bank X Worth (PCM) l 1200 l

1100 g

1000 900 800,-

700

\\

I N

600 l

300 l-400 l

300 l

200 100 g

0 O

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 RB Position (Steps Withdrawn) g Figure 9 l -

I I

l CYCLE 5 ROD SWAP CALCULATIONS CBB WORTH VS. RB POSITION I

Bank X Worth (PCM)

I 1200 l

1100 ---

1000 -~

g 900 -" =

I

~~

800 -~

I 700

-~

I 600 500 I

400 l

300 l

200 100 g

0 I

O 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 RB Position (Steps Withdrawn) g Figure 10 l

u.

I I

l CYCLE 5 ROD SWAP CALCULATIONS CBA WORTH VS. RB POSITION I

Bank X Worth (PCM)

I 1200 l

1100 l

1000

'900

-~

800 700 I

600 600 400 l

300

~ ~

i l-200

= ~ ~

100 g

lI i

i i

g O

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 RB Position (Steps Withdrawn) g Figure 11

,l.

I I

l CYCLE 6 ROD SWAP CALCULATIONS SBE WORTH VS RD POSITION Bank X Worth (PCM)

I 1200 l

1100 1000

.g.

900 800 700 l

600 I

500 l

400 l

300 l

200 l

100 g

i i

i 0

I O

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 RB Position (Steps Withdrawn) g Figure 12 l

-2s-

I I

l CYCLE 5 ROD SWAP CALCULATIONS SBD WORTH VS. RB POSITION Bank X Worth (PCM)

I 1200 l

1100

-~

g

.1000 900 g

800 700-600

-~

500

~.

I 400 l

300 l

200 100 g

O-I O

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 RB Position (Steps Withdrawn) g Figure 13 ll I

I l

CYCLE 5 ROD SWAP CALCULATIONS SBC WORTH VS. RB POSITION I

Bank X Worth (PCM)

I 1200 l

1100 l

1000 900 800 700-

=~

600 I

500 Nm 400 l

300

-l 200 100 0

O 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 RB Position (Steps Withdrawn) g Figure 14 I

I

-x-

I l-CYCLE 5 ROD SWAP CALCULATIONS SBB '# ORTH VS. RB POSITION I

Bank X Worth (PUM)

I 1200 l

1100 g

1000 900

-~

I

,/-

800

=

4-'-

700 l-600 500 l

400 l

300 l

200 100 g

i o

l 0

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 RB Position (Steps Withdrawn)

J Figure 15

A-n L

..w n

4

=

1 l

.I l

CYCLE 5 ROD SWAP CALCULATIONS SBA WORTH VS. RB POSITION Bank X Worth (PCM)

,I 1200 l

1100 l

1000 900 g

800 700 600 l

X~

l 300 l

200 g

100 0

O 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 g

RB Position (Steps Withdrawn)

Figure 16 l -

/

s t

* s a p#'

\\\\

sp **

6 sco

ls

\\

~'r 9

6f' #

\\

- fpls, /*

.#,e

,o**

3#ob

+,# ' # *p.-

f~" e

s s +<,, #

r

/ ##

'#ef

/ *os,

f #.

- */

f *#a,

s* -

<f'#

p*:*

/"".

\\

6 s**p.+,/

\\

,pr ' &,/ "'

e #p/, vp'3#*p

/

\\* '"

,s p'

,<* p s-pr ** #

gs#

,,p se.,

seyf

,#p d'[ ***" ',, *

ep.#,,. p,,#

,/ +,

ps#+

e

' + pow

- ': r:.

, + p l '

//,

w s

s+f **

p

+ + -

4,s56' # s.

..,f'

,p, a, j #p.

s p

p-r f'e x

/

,/

-/

4.0 ACCEPTANCE AND REVIEW CRITERIA 4.1 Typical Criteria Structure Acceptance / review criteria, as used in previously-licensed 3,4 uethods,_ involve three basic comparisons First, the Reference Bank worth must be within 10% of the predicted value.

Since other bank worths are inferred from the Reference Bank worth, the test results shall meet this acceptance criterion.

Second, individual bank worths must be within 15% of I-.

predicted values.

This criterion constitutes a review requirement.

In other words, if an individual bank exceeds the criterion, then a review must be performed by the appropriate personnel to determine test acceptability.

Such reviews, including corrective actions as necessary, must be completed prior to power escalation.

Third, the total worth of all banks, including the Reference Bank, most be within 10% of the predicted sum.

As with the Reference BanP worth, this comparison is an acceptance criterion, and shall be met.

I

I lI I

-m-I-

4.2 Union Electric Critoria Approach I

Union Electric's proposed criteria structure is fundamentally the same as described above.

Iloweve r, to ensure meaningful validation of vendor models as well as consistency with previously-approved rod swap methods, the percentages are tightened, as discussed below.

Since Westinghouse Electric Corporation will continue to perform the licensed reload design and safety evaluations for Callaway, it is important to relate the measured bank worths to the vendor models.

This could be done by performing two sets of comparisons: i) measurements vs. UE calculations, and 11) measurements vs. vendor calculations.

However, this approach would be cumbersome for plant personnel.

An alternative approach is to directly incorporate vendor calculations into the acceptance / review criteria.

In other words, acceptance / review criteria percentages for each bank (excluding the Reference Bank) and the sum of all banks will implicitly include a comparison of Union Electric and vendor design predictions.

This ensures that individual bank worths will be within +/- 15%, and the total worth of all banks will be within +/-10%, of both Union Electric naql vendor design calculations.

Reference Bank percentages are not tightened since they are set at a more stringent criteria of +/-10%.

I I

I Daviation percents between Union Electric and vendor predictions are calculated using the equation:

Deviation (%)

(W(UE)-W(vendor))/W(vendor)

100

=

I Where W(UE) is the bank Worth value predicted by Union Electric, and W(vendor) is the worth value vredicted by Westinghouse.

I For example, assume the following bank worths:

CBD (UE predicted)

= 700 pcm CBD (vendor predicted) = 715' pcm SUM (UE predicted)

= 3500 pcm SUM (vendor predicted) = 3600 pcm (CBD = Control Bank D, and SUM = Sum of all banks)

The percent differences between the UE and vendor values are:

CBD = (700-715)/715

100 = - 2.1%

SUM = (3500-3600)/3600

100 = - 2.8%

The resulting criteria percentages, based upon ojia Union Electric and vendor predictions, are then:

I CBD = +15%/-12.9%

SUM = +10%/-7.2%

I (Note that the percentages are never greater than the nominal acceptance values.)

- 35

I In summary, the proposed acceptance / review criteria are fundamentally the same as in previously-licensed methods.

However, to ensure consistency with vendor design models, criteria percentages will be tightened, as appropriate, based on comparisons of Union Electric and vendor design predictions.

A summary of criteria range calculations for Callaway Cycles 4 and 5 is presented in Table 2.

I 4.3 Remedial Actions If any pccentance criterion is not met (i.e., Reference Bank worth or sum of all bank worths), then dilution measurements of the control banks will be required.

This requirement is explicity incorporated into Callaway rod swap procedures.

If any review criterion is not met, the situation shall be rev3ewed prior to power escalation by the responsible Reactor Engineering and Nuclear Fuel engineers in conjunction with the appropriate supervisory personnel.

Based on the review, testing may be repeated, other confirmatory tests performed, or based on acceptance criteria results, the test may be considered acceptable.

I Final resolution shall be based on analyses of plant data, any confirmatory tests, and evaluations of the impact of the discrepancy on plant safety.

Again, these requirements are explicitly incorporated into Callaway rod swap procedures.

I i 1 I

I

. ACCEPTANCE / REVIEW CRITERIA RANGE CALCULATIONS I

C Ai.LhWnYl CYCLE' 4 UE Vendor Criteria Bank Worth Worth

_2.D_lII.

Rangg,(yo.)

0 CBD 701.0 719

-2.5 +15/ 12.5 CBC 721.6 703 2.6 +12.4/-15 CBB 700.1 675 3.7 +11.3/-15 CBA 304.8 303 0.6 +14.4/-15 SBE 371.5 355 4.6 + 10.4/-15 SBB 780.1 755 3. '. +10/-10

Total 3579.1 3510 2.0

+ 8/-10 l

-[CA(M4\\VAY[CYC'LE 5 I

UE Vendor Criteria Bank Worth Worth

% Diff Egnae(oM l

CBD 519.5 51 9 0.1 +14.9/-15 i

CBC 882.8 885

-0.2

+10/-10

CBB 788.4 723 9.0

+ 6/-15 CBA 308.4 335

-7.9

+ 15/-7.1 SBE 431.4 430 0.3 +14.7/-15 SBD 476.4 452 5.4

+9.6/-15 l

SBC 477.8 452 5.7

+9.3/-15 SBB 881.1 830 6.2

+8.8/-15 SBA 313.0 291 7.6

+ 7.4 /-15 Total 5078.8 4917 3.3

+ 6.7/-10

Not adjusted (Reference Bank) e

, u Table 2 !

I 5.0 TEST RESULTS AND METILODS VALID.ATION I

5.1 Callaway Cycles 4 & 5 Test Results I

Rod' swap testing was perfomed at Callaway during startup physics testing for cycles 4 and 5, in addition to conventional bank worth testing by boron dilution.

Due to outage constraints in Cycle 4, only six banks were measured (including the Reference Bank).

However, all nine banks were measured in Cycle 5.

Thus, a total of fifteen control and shutdown banks in a wide range of core locations have been measured using rod swap over the course of two cycles.

The results of these measurements are presented in Table 3 and Figures 17-31.

5.2 Other Benchmarking I

Although direct comparison of rod swap measurements against design calculations is the primary validation technique, other types of comparisons are very valuable.

All physics measurements are generally impacted by the same set of core parameters (i.e.,

power distribution, boron concentration, I

cross-sections, etc.).

Therefore, the ability of design models to accurately predict a wide range of core behavior adds further validation of the codes and methods used.

I I

I

-3e-I

Tables 5-9 and Figures 32-47 present additional benchmarking comparisons.

These comparisons include llZP boron endpoints, liZP reactivity coef ficients, llZP bank worths (boron dilution method), liFP boron letdown, and in-core detector reaction rates for BOC, MOC, and EOC burnup points.

Table 4 contains

,I a summary of the design characteristics of each cycle.

I 5.3 Method Lquivalency (Rod Swap vs. Doron Dilution)

I By comparing the percent deviations of rod swap to those of boron dilution (see Tables 3, 8,

and 9), it is seen that rod swap is equivalent to boron dilution in terms of verification of design models.

The standard devir.t on ci the rod swap measurements versus predictions is 2.44%, while the standard deviation of tho dilution measurements is 3.96%.

1 In Callaway Cycle 4, the boron dilution worth deviations for individual banks ranged from 3.4% to 5.6%, while the sum of all control banks was 4.2%.

Corresponding rod swap values are -3.8% to +6.1% for individual banks, and +0.2% for the sum of banks measured.

In Cycle 5, the boron dilution worth ranges were -1.3% to 5.4%, and 2.2% respectively.

Rod swap ranges were +0.1% to

+4.2%,

and +1.8%. I

In cddition, it should be noted that rod swap involves significantly lees inteiprctats-of raw test data.

After the Reference Bank is measured and analy::ed, all other l

worths are based on objective quantities.

Ilowever, for boron dilution, all banks involve the tedious (and subjective) interpretation of reactivity traces.

Thus, rod swap should produce greater consistency of results.

To an extent, this tendency is seen in the rod swap vs. boron dilution comparisons - there is less overall scatter in the rod swap deviations.

5.4 Denchmarking conclusions The benchmark data contairied in this report demonstrates that Union Electric's code:t and methods are highly accurate B

in peforming reacYor physics calculations.

In particular, comparisons of rod swap measurements to design predictions validate Union Electric's rod swap methodology and confirm that rod swap is equivalent to boron dilution in terms of validction of design models.

I I

I l

l I l

l g

l

-o-Lt

I e

J ROD SWAP TEST RESULTS Cellaway Cycle 4 '

RB CP RBCP Meas.

Pred.

Accept I

D.aDh Lflgwj (AJ) y/p[1D Worth Error %)

Een2P.L%)

OK?

SBB (RS)

NA NA 808.6 780.1

+3.3

+ 10/-10 Yes CBD 197.5 194.0 697.6 725.3

-3.8

+ 15/-12.5 Yes CBC 200.5 197.2 712.9 710.2

+ 0.4

+ 12.4 /-15 Yes CBB 189.0 186.0 658.2 672.3

-2.1

+ 11.3 '-15 Yes CBA 122.0 119.5 337.8 337.5

0.1

+14.4/-15 Yes SBE 118.5 118.0 330.5 311.6

+6.1

+10.4/-15 Yes Total 3545.6 3537.0

+ 0. 2

+ B 0/-10 Yes

, Callaway Cycle 5 '

RBCP RB CP Meas.

Prod.

Accept I

Danh (Rawj (Ajj)

Worth Worth Error,(%)

RannN%)

QM CBC (RB)

NA NA 889.1 882.8

+0.7

+ 10/-10 Yes CBD 143.0 130.0 583.8 572.0

+21

+14.9/-15 Yes CBB 200.0 192.0 COB.O 801.6 40.8 46.0/-15 Yes CBA B2.5 79.0 235.1 234.8

+ 0.1

+ 15/-7.1 Yes SBE 108.0 104.0 399.4 385.2

+ 3.7

+14.7/-15 Yes SBD 136.5 132.0 554.9 532.0,

+4.2 49.6/-15 Yes SBC 136.5 132.0 552.8 533.6

+3.6

+ 9.3/-15 Yes SBB' 228.0 (NA) 876.0 875.1

+ 0.1

+ 0.8/-15 Yes SBA 109.0 105,0 407.9 394.8

+ 3.3

+7.4/-15 Yes Total 5307.0 5212.5

+1.8

+ 6.7/-10 Yes I

" Swap-out" condition occured: W(SBB) = W(RB)- Delta-Rho 1 + excess reactivity

= 889pem - 29.5pcm + 16.5pcm = 876 pcm j

Table 3 i

1 -

I I

.l CYCLE 4 ROD SWAP TESTING RB INTEGRAL WORTH I

Measured Worth (pom) l l

1000 I

W(RB) = 808.6 pom (measured) k, 600 kj 400 l\\k 4

I

\\+N

\\

I 200

-~

g RB = Shutdown Bank 8 0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 5

Position (Steps Withdrawn)

I Meas.

Pre d.

I Figure 17 I

.u-

e

h aL-6,.-_e+

i&

A

-. -. - _ ~. - _.

--y.

J.---A.J.

...-----s c

_,-_n

-a ew.2 A-.

m I

I l

CYCLE 4 ROD SWAP

~ESTING CBD MEASUREfv.dNT I

RB Worth (pom)

I h0(avo) 30.5 Stops Delta-Rho (1) 16.06 pcm i

800 "- ' '-

.N

\\

W(RD) 808.6 pcm

g Delta-Rho (2) 111.0 pcm

'N W(x)RDeCP = 697.0 pcm 600

-\\

s l

NsX I

400 N.

l

\\.

\\

l N

200

-x l

CPf adj) 194.0 Steps \\,

g Ce(raw).197.6 Stops

\\

i i

i x

g l

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 Position (Steps Withdrawn)

I Figure 18 I I

I I

CYCLE 4 ROD SWAP TESTING g

CBC MEASUREMENT I

RB Worth (pom) l h0(avo) = 30.0 Steps Delta-Rho (1) = 10.23 pcm x.N N

W(RD) 808.0 pcm

'N Delt e-Rho (2) = 90.7 pcm

\\

W(x)RDeCP 712.9 pcm I

600

'N N

I

\\

'N I

400

'N g

\\,

'N I

N' 200

" N, l

CP(adj) 197.2 Stops N CP(raw) 200.5 Steps m

x o

l 0

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 Position (Steps Withdrawn)

Figure 19 E

g

~.

I I

g CYCLE 4 ROD SWAP TESTING CBB MEASUREMENT I

l 1000 I

h0(ave) 28.6 Stepo Delta-Rho (1) = 14.98 pcm N \\

W(RD) = 808.6 pcm

g Delta-Rho (2) 150.4 pcm y

W(x)RDeCP = 068.2 pcm I

600

-~

As, X

e*

\\

i x

l

\\

400

\\

I Nx N

I N

200 N

CP(adj)*186.0 Ste ps \\.

g CP(raw) 1BG.0 Steps

'\\

l Nx g

i i

i 1

l 0

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 Position (Steps Withdrawn)

I Figure 20 I -

I I

CYCLE 4 ROD SWAP TESTING g

CBA MEASUREMENT I

R8 Worth (pom)

I h0(avo) 24.76 Stepo Delta-Rho (1) 11.00 pom h

W(RD) 800.0 pcm Delta-Rho (2) 470.8 pcm N

W(x)tiDeCP 337,0 pciw I

2 600 N

-~

s s

\\

CP(at) 119.5 Stops CP(taw) 122.0 Stops 400

~-

v

'N

\\s I

i.

200 Xs l

'x..

.s l

'Nx i

i i

o

'g_

0 20 40 60 80 1001201401GO 180 200 220 Position (Steps Withdrawn)

I Figure 21 I

g

_o.

I I

CYCLE 4 ROD SWAP TESTING g

SBE MEASUREMENT I

RB Worth (pom)

I h0(ave) = 11.0 Stept Delta-Rho (1) 2.24 pom l

800'

'N N

'g W(RD)

808.0 pcm N.,

Delta-Rho (2) 478.1 pcm N

W(x)RDeCP 330.5 pcm I

600

'N

\\=

CP(adj)=118.0 Ste ps

\\

(raw)=118.5 Steps CP 1

I 400

~y g

\\

N i

N I

N 200

's X

l 5 Nx 8

\\.N--

-l 0-ll 0

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 Position (Steps Withdrawn)

I Figure 22

'I I

I 5

g CYCLE 5 ROD SWAP TES~~lk G RB lhTEGRAL WORTH I

Measured Worth (pom)

I 1000 W(RB) 889.1 pom (measured) h im l

800

-~

\\-

I 600

-~

\\x' I

400

~

s.

l

\\,

200

\\

RB = Control Bank C

'g

\\

'b..

l i

i i

i ii g

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 I

Position (Steps)

Meas.

l Pred.

Figure 23

'I I

I I

CYCLE 5 ROD SWAP TESTING g

CBD MEASUREMENT I

RB Worth (pom) h0(ave) = 31.26 Stopo I

Delta-Rho (1) 30.3 pcm N

l 800 --

W(RD) = 8 89.1 p cm I

Delta-Rho (2) 305.3 pcm W(x)RDeCP = 083.8 pcm I

600 I

400

'N l

CP(adj) 138.0 Stopo

\\

CP(raw) 143.0 Sicps 200 I

xs

'N i

i i

0 l

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 Position (Steps Withdrawn)

I Figure 24 I

4e-g

I CYCLE 5 ROD SWAP TESTING g

CBB MEASUREMENT I

RB Worth (pom) h0(ave) = 32,00 Steps I

~x Delta-Rho (1) = 31,8 pcm y

l 800 N

W(RD) 889.1 pcm Delta-Rho (2)

81.1 pcm W(x)RDeCP 808.0 pcm 600 I

400

-~

N N

I N

200 y

I N

CP(adj) 192.0 Stops

'N.

ce(r aw) 200,0 Stop.

N l-0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 Position (Steps Withdrawn)

I Figure 26 I

-,0-

I E

CYCLE 5 ROD SWAP TESTING g

CBA MEASUREMENT I

RB Worth (pom) h0(ave) = 32.00 Stepa I

m Delta-Rho (1) 31.0 pcm l

800 I

CP(adj)=79.0 Steps

\\ CP(raw)=82.5 Stope W(RB) = 889.1 pom I

Delta-Rho (2) = 054.0 pcm W(x)RDeCP = 236.1 pcm 400

-~

N N

P

\\

i 200

\\

I NN og a

s I

,ii,,A g

g 0

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 Position (Steps Withdrawn)

LI Figure 26

'I g

-s1-

I I

CYCLE 5 ROD SWAP TESTING g

SBE MEASUREMENT I

RB Worth (pom) h0(ave) 32.00 Steps I

"m_ Delta-Rho (1) 31.0 pom l

800 N

Delta-Rho (2) 409.7 pcm W(RD) 889.1 pcm I

W(x)RD*CP 399.4 pcm 600 CP(adj) 104.0 Steps CP(raw) 108.0 Stepa 400

.-\\

I I

200 N

I N.

!I

\\x i

i i

i%

l g

ll 0

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 Position (Steps Withdrawn)

,I I

Figure 27

'I

,g

-s2-

6 2

.+E L-.

e r

I I

g CYCLE 5 ROD SWAP TESTING SBD MEASUREMENT I

RB Worth (pom) h0(a /0) = 2 9.2 5 Ste pa I

Delta-Rho (1) = 27.0 pcm I

800 v

N-W(RD) = 8 09,1 pcm I

Delta-Rho (2) 334.2 pcm W(x)RDeCP 554,9 pcm 600 2

I~

N 400

-~

c CP(adj) 132.0 Steps CP(raw)=130.5 Stepa

-l 200

^y l

N N

I N

' Nd 0

l 0

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 Position (Steps Withdrawn) l I Figure 28 I

l

-s3-

I I

CYCLE 5 ROD SWAP TESTING g

SBC MEASUREMENT RB Worth (pom) h0(ave) = 30.6 Stept I

Delta-Rho (1) = 29.1 pcm l

800 W(RD) 889.1 pcm Delta-Rho (2) 330.3 pcm W(x)RDeCP 652.0 pom 600 I

I 400 CP(adj).132.0 Steps CP(raw) 130.5 Steps g

N 200 I

'NN i

i i

i a

i i

i w

g l

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 Position (Steps Withdrawn)

'I Figure 29 I..

I I

CYCLE 5 ROD SWAP TESTING g

SBB MEASUREMENT I

RB-Worth (pom) h0(ave) = 30.70 Stepa I

\\ elta-Rho (1) = 29.6 pcm D

N l

800 v

\\

W(RD) = 809.1 pcm Delta-Rho (2) = 0.0 pom

\\

W(x)RD*CP a 070.0 pcm t_0 0

-~

I

\\

I 400

\\g

\\

g N

I N

200-

\\

CP = 228.0 Steps Reactivity 16.5 pcm

=

(Swap-Out Condition)

I-x 0

l 0

20 40 60 80 10012n 140160180 200 220 Position (Steps Withdrawn)

I Figure 30 I

_e.

I I

CYCLE 5 ROD SWAP TESTING 4

g SBA MEASUREMENT I

RB Worth (pom) h0(ave) = 30.76 Stepo I

Delta-Rho (1) = 29.6 pcm l

800 W(RD) = 889.1 pcm I

Delta-Rho (2) = 4 81.2 pcm j

W(x)RD&CP = 407.9 pcm 600

-~

I

\\

(adj)=100.0 Steps

\\ CP 400

\\

(raw)=109.0 Stope CP I

1

\\

N I

N 200

--~

N i l N

N I

N, w g

l 0

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 Position (Steps Withdrawn)

I Figure 31 g

-sc-

E I

CALLAWAY NUCLEAR PLANT REACTOR DESCRll' TION and CYCLE DS$10N SUMM ARY I

} REACTOR DESCRIPTiONiCU' RENT))

~

R Westinghouse 4 Loop 193 Assemblies,17x17 Lattico 3565 MWt (Uprated itom 3411 MWt)

Low Leata00 Loading Patterns AD-In-Cd RCCAs

CYCLE DEOlGN SUMMARV I

Cycle Food Moch Food BA RCCA Cycle BU h

61Em L20 El2 lye 2A T_yjlg GWD/MTU) ii I 1

193 STD 2.1, 2.6, 3.1 STD GPR Hafnium 15.286 2

84 OFA 3.4, 3. 8 WABA Hafnium 16.675 3

96 V5 3.0, 3.8, 4.2 WADAliFBA Hafnium 19.308 4

92 V5 4.0, 4.4 WABAllFBA Ag-In-Cd 20.015

(

5 92 V5

4. 0, 4.4 IFBA Ag-In-Cd 20.186 1

I Table 4

==

1 l

CALLAWAY CYCLE 1 STARTUP PilYSICS TESTS RESULTS I

BORON ENDPOINTS (PPM)

Configuratipt)

Measured S!MUL ATE QgjlOS-M)

ARO 1334 1351 17 D-In 1276 1288 12 D + C-in 1148 i167 19 D+C+ B-in 1042 1071 29 D+C+ B+ A-in 979 1006 27 l

RE CTIVJTY COEFFICIENTS (PCM/DEO F)[

^

Measured SIMULATE Qpjja (S-M)

ARO ITC

-0.66

-0.24 0.42 D-in ITC

-2.20

-1.52 0.68 D4 C-in ITC

-5.58

-5.20 0.38

. INTEORhL CONTROL liANK %'ORTilS (PCM[ [

D.iLn.h Measured SIMULATE Error (%)

D 663 641

-3.3 C (D-In) 1177 1232 4./

B (D+C-in) 1010 997

-1.0 l

A (D4 C + B-in) 605 673

-1.8 SE (D4 C+ B+ A-in) 882 852

-3.4 SD (D+C+ B+ A+ SE-in) 738 737

-0.1 SC (D+C+ B+ A+SE+ SD 978 961

-1.7 Total 6133 6093

-0.7 I

I Tabic 5 -.

I l

CALLAWAY CYCLE 2 STARTUP Pl!YSICS TESTS RESULTS I

., BORON ' 1DPolNTS (PPM) panfiouration Measured SIMULATE pelta (S-M)

ARO 1529 1497

-32 D-In 1457 1425

-32 D + C-in 1328 1296

-32 I

I

[

REACTIVITY DOEFFICIENTS (PCM/DEG F)

Measured SIMULATE pelta (S-M)

I AROITC

-2.17 1.47 0.70 D-In ITC

-3.16

-3.01 0.15 D+C-in ITC

-5.79

-5.88

-0.09 I

[lNTEORA(CONTRO.L NNNK WDRTilS.(PCM) '

Bank Measured 11AULATEi Error (%)

I D

621 618

-0.5 C (D-in) 1043 1115 6.9 B (D+C-in) 905 921 1.8 A (D+ C+ B-in) 470 522 11.1 Total 3039 3176 4.5 I

Test acceptance based on measurement vs. vendor, which passed.

I Table 6 I

I l

CALLAWAY CYCLE 3 STARTUP PilYSICS TESTS RESULTS DORON ENDPOINTS (PPM) i Confinuration Measured SIMULATE Delta (S-Mi ARO 1550 1532

-18 D-in 1486 1467

-19 D+C-in 1379 1303

-16 I

I

. REACT!yIT_Y COEFFICIENTS (PCM/DEG F)

[Acasured SIMULATE Delta (S-M)

I ARO ITC

-1.97

-1.52 0.45 D-in ITC

-2.92

-2.67 0.25 D+C-in ITC

-6.06

-5.95 0.11 I

INTEGRAL CONTROL B ANK \\00P,TILS (PCM) ganh Measured SIMULATE Error (%)

I D

551 538

- 2. 4 C (D-in) 896 872

-2.7 B (D+C-in) 1327 1242

-0.4 A (D+C+ B-in) 394 389

-1.3 Total 3168 3041

-4.0 I

I I

Table 7 60 -

I I

' l CALLAWAY CYCLE 4 STARTUP PliYSICS TESTS RESULTS I

DORON ENDPOINTS (PPM)

Confiouration MeasureA SIMULATE Delta (S-M)

ARO 1708 1657

-51 Control Banks-in 1327 1353 20 I

I IRENCTIVITY COEFFICIENTS @CM/DEG F)

Mp31tggy SIMULATE Delta (S-M)

I AROITC 1.79 2.71 0.93 I

I INTEGRAL ~ CONTROL B ANK TUORTliS (PCM)

Bank Measured SIMULATE ft:

(%)

I D

678 701 3.4 C (D-in) 928 961 3.6 B (D+C-in) 857 905 5.6 A (D+C+ B-in) 656 684 4.3 Total 3119 3251 4.2 l

I l

l I

Table 8 I

c,

I CALLAWAY CYCLE 5 STARTUP PilYSICS TESTS RESULTS I

['

UORON ENDPOINTS (PPM)

Continuration LAeasured SIMULATE Qe!LqlS-M)

ARO 1720 1097

-23 Cont.'ol Banks-in 1311 1282

-29 I

I

['

REACTIVITY COEFFICIENTS (PCM/DEO F) -

Measurqd SIMULATE Delta (S-M)

I AROITC 0.92 3.38 2.47 I

[lNTEGRht CONTROL lihNK WORTilS (PCM)

Bank Meastj_rpj SIMULATE Errer (%)

I D

527 520

-1.3 C (D-in) 1114 1150 3.2 B (D +C-in) 1009 1019 1.0 A (D+C+B-in) 609 642 5.4 1 1e,

32e, 333, 2.2 g

I I

Table 9 3

- u-

I I

CALLAWAY CYCLE 1 BORON LETDOWN IIFP, ARO, EQ. XENON I

1600

......,...............................~...........<........

1500:....:...

O GWD/MTU - NO XENON. PCAK SM l

H00.

.i.<,-

1 13002

ynn: :n.....................~.............

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

I 1100:.

......:......:.....~..:.........:...

I 1000-900 6.c1*

I 8002 700

...,..................z................,...

i I

500.

I 4002 300:....s.......

.r......,.

l 200.

100.

y q

g.,

l'l'!'

I'l 'i'l 'l 'lTI'l'i'I'l'l'l*I'l'l'l 0

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 li 17 18 19 20 l

BURNUP (GWD/MTU)

.= MEASURED

= UNION ELECTRIC (SIMULATE-3P)

Figure 32 l.

I

' I CALLAWAY CYCLE 2 BORON LETDOWN kl HFP,ARO,EQ. XENON I

,sgn4....................................................................

f.

1500i

-)

O GWD/MTU - N0 XENON PEAK SM i

i

-)

1400.

3, I

1300.

1200, I

1100:

g.

..*,g.

I gggg.

900-

.'A 800i n.

I 700:...............:....

600.

s I

,.,s'.

500-

.x.

I 4002 N...

3002.. '...'.

.<3.'...'.-

I s

,00 4

.s.

I 100.

...................................... u...

g.

1'1 1 i>1'l' i'i'i'Iii i'Ii1'i'i'Ii1'i'ii1'i g

O 1

2 3

4 5

6 7

8 91011121314151617181920 BURNUP (GWD/MRJ)

I c MEASURED

= UNION ELECTRIC (SIMULATE-3P)

Figure 33 I

l CALLAWAY CYCLE 3 BORON LETDOWN l

HFP,ARO,EQ. XENON l

1800

.......,............................... ~.............,..................,

1500i :

-)

0 GWD/MTU - NO XENON, PEAK SM

.}

j4gg y...,..........,................,.........,......,.........,..........

I 13pgi...........

jjgg

.....e.......e.........<......i..s...s..e..

...t..s...

84AA:

....../.......:......*...................:........./.....:.........-

1 Ivy.

l 1g I

\\gggi:. 3. M : % +..:...:...:

+ :

....:...:.. +..:...:....;

100 :

800i

[

j

...:..:..................:................:......s..:.......,...........

.g 60O.

s.

B 500:

.s.

4gg

....................................w.....................

300:.

...,........................z...........

.......s...

I 1

200.

1 jgg.

..s.......,.........,......,..s........

.....,..s 0:

Iii'i>IiiiiiI'i'i'Iii'i'i'i'i'i'i>l 'iiI'i 0

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 BURNUP (GWDMRJ)

.= MEASURED

= UNION ELECTRIC (SIMULATE-3P)

Figure 34

1I I

CALLAWAY CYCLE 4 BORON LETDOWN l

HFP,ARO,EQ. XENON i

nhh.........................................................................

Ivvv.

1500 h.r;:-

0 GWD/MTU - HO XEHOH. PEAK SM I

l H00.

i I

13ng2 12002)j...-..'..

I l

14h82..........*...i....*...

.!.......t../......................:..........-

livv.

s I

1000...

Y 100-ll f,*..........-

.................}

4 I

800 ;.

.g 7hh2,...../......1...*.............t.....Ig<.................t......*....

I vv.

l 600.

. sy.

I 500:l I

400 ;.

T h h.'....\\..:

..l..

1......'...t......\\....

.....t...'...,*....

vvv l

,....g.....,....,..

}gg......

I 100-.

'. p\\.

02 I'1'i'Iiiii'i'1'iiiiiii'i>Iri l

i i i i ' Iii 0

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

91011121314151617181920 BURNUP (GWD/MRI)

I

= Measured (corrected for HFP-ARO and SOL B10 Depletion)

= UNION ELECTRIC (SIMULATE-3P)

Figure 35 ___

1 I

CALLAWAY CYCLE 1 ASSEMBLYWISE REACTION RATE DISTRIBUTION COMPARISON I

H G

F E

D C

B A

+*+*

I 0.941 1.325 1.061 1.430 1.036 1.225 0.635 0.938 1.302 1.064 1.399 1.044 1.213 0.660 8

-0.33%

-1.774 0.35%

-2,174 0.834

-0.934 3.89%

I

4*+*

0.841 0.091 0.941 1.283 0.989 1.400 1.054 0.864 0.700 9

0.938 1.260 0.986 1.374 1.076 2.684 1.26%

-0.33%

-1.824

-0.28%

-2.43%

2.13%

0.583 1.396 1.006 1.325 0.982 1.369 0.611 1.366 1.019 10 1.302 0.986 1.344 I

4.80%

-2.15%

1.254

-1.77%

0.34%

-1.804 0.499 1.283 1.056 1.389 1.061 I

0.435 1.281 1.065 1.365 11 1.064 1.32%

0.174 0.88%

-1.69%

0.35%

+*+*

1.235 0.896 0.726 1.430 0.000 1.213 0.913 0.743 12 1.399 1.076

-1.754

1. 9 :' 4 2.38%

-2,17%

+*+*

0.867 0.433 1.305 1.036 1.359 0.884 0.454 1.281 13 1.044 1.346 1.98%

4.89%_

-1.89%

0.834

-0.91%

0.742 0.433 1.225 0.847 1.180 I

0.743 0.454 14 1.213 0.864 1.176

-0.93%

1.944

-0.34%

0.12%

4.89%

I 0.495 0.635 0.000 0.505 15 0.660 0.700 3.89%

2.16%

Error Summary R. A..S. =

2.19 %

I Burnup (GWD/MTU):

0.140 Worst Assembly =

4.89 %

Power Level (MWt):

1706 Powor Level (%):

50.0 %

I Bank D Position (Steps):

214

_ KEY:

Measured

- - - - -)****

Assembly Reaction Rate I

Peak Assm (Measured):

1.430 SIMULATE-3P Predicted Assembly Reaction Rate

+++++++++++++++++

I Peak Assm (SIMULATE):

1.299

% Error

++++++++++4++++++

(S-M)/M I

Figure 36

E!

CALLAWAY CYCLE 1 ASSEMBLYWISE REACTION RATE DISTRIBUTION COMPARISON H

G E

D' C

'B -

A

+*+*

I 1.122

1. a 1.136 1.301 1.065 1.135 0.034 8

1.111 1.01 1.129 1.301 1.069 1.138 0.662

-1.01%

-0.89%

-0.65%

-0.01%

0.31%

0.27%

4.45%

g

+*+*

5 1.122 1.330 1.117 1.332 1.122 0.880 0.669 9

1.111 1.318 1.115 1.316 1.110 0.890 0.681 I

-1.01%

-0.864

-0.20%

-3.164

-1.10%

1.16%

1.84%

+*+*

1.333 1.116

.330 1.291 1.052 0.593 10 1.321

1. 15 1.318 1.286 1.046 0.615

-0.894

-0.11%

-0.!164

-0.39%

-0.53%

3.64%

+*+*

1.136 I

1.128 1.308 1.193 0.496 11 1.129 1.122 1.299 1.197 0.504

-0.65%

-0.564

-0.644 0.34%

1.52%

1.301 1.115 1.170 0.943 0.714 12 1.301 1

0 1.136 0.946 0.717

-0.01%

-c.47%

-2.89%

0.38%

0.54%

I 1.065 1.259 1 105 0.835 0.449 13 1.069 1.250 1.197 0.840 0.468 0.31%

-0.694

-0.67%

0.55%

4.13%_

1.135 0.890 1.092 0.716 0.444 I

14 1.138 0.890 1.096 0.717 0,468 0.27%

0.01%

0.35%

t 0.25%

5.20%

i O.634 0.000 0.487 15 0.662 0.681 0.504 4.45%

3.31%

Error Summary l g R.M.S. =

1.80 %

'g Buinup (GWD/MTU):

7.757 Worst Assembly =

5.20 %

L

- Power Leval(M\\ 't):

3411 l

Power Level (%;;

100.0 %

Bank D Pc:.ition (Steps):

208 KEY:

Measured Assembly Reaction Rate i]

Peak Assm(Measured):

1.333 3

- - - - +***

SIMULATE-3P Predicted Assembly Reaction Rate

,g

+++ : : : : : ++++4 F+++

g Peak Assm (SIMULATE).

1.321

% Error

+++++++++++++++++

(S-M)/M I

Figure 37 -

I CALLAWAY CYCLE 1 ASSEMBLYWISE REACTION RATE DISTRIBUTION COMPARISON H

G F-E D

C B

A 1.053 1.229 1.074 1.239 1.066 1.178 0.701

.365 1.235 1.074 1.236 1.072 1.169 0.718 8

1.09%

0.47%

-0.034

-0.23%

0.52%

-0.73%

2.394 I

1.053 1.238 1.054 1.236 1.081 0.932 0.728 9

1.065 1.234 1.067 1.234 1.078 0.941 0.728 1.09%

-0.31%

1.18%

-0.15%

-0.274 0.95%

-0.20%

1.229 1.049 1.209 1.243 1.066 0.659 I

10 1.235 1.067 1.235 1.241 1.066 0.675 0.47%

1.67%

-0.23%

-0.194

--0.07%

2.46%

+*+*

I 1.074 1.075 1.252 1.222 0.551 11 1.074 1,080 1.247 1.212 0.5C2

-0.03%

0.40%

-0.40%

0.88%

0.35%

I

+*+*

1.239 1.074 1.188 1.014 0./68 12 1.236 1.078 1.146 1.009 0.765

-0.23%

0.39%

-3.49%

-0.46%

-0.42%

1.066 1.231 1.222 0.892 0.515 13 1.072 1.233 1.212 0.893 0.525 0.52%

0.10%

-0.PBS 0.04%

1.92%

1.178 0.950 1.146 0.773 0.511 14 1.109 0.941 1.134 0.765 0.525

-0.73%

-0.99%

-1.06%

-1.074 2.73%

I 0.701 0.000 0.551 15 0.718 0.728 0.552 2.39%

O.26%

Error Summary I

R.M.S. =

1.18%

Burnap (GWD/MTU):

14.806 Worst Assembly =

3.49 %

Power Level (MWt):

2411 Power Level (%):

100.0 %

I Bank D Position (Steps):

213 KEY:-

Measured Assembly Reaction Rate Poak Assm (Measured):

1.252 SIMULATE-3P Predicted Assembly Reaction Rate l

+++++++++++++++++

Feak Assm (SIMULATE):

1.247

% Error

+++++++++++t+++++

(S-M)/M l

I Figure 38 l

- co -

I I

CALLAWAY CYCLE 2 ASSEMBLYWISE REACTION RATE DISTRIBUTION COMPARISON H

G F

E D

C B

A 1.206 1.132 1.168 1.135 1.136 1.099 0.882 8

1.201 1.151 1.169 1.127 1.138 1.110 0.887

-0.43%

1.64%

0.07%

-0.69%

0.25%

0.99%

0.61%

1.206 1.137 1.205 1.117 1,166 1.073 0.733 9

1.201 1.161 1.183 1.124 1.175 1.073 0.735

-0.43%

2.08%

-1.86%

0.66%

0.77%

-0.03%

0.27%

1.132 1.217 1.113 1.153 1.113 0.781 I

10

.151 1.183 1.136 1.154 1.105 0.787 1.64%

-2. 8 5(

2.12%

0.03%

-0.765 0.79%

+++++

I l.168 1.181 1.220 1.091 0.528 11 1.169 1.160 1.202 1.120 0.529 0.07%

-1.78%

-1.51%

2.67%

0.30%

I

+++++

1.135 1.187 1.241 1.059 0.717 12 1.127 1.175 1.1 73 1.060 0.730 I

-0.694

-1.04%

-5.45%

0.11%

1.83%

1.136 1.147 1.105 0.799 0.392 13 1.138 1.154 1.120 0.807 0.400 I

0.25%

0.60%

1.35%

0.97%

2.02%

1.099 1.079 1.024 0.753 0.385 14 1.110 1.073 1.040 0.730 0.400 0.99%

-0.60%

1.58%

-2.97%

3.76%

0.882 0.000 0.525 15 0.887 0.735 0.529 0.61%

O.69%

Error Summary h.M.S. =

1.75 %

Burnup (GWD/MTU):

1.702 Worst Assembly =

5.45%

Power Level (MWt):

3373 I

Power Level (%):

98.9 %

Bank D Position (Steps):

210 KEY:

Measured Assembly Reaction Rr.'e I

Peak Assm(Measured))

1.241 SIMULATE-3P Predicted Assembly Reaction Rate I

+++++++++++++++++

Peak Assm (SIMULATE):

1.202 9'o Error

+++++++++++++++++

(S-M)!M Figure 39 I

I CALLAWAY CYCLE 2 ASSEMBLYWISE REACTION RATE DISTRIBUTION COMPARISON

-H G

F E

D C

B A

1.230 1.165 1.234 1.131 1.057 1.004 0.756 1.203 1.184 1.218 1.133 1.067 1.023 0.770 8

-2.16%

1.65%

-1.334 0.20's 1.01%

1.86%

1.91%

I 1.230 1.169 1.245 1.182 1.229 1.030 0.662 9

1.203 1.180 1.216 1.191 1.212 1.027 0.686

-2.16%

1.00%

-2.29%

0.78%

-1.38%

-0.24%

3.62%

1.165 1.243 1.202 1.200 1.158 0.703 i

10 1.184 1.216 1.207 1.212 1.132 0.710 1.65%

-2.13%

0.36%

0.95%

-2.29%

1.06%

+*+*

E 1.234 1.280 1.248 1.095 0.496 1.248 1.234 3

11 1.218 1.118 0.507

-1.33%

-2.52%

-1.12%

2.04%

2.34%

+*+*

I 1.131 1.228 1.199 1.073 0.703 12 1.133 1.212 1.164 1.055 0.714 0.20%

-1. 2 %

2.95%

-1.63%

1.56%

0.805 0.397 1.057 1.128 1.101 13 1.067 1.143 1.118 0.807 0.411 1.01%

1.33%

1.48%

0.19%

3.51%

1.004 1.037 1.002 0.713 0.398 14 1.023 1.027 1.022 0.714 0.411 l

1.8bh

-0.93%

1.98%

0.125 3.25%

0.756 0.000 0.497 15 0.770 0.686 0.507 1.91%

2.02%

Error Summary l l R.M.S. =

1.85 %

'W Burnup (GWD/MTU):

9.274 Worst Assembly =

3.62 %

l Power Level (MWt):

3411 g

Power Level (%):

100.0 %

3 Bank D Position (Steps):

212 KEY:

Measured Assembly Reaction Rate I

Peak Assm (Measured):

1.280 SIMULATE-3P Predicted Assembly Reaction Rate

, I

++-F+ : : : :.: ::+++++

Peak Assm (GIMULATE):

1.248

% Error

+++++++++++:::::+

gS-M)/M I

Figure 40 I

CALLAWAY CYCLE 2 ASSEMBLYWISE REACTION RATE DISTRIBUTION COMPARISON H

G F

E D

C B

A 1.19) 1.130 1.218 1.108 1.049 1.023 0.779 1.162 1.149 1.198 1.116 1.063 1.041 0.785 8

-2.40%

1.69%

-1.66%

0.70%

1.394 1.77%

0.84%

I 1.191 1.130 1.204 1.155 1.234 1.070 0.697 9

1.162 1.138 1.184 1.168 1.205 1.059 0,717

-2.40%

0.79%

-1,65%

1.15%

-2.374

-1.03%

2.87%

1.130 1,201 1.174 1.186 1.177 0.728 I

10 1.149 1.184 1.174 1.197 1.146 0.732 1.69%

-1.40%

0.02%

0.89%

-2.70%

0.62%

+*+*

I 1.218 1.093 0.522 1.254 1.187 11 1.198 1.227 1.187 1.115 0,537

-1.66%

-2.154

-0.01%

2.00%

2.73%

+*+*

l I

1.108 1.214 1.160 1.094 0.726 12 1.116 1.205 1.136 1.067 0.737 0.70%

-0.75%

-2.01%

-2.47%

1.46%

1.049 1.139 1.099 0.830 0.427 13 1.063 1.151 1.115 0.832 0.443 I

1.39%

1.06%

1.44%

0.24%

3.96%

1.023 1.075 1.046 0.732 0.429 14 1.041 1.059 1.054 0.737 0/43 0.63%

3.47%

1.774

-1.49%

0.71%

0.779 0.000 0.520 15 0.785 0.717 n.537 I

3.13%

Error Summary 0.04%

R.M.S. =

1.85%

Burnup (GWD/MTU):

15.365 Worst Assembly =

3.96 %

Power Level (MWt):

3378 I

Power Level (%):

99.0 %

Bank D Position (Steps):

213 KEY:

Measured _.

Assembly Reaction Rate I

Peak Assm (Measured):

1.254 SIMULATE-3P Predicted Assembly Reaction Rate

+++++++++++++++++

Peak Assm (SIMULATE):

1.227

% Error

+++++++++++++++++

(S-M)/M Figure 41 I. _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _

_o g

CALLAWAY CYCLE 3 ASSEMBLYWISE REACTION RATE DISTRIBUTION COMPARJSON H_

G F

E D

C B

A 4;;;+

I 1.095 1.118 0.983 1.164 1.222 1.173 0.858 1.103 1.113 1.026 1.178 1.216 1.159 0.858 8

0.7M

-0.45%

4.34%

1.18%

-0.46%

-1.24%

-0.041 I

+++++

1.185 0.801 1.095 1.109 0.985 1.116 1.057 1.183 0.769 9

1.103 1.101 1.017 1.124 1.069 I

-0.20%

-3.891 0.78%

-0.68%

3.31%

0.77%

1.09%

0.830 1.169 1.117 1.118 0.995 1.139 g

0.823

/

1.177 1.106 10 1.113 1.016 1.141 g

-0.83t 0.66%

-0.99%

-0.45%

2.1H

0. 2 3t.

0.525 1.132 1.143 1.060 0.983 0.514 1.127 1.160 1.073 11 1.026

-2.07%

-0.40%

1. 461L 1.18%

4.34%

I 1.133 0.946 0.683 1.164 1.027 1.113 0.955 0.695 12 1.178 1.068

-1.73%

0.94%

1.76%

I 1.18%

3.97%

+++++ *****

1.019 0.642 1.142 1.222 1.235 1.008 0.612 1.125 13 1.216 1.209 5

- 1. 0 n

-4.73%

-1.45%

-0.46%

-2.07%

+++++ *****

0.696 0.623

.173 1.183 1.172 I:

0.694 0.611 54 1.159 1.182 1.160

-0.30%

-1.971.

-1.24%

-0.12%

-1.07%

g 0.523 5

0.858 0.000 0.513 15 0.858 0.767

-1.791.

Error Summary

-0.04%

I R.M.S.=

1.90 %i

_ orst Assemoly =

4.73d W

Burnup (GWD/MTU):

1.226 Power Level (MWt):

3411 l

Power Level (%):

95.7%

Bank D Position (Steps):

208 KEY:,,.

Meas.3c Assim!y Reaction Rate I

Peak Assm (Measured):

1.235 l

' 3:MULATE-3P Predicted Assembly Reaction Rate I

i Peak Assm (SIMULATE):

1.216

% Error

.;; :+++++++

y.M)/M I

Figure 42.

I CALLAWAY CYCLE 3 ASSEMBLYWISE REACTION RATE C,ISTRIBUTION COMPARISON H

G F

E D

C B

A I

1.229 1.272 1.126 1.192 1.075 1.014 0.6E2 1.233 1.273 1.146 1.192 1.080 1.013 0.677 8

0.30%

0.054 1.80%

0.02%

0.42%

-0.134 2. 2 0%,

1.052 0.656 1.229 1.262 1.143 1.247 1.097 1.067 0.664 9

1.233 1.251 1.157 1.248 1.107 I

1.414 1.124 0.301

-0.81%

1.21%

0.07%

0.944

+t+*

0.657 1.256 1.111 1.272 1.C.3 1.283 I

0.668 1.245 1.104 10 1.273 1.156 1.279 1.66%

-0.86%

-0.611 0.05%

0.68%

-0.301

+*+*

I 0.478 1.172 1.240 1.150 1.126 0.478 1.'49 1.260 1.151 11 1.146

_ -0.04%

-1.991 1.61) 0.11%

1.804 I

\\

1.228 1.005 0.690 1.192 1.095 1.191 0.999 0.699 12 1.192 1.106 1

-3.01%

-0.594 1.27%

0.02%

1.03%

1.013 0.590 1.164 1.075 1.132 1.003 0.580 1.148 13 1.080 1.137

-0.984

-1 63%

-1.40) 0.42%

0.411 0.705 0.583 1.014 1.062 1.075 I

0.699 0.579 14 1.013 1.067 1.052 L

-0.75%

-0.53%

-0.13%

0.454

-2.094 0.482

! B 0.662 0.654 0.478 15 0.677 0.664 0.77%

Error Summary 2.204 1.43%

,g R.M.S. =

1.20 %

3 Burnup (GWD/MTU):

9.897 Worst Assembly =

3.01 %

Power Level (MWt):

3550

.E Power Level (%):

99.0 %

E Bank D Position (Steps):

215 KEY:

Measured Assembly Reaction Rate I

Peak Assm(Measured):

1.283 SIMULATE-3P Predicted Assembly Reat.

1 Rate I

++t : : : : : ; ;

Peak Assm (SIMULATE):

1.279

% Error (S-M)/M

. ::.'.::+++++++

I m-c

- '7a -

~

I I

CALLAWAY CYCLE 3 ASSEMBLYWISE REACTION RATE DISTRIBUTICN COMPARISON H

G F

E D

C B

A

+++++

1.143 1.244 1.124 1.192 1.069 1.031 0.664 1.170 1.254 1.135 1.199 1.069 1.029 0.673 8

2.32%

0.76%

0.951 0.55%

0.02%

-0.20%

1.24%

I

+++++

1.041 0.678 1.143 1.210 1.108 1.220 1.086 1.055 0.689 9

1.170 1.212 1.119 1.238 1.094 I

1.321 1.53 %

2.321 0.211 1.001 1.47%

0.73 %

+++++

0.661 1.256 1.099

' 093 1.231 1.244 0.668 I

1.244 1.102 to 1.254 1.110 1.243 1.171.

-0.98%

0.22%

0.76%

2.31%

0.961

+++++

0.528 1.208 1.172 1.103 1.124 0.523 1.177 1.198 1.107 11 1.135

-0.90%

-2.56%

2.19%

0.361 0.954 I

1.246 1.050 0.745 1.192 1.088 1.214 1.026 0.741 12 1.199 1.094

-~

-2.54%

-2.31%

-0.59%

0.55%

0, '. 41 1.050 0.611 1.203 1.069 1.130 1,034 0.596 1.177 13 1.069 1.134 I-

-1.59%

- 2, 4 4%.,

-2.15%

0.02%

0.36%

0.747 0.606 1.031 1.047 1 104 I

0.741 0.596 14 1.029 1.056 1 068

-0.86%

-1.62%

-0.20%

0.83%

-!.271 0.526 0.664 0.685 0.523 15 0.673 0.688

-0.521.

Error Summary 1.24%

0.34% -

R.M.S. =

1.47 %

Bumup (GWD/MTU):

17.931 Worst Assembly =

3.27 %

Power Level (MWt):

3565 Power Leve!'%):

00.0%

I Bank D Position (Steps):

216 KEY:

Measurec Assembly Reaction Rate

! -E Peak Assm (Measured).

1.25E 5

SIMULATE-3P Predicted

- - - - w*

Assembly Reaction Rate

':+

Peak Assm(SIMULATE):

1.254

% Error (S-MyM

,: : :::::+;;:::t Figure 44 I.

m

I CALLAWAY CYCLE 4 ASSEMBLYWISE REACTION RATE DISTRIBUTION COMPARISON H

G-F E

D C

B A

1.205 1.189 1.221 1.167 1.246 1.134 0.589 1.278 1.221 1.171 1.105 1.210 1.107 0.585 8

I-6.08%

2.66%

-4.04%

-5.30%

-2.88%

-2.32%

-0.70%

+++++

1.205 1.268 1.286 1.126 1.219 1.093 0.544 1.074 0.534 9

1.278 1.315 1.273 1.994 1.194 I

-1,674

-1.97%

6.08%

3.73%

-1.02%

-2.86%

-!.02%

+++++

1.177 1.311 0.507 1.189 1.239 1.149 I

C.500 1.150 1.303 10 1.221 1.275 1.164

-2.29%

-0.59%

-1,33%

2.68%

2.91%

1.36%

0.390 1.252 1.211 1,191 1.221 0.382 1.272 1.200 1.191 11 1.171

-2.27%

1.59%

-0.86% -0.01%

-4.04%

I 1.250 1.187 0.668 1.167 1.263 1.259 1.199 0.671 12 1.105 1.248 0.76%

1.07%

0.52%

-5.30%

-1.18%

0.877 0.409 1.269 1.246 1.121 0.902 0.410

.13 1.210

'1.140 1.298 2.80%

0.25%

2.26%

-2.88%

1.77%

0.673 0.409 I

1.134 1.093 1.128 14 1.107 1.104 1.137 0.681 0.414 1.314 1.01%

-2.32%

1.08%

0.82%

0.589 0.561 0.380 0.389 15 0.585 0.547 2.34%

Error Summary g

-0.70%

-2.554 3

P M.S. =

2.35 %

Burnup (GWD/MTU):

0.2~77 Worst Asse.. bly =

6.08 %

Power Level (MWt):

3547 g

E Power Level (%):

99.5 %

Bank D Position (Steps, 215 KEY:

Measured I' g Assembly Reaction Rate

,E Peak Assm(Measured):

1.311 SIMUL. ATE-3P Predicted j g Asserably Reaction Rate

g

+l: ::::++++++++++

l Peak Assm (SIMULATE):

1.315

% Error

+++++++++++++++++

(S-M)/M

,I

(

E'igure 45 l

c

,c

I CALLAWAY CYCLE 4 ASSEMBLYWISE REACTION RATE DISTRIBUTION COMPARISON H-G F

E D

C B

A I

1.133 1.183 1.228 1.193 1.280 1.156 0.623 1.147 1.209 1.212 1.170 1.285 1.156 0.626 8

1.28%

2.23%

-1.32%

-1.90%

0.414

-0.08%

0.464 1.166 0.592 1.133 1.200 1.251 1.142 1.235 1.162 0.589

-9 1.147 1.204 1.254 1.133 1.240

-0.37%

-0.504 1.28%

0. 3 %

0.22%

-0.78%

0.36%

I

+*+*

0.533 1.174 1.289 1.183 1.240 1.163 0.531 1.166 1.300 10 1.209 1.250 1.184 I.

-0.424

-0.70%

0.84%

2.23%

0.78%

1.834

+++*

0.397 1.217 1.188 1.172 1.228 0.392 1.170 1.214 1.198 11 1.212

-1.224

-0.18%

-0.26%

0.78%

-1.32%

1.174 1.162 0.663 1.193 1.253 1.185 1.16B 0.653 12 1.170 1.255 0.96%

0.51%

-1.44%

-1.90%

0.14%

.I-0.896 0.425 1.176 1.280 1.163 0.887 0.423

.13 1.285 1.156 1.173

-0.94%

-0.38%

-0.26%

0.41%

-0.64%

^-

0.664 0.425 1.156 1.159 1.103 14 1.156 1.160 1.095 0.653 0.423 I

-1.59%

-0.384

-0.08%

0.06%

-0.75%

0.623 0.589 0.394 I

15 0.626 0.586 0.391

-0.59%

Error Summary 0.46%

-0.34%

R.M.S. =

0.91 %

I Burnup (GWD/MTU):

9.581 Worst Assembly =

2.23 %

Power Level (MWt):

3554 Power Level (%):

99.7 %

I Bank D Position (Steps):

226 KEY:

Measured

- - - - w*

Assemb!y Reaction Rate I

Peak Assm (Measured):

1.289 SIMULATE-3P Predicted i

Assembly Reaction Rate

++++++l:

+++++

I Peak Assm (SIMULATE):

1.300

% Error

::::::++++++++++

(S-M)/M Figure 46.

l CALLAWAY CYCLE 4 ASSEMBLYWISE REACTION RATE DISTRIBUTION COMPARISCN

_H G

F E

D C

B A

1.135 1.221 1.197 1.201 1.225 1.124 0.661 I

1.148 1.231 1.195 1,167 1.232 1.120 0.656 8

1.134 0.84%

-0.21%

-2.844 0.53%

-0.29%

-0.72%

1.135 0.650 1.135 1.208 1.222 1.158 1.197 1.142 0.641 9

1.148 1.200 1.233 1.144 1.202 0.59%

-1,39%

1.13%

-0.70%

0.92%

-1.24%

0.39%

I

+*+*

1.165 1.234 0.587 1.221 1.221 1.198 0.588 1.155 1.245 10 1.231 1.228 1.194 g

0.10%

g 0.84%

0.59%

-0.37%

-0.87%

0.89%

+*+*

1.136 0.454 1.186 1.184 1.197-1.133 0.446 1.186 1.188 11 1.195

-1.74%

-0.21%

-0.05%

0.35%

-0.31%

1.093 1.127 0.697 1.201 1.201 1.137 1.157 0.691 12 1.167 1.207

-2.84%

0.48%

4.00%

2.71%

-0.88%

1.142 0.903 0.482 1.225 1.157 0.920 0.488

-13 1.232 1.130 1.133 1.87%

1.12%

0.534

-2.39%

-0.84%

0.696 0.484 1.124 1.144 1.079 14 1.120 1.137 1.070 0.690 0.488

-I

-0.89%

0.81%

-0.29%

-0.65%

-0.80%

. 0.661 0.647 0.447 I

-15 0.656 0.638 0.444

-0.72%

-1.40%

-0.76%

Error Summary R.M.S. =

1.31 %

Burnup (GWD/MTU):

19.401 Worst Assembly =

4.00 %

Power Level (MWt):

3437 Power Level (%);

96.4 %

Bank D Position (Steps):

202 KEY:

Measured Assembly Reaction Rate

!E Peak Assm(Measured):

1.234

' g' SIMULATE-3P Predicted i

Assembly Reaction Rate

++4++++4 + ++ + 4+ + + +

B Peak Assm(SIMULATE):

1.245

% Error 4++++++++++++++++

(S-M)/M l

Figur( 4/ i

=

6.O mlCIAm.1pEl I

Based on results of explicit rod swap benchmarking for callaway Cycles 4 and 5, as well as other related benchmark comparisons, Union Electric concludes that its methods for performing bank worth measurements using rod swap are appropriate and valid.

Rod swap testing performed thus far at Callaway demonstrates that Union Electric's rod swap.

procedures can be properly and officiently implemented, and that data reduction and analysis is less tedious than for boron dilution.

Futhermore, Union Electric's rod swap methods are fundamentally equivalent to methods previously licensed by the NRC for other utilites, such as VEPCO and PSE&G.

Therefore, in view of the demonstrated validity of the proposed methods as well as their associated benefits, Union Electric requests that rod swap, using the methods describerl herein, be approved for u;o at the Callaway Nuclear Plant.

I I

g

- >e I

7.0

_ REFERENCES 1

ETP-ZZ-ST005, " Bank Reactivity Worth Measurement," Union Electric Co.

2 ETP-ZZ-ST006, " Bank Reactivity Worth Measurement Using the Rod Swap Technique," Union Electric Co.

3 VEP-FRD-36A, " Control Rod Reactivity Worth Determination By The Rod Swap Technique," Virginia Electric & Power Co.,

I 12/90 4

NFG-004, " Safety Evaluation of The PSE&G Rod Exchange I

Methodology," Rev 2, Public Service Electric & Gas Co.,

8/22/84 5

"CASMO-3 User's Manual, Version 4.4," Malte Edenius and

I Bengt H.

Forchen, Studsvik AB (Proprietary) 6

" SIMULATE-3 User's Manual, Version 3.0,"

J.

A.

Umbarger and A.

S.

DiGivione, Studsvik of America (Proprietary) 7 Westinghouse transmittal 91SCP-G-0020, " Union Electric I

Company Callaway Plant Mditional Rod Worth Data for Callaway Cycles 4 and 5," 3/14/91 I

I I

- 8' -

I

8.0 DIBLTOGRAPHY

" Bank Reactivity Worth Measurement," ETP-ZZ-ST005, Union Electric Co.

" Bank Reactivity Worth Measurement Using the Rod Swap Technique," ETP-ZZ-ST006, Union Electric Co.

"CASMO-3 User's Manual, Version 4.4," Malte Edenius and Bengt H.

Forsten, Studsvik AB (Proprietary)

" Control Rod Reactivity Worth Determination ay The Rod Swap Technique," VEP-FRD-36A, Virginia Electric

& Power Co.,

12/90

" Independent Technical Review of Union Electric Company's Rod Swap Methodology," URA '1P-90-022, Utility Resource Associates, 8/31/90

" Proposed Enhancements for the Union Electric I

Rod Swap Measurement Procedures," URA-RP-90-026, Utility Resource Issociates, 10/18/90 I

" Safety Evaluation Of The PSE&G Rod Exchange Methodology," NFG-004, Rev 2, Public Service Electric

& Gas Co., 8/22/84

" SIMULATE-3 User's Manual, Version 3.0,"

J.

A. Umbarger and A.

S. DiGivione, Studsvik of America (Proprietary)

I "The Nuclear Design of the Callaway Unit 1 Nuclear Power Plant, Cycle 4," WCAP-12134, Rev 1, Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 5/89

'The Nuclear Design of the Callaway Unit 1 Nuclear Power Plant, Cycle 5," WCAP-12703, Rev 0, Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 9/90 I

" Union Electric Company Callaway Plant Additional Rod Worth Data for Callaway Cycles 4 and 5." Westinghouse transmittal 91SCP-G-0020, 3/14/91 I

I I

ML20079D375

Text

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Navigation menu

Search