ML20092N235
| ML20092N235 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Wolf Creek  |
| Issue date: | 02/26/1992 |
| From: | Rhodes F WOLF CREEK NUCLEAR OPERATING CORP. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| ET-92-0050, ET-92-50, NUDOCS 9203020051 | |
| Download: ML20092N235 (22) | |
Text
_.
_ _.. _ _ _ _ _.. _ _. _.. _.. _ _. _. ~. _. _ _ _.. _ _ _. _ _. _. _. _
r I
W8LF CREEK
' NUCLEAR OPERATING CORPORATION Forrest T. Rhodos vice Pres'ent February 26, 1992
- Engmeenng & Ter inical Setytces ET 92-0050 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN:
Document Control Desk Mail Station P1-137 Washington, D. C.
20$$5
Reference:
_ Letter ET 90-0132.dar.ed August 21, 1990, from F. 7. Rhodes, WCNOC, to the_USNRC Subjects.
Docket No. 50-482:
Transmittal of Additonal Information on the Rod Exchange Methodology for Startup Physics Testing Gentlemen:
The purpose ;of this letter-is_ to-submit. olf Creek Nuclear Operating W
Cor,, oration's (VCN00) response to questions from the US Nuclear Regulatory Commitsion L(USNRC)-. on WCNOC's Rod En hange Methodology for Startup Physics Testing which was-' submitted-in the Rcference.
The -- response to these questions is provided in the attachment.
If--you have-any questions. concerning this matter, please contact me or Mr. S. G. Wideman of my. staff.
.Very trulylyours, l
Ti i"
Forrest,T. Rhodes
-Vice President Engineering & Technical Services FTR/aem Attachment cc:
A. T. Howell (NRC), w/a R. D. Martin-(NRC), w/a G. A. Pick (NRC), w/a W. D. Reckley (NRC), w/a 000f 9203020051 920226 1 Om 4M J Burhngton. KS 66839 i Phone- 016) 364-8831
(
{k DR ADOCK 0500 2
. An Equal Opportunity Empoyer M F HC VET
Attachment to ET 92-0050 Page 1 of 21 Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation (WCHOC) submitted Rod Exchange Methodology for Startup Physics Testing on August 21, 1990.
Du ring telephone conversations on August 8, 1991, and August 12, 1991, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC) provided a litt of questions on the topical to WCNOC.
In a meeting held on January 28, 1992, these questions were discussed between WCNOC and the USNRC, with WCNOC agreeing to submit answers in February, 1992.
The questions are listed below with WCNOC's response immediately following each.
Question 1: Provide additional 2nformation regarding WCNOC's actions in the event that rod worth measurements fail to meet the Acceptance criteria outlined in Section 4.2 of the topical report.
Responses Currently, paragrapia #4 on page 14 of the WCNOC Rod Exchange topical addresses this situation.
To further quantify the steps WCNOC will take in this event, paragraph #4 will be revised as follows:
' Failure of the Acceptance Criteria will result in additional evaluations.
Further specific actions depend on evaluation results.
Tnese actions can include repeating the tests with more detailed attention to test prerequisites, added tests to search for anomalies, or design personnel performing detailed analyses of potential safety problems because of parameter deviation.
If all subsequent actions and tests fail, the rod worths will be measured using the standard boration/ dilution technique.
Power is not escalated until evaluation shows that plant safety will not be compromised by such escalation."
l Question 2:
Provide additional benchmarks of rod worth predictions for i
measurements performed with the rod exchange technique as well as those performed = with the boron dilution technique.
Additionally provide, for comparison, any rod exchange predictions performed by outside contractors.
l
Response
The benchmark of the Wolf Creek modelo to rod worths obtained via the dilution technique is shown ' in the Wolf Creek topical report, " Qualification of Steady State Core Physics Methodology for Wolf Creek Design and Analysis."
(
Additionally, the recent Wolf Creek cycle 6 rod exchange results are reported in Table 1.
These measurement results show excellent l
agreement with the Wolf Creek predi Lions _.
All are well within l -
the requirements of both the review and acceptance criteria discussed in the topical.
An outside contractor w used to pro"ide the rod exchange predictions for Wolf Creek cycles 5 and 6.
These data are presented for comparison purposes in Tables 2 and 3.
l 1
l Attachment to ET 92-0050 Page 2 cf 21 Question 3 several places in the topical text refer to the position of tho Reference Bank being "at or nearly fully inserted" at the conclusion of the boron dilution measurement of the Reference Bank worth.
Provide a more detailed discussion regarding the position of the reference bank being at or nearly fully inserted, including what administrative limits WCNoC will use for this position as well as an engineering basis for these limits.
Response
When performing the boron dilution measurement of the reference bank, it is necessary to secure the boron dilution process prior to the reference bank actually reaching the fully inserted position, to allow the coolant to complete mixing and reach an aquilibrium boron concentration level.
In the ideal case, the final mixing would result in the core being critical with the reference bank exactly at the fully inserted pcaition.
In practice, however, this is rarely the case, with the usual final position of the reference bank a few steps above the bottom of the core.
In order to correct for this small amount of reactivity, the worth of the final few steps of the rod is typically determined using a standard endpoint technique by temporarily inserting the rod to the fully inserted position and measuring the resulting reactivity change with the reactivity computer.
The reactor is then returned to criticality by withdrawing the rod back to its original position.
This correction shows up as the (Ap) corr term in Equation (7) of the topical.
WCNOC uses guidelines promulgated by Westinghouse regarding the allowable magnitude of this correction, which is to maintain this correction lower than 50 pcm in magnitude.
Historically, the average value of this correction from Wolf Creek Generating Station (WCGS) Cycles 3,
5, and 6 has been 13.6 pcm.
"ne 4verage of the correctior. f rom WCGS Cycle 1 was 34.2 pcm.
Note that although the correction from Cycle I was larger, this is to be expected since Cycle 1 was a completely fresh core with associated higher differential rod worths near the ends of the core.
The average rod position for these corrections from WCGS Cycles 1, 3, 5, and 6 was 25.8 steps withdrawn.
The effect of beginning with the reference bank slightly above the bottom of the core will be to cause the measured critical height of the refereace bank to be higher.
If the reference bank begins at a position 50 pcm from the bottom of the core, the new critical height will be at a position which corresponds to 50 pcm higher in the core.
1 2
i 1
~,
Attachment to ET 92-0050 Page 3 of 21 TB TD RB RB TB RD RB TB k
i l
A i
e A
A 1
i ji 2
50 pctn,
j W
- (
a 9,,
50 pcm,
initial Aher Exchange innial Aher Exchange ideal Case Actual Case rigure 1:
Ideal and Actual Rod Positions In Figure 1,
the new critical height is 50 pcm higher than the ideal case critical height.
The actual step dif ference will be different for each rod bank, depending on the differential rod worth of the shadowed reference bank in the region near the critical height.
For rod banks which have a critical height very near the top of the core, it is possible that this variation in critical height could be quite significant, since the differential rod worths can be low in this region.
However, for all cases, the actual worth difference will still be 50 pcm, regardless of how different the new critical height may be.
In the ideal case, the inferred worth of the test bank is given by Equation (3) of the topical (repeated here):
Wint " Wref - ("x)(A )un P
where the value of a is calculated for the ideal case predicted x
critical height. For the actual case, a correction is made to the above equation to secount for the initial position. of the reference bank. This equation is given in the topical as Equation (7):
ref - ("x)(A )un - (A ) corr Winf " W P
P There will be a small error introduced into the determination of Winf with this equation, since the value of u is calculated x
assuming a given critical height, which has changed.
- However, since-u is largely insensitive to critical
- height, the x
introduced error is small (see discussion on page 7 of topical).
3
__.--_._m._______.
Attachment to ET 92-00$0-Page 4 of 21 To show that the introduced errors are small, and to conclusively demonstrate that small variations -in critical height do not significantly affect the calculation results, the following steps can be taken:
1.
Assume an initial position of the reference bank at some known worth above the bottom of the core.
For the purposes of this discussion 50 pcm will be assumed.
2.
Determine the new critical heights o determine the differential rod worth of the reference bank, shadowed by the fully inserted test bank, in the area near the critical height o adjust the reference bank critical height nearer the top of the core by 50 pcm 3.
Using the new critical height, determine the new value of (Ap)un.
Locall that this term is defined as the worth of L
the unshadowed reference bank worth from the critical height I
position to fully withdrawn.
4.
The u values are NOT adjusted for the new critical height.
x The values based on the ideal critical heights are used.
5.
Use Equation (7) of the topical to determine the new Winf test bank values.
6.
Compare the new Winf values with the ideal case Winf values.
Note that this procedure exactly simulates the steps which would oe taken during the measurement process, i.e. the initial position of the reference bank induces a small change to the critical
- height, but the ideal case values of a are used in the x
calculation.
Note _also that the assumption of a +50 pcm shift in the critical height can. be further generalized into a +/- 50 pcm variation either up or down in the ideal critical height.
l This calculation was performed on the WCGS data from Cycles 1, 3,
l-5, and 6.
The results are shown in Tables 4 through 18.
The results show that.the introduction of a 50 pcm critical height variation resulta in almost negligible changes in the test-bank Winf values.-
The maximum error introduced on any bank was 3.1 pcm. ' The average error was 1.1 pcm.
Based on these results, WCNOC will use 50 pcm as the limit for the magnitude of the rod endpoint correction, and-will attempt to minimize this correction in any case.
4
.... -. -.. ~ _ _.. - -.. -. -.
httachment to ET 92-0050 page 5 of 21 Table la cycle 6 Rod Exchange Final Resultr.
( Ap)n n "x
( AP ) r o r r Winf Winf
%Diff Di,ff D
201 50 1.2163 1,0 637.2 615.4 3.5 21.8 C
193 76 0.9250 10 627.7 642.6
-2.3
- 4.9 B
228*
6**
0.8442 12 702.0 679.5 2.4 16.5 A
113.5 402 1.0643 10 270.2 300.7
-10.3
-30.5 SE 120 371 0.8806 10 371.3 389.5
-4.7
-18.2 SD 149 241 1.0425 10 446.0 422.6 5.7 24.2 SC 147 249 1.0421 9
439.5 422.6 4.0 16.9 SA 110 419 1.0527 7
259.4 251.6 3.1 7.8 SB 708.0 711.7
-0.5
-3.7 Total 4462.1 4436.2 0.6 25.9 Reference Bank SB fully withdrawn es Wfinal l
l 5
~
i
+
Attacimm1t to ET 92-0050 Page 6 of 21 Table 2:
Contractor Cycle 5 Rod Exchange Results Meas Pred PCM
_ Bank Wing Wing
%Diff Diff D
$40.5 595
-9.2
-54.5 C
686.8 776
-11.5
-89.2 B
785.6 797
-1.4
-11.4 A
192.4 249
-22.7
-56.6 SE 330.7 374
-11.6
-43.3 SD 452.1 463
-2.4
-10.9 SC 448.6 465
-3.5
-16.4 SA 370.2 369 0.3 1.2 dB 781.6 838
-6.7
-56.4
._ Tot a l 4588.5 4926
-6.9
-337.5 Tabic 3:
Contractor Cycle 6 Rod Exchange Results o
Meas Pred PCM Bank Wing Wing
%Diff Diff D
638 656
-2.7
-18 C
628 682
-7.9
-54 B
702 746
-5.9
-44 A
269 307
-12.4
-38 SE 305 399
-8.5
-34 SD 453 459
-1.3
~6 SC 446 454
-1.8
-8 SA 266 278
-4.3
-12 SB 708 756
-6.3
-48 Total 4475 4737
~5.5
-262 e
~~~
Attachment to ET 92-0050 Page 7-of 21 Table 4 Wolf creet cycle 1, Banks D and c RESULTS, Cycle 1, Bank D Stressed amount (pcm)
- 50 Original critical height
- 125.8 New critical height
- 132.7 Original Test Bank worth (pcm): 637.9 New Test Bank worth (pem)
- 637.6 Worth Percent difference (%)
- -0.04 Height Percent difference (%) : 5.51 RESULTS, Cycle 1, Bank D Stressed amount (pcm)
- -50 Original critical height
- 125.8 New critical height 118.9 Original Test Bank worth (pcm): 637.9 l-New Test Bank worth (pcm)
- 638.6 Worth Percent difference (%)
- 0.11 Height Percent difference (%) : -5.51 RESULTS, Cycle 1, Bank C Stressed amount (pcm)
- 50 original critical height 187.9 New critical height
- 213.1 Original Test r ank worth (pcm): 942.5 New Test Bank harth (pcm)
- 944.1 l
Worth Percent difference (%)
- 0.17
(
Height Percent difference (%) : 13.40 RESULTS, Cycle 1, Bank C Stressed amount (pcm)
- -50 Original critical height
- 187.9
-New critical height
- 162.7 Original Test Bank worth (pcm): 942.5 N7w Test Bank worth (pcm)
- 941.0 Worth Percent difference (%)
- -0.16 Height Percent difference (%) : -13.40 7
Attachmsnt to ET 92-0050
,Page 8 of 21 Table 5: Wolf Creek Cycle 1, Banks B and A RESULTS, Cycle 1, Bank B Stressed amount (pcm)
- 50 original critical height i 119.4 New critical height i 130.1 original Test Bank-worth (pcm): 721.4 New Test Bank worth (pcm)
- 721.8 Worth Percent difference (%)
- 0.05 Height Percent difference (%) : 8.97 RESULTS, Cycle 1, Bank B Stressed amount (pcm)
- -50 original critical height
- 119.4
{
New critical height i 108.7 Original Test-Bank worth (pcm) -721.4 New Test Bank worth (pcm)
- 720.6 Worth Percent difference (%)
- -0.11 Height Percent difference (%)
-8.97 RESULTS, Cycle 1, Bank A Stressed amount (pcm)
- 50 original critical height
- 87.6 New critical height
- 92.7 original Test Bank worth (pcm): 354.9 New Test. Bank worth (pcm)
- 354.7 Worth Percent difference (%)
- -0.06 Height Percent difference (%)
- 5.85 RESULTS, Cycle 1, Bank A Strossed amount (pcm)
- ~50 original critical height
- 87.6 New critical height
- 82.5 original Test Bank worth (pem): 354.9 New Test Bank worth (pcm)
- 354.4 Worth Percent difference (%)
- -0.15 Height Percent difference (%) : -5.85 e
0 i
V i
f 8
1 i
.d--
J e-4 A-a A--L-4a'"A+-
^-+
4-e-
4
L-d
,M.-
r-ee.
+-
r 4
Attachm2nt to ET 92-0050 Page 9'of 21 Table 6: Wolf creek cycle 1, Banks SE and SA 4
RESULTS, Cycle 1, Bank SE Stressed amount (pem)
- 50 g
l original critical height
- 94 New critical height i 101.3 i
original Test Rank worth (pcm): 552.7 New Test Bank worth (pcm)
- 554.5 Worth Percent difference (%)
- 0.32 Height Percent difference (%) : "/.80 RESULTS, Cycle 1, Bank SE Stressed amount (pcm) 50 original critical height
- 94 New critical height i 86.7 original Test Bank worth (pem): 552.7
(.
New Test Bank worth (pem)-
- 550.7 Worth: Percent difference (%)
- -0.36 Height Percent difference (%) :
7.80 RESULTS, Cycle 1, Bank SA Stressed amount (pcm)
- 50 original critical' height
- 91.6 New critical height
- 96.8 original Test Bank worth (pem): 392.4 New Test BM k worth (pem)
- - 392.0 Worth Percent difference !%)
0.11 Height Percent difference
.)
- 5.70 RESULTS, Cycle 1, Bank SA Stressed amount.(pcm) 50
(
original critical height-
- 91,6 l
New critical height
- 86.4 original Test Bank worth (pcm): 392.4 New Test Bank.wo; C: (pcm)
- 393.9 Worth Percent difference (%)
- 0.37 Height Percent difference (%) : -5.70 l
l l-l l;
9 l
Attachmsnt to ET 92-0050 Page 10 of 21 Table 7s Wolf Creek Cycle 1, Bank SD/SC RESULTS, Cycle 1, Bank SD/SC Stressed amount (pcm)
- 50 Original critical height
- 94.1 New critical height 99.8 Original Test Bank worth (pcm): 439.9 New Test Bank worth (pem)
- 441.6 Worth Percent difference (%)
- 0.40 Height Percent difference (%) 4 6.07 RESULTS, Cycle 1, Bank SD/SC Stressed amount (pcm)
- -50 Original critical height 94.1 New critical height
- 88.4 Original Test Bank worth (pcm): 439.9 New Test Bank worth (pcm)
- 438.9 Worth Percent difference (%)
- -0.22 Height Percent difference (%) : -6.07 i
I l
l l
l 10
1 Attachm3nt to ET 92-0050 Page 11 of 21 Table 8: Wolf Creek cycle 3, Banks D and B RESULTS, Cycle 3, Bank D Stressed amount (pcm)
- 50 original critical height
- 177.9 New critical height
- 187.4 original Test Bank worth (pen): 521.3 New Test Bank worth (pen)
- 523.0 Worth Percent difference (%)
- 0.33 Height Percent difference (%) : 5.35 RESULTS, Cycle 3, Bank D Stressed amount (pem)
- -50 original critical height i 177.9 l
New critical height
- 168.4 i
original Test Bank worth (pcm): 521.3 j
New Test Bank worth (pcm)
- 519.9 Worth Percent difference (%)
- -0.28 Height Percent different o (%) : -5.35 RESULTS, Cycle 3, Bank B j
Stressed amount (pcm)
- 50 original critical height
- 211.8 New critical height
- 223.1 original Test Bank worth (pcm): 678.7 New Test Bank worth (pcm)
- 678.9 L
Worth Percent difference (%)
- 0.03 Height Percent difference (%) : 5.31 RESULTS, Cycle 3, Bank B Stressed amount (pcm)
- -50 original critical-height
- 211.8 l
New critical height
- 200.5 l-original Test Bank worth (pem): 678.7 New Test Bank worth (pcm)
- 678.2 Worth Percent difference (%)
- -0.07 i
Height Percent difference (%) : -5.31 l'
L l
I L
11
Attachm3nt to ET ~ 92-0050 Page 12 of 21 Table 9: Wolf Creek cycle 3, Banks A and SE RESULTS, Cycle 3, Bank A Stressed amount (pem)
- 50 Original critical height i 102.2 i
New critical height
- 115.5 Original Test Bank worth (pem): 268.8 New Test Bank worth (pem)
- 268.0 Worth Percent differene is)
- -0.29 l
Height Percent difference (%) : 13.00 RESULTS, Cycle 3, Bank A Stressed amount (pcm)
- -50 j
original critical height
- 102.2 New critical height 88.9 Original Test Bank worth (pcm): 268.8 New Test Bank worth (pem)
- 269.5 Worth Percent difference (%)
- 0.27 Height Percent difference (%) : -13.00 1
i l
RESULTS, Cycle 3, Bank SE Stressed amount (pem)
- 50 Original critical height
- 129.8 New critical height
- 142.3 Original Test Bank worth (pcm): 372.2 New Test Bank worth (pcm)
- 372.0 Worth Percent difference (%)
- -0.05 Height Percent difference (%) : 9.60 RESULTS, Cycle 3, Bank SE Stressed amount (pcm)
- -50 Original critical height
- 129.8 New critical height
- 117.3 Original ~ Test Bank worth (pcm): 372.2 New Test Bank worth (pcm)
- 372.8 Worth Percent difference (%)
- 0.15 Height Percent difference (%) : -9.60 12
Attachmant to ET 92-0050:
Page 13 of 21 t
l.
Table los Wolf Creek Cycle 3, Danks SA and SD/SC RESULTS, Cycle 3, Bank SA Stressed amount (pen)
- 50 i
Original critical _ height i 181.9 New critical height
- 109.7 original Test dank worth (pcm): 497.5 New Test Bank worth (pcm)
- 500.6 Worth Percent difference (%)
- 0.63 L.
Height Percent difference (%) : 4.27 RESULTS, Cycle 3,-~ Bank SA Stressed amount (pcm)
- -50 Original critical height 181.9 New critical height 174.1 Original Test Dank worth (pcm): 497.5 New Test Bank worth (pcm)
- 495.1 Worth Percent difference (%)
- -0.49 l.
Height Percent difference (%) : -4.27 RESULTS, Cycle 3, Bank SD/SC l
Stressed amount (pcm)
- 50 Original critical height
- 159.4 New critical height
- 168.7 Original Test Bank worth (pcm): 420.5 New Test. Bank worth (pcm)
- 418.3 Worth Percent difference (%)
- -0.52 Height Percent difference (%)-: 5.80 RESULTS, Cycle 3, Bank SD/SC Stressed amount (pem)
- -50 original critical height
- 159.4 New critical height
- 150.1 Original Test Bank worth (pcm):-420.5 New Test Bank worth (pcm)
- 422.8 Worth Percent difference (%)
- 0.55 Height. Percent difference (%) : -5.80 l
13
.. _ _. _ ~ _
_m Attachment to 'iT 92-0050 Page 14 of 21 Table 11: Wolf Creek Cycle 5, Banks D and C RESULTS, Cycle f, Bank D l
Stressed amount (pcm)
- 50 L
original critical height 181.1 New critical height
- 191.0 original Test Bank worth (pcm): 557.1 l
New Test Bank worth (pcm)
- 55P.3 Worth Peretnt difference (%)
- 0.21 Height Percoat difference (%) : 5.49 i
RESULTS, cycle 5, Bank D Stressed amount (pcm)
- -50 original critical height 181.1 New critical height 171.2 l
Original Test Bank worth (pcm): 557.1 l
New Test Bank worth (pcm)
- 555.9 Worth Percent difference (%)
- -0.22 Height Percent difference (%) : -5.49 RESULTS, cycle 5, Bank C l
Stressed amount (pem)
- 50 original critical height _
208.9 New critical height 229.1 Original Test Bank worta (pcm): 696.1
-New Test Bank worth (pcm)
- 696.6 Worth Percent difference (%)
- 0.07 Height Percent difference (%) : 9.66 RESULTS, Cycle 5, Bank C
- Stressed amount (pcm)
- -50 original critical height
- 208.9 New critical height
- l'9.7 original Test Bank worth (pcm): 690.1
(
New Test Bank worth (pcm)
- 695.4 Worth Percent difference (%)
- -0.10 Height Percent difference (%) : -9.6G i
I l'
14 1
Attachmsnt to ET 92-0050 Page 15 of 21 Table 12: Wolf Creek Cycle 5, Banks B and A RESULTS, cycle 5,-Bank B Stressed amount (pcm)
- 50 original' critical height
- 206.8 New critical height
- 227.2 original-Test Bank worth (pcm): 692.1 New Test Bank worth (pcm)
- 691.3 Worth Percent difference (%)
- -0.12 Ileight Percent difference (%) : 9.87 RESULTS, Cycle 5, Bank B Stressed amount (pen)
- -50 original critical height
- 206.8 New critical height
- 186.4 original Test Bank worth (pcm): 692.1 New Test hank worth (pcm)
- 693.1 l
Worth Percent difference (%)
- 0.14 l
Height Percent difference (%)
-9.87 RESULTS, Cycle 5, Bank A Stressed amount (pem)
- 50 original critical height 110.1 New critical height 119.4 original Test Bank worth (pen): 240.1 New Test Bank worth (pcm)
- 237.7 Worth Percent difference (%)
- -1.01 Height Percent difference (%)
8.42 RESULTS, Cycle 5, Bank A Stressed amount (pcm)
- -50 original critical height i 110.1 New critical height i 100.8 original Test Bank worth (pcm): 240.1 New Test Bank worth (pem)
- 242.1 Worth Percent difference (%)
- 0.84 Height Percent difference (%) : -8.42' i
l l.
Attachmant to ET 92-0050 Page 16 of 21 Table 13: Wolf creek cycle 5, Banks SE and SA RESULTS, cycle 5, Bank SE Stressed amount (pcm)
- 50 original critical height i 113.1 New critical height i 125.6 original Test Bank worth (pem): 340 New Test Bank worth (pen)
- 340.8 Worth Percent difference (%)
- 0.24 Height Percent difference (%) : 10.66 RESULTS, cycle 5, Bank SE Stressed amount (pem)
- -50 original critical height i 113.1 New critical height
- 101.0 original Test Bank worth (pcm): 340 New Test Bank worth (pcm)
- 338.8 Worth Percent difference (%)
- -0.35 Height Percent difference (%)
- -10.66 RESULTS, Cycle 5, Bank SA Stressed amount (pcm)
- 50 original critical height i 133.6 New critical height
- 143.5 original Test Bank worth (pcm): 342.9 New Test Bank worth (pcm)
- 343.8 Worth Percent difference (%)
- 0.25 Height Percent difference (%) : 7,41 RESULTS, Cycle 5, Bank SA Stressed mmount-(pcm)
- -50 original critical height 133.6 New critical height i 123.7 Original Test Bank-worth (pcm):-342.9 New Test Bank worth (pem)-
- 341.9 Worth Percent difference (%)
- -0.30 Height Percent difference (%)
- -7.41 16
_a
Attachment to ET 92-0050 Page 17 of 21 Table 14: Wolf creek Cycle 5, Bank SD/SC RESULTS, cycle 5, Dank SD/Sc Stressed amount (pcm)
- 50 original critical height
- 149 New critical height 158.8 original Test Bank worth (pem): 429.2 New Test Bank worth (pcm)
- 420.0 Worth Percent difference (%)
- -0.28 Height Forcent difference (%) : 7.28 RESULTS, Cycle 5, Bank SD/sc Stressed emount (pem)
- -50 original critical height 148 New critical height 137.2 original Test Bank worth (pem): 429.2 New Test Bank worth (pem)
- 430.4 Worth Percent difference (%)
- 0.29 Height Percent difference (%) : -7.28 0
9 17
.Attachmant to ET 92-0050 Page 18 of 21 Table 15: Wolf creek cycle 6, Banke D and c RESULTS, Cycle 6, Bank D Stressed amount (pcm)
- 50 original critical height i 192.6 New critical height
- 205.8 original Test Bank worth (pcm): 615.4 New Test Bank worth (pcm)
- 616.5 Worth Percent difference (%)
- 0.17 Height Percent difference (%) : 6.86 RESULTS, Cycle 6, Bank D Stressed amount (pem)
- -50 original critical height
- 192.6 New critical height 179.4 original Test Bank worth (pem): 615.4 New Test Bank worth (pem)
- 614.3 j
l Worth Percent difference (t)
- -0.18 l
Height Percent difference (%) : -6.86 l,
RESULTS, Cycle 6, Bank C Stressed amount (pcm)
- 50 original critical height
- 194.0 New critical height
- 210.9 original Test Bank worth (pcm): 642.6 New Test Brink worth (pcm)-
- 642.2 Worth Percent difference'(%)
- -0.06 Height Percent difference (%) : 8.70 RESULTS, Cycle 6, Bank C Stressed snount (pcm)
- -50 l
original critical height 194.0 l
New critical height i 177.2 Original Test. Bank worth (pcm): 642.6 New Test Bank worth (pcm)
- 643.1 l
Worth Percent difference (%)
- 0.06
. Height Percent difference (%)-
-8.70 l
18
Attachment to ET 92-0050 Page 19 of 21 Table 16: Wolf Creek Cycle 6, Banks B and A RESULTS, Cycle 6, Bank B Stressed amount (pcm)
- 50 original critical height i 205.9 New critical height 229.6 original Test Bank worth (pcm): 679.5 New Tent Bank worth (pcm)
- 679.5 Worth Percent difference (%)
1 -0.00 Height Percent difference (%) : 11.47 RESULTS, Cycle 6, Bank B Stressed amount (pem)
- -50 original critical height 205.9 New critical height 182.3 original Test Bank worth (pcm): 679.5 New Test Bank worth (pcm)
- 6T,.5 Worth Percent difference (%)
- 0.00 4 -11.47 Height Percent difference (%)
RESULTS, Cycle 6, Bank A Stressed amount (pcm)
- 50 original critical height
- 117.4 New critical height
- 127.5 original Test Bank worth (pcm): 300.7 New Test Bank worth (pcm)
- 298.5 Worth Percent difference (%)
- -0.74 Height Percent difference (%) : 8.61 RESULTS, Cycle 6, Bank A Stressed amount (pcm)
- -50 original critical height
- 117.4 New critical height
- 107.3 original Test Bank worth (pcm): 300.7 New Test Bank worth (pcm)
- 302.9 Worth Percent difference (%)
- 0.74 Height Percent difference (%) : -8.61 19
l
- Attachmsnt to ET 92-0050 Page 20 of 21 Table 17: Wolf Creek Cycle 6, Banks SA and SE RESULTS, Cycle 6, Bank SA Stressed amount (pcm)
- 50 original critical.. heigh' 106.9 New critical height i 116.7 original Test Bank worth (pen): 251.6 New Test Bank worth (pcm)
- 251.6 Worth Percent difference (%)
- 0.02 Height Percent difference (%) : 9.15 RESULTS, Cycle 6, Bank SA Stressed amount (pen)
- -50 Original critical height
- 106.9 New critical height.
- 97.2 original Test Bank worth (pcm): 251.6 New Test Bank _ worth (pem)
- 250.4
- Worth Percent difference (%)
- -0.47 Height Percent difference (%) : -9.15 RESULTS, Cycle 6, Bank SE Stressed amount 1(pcm)
- 50 original critical height i 121.9 t
New critical. height 134.7 original Test Bank' worth (pcm): 389.5 New Test Bank worth (pcm)
- 389.2 l
' Worth Percent difference (%)
- -0.09 Height Percent difference (%)f: 10.42 RESULTS, Cycle 6, Back SE Stressed ~ amount ( pcm).
- -50 original critical neight
- 121.9 New critical height
- 109.2 Original Test' Bank worth (pem): 389.5 New Test Bank' worth (pcm)
- 389.9 Worth Percent difference (%)
- 0.09 Height-Percent difference (%)
- -10.42 l
l -
l 20 1
~
Attachmsnt to ET 97-0050
~
Para 21 of 21 Table 18e Wol' Creek Cycle 6, Bank SD/SC RESULTS, Cycle 6, Bank SD/SC Stressed amount (pen)
- 50 original critical height i 141.7 New critical height
- 153.4 original Test Bank worth (pen): 422.6 New Test Bank worth (pcm)
- 426.6 Worth Percent difference (%)
- 0.94 Height _ Percent difference (1) : 8.21 RESULT 8, Cycle 6, Bank SD/SC Stressed amount (pcm)
- -50 original critical height
- 141.7 New critical height
- 130.1 original Test Bank worth (pcm): 422.6 New Test Bank worth (pem)
- 418.1 Worth Percent difference (%)
- -1.06 Height Percent difference (%) : -6.21 t
21 i
..