ML20133K989

Summary of 961218 Meeting W/Listed Attendees to Present Info Re CR Insertion Concerns Which Arose After CRs Failed to Fully Insert at Three PWRs W/W Supplied Cores.Subj Events Described in NRC Bulletin 96-01 & in 96-12

ML20133K989
Person / Time
Issue date:	01/13/1997
From:	Birmingham J NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:	Matthews D NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
References
PROJECT-693 IEB-96-001, IEB-96-1, IEIN-96-012, IEIN-96-12, NUDOCS 9701210434
Download: ML20133K989 (74)

Text

3 s

January 13, 1997 MEMORANDUM T0:

David B. Matthews, Chief Generic Issues and Environmental Projects Branch Division of Reactor Program Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM:

Joseph L. Birmingham, Project Manager Original Signed By:

Generic Issues and Environmental Projects Branch Division of Reactor Program Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

SUMMARY

OF DECEMBER 18, 1996, MEETING WITH FRAMATOME C0GEMA FUELS AND B&W OWNERS GROUP ON CONTROL R00 INSERTION CONCERNS l

On December 18, 1996, representatives of Framatome Cogema Fuels:(Framatome) and the B&W Owners Group (BWOG) met with U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff to present information related to control rod insertion concerns. The concerns arose after control rods failed to fully' insert at three pressurized water reactors with Westinghouse supplied cores.

Those events are described in NRC Bulletin 96-01 and NRC Information Notice 96-12. 'The Owners Group and Framatome described the differences between Framatome fuel bundles and control' rod assemblies and the fuel bundles and control rod assemblies that failed to fully insert. They also presented operating experience data to show that reactor cores comprised of Framatome fuel' bundles and control assemblies had not experienced insertion problems and that the cores performed within the expected modeling parameters.

The NRC staff asked questions on the information presented and'on the operating experience of foreign reactors with Framatome cores.

The staff commented that the presentation was beneficial in furthering the staff's understanding of the issue and that the staff would review the information in more detail.

4 is a list of meeting attendees and Attachment 2 is the l

nonproprietary slides presented by Framatome and the Owners Group.

4 i

Project No. 693 p

Attachments: As stated lh cc w/atts:

See next page

)

e3 4

Distribution:

C$

Central File (w/atts 1&2)

PUBLIC PEGB r/f g p, z.

f.nj OGC ACRS M

E-Mail (w/att 1)

ca F. Miraglia R. Zimmerman A. Thadani i

)

T. Martin D. Matthews B. Sheron DFD-3 i 3

G. Holahan B. Boger J. Mitchell DOCUMENT NAME:

G:\\JLB\\12-18MTG. SUM /

A a;

SC/PGE8/hNb C:PhEk,hPM

} (p h C

I 0FFICE PGEB:DRPM NAME JBirmingham M FAkst0Niz DMatNws\\

DATE 1/9/97 1//4/97 01/ h/97 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY 9701210434 970113 P10100 PDR PROJ J

693 PDR

eacog I%

UNITED STATES y*.

~

E NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION If WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001

\\.ug,/

January 13, 1997 MEMORANDUM T0:

David B. Matthews, Chief Generic Issues and Environmental Projects Branch Division of Reactor Program Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM:

Joseph L. Birmingham, Project Manager Generic Issues and Environmental Division of Reactor % e @

Projects Branch Program Mantgement 4

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

SUMMARY

OF DECEMBER 18, 1996, MEETING WITH FRAMATOME COGEMA FUELS AND B&W 0WNERS GROUP ON CONTROL R00 INSERTION CONCERNS On December 18, 1996, representatives of Framatome Cogema Fuels (Framatome) and the B&W Owners Group (BWOG) met with U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff to present information related to control rod insertion concerns. The concerns arose after control rods failed to fully insert at three pressurized water reactors with Westinghouse supplied cores. Those events are described in NRC Bulletin 96-01 and NRC Information Notice 96-12. The Owners Group and Framatome described the differences between Framatome fuel bundles and control rod assemblies and the fuel bundles and control rod assemblies that failed to fully insert.

They also presented operating experience data to show that reactor cores comprised of Framatome fuel bundles and control assemblies had not experienced insertion problems and that the cores performed within the expected modeling parameters.

The NRC staff asked questions on the information presented and on the operating experience of foreign reactors with Framatome cores.

The staff commented that the presentation was beneficial in furthering the staff's understanding of the issue and that the staff would review the information in more detail. is a list of meeting attendees and Attachment 2,is the nonproprietary slides presented by Framatome and the Owners Group.

Project No. 693 Attachments: As stated cc w/atts:

See next page

l B&W OWNERS GROUP MEETING ATTENDEES DECENBER 18, 1996~

88ME ORGANIZATION FRANK MCPHATTER FRAMATOME i

GARY WILLIAMS FRAMATOME DAVID MITCHELL FRAMATOME TOM SMENTEK FRAMATOME BARCLAY ANDREWS FRAMATOME ROBERT CALABRO TVA FRANK BURROW TVA KEN CANADY DUKE POWER SCOTT GEWEHR DUKE POWER RICHARD CLARK DUKE POWER RON GRIBBLE DUKE POWER 3-J0E MCCARTHY GPU NUCLEAR BEN FRANKLIN ENTERGY DENNIS O'SHEA FLORIDA POWER J0E BIRMINGHAM NRC\\NRR\\PGEB i

ERIC WEISS NRC\\NRR\\SRXB MARGARET CHATTERTON NRC\\NRR\\SRXB JAI RAJAN NRC\\NRR\\EMEB HERB CONRAD NRC\\NRR\\EMCB

~

FRANK GRUBELICH NRC\\NRR\\EMEB 1

HAROLD SCOTT NRC\\RES

]

1 l

i i

l

~

J

b a

i l

B&W Owners Group j

Presentation to NRC on Control Rod Insertion Concerns December 18,1996 l

l l

i i

l i

I r

Agenda j

\\

i Introduction

=

t Technical Presentation

=

Discussion

=

l l

l l

l

-t

I f

Objective i

i Demonstrate with Analyses, Measured Data,

=

and Comparisons that FCF Fuel Does Not l

Exhibit RCCA/CRA Insertion Problems or Associated Root Causes During Licensed f

Lifetime.

I i

i FCF FUEL CUSTOMERS AND PLANTS I

MARK-B (15x153 J

e Fuel designed for Babcock & Wilcox 177 fuel l

assembly reactors i

e Duke Power - Oconee Units 1,2, and 3 e Entergy - Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1 t

e Florida Power Corporation - Crystal River 3 e General Public Utilities Nuclear - TMI-1 e Toledo Edison - Davis-Besse l

nremtg.1296

O FCF FUEL CUSTOMERS AND PLANTS MARK-BW (17x17) 1 e Fuel designed for Westinghouse 193 and 157 fuel j

assembly reactors i

e Duke Power i

• Catawba Units 1 & 2

• McGuire Units 1 & 2

~

I e Tennessee Valley Authority

• Sequoyah Units 1 and 2 (1997) e Virginia Power

• North Anna Unit 1 (LTAs 1997)

I t

I

- 7.,.

b N

i i

N

-l i

r incomplete Rod Cluster Control Assembly (RCCA) Insertion issue Applicability to FCF Fuel Designs l

l t

December 18,1996 t

l l

l l

I l

l 5

RCCA Insertion

.h j

i m Problem overview a Discussion of FCF fuel designs a Presentation of applicable data a Conclusions and recommendations

Summary l

i l

a FCF fuel designs do not exhibit RCCA insertion problems l

100% successfulinsertion performance RCCA drag data demonstrates continued good performance

. Consistent and as predicted fuel assembly growth data in high and low temperature plants i

I Fuel designs have significant margin for axial buckling and significantly lower loads than Vantage 5H fuel assemblies throughout most of life

. Guide thimble measurements show little creep deformation j

. Corrosion data does not correlate with growth data a No core management restrictions should be placed on FCF fuel j

l designs l

I

_,, 4.

I l

MEETING OBJECTIVE i

(

i i

a To review and clarify specific root cause issues pertaining to Westinghouse RCCA insertion problem

.t aTo demonstrate that the FCF designs have not exhibited the

.j RCCA insertion problem or associated root cause symptoms I

aTo demonstrate that the FCF fuel designs have sufficient design margins to preclude the problem i

a To demonstrate that the FCF fuel designs should not have fuel management restrictions regarding fuel assemblies in l

rodded locations t

f

ROOT CAUSE CONCLUSIONS WOLF CREEK INCIDENT I

l Conclusions as presented by Westinghouse via public 1

document to the NRC on 9/9/96 e incomplete RCCA insertions have been caused by excessive compressive loads on the fuel assembly gu,de l

i thimble tubes leading to excessive thimble tube distortion e The increased compressive load was caused by unusual fuel assembly growth over and above what would normally i

be expected as a result of irradiation exposure i

l e The unusual growth component is a combination of growth due to oxide accumulation and accelerated growth, l

both of which are temperature sensitive 1

l 4

e The unusual growth is observed only in high temperature plants on those high burnup fuel assemblies that have certain types of power histories

I ROOT CAUSE CONCLUSIONS

+

RINGHALS INCIDENT Conclusions as presented by FRAMATOME in the NRC core j

i performance workshop on 10/24/96 e incomplete RCCA insertions have been caused by excessive axial compression force resulting in S-shaped bowing of the fuel assembly e The S-shaped bow was a result of axial creep of the fuel assembly e The excessive axial compressive forces resulted from oversized fuel assembly holddown springs in relation to j

the coolant flow lifting force i

I l

l SOLUTIONS IMPLEMENTED j

RINGHALS INCIDENT i

i e Resident fuel design change l

> Plastic setting of existing leaf springs to reduce axial loads

> After 1 cycle favorable FA bow results have been observed 1

e New fuel design change

> Removed fourth leaf spring to reduce axial loads

> Increased upper guide thimble diameter from 0.443 inch to 0.450 inch to increase clearance with control rod

• Increased guide thimble wall thickness from 0.016 inch to l

0.020 inch to increase strength f

i e Utility implemented core management restrictions and

[

surveillance

> Only fresh or once burn fuel can be placed in rodded locations

• Mid-cycle RCCA trip testing required I

i

1 MARK-BW AND VANTAGE 5H DESIGN COMPARISON l

E MARK-BW VANTAGE SH

. Shorter FA length i

. Longer FA length.

. Lower holddown force over FA

. Higher holddown force life

. Smaller GT upper diameter L

. Larger upper GT diameter

(.442")

(0.450")

. All grids attached to guide

. Floating intermediate grids / top thimbles end grid unattached to guide

. Fuel rods lifted off bottom thimble nozzle @ BOL i

. Fuel rods seated on bottom

. GT rotational constraint set nozzle (no gap) by swaged sleeve / grid weld

. GT/ grid rotational constraint set interface by grid height and saddle interface

MARK-B AND VANTAGE 5H DESIGN COMPARISON f

VANTAGE 5H MARK-B inch available axial growth gap inch available axial growth gap

. Comparable guide thimble load

. Comparable guide thimble load i

. Lower guide thimble buckling strength

. Higher guide thimble buckling strength

. Dashpot to control rod clearance -

U

. No dashpot diameter 0.016"

> Uniform tube diameter

• GT to control rod clearance -

• All grids attached to guide thimbles l

• Floating intermediate grids / top end grid unattached to guide thimble

. Fuel rods lifted off bottom nozzle @

BOL

. Fuel rods seated on bottom nozzle (no gap)

• GT rotational constraint set by

. GT/ grid rotational constraint set by grid swaged sleeve / grid weld interface height and saddle interface t

t FUEL ASSEMBLY PARAMETERS AFFECTING RCCA INSERTION I

i I

= Fuel Assembly Axial Loads

= Guide Thimble Design

= In-Reactor Effects e Fuel Assembly Growth t

e Guide Thimble Corrosion i

i e Guide Thimble Creep l

e FA Bow f

l

i.

t 4

FUEL ASSEMBLY PARAMETERS AFFECTING f

RCCA INSERTION i

.i

= Fuel Assembly Axial Loads e Holddown spring i

Spring rate Preload

- In reactor compression (thermal, irradiation) l Material modulus 1

e Fuel rod slip load (grid spring force) e Fuel rod position (seated or lifted)

Fuel assembly weight load path l

Fuel rod slip load distribution e Spacer grid fixity (floating or fixed)

}

Fuel rod slip load distribution Grid hydraulic lift load path

~

FUEL ASSEMBLY HOLDDOWN COMPARISON i

HOLDDOWN LOAD (LBS)

= BW HOLDDOWN IS LESS OVER THE FUEL ASSEMBLY LIFE

.l l

[

i t

[

f r

FCF MARK-B VERSUS VANTAGE SH FUEL ASSEMBLY HOLDDOWN i

I a Mark-B leaf spring holddown (per MARK-B VERSUS V5H GUIDE TUBE LOADS tube) is comparable to V5H for EOL conditions j

o Load is offset by critical buckling j

strength of Mark-B guide tube j

- Mark-B guide tube strength is greater than V5H guide i

thimble i

i o Mark-B helical spring holddown is f

less than V5H for all j

conditions

(

i e*"*

nremin.1296 I

FUEL ASSEMBLY PARAMETERS f

AFFECTING RCCA INSERTION i

i

= Guide Thimble Design

• Strength

- Thickness

- Diameter

- Span length

(

- Span end fixity Material i

Initial deflection j

e Control rod clearance i

)

GUIDE THIMBLE COMPARISON E

Guide Thimble Mark-B Mark-BW Vantage-5H Material Fully Recrystallized Fully Recrystallized Fully Recrystallized Annealed 3rcaloy 4 Annealed Zircaloy 4 Annealed Zircaloy 4 Outer Diameter,in.

(Upper) 0.530 0.482 0.474 (Lower)

N/A 0.429 0.430 inner Diameter, in.

(Upper) 0.498 0.450 0.442 (Lower)

N/A 0.397 0.398 Wall Thickness,in.

0.016 0.016 0.016 Nominal Diametral Control Rod Clearance, in.

(Upper) 0.058 0.069 0.061 (Lower) 0.058 0.016 0.017 e.eis 4 4 908%

SUFFICIENT BUCKLING MARGIN EXISTS 5

m Allowable buckling load (hot) based on deflection criteria e Mark-BW -

Ibs per tube (

lbs total) margin j

e Mark-B -

Ibs per tube (

lbs total) margin m Allowable load based on:

e Maximum EOL corrosion e Maximum tube eccentricity I

e Worst case tolerances i

e Maximum span deflection of inch Deflection corresponding to functional gage a Allowable buckling load per tube based on stress:

oBW-Ibs (

lbs total)

[

• Mark-B -

Ibs (

lbs total) nremtg.1296

1 E

FUEL ASSEMBLY PARAMETERS AFFECTING RCCA INSERTION

=

S

= In-Reactor Effects 1

l e Fuel assembly irradiation growth j

e Guide thimble corrosion e Irradiation creep i

e Fuel assembly / guide thimble bow 1

= Fuel Assembly Design e Margin for axial growth rcmtg.1296

[

t FCF Fuel Assembly Growth H

a Mark-BW growth model alone is more conservative than combined Mark-B and Mark-BW data growth model u Burnup to close fuel assembly to core plate gap calculated conservatively (minimum gap at cold conditions)

I i

I 4

l i

l

+

I nremtg.1296 t

l

q l

FCF Funi Assembly Growth Combined Data Mods!

i 1

r r

0.5 c

0.4 l

=+

b J

0.3 3

r

.c I

0.2 8

t l

0.1 i

9; "l

O.0 j

i i

i i

i i

i 0

10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 bum-up (mwd /mtU)

FCF MK-BW Fuel Assembly Growth Model and MK-BW Database 0.6 t

0.5 0.4 0.3 o8

.c1 0.2 e

CD 0.1 0.0

-0.1 0

10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 bum-up (mwd /mtU) 1

~

s 0

0 0

06 000 i

05 la do 0

m 0

0 i

W 0

)

4 U

B t

K-

/m M

d 0

W ts 00 M

n i

0

(

ia 3

p ga u

d m

e u

t 0

to 0

b 0

l i

p 0

h 2

two rG 0

y 00 l

i b

0 m

1 es sA ic 0

u i

F 6

5 4

3 2

1 0

1 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 a 3 # c. I e m o

I

m..-.

m.-___....m_...m_.m.u.-

...-..-.m__---..--_.-

~~__m.-....

.._ --. - -o- - - ---- - - - ~. >. -..--- - - - - _....~..---..---_ -._...

.._m -- -..- <

l l

l a

l l

r i

f f

i i

t t

7 h

i i

i, n k.1596 r

I

i.

g Reactor Parameters PARAMETER MARK-BW MARK-BW MARK-BW MARK-BW VANTAGE SH Plant McGuire Catawba Sequoyah North Anna WolfCreek il2 1/2 1/2 1

Plant Type W 4 Loop W 4 Loop W 4 Loop W 3 Loop W 4 Loop i:

Core Power 3411 3411 3411 2893 3411/3565

1. FAs 193 193 193 157 193 i

System Pressure 2265 2265 2265 2265 2265 Core Outlet 622.21622.1 621.6I617.8 614.5 621.9 621.41618.4 f

Temperature (F) j Avg LGHR (kwlft) 5.43 5.43 5.43 5.67 5.45/5.68 L

.L t

1. For steam generator changeout outlet temperatures are as follows::

[

Catawba 1, McGuire 1 and 2 - 616.6 F

(

I nremtg.1296

I I

t Reactor Parameters l

PARAMETER MARK-B MARK-B VANTAGE 5H Plant Oconee Davis-Besse WolfCreek PlantType B&W B&W W 4 Loop Core Power 2568 2772 3411/3565

1. FAs 177 177 193 System Pressure 2215 2215 2265 Core Outlet 601.5 606 621.41618.4 Temperature (F)

Avg LGHR (kwlft) 5.80 6.21 5.45I5.68 nrcEnto.1296

. =

i l

GUIDE THIMBLE CORROSION l

i I

o Guide thimble corrosion as

.l.

expected o Corrosion comparable to the lower range of that reported at l

Ringhals i

i o Mark-B corrosion expected to be lower than Mark-BW due to i

Iower core temperature l

i I

f nremtg.1296

i Mark-BW Corrosion Data 1

~

1 i

l i

o Guide thimble corrosion increases non-linearly with fluid temperature e

o Upper two grid spans see the highest corrosion.

t i

l f

i I

h i.

i nremtg.1266

1

+

l Mark-BW Corrosion Data l

i l

o Guide thimble corrosion and hydrogen pickup increases non-linearly with fluid temperature o Upper two grid spans see j

the highest corrosion and l

hydrogen pickup t

i

~

t l

l F

4 hremia.1296 l

i t

[

Framatome Corrosion Data I

l 1

o No correlation observed between FA growth and i

guide thimble corrosion o Data is from plants with j

outlet temperatures comparable to Wolf.

,j Creek and McGuire and l

Catawba i

I i

nremtg.1296

[

Guide Thimble Corrosion Summary a FCF has accounted for Guide thimble corrosion in f

calculations.

a Measured data is well within design limits for :

. Buckling strength at EOL

. Ductility at EOL m Corrosion data is well behaved t

m No correlation observed between oxide thickness and growth l

a Corrosion performance meets design requirements 1

l i

P iremtg.1296, i

a h-a 4 & O n 6 =.6 4-4*AEE ad.

L.

a.m.E ag m, As% u4_,m gg 4

MCGUIRE 2 PIE PLUG GAGE INSPECTION i

i t

P t

1 r

I

?

t I

i nremig.1296 i

f

ede Mh.hhAm+..W 62mm6s W'.i..aE.4m.Aus.-he4..u.hma-._

m.pm

.*h-h__._a__.g l

t l

I L

t t

i t

i I

I i

h i

I nrcrgg.129p

}

Guide Thimble Distortion Summary E

)

i 1

a Minimal creep deformation is observed in Guide Thimbles for burnups to l

l

. Guide Thimble dimensions are nearly identical to as built structures.

a Free hanging bow of FCF fuel assemblies of up to have been measured.

i

. No impact on RCCA insertion path has been observed.

m No burnup dependency on guide thimble dimensions has been observed.

. No change is expected for the small increment in burnup projected for the future.

I I

nrcmtg.1296 l

l

RCCA Insertion-Data i

E Mark-BW t

m MNS/CNS Data m Drop Time Data

= Drag Data Mark-B

=Oconee 3 and ANO-1

= Drop Time Data

'i P

h I

f r

l 1rcr$tg.1296

t FCF HAS EXPERIENCED NO RCCA INSERTION PROBLEMS i

i L

l i

i MARK-BW FUEL mo.... "LagEL ASSEMBLY BURNUP/ CONTROL ROD TRIP HISTORY 500

-i l

• 1421 total successful i

insertions 3a

=

r l

j am

> 81 successful insertions for burnups greater than 40 200 GWD/MTU

'*7 100

> Maximum bumup with i

SuCCOSSful insertions -

M AE7 0

<20 20-25 25-30 30-35 35-40 40-45 45-50

>50 53145 MWDIMTU rustasseusty so,uveiowo.rui

(

t f

ircrgto.1296.

j i

McGuire and Catawba Rod Drop Timing Results 2.200 A C1BOC9 m C1EOC9

+ M2BOC10 xM2EOC10 2.000

+ C2BOC8 e C2C8-230EFPD 1.900 m M1BOC11 o MINOV96 E

M2BOC11 S 1.800 o M2NOV96 gp A C1BOC10 A

E 3 1.700

=

5

$f

1. t $

• A }_

" *%a Q

6icoo

+

x x

T

+

a i soo 3

d.: ig 4 0

1.400 +

E-1.300 i

I 1.200 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000 50000 55000 F/A Bumup (MWDdWTU)

I l

i 4

l

l Ij i

0 0055 X

0000 0

5 X E _.

0 h.

0 k8 054 u9h 00 00 4

s al E.

t k

0 U b u 3

0 ws E

0

)

a e 5

M t R 3 T a

W Cg d

n D

di g

W nm ai 2 E.,

0

(

00 M T

0 p ep 3 u r

io

@g m

ur G D u

ea B

cd A

00 A Mo I

4=

0 F R

5 O

2

+

00 h

1

002 D

P

+

F

,k=

E w

0 0 0 1 6 1 6 0 0

3 9 9 1 1 8 3 1 9 1 9 1 0

CCCCC2-CVCVC

05 OOOOO8 OOOOO 1

BE BEBCB NBNB 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 I 2 2 1

CCMMCCMMMMC A m+x+eao

+ A h

00

00 1

00 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5

%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

1 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 f

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 0 0 0 0 6 0 O 0 SS N O e gP e

nouns =

t Catawba 1 RCCA Test Data 110 -

lleoesused in Spent Puel l

100 N

i 90 w i i== ma n--haat e!

j 80 8

70 --

o 60

LL t

cm 50 l

fd W Limit Above Dashpot O

40

<C 8

30 :

X ;*

l

~

g 20 10 g "{*

x In Dashpot j

x Abm Dash #

0 x

30000 40000 50000 l

Bumup MWD /MTU i V1W96 mN7 33

,l t

FCF HAS EXPERIENCED NO RCCA INSERTION PROBLEMS 1

i e

MARK-B FUEL

" ^ " ' " ' * " ^ * * " " ' " " " " * " " " "

9 uouse orruwnumps 3,000

> 3604 total successful 2,500 l

insertions (since 1990) i 2,000

• 180 successful insertions I

3,500 for burnups greater than 40 GWD/MTU i

475 y

an#

l

• Maximum burnup with J

u successful insertion - 58.4 0

i

<30 30-35 35-40 40-45 45-50

>50 GWD/MTU t

nm u ssm aveu = ueew = m m Tnesmou sseo I

l

• ntg.1296 i

-. - ~.. _ - -

MARK-B TRIP DATA SHOW NO

~

]

ADVERSE TREND g

MARK-B CONTROL ROD DROP DATA OCONEE 3 - EOC 14,15,16 ANO-1 EOC CYCLE 12 DROP TIME (SEC) 1.6 secti siEc UMiT Oi: i.66 1.4 h

119 14..b $9 8 Pasa m is a 1.2 ey Eiin 8

b

$ N8 Psi

_s m

C 1

i 20 30 40 50 EOC BURNUP (GWDIMTU)

OCONEE 3 OCONEE 3 OCONEE 3 ANO-1 EOC 14 EOC 15 EOC 16 EOC 12 0

e O

=

I F

rcrrda.1296-

[

Power History Comparisons Summary

.j a FCF has compared the following rodded assembly power histories to Wolf Creek cycles 7 and 8:

Oconee 1 and 3 ANO, Unit 1 Catawba 1 and 2 McGuire 1 and 2 l

u Current FCF power histories are similar to those of Wolf Creek where problems have been observed.

m No accelerated growth, guide thimble distortion or RCCA/CRA insertion problems have been observed in FCF fuel.

I i

[

, nrcrptg.1296

i Mark-BW PIE Program i

a Fuel assembly growth i

a Guide thimble distortion / creep a Fuel assembly bow

.l t

a Fuel ro oxide d

l v

[

m Fuel rod growth I

i 9

ne 1m i

i;

~

)

Mark-BW PIE Program i

m Assembly selection based on:

i

. Burnup t

.RPD i

. Core Location t

. RCCA Trip time h!

. RCCA Drag force t

mtg.1296

Mark-B PIE Program E

m Planned for Fall 1997 J

i a Fuel assembly length u Fuel assembly bow r

a Guide tube oxide t

l u Fuel rod growth - shoulder gap a

I l

c=V1296,

i i

i FCF FUEL DESIGN PERFORMANCE b

SUMMARY

)

FCF'S MARK-BW AND MARK-B FUEL i

l e Have exhibited no growth anomalies

• Burnups as high as and MWD /MTU respectively i

e No temperature / corrosion related phenomena observed in

.i Mark-B and Mark-BW growth data e Have higher margin for growth

> Mark-BW. has BOL margin than Vantage SH

> Mark-B has BOL margin than Vantage SH e Have lower relative axial loads over life of fuel

• Mark-BW holddown loads are than Vantage 5H at BOL

! sl

• Mark-BW holddown loads are than Ringhals at BOL I

I i

nremig.1296

i FCF FUEL DESIGN PERFORMANCE

SUMMARY

FCF'S MARK-BW AND MARK-B FUEL 1

e Mark-BW has larger guide thimble upper diameter than that of the problem fuel 4

i e Mark-BW has shown little guide thimble creep deformation e Mark-BW guide thimble corrosion is as expected e Mark-B has stronger guide thimble which also does not have dashpot (reduced) diameter i

t i

e Mark-B guide thimble corrosion is expected to be even lower due to lower core temperatures I

^'

' nremtg.1296 i

1 i

RCCA Insertion Mark-BW Conclusions j

4 t

h m FA growth data was taken under representative high burnup conditions.

mTesting has shown acceptable RCCA insertion and drag up to 53.2 MWD /MTU.

l u Growth is as predicted and designed for.

m Guide thimble plug gage measurements show minimal change in guide thimble free path.

a Fuel assembly axial loads are lower.

= Steam Generator Replacement and Catawba 2 temperature reductions will help to reduce guide thimble corrosion.

i a PIE program is in progress for Mark-BW fuel to measure fuel assembly growth, guide thimble distortion, fuel assembly bow, and fuel rod oxide and growth.

tcmtg.1296 g

i RCCA insertion Mark-B Conclusions a FA growth data was taken at representative high burnup conditions.

. Growth is as predicted and designed for.

. No temperature effect is observed in Mark-B and Mark-BW growth data.

a Testing has shown acceptable RCCA insertion up to 58400 f

MWD /MTU.

/.

a Lower core outlet temperature (<610F) will help reduce guide i

tube corrosion

-I m Stronger guide thimble design increases structural margin a Large continuous length guide tube (no dashpot) improves control rod interface

'i m PIE program is planned for Fall 1997 to measure fuel assembly growth and bow, guide tube corrosion, and fuel rod growth.

ircmig.1296

Final Recommendation m Proceed to burnups consistent with the methods established in the Mark-B and Mark-BW topicals, j

BAW-10172 and 10179.

i

. Small increment from existing burnups

. Additional axial load less than 5% of total load experienced t

. Data is well behaved compared to licensed models i

a No new core management restrictions are merited for

.l Mark-B and Mark-BW fuel outside NRC approved topicals i

cmtg.1296

Framatome Cogema Fuels FIGURE 1 MARK-BW FUEL ASSEMBLY Ah0 I

m

..)) ] ll e-IIIIIIirJ:::;r Wh..

~.

u,llilllU%s %.

I SPb ::

=

w wa u g4WtG q

1,.1...II.U E

~'

u

- r2 h,a_m= ::

A uA E ggn sam.oa mo~y tt

.,;,7; a

7 SPb : m ameum

.g Il l m~11

. 7 pss-

-g L

=

wY

_,A,,b s.. N,a' CMOSS SECTION z., w me,me S,,$ " "'*

A fA A ug g

'ff' tt' ' Yf f 't b I

e u, u mun g

IIIi

4-=ar-T"hw-l

=

14

.9/19/96 I

d

Phassatome Cagases puels l

i 1

FIGURE 3 Top End Grid Restraint 8

!EI g2 i

C TOP NOZZLE i

UPPER GUIDE TUBE COLLAR RESISTANCE WELD i

JOINT N

C j

-;35 O wuCADW TOP END GRID SLEEVES 1

p.

EMMMMMMMMMMMMMMR'.

3 TOP ENO GRID 1

- yvmcv l

FERRULE gap s

t 4

l' t

i FIGURE 4 Bottoun End Grid Restraint I

i j

.)% J'% JY

%d% J_

,I [if i'T i[iT.._ ili'iTV...if..iilF i'

.l.m.t._..

,g' '*"" "

a

.J.

A.

' p-p,c-

,g v-p-y,px g.g. -.orr.-

i,l l,i t.

.,,,- a..mu e6sava ca.ese

,5 0 (7T1t') D N O t'.

.bo.

es.wr m

\\sorroes worns I

% news. can es saan se* meant f

N N

17 9/19/96 4

Framatome Cegema Fuels j

FIGURE 2a i

t MARK 8W Intermediate Spacer Grid Features f

1 i

i FUEL MOD Gul0E THIMBLE %

pgggggg HAROSTOP N.EmENsECTION 4

o

)-

M g

[s,; m?

• 2 f

Q 135'ulO.

e~

n

,kpeyJ o r p

s g & s.,

i t g i

s g' g l;.

g -Q l 9b e"

i j

x r

l j,q a

f1g p

,G d

a e

q

/

j EEYING SOFTSTOP g)(f q/

.Ti,FEnino of.mE STREAM LINED 4

CORNER v

v I

q 4

15 9/19/96 i

m

.v m....

4

d hanentenne Cagenen Frels J

i 1

FIGURE 2b e

1 1

Mark-8W Intermediate Spacer Grid Restraint System I

l h

i y.

i e

Sfavessef TWSs eenanas assinan==e eues v e6s i

J m e umanens sams errs==seiave j

SPACS4 Gass

}

l

] I $ l NE 8

was wn, w _ _A -

a s

g a

I rII.

c=l r -l l

l

.i

,mI, 4m I

m

,m

, min I

i i

IESTRAse00 OL2e TM LOCATMBS tmpgMED BY $

I i

i M

E M

E N

d i

m m

m m

a j

M u

m x

x N

E e

E N

M HonesTnAsano ouce THamuE LOCATK288 DEMNED BY E 1

i l

16 9/19/96 4

5 A

m-

- -~

,.),sp.

,p

' - - - " - - ~ " " - - ' " ^ ^ " ^

4 CARK-Bil engD RE37sagggy gyggggg i

3 i

e i

s qW

,_me [ ~

N C

m b

w r II.4HRn,-

C....._IE

=

u o

.U_tWEW

,_ m

,s e) e e m e p o e m m igh

,)

=

. - n antarm I _' y' k g-

=

=, s%

CROSS SECrCN rr a.

-x

=

2 b d u e

e a

m u n -

a u.

. 4 N

-*Ry&-

%Nw

~ 9 k.m.e d b e D

f M

e e

d S

gi

- m

~,

-_R_

"9 MM C

4 4

g j

=

E

~~~_,

^

S' b

I_

h I

a n

n y

^

E """*

-_,m__

eglg g samuasarame eg man aave e e e e e e e

_y=_

. = - - -

= =:-

G g

e e e n e e e

~ = =

M E

("hd

\\___)..

6N E

1 i4E$$@R$$Mih@505df $55M5hildDMWXMI56N16M$$!$$$$b

$$kNddN$$EN$!d$$a$!$$$$$$ M$@NIEDI# MkMM$$$$!$ MENT @$$N Fuel Rod Array 15 x 15 17 x 17 17 x 17 Overall Assembly Length (in) 4 FA Length 5

Bottom Nozzle to Top Nozzle Allowable Axial Growth Gap (in)

End Grid Envelope (in)

Intermediate Grid Envelope (in)

FA Incore Gap Cold (in)

Outer Inner Number of Fuel Rods 208 264 264 Number of Guide Tubes 16 24 24 Number of instrument Tubes 1

1 1

Number of Spacer Grids 8==> 2 8==> 2 8==> 2 inconel End Inconel Inconel End Grids; 6 Vaneless End Grids; 6 Zircaloy Grids; Zircaloy Intermediate 6 Zircaloy Intermediate intermediate

@Mes@st#M@iWOMEXsisNsLV?d6M#_KRisbkiWessR@se E

$$$Ed%@j$@$$$$@$$$$@ -[MMjd/B{y% MMEN$8][{f;% M4NI4yE Fuel Rod Growth Clearance (in)

Fuel Rod Overall Length (in)

Fuel Rod O.D. (in)

Holddown Springs 1 set of 4 set.s of 3-leaf 4 sets of 3-stacked (8) springs leaf springs cruciform springs Spring Constant (Ibs/in)

Preload (Ibs)

Guide Tube Material Fully Fully Fully recrystallized recrystallized recrystallized Zircaloy-4 Zircaloy-4 Zircaloy-4 Guide Tube Length (in)

Guide Tube O.D. (in) 0.530 0.482 (upper) 0.474 (upper) 0.429 (lower) 0.430 (lower)

Guide Tube I.D. (in) 0.498 0.450 (upper) 0.442 (upper) 0.397 (lower) 0.398 (lower)

GRID SPAN COMPARISON E

h' n;nin.

..l?" !!!!:

..... m aicani

=5d"""

_.,m

=

nieninnnilinin:

![SM*innNl!!!!MNNN!!!$

0!N$NN5N!$ $$NI$DINAN!!

i

~~

e j in sci agitivui

~~

~

'];

Top End Grid -

ISG6 t

ISG5 - ISG6 ISG4 - ISGS ISG3 - ISG4 i

l ISG2 - ISG3 ISG1 - ISG2 ISG1 - Bottom End Grid ISG -Intermediate Spacer Grid Dimensions in inches k

i

MGURE 6-2: Fuel Assembly G69 Bow, East and Wes l

\\

l 1

i l

MGURE 6-3: Fuel Assembly G69 Bow, North and South 6-6 saw red can,.my z=u.= _,

U

I i

MGURE 64: Fuel Assembly G70 Bow, East and West i

J l

i l

j 1

I l

4 d

I i

4 i

1 2

I 4

MGURE G5: Fuel Asw.A,1y G70 Bow, North and South 6-7 saw pudcompeg

, aga,n.

.. ~

w:

. _ _. _. ~

MGURE 6.6: Fuel Assembly G71 Bow, North and South MGURE 6-7: Fuel Assembly G71 Bow, East and West 6-8 saw Fusicompany w w - =. _.- -.~. -

. w; s

Figure 4-3. LA RPD vs. EFPD 1.25-w l

1.2:

g 4

1.15-o 1.1 -

w 4

l 1.0s-o a

e n.

a-i 1-l-

0.95-t 0.9-i 0.85-(?

E 0.8

[

2 0 ' 3dO ' 4dO ' S O ' 600 ' 7k ' s ' s ' g j'

L 0

100

?

EFPD 2

i C

(-

i t

l f

t i

l e

b l

g; i

McGuire 2 PIE Sc~pe FAID Core Drop Drag Power 3rd Cycle inspections Loc Time Force Burnup (sec)

(Ibs)

(GWD)

Dashpot Total Dashpot Above 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 3 Cycle FA GT FA FR FR Dashpot length Dimen Bow Oxide Growth V37 H08 0.65 2.28 71 67 1289 1.0253 0.971 V44 H06 0.51 2.05 25

<40 1.258 0.659 1.085 V68 H10 0.54 2.20 69 65 1.290 0.660 1.069 V15 F10 0.54 2.16 51

<40 1.245 0.6663 1.077 V01 K10 0.49 2.07 51

<40 1.251 0.659 1.068 V54 J09 1.274 0.3967 1.082 V24 H12 0.56 2.08 27

<40 1.187 0.4703 1.108 V33 E09 0.826 0.6457 1.176 V72 J11 0.806 0.6623 1.148 V67 H02 0.49 2.00 15

<40 1.158 0.4870 0.920 W68 C09 0.58 2.06 59

<40 na 1.2673 1.125 V19 R09 1.132

.7293 0.525 V35 J01 1.137

.7403 0.519 V18 J15 1.139

.7157 0.525 W29 N09 0.57 2.22 7:

<40 na 1.202 1.071 i

f Total 1

m

Power History Comparison for.RCCA Host FAs Mark-BW Plant Cycle EOC Burnup RPD GWd/mtU Wolf Creek 8

51.3 1.02 7

32.7 1.12 8

49.5 0.81 7

35.3 1.00 8

47.6 0.79 7

36.8 1.21 McGuire 1 10 47.1 0.99 i

9 31.5 1.02 8

18.3 1.28 10 45.5 1.00 9

29.9 1.05 8

16.1 1.13 McGuire 2 10 53.1 0.97 9

36.8 1.03 8

20.6 1.29 10 48.0 1.05 9

30.2 0.67 8

19.8 1.28 Catawba 1 9

44.9 0.86 8

30.2 1.05 7

14.2 1.06

~

Catawba 2 7

46.4 1.05 6

27.2 0.50 5

20.1 1.32 6

45.9 0.92 5

31.9 1.03 i

9 g

g

Power History Comparison for RCCA Host FAs Mark-B Plant Cycle EOC Burnup RPD GWd/mtU Wolf Creek 8

51.3 1.02 7

32.7 1.12 8

49.5 0.81 7

35.3 1.00 8

47.6 0.79 7

36.8 1.21 Oconee 1 15 47.6 1.00 14 33.4 1.30 13 18.0 1.31 14

,47.3 1.03 13 34.1 1.37 12 17.7 1.34 I

Oconee 3 16 47.6 1.04 15 33.7 1.09 14 18.1 1.35 ANO-1 14 51.7 1.09 13 34.4 1.26 13 48.2 1.03 12 30.9 1.13 11 14.6 1.06 n

9

,g--

i E

B&W Owners Group Project No. 693 cc:

Mr. J. W. Hampton, Chairman Mr. J. H. Taylor, Manager B&WOG Executive Committee Licensing Services Duke Power Company Framatome Technologies, Inc.

MC:

ONO IVP P.O. Box 10935 P. O. Box 1439 Lynchburg, VA 24506-0935 Seneca, SC 29679 Mr. R. B. Borsum, Manager i

Rockville Licensing Operations Framatome Technologies, Inc.

1700 Rockville Pike, Suite 525 Rockville, MD 20852-1631 i

l 4

i 5

i