ML20211B128

Dynamic Rod Worth Measurement Using Casmo/Simulate

ML20211B128
Person / Time
Site:	Mcguire, Catawba, McGuire
Issue date:	08/31/1999
From:	DUKE POWER CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20211B117	List: ML20211B112 ML20211B128
References
DPC-NE-2012, NUDOCS 9908240227
Download: ML20211B128 (26)

Text

D'.

U ~

l DUKE POWER COMPANY CATAWBA AND McGUIRE NUCLEAR STATIONS l

DYNAMIC ROD WORTH MEASUREMENT USING CASMO/ SIMULATE DPC-NE-2012 August 1999 l

Nuclear Engineering Division Nuclear Generation Department DUKE POWER COMPANY 9908240227 990816 PDR ADOCK 05000369 P

pm i

)

m

.~

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

This report also addresses the set of five criteria which were approved by the NRC in the Westinghouse DRWM topical report. These criteria are used to assess the ability of a utility to perform independent DRWM computations. The five criteria are specifically addressed in this report to demonstrate, from both a technical and programmatic perspective, that Duke Power's methodology for DRWM computations is acceptable.

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

i

m v

. Table of Contents Eage l '

'l.

~ INTR O D U CTIO N.,........,.......................................,,...........,

.1 2.

COM PA R1 SON OF R ES ULTS...........................................,,,................

.....,,.,,4 3.

DISC USSION OF RES ULTS..............................................

.5 3,1 Code Methodology Evaluationi.,..........

... 5 3.2 Measured to Predicted Evaluation...............,.,.....,,....

..... 8

)

4.

' C' OM PLIANCE WITH FIVE DRWM CRITERIA.............,......,......,,.,,,..........,....,,. I 1

)

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

....... I 1 l

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

......,1 I 4.3 Criterion 3: Training and Qualification of Utility Personnel..,...........

....,,....... 1 2 4,4 -

Criterion 4: Comparison Calculations for the DRWM Technique........................... 12 4,5 Criterion 5: Quality Assurance and Change Control.,.....................

....... 13

. 5, CONCLUSION S......,,............

,,,..... 14 6.

R EFE REN CES.,,...................................................-......

...... 15

A PPEN DIX A...............................................................

,24

)

• II -

i

m-u List of Tables L

Pace

)

Table 1 Benchmark Summary of Westinghouse and Duke DRWM Results.,

,6 l

Table 2 Westinghouse Measured to Predicted DRWM Results,

,9 Table 3 Duke Measured to Predicted DRWM Results.

,9 Table 4 Measured and Predicted Rod Worths Based on Westinghouse Predictions,,

,16 i

\\

Table 5 Measured and Predicted Rod Worths Based on Duke Predictions,

,,18 f

l Table 6 Comparison of Predicted Rod Worths Based on Westinghouse and Duke Data.

20 Table 7 Comparison of Measured Rod Worths Based on Westinghouse and Duke Data,

,22 i

l l

- iii -

i

~

p List of Ficures PEC Figure I Catawba and McGuire Control and Shutdown Bank Locations,,,

3 4

4 j

1 i

i t

- lV -

~

u i

1.

INTRODUCTION Duke Power purchased the Dynamic Rod Worth Measurement (DRWM) technology and equipment from Westinghouse in September 1997. Westinghouse has been responsible for performing the DRWM computations for the last six Catawba and McGuire cycles. These startups include Catawba Unit 1 Cycles 11 & 12, Catawba Unit 2 Cyeb 10, McGuire Unit 1 Cycle 13, and McGuire 2 Cycles 12 & 13.

For future DRWM tests, Duke Power intends to perform the analytical computations necessary to support DRWM. Through the information provided in this report, Duke Power intends to demonstrate that the analytical computations necessary to support DRWM for future cycles of both Catawba and McGuire can i

be performed by Duke Power.

Appendix A contains the approved NRC criteria from Reference I that must be addressed in order to perform computations to suppon DRWM.- NRC approved these criteria with the intent that successfully meeting these criteria constitutes inherent NRC approval to perform computations to support DRWM in the

\\

Low Power Physics Testing (LPFr). This report demonstrates that the intent of these criteria has been met J

for the Duke DRWM computations at Catawba and McGuire.

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

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

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

The benchmark comparisons documented in this report are more comprehensive than usual, recognizing the differences in physics code methodologies between Duke and Westinghouse. Duke gathered additional DRWM benchmark data for Catawba and McGuire to qualify the reactor physics calculations and the technology transfer of the DRWM technique. All four units at Catawba and McGuire are sister units, having the same basic core design, cycle lengths and control bank layout. Therefore, the benchmark data can be treated as a collective set of data in which the conclusions are equally applicable to all four units.

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

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

These criteria are used to assess the ability of a utility to perform independent DRWM computations. The. t 1

o

m u

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

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

Duke's DRWM computations make use of the Westinghouse DRWM technique of Refeience 1. The steady-state physics calculations to support the Duke DRWM computations are made using the NRC approved CASMO-3/ SIMULATE-3P methodology described in Reference 2. The dynamic calculations to support Duke DRWM computations are made using the SIMULATE-3 Kinetics (S3K) program described in Reference 3. S3K is a three-dimensional transient neutronic version of the NRC-approved SIMULATE-3P code and utilizes the same neutron cross section library. It employs a fully implicit time integration of neutron flux and delayed neutron precursors. To improve DRWM bank worth comparisons, Duke has adopted the Tuttle delayed neutron data from Reference 7 for reactivity measurements. S3K has been reviewed for use in UFSAR Chapter 15 Rod Ejection analyses for Catawba and McGuire in Reference 3. The NRC technical review of this topical report is considered complete and answers to questions have been provided in Reference 6. S3K has also been approved for UFSAR Chapter 15 Rod Ejection analyses for Oconee in Reference 4. Appheation of these codes and procedures, and the Westinghouse DRWM procedure, is controlled by the Duke Power quality assurance program described in Reference 5. This quality assurance program meets the requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B.

-2 a

u Figure 1 Catawha and McGuire I

Control and Shutdown Hank Locations R

P N

M L

K J

11 G

F E

D C

B A

I 2

SA CB CC CB SA 3

SD SB SB SC 4

SA CD SE CD SA l

5 SC SD 6

CB CC CA CC CB 7

SB SB 14 CC SE CA CD CA SE CC 9

SB SB 10 CB CC CA CC CB 11 SD SC 12 SA CD SE CD SA 13 SC SB SD SD i

14 SA CB CC CB SA 15 XX Bank R

P N

M L

K J

H G

F E

D C

B A

Control Nurnber Shutdown Number Ilank of Rods llank of Rods CA 4

SA 8

CII 8

Sil 8

CC 8

SC 4

CD 5

SD 4

Sfi 4

Total 25 Total 28 3

l l

M O'

2.

COMPARISON OF RESULTS Table 4 provides the DRWM measured and predicted rod worths based on Westinghouse computations for the Catawba 1 Cycle 11, McGuire 2 Cycle 12, McGuire 1 Cycle 13, and Catawba 2 Cycle 10, Catawba 1 Cycle 12, and McGuire 2 Cycle 13 LPPT programs, respectively. Table 5 provides the DRWM measured and predicted roci worths based on Duke Power computations for the same cycles.

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

1 l

1 l l

{

l

p 3.

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

i 3.1 Code Methodology Evaluation The numerical criteria approved by the NRC to assess utilities which intend to independently calculate DRWM analytical factors are shown below. These criteria are contained in Reference 1.

DRWM Acceptable Deviations for NRC Notification Letter Parameter Accentable Deviation Calculated Bank Worth 2% or 25 pcm (whichever is greater)

Calculated Total Wonh of All Banks 2%

Measured Bank Worth 2% or 25 pcm (whichever is greater).

i Measured Total Worth of All Banks 2%

I The individual bank acceptable deviation criterion is setup consistent with criteria used for bank worth measurements during LPIrr. The intent is to compare to the larger of the two deviation limits, % or absolute, whichever is greater. For example, if a bank worth of 1000 pcm is measured, the absolute

- error criterion is 25 pcm (as stated above), and the 2% criterion is 0.02*1000 = 20 pcm. In this example, j

the absolute difference criterion of 25 pcm would be used since it is larger than the 2% criterion. Bank worth acceptance criteria such as these are designed to account for the differences in bank worths, which range from 200 pcm to over 1000 pcm. For lower worth banks, differences are compared to the absolute difference criterion, and for higher worth banks the % difference criterion is used. For a 2% or 25 pcm criterion, all bank worths less than 1250 pcm (=25/0.02) are compared to the 25 pcm criteria.

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

L - -.

~

(

Table I provides a summary of the comparison between Duke and Westinghouse DRWM results for the six benchmark cycles. The maximum bank worth differences in Table 1 were chosen based on the maximum absolute difference between Duke and Westinghouse.

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

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

%(D-W)/W CICll SA 23.2 1.7 SC

-8.6

-1.0 M2Cl2 SA

-13.8

-1.0 CB

-7.0 4).6 MICl3 SB 20.8

-0.1 CB

-9.3 417 C2C10 SA

-18.7

-1.6 CB

-5.0 4).5 CICl2 SA

-30.7 1.9 CB

-4.3 4t3 M2Cl3 SA

-39.2

-1.1 CH

-10.6

-0.6 I

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

. 4 predicted bank worths from M2C13 (Banks CC, CD, SA and SC) 2 predicted bank worths from CICl2 (Banks CB and SA),

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

1) The differences between Duke and Westinghouse predicted bank worth meet either the + 2% or + 25 pcm criterion in 48 of the 54 cases. A total of 6 predicted bank worths in M2Cl3 and CICl2 exceed the 25 pcm criterion. The trend in the predicted bank worth deviations is consistent with the observed differences in the predicted radial Hot Zero Power (HZP) power distribution between Duke and

' Westinghouse. Relative to Westinghouse, Duke typically under predicts the relative power of assemblies located near the core periphery (assemblies I

containing banks SA, CD, SD, and SC), and over predicts the powers of assemblies h L

7 near the core interior (assemblies containing banks CC, CA, and SB). Duke typically predicts lower worths for banks SA, CD, SD, and SC than Westinghouse l

due to differences in the radial power distribution. However, the measured bank worths for these six banks generally fall between the Duke and Westinghouse predicted bank worths, indicating that this is only a bias between predicted bank worths.

2) The differences between the Duke and Westinghouse predicted total bank worths meet the 2% criterion for all six cores analyzed. The Duke predicted total bank worths are consistently lower than Westinghouse predicted total bank worths (from -0.1% to -1.97c). As discussed above, the Duke predicted HZP radial power distribution is typically lower in assemblies located near the periphery. Figure I shows that more of the control banks are located near the periphery, which tends to over emphasize the contribution of the peripheral assemblies to the calculation of the total bank worth. The trend of Duke's predicted total bank worth being slightly lower than Westinghouse is consistent with the HZP radial power distribution diffeences.

3) The difference between the measured bank worths calculated by Duke and Westinghouse methods meet the 2% or 25 pcm criterion for all banks. The maximum difference is -10.6 pcm for Bank CB in McGuire 2 Cycle 13. This comparison shows excellent agreement between the Duke and Westinghouse data.

4) The measured total bank worth differences between Westinghouse and Duke fu.

the 6 cores range from-1.0 to-0.37c. The measured values from Duke calculations are consistently lower than the values from Westinghouse calculations. Since the extent of this under prediction is small, this deviation is acceptable.

The overall comparison between Westinghouse and Duke results is excellent. The differences shown in Table I are well within the expected range for a comparison between two independent core simulator methodologies. The fundamental methodology differences between Duke and m

v

.e Westinghouse are expected to produce differences such as these for predicted bank worths.

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

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

l DRWM Review Criteria for Low Power Physics Testing (LPPT)

Parameter Criteria Individual Bank Worths Measured worths 15% or 1(X) pcm of their predicted worths, whichever is greater i

Total Worth of All Banks Sum of measured worths 8% of the sum of predicted worths i

DRWM Acceptance Criteria for Low Power Physics Testing (LPPT) brameter Criteria l

Total Worth of All Banks Sum of measured worths 190% of the sum of predicted worths For the i 15% or 1 ' 7 pcm criterion, all bank worths less than 667 pcm (=100/0.15) are compared to the 100 pcm criterion,.

iks with predicted worths greater the i 667 ppm are compared to the 15%

j r riterion.

8 l

l-l

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

Table 2 Westinghouse Measured to Predicted DRWM Results Total Bank Westinghouse Maxinum Bank Worth Wonh Difference Difference Predicted Cycle Bank Wonh (pcm) (M-P) pcm %(M-PVP

%(M-PvP CICil CD 631 63.8 10.1 1.7 M2Cl2 CA 337

-42.9

-12.7 0.2 MICl3 CB M5 25.1 3.9 0.3 C2C10 SB 916 88.3 9.6 2.8 CICl2 CB 697 22.7 3.3 1.1 M2Cl3 CB N3 47.1 7.3 2.9 M = Measured (using Westinghouse analytical factors)

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

Tahic 3 J

Duke Measured to Predicted DRWM Results i

Total Bank Duke Maximum Bank Wonh Wonh Difference Difference Predicted Cycle Rank Wonh (pcm) (M-P) pem %(M-PvP 4(M-PvP CICll CD 612.9 74.8 12.2 2.5 M2Cl2 CA 323.8

-30.9

-9.5 0.6 MIC13 CC 740.8

-32.2 4.3

-0.3 C2C10 CB 543.7 52.4 9.6 4.0 CICl2 CB 667.7 47.6 7.1 2.8 M2Cl3 CB 630.0 49.8 7.9 3.4 M = Measured (using Duke analytical factors)

P = Predicted 9

m The results in Table 2 and Table 3 show that both Westinghouse and Duke meet the 157c or 100 pcm LPPT review criterion for individual banks, and the 8% total bank worth review criterion. In addition, the acceptance criterion of 2 907c of the sum of the predicted worths is met for all cycles.

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

4.

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

4.1 Criterion 1: Eligibility of Codes for DRWM Computations Only lattice physics codes and methods which have received prior NRC review and approval are eligible to be used in determining the physics constants to be used in DRWM. For the Duke application of DRWM, both the CASMO lattice physics code and the SIMULATE three dimensional core simulator code have been approved by the NRC for use by Duke in Reference 2. The SIMULATE-Kinetics (S3K) code for the dynamic modeling of the DRWM process is a three-dimensional transient neutronic version of SIMULATE-3, and utilizes the same neutron cross section library. Reference 3 seeks approval to use S3K for the UFS AR Chapter 15 rod ejection analyses for Catawba and McGuire. The SER for Reference 3 is expected from the NRC in September,1999, which is prior to the first Duke application of DRWM computations in October,1999.

Since CASMO and SIMULATE have been approved in Reference 2, and S3K will have similar approval prior to Duke's first application of DRWM computations, all of the codes and methods to be used by Duke for DRWM computations will have been reviewed by the NRC. Therefore, Criterion I has been met.

4.2 Criterion 2: Application of Procedures to DRWM Computations This criterion states that "In a manner consistent with the procedures obtained from Westinghouse, the utility analyses shall be performed in conformance with in-house application procedures which ensure that the use of the methods is consistent with the Westinghouse approved application of the DRWM methodology". Duke has incorporated the Westinghouse provided DRWM computational procedures into an internal procedure to ensure consistency with the NRC approved methodology. Future Duke DRWM analyses will be performed according to the Duke DRWM procedure. The Duke QA program described in Reference 6 will be used to perform all DRWM computations. Therefore, Criterion 2 has been met. i l

P v

1 4.3 Criterion 3: Training and Qualification of Utility Personnel This criterion states that the first application of DRWM will be performed by Westinghouse, which will ensure that DRWM is applicable to the specific plant, provide utility personnel with training rn the DRWM technique and be used to meet Criterion 4. Duke has exceeded these expectations by having Westinghouse perform computations for the first six DRWM applications at Catawba and McGuire. Duke station personnel received training and procedures on the use of the Advanced Digital Reactivity Computer (ADRC), and application of the ADRC to performing LPIrr using DRWM prior to testing at Catawba and McGuire. Additional training was received during each of the six applications of DRWM.

Duke personnel performing computations to support DRWM have been initially trained by Westinghouse in these computations. Duke has received calculational procedures from Westinghouse on how to perform the DRWM computations. The Westinghouse training included the ability to set up input, understand and interpret output results, understand applications and limitations, and to perform analyses consistent with the procedures provided by Westinghouse. Duke has an established training and qualification program that is l

used to ensure that only qualified personal perform reload design calculations. The same training program will be used to ensuie that future users of the DRWM methodology have a good working knowledge of the codes and methods. Therefore, Criterion 3 has been met.

4.4 Criterion 4: Comparison Calculations for the DRWM Technique Section 3 provides an evaluation of the results from the six DRWM demonstration cycles. The comparisons show that the individual bank worth criteria of 2% or 25 pcm were met for all of the measured bank worths and most of the predicted bank worth comparisons. A total of six predicted bank wonhs, four banks in McGuire 2 Cycle 13, and two banks in Catawba 1 Cycle 12, exceeded the 25 pcm criterion. As discussed in Section 3.0, the magnitude of the predicted bank worth deviations is acceptably small since the comparison involves two independent physics methodologies. Overall, the comparisons of predicted bank worths between Westinghouse and Duke are considered excellent. The differences between Westinghouse and Duke predicted bank worths are consistent with differences in the predicted HZP radial power distribution.

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

In conclusion, considering the entire benchmark database, all of the criteria have been met with the exception of six individual bank worths in two cycles. The cause of the largerpredicted bank wonh differences in the six banks of McGuire 2 Cycle 13 and Catawba 1 Cycle 12 has been identified as being due to differences in the predicted radid power distribution. The magnitude of the deviations for predicted bank worths are small and are considered acceptable. Overall the comparison between Westinghouse and Duke predictions are considered good for comparisons of two independent physics methodologies. The comparisons that exceeded the 125 pcm criterion have been investigated and the reason for the larger deviations is understood and the magnitudes are not unexpected. Finally, all of the I

review and acceptance criteria for measured to predicted bank worth comparisons were easily satisfied.

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

4.5 Criterion 5: Quality Assurance and Change Control The calculations for DRWM will be conducted using engineering calculation procedures which ensure conformance with the Duke QA program described in Reference 6. The Duke procedures have provisions for implementing changes to the methods and procedures being used for DRWM. Processes are available which provide a means by which Duke can directly inform Westinghouse and track any problems or errors discovered while performing the DRWM calculations or procedures. Westinghouse also has a requirement to inform utilities that have taken a technology transfer on DRWM of changes to the process as part of their QA procedures regarding technology transfer. Therefore, Criterion 5 has been met.

i m

v

~

5.

CONCLUSIONS' Based on the results in Sect on 2 and the' discussions of the results in Section 3, it is concluded that the i

intent of the review criteria in Appendix A has been met. Section 4 showed that Duke has acceptably

~ addressed the five criteria that have been establish to assess a utilities' ability to perform DRWM computations. Therefore, Duke has demonstrated through an extensive benchmark evaluation, that future l

Catawba and McGuire DRWM applications can be performed using Duke methods. The first application of 1

Duke Power analytical computations to support DRWM in LPFT is scheduled to occur with the startup of McGuire 1 Cycle 14 which will occur on or about October 31,1999.

l l

L l

l l

i l

I i

(. )

7

~

6.

REFERENCES 1.

" Westinghouse Dynamic Rod Worth Measurement Technique", WCAP-13360-P-A, Revision 1, October 1998.

2.

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

3. " Duke Power Company Westinghouse Fuel Transition Report", DPC-NE-2009P, submitted for NRC i

i review July 1998.

4.

Letter, D. E. LaBarge (NRC) to W. R. McCollum (Duke), " Safety Evaluation on Topical Report DPC-NE-3005-P, Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) Chapter 15 Transient Analysis Methodology Duke Energy Corporation Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1,2, and 3. Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287.", October 1,1998.

5. " Topical Report Quality Assurance Program" Duke Energy Corporation, DUKE-1-A, Amendment 25, May 31,1999.

6.

" Response to NRC Requests for Additional Information on License Amendment Requests for McGuire and Catawba Nuclear Stations", letter, M.S. Tuckman (Duke) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, January 28,1999.

7.

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

p-

~

l

- Table 4 Measured and Predicted Rod Worths liased on Westinghouse Predictions Catawha 1 Cycle 11 WORTII(pern)

DIIT1RINCE IIA N K Measured Predicted

% (M.PvP gem 9A

.._. 374 6,_, _,.

.._3,97.4

-5.7

_ -?28 Cil 634.7 6103 4.0 24.4 CC-889.5

_... 888.0 _ _

0.2.. _._ 1.5._

SA 235.6 232.6 13 3.0 Sil 889.7 890.0 0.0

-03 SC 468.3

- - 443.0

..-. 5.7

25. 3,. _

Sk~ ~ ~

~

460.8 4W.2

-6.ii~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~-53.4 TOTAL Sill.1 5026.8 1.7 84.3 McGuim 2 Cycle 12 WORTII(peri.i DIITIRINCE IIA N K Measured Predicted

% (M-PVP pcm CA

-293.9 336.8

-12.7

~-42.9~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~

C.. il_ - -~._.

(W3_-

M4.2 3.6

5. fi....

Cp _,

__,_,793R____. __ 811.7_ _,31 _, _

__-447 _

CD 624.0 613.5 1.7 10.5 j

SA 305.5 288.2 6.0 173 S. 11..-.

1067.4 1G10.I.-

..-- -.2. 6...--

. 273.-..

_..._5_1 SE 489.0 506.4

-3.4

-17.4 TOTAL 5234 3 5221.5 0.2 12.8 McGuire 1 Cycle 13 WORTII(pem)

DIIT1RINCE IIA N K Measured Predicted

% (M.PvP pcm CA 290.4 304.6

-4.7

-14.2 C. il 670.4 M53

.. - - -3.9

..,-.-. 5.12. -..-

CC 709.3 725.4

-2.2

-16.I CD... _

$69.0 -.-.-.-569.9 -.

-0.2 -.. - - _.9

-0 S_il 994.7 978.1

__._1.7,__...._._ _.16.6 SC 4M.1 455.8 1.8 8.3 SD 455.7 455.4 0.1 03 SE 513 3 513.2 0.0 0.)

TOTAL 4929.8 4916.1 03 13.7 l

-16

P.

v i

Table 4 (continued)

Measured and Predicted Rod Worths Based on Westinghouse Predictions Catawha 2 Cvele 10 WORTH (pem)

DIFTTRINCE HANK Measured Predicted

'7e (NLPvP pcm CA 377.8 422.l _ _ 10.5

_-4_4.3__

CH 601.1 552.9 8.7 48.2 CC 885.9 851.9 4.0 34.0 i

CD 558.9 563.'3

-0.8

-4.4

{

SA 236.4 240.1

-1.5

-3.7 SH 1(XM.5 916.2 9.6 88.3 SC y.5,,,,,,,_ _ _ 393.5

__ 2.3

_,__ _ 9.0 _

SD 403.5 393.7 2.5 9.8 SE 477.1 477.1 0.0 0.0 TOTAL 4947.7 4810.8 2.8 136.9 Catawha 1 Cvele 12 WORTII(pem)

DIFTTRENCE BANK Measured Predicted "c (M-PVP pcm CA 275.3 288.2

-4.5

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

-2.3

-11.0 SA 317.0 326.5

-2.9

-9.5 SH 814.6 782.1 4.2 32.5 SC 449.1 457.5

-1.8

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

DIFTTRFNCE BANK Measured Predicted

'7e (M-PVP pcm CA 340.6 352.8

-3.5

-12.2 CH 690.4 643.3 7.3 47._1 CC 815.0 780.9 4.4 34.1 CD 598.9 609.2

- 1.7

-10.3 SA 277.6 295.7

-6.1

-l 8. I SB 9M.6 908.7 8.4 75.9 SC 466.4 463.2 0.7 3.2_

SD 478.6 469.2 2.0 9.4 SE 502.9 487.4 3.2 15.5 TOTAL

$155.0 5010.4 2.9 144.6 m-

~

Table 5 Measured and Predicted Rod Worths Based on Duke Predictions Catawha 1 Cycle 11 WORTH (pem)

DIIMRFNCE I

BANK Measured Predicted

% (M-PVP pcm CA 369.8 3%.9

-6.8

-27.1 CH 627.0 587.4 6.7 39.6 CC 886.9 892.5

-0.6

-5.6 CD 687.7 612.9 12.2 74.8 SA 234.5 209.4 12.0 25.1 S.B

. _ _ 32

,0,_

,5._ _

SD 458.2 424.3 8.0 33.9 SE 455.5 500.1

-8.9

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

DIFMRENCE BANK Measured Predicted

% (M-PVP pcm CA 292.9 323.8

-9.5

-30.9 CH 660.3 M5.6 2.3 14.7 l

CC

_ 761.3 808.3

-5.8 _,._ _-47.0 _

CD 620.2 606.5 2.3 13.7 SA 303.1 274.4 10.5 28.7 SH 1067.1 1045.1 2.1 22.0 SC 505.3 483.2

~ 4.6 22.1

~

~

SD 508.1 484.2 4.9 23.U~

SE 485.3 500.7

-3.1

-15.4 j

TOTAL 5203.6 5171.8 0.6 31.8 McGuiar 1 Cycle 13 l

WORTH (pem)

DIFMRENCE l

BANK Measured Predicted

% (M-PVP pcm CA 289.5 302.9

-4.4

-_13.4_ _.

CH 661.1 646.8 2.2 14.3 CC 708.6 740.8

-4.3

-32.2 CD SM.4 557.1 1.3 7.3 SA 260 5 256.6 1.5 3.9 SH 993.2 998.9

-0.6

-5.7 j

SC 459.0 443.8 3.4 15.2 _ _

j SD 450.3

_,, 443.4 1.6

_. 6.9 i

SE 510.1 521.7

-2.2

-11.6 TOTAL 48 %.7 4912.0

-0.3 15.3 1

1.

Table 5 (continued)

Measured and Predicted Rod Worths Based on Duke Predictions Catawha 2 Cycle 10 WORTH (pem)

DIFITRENCE BANK Measured Predcted

% (M-PVP pem CA 374.2 412.9

-9.4

-38.7 CB 596.1 543.7 9.6 CC 885.9 857.9 3.3 ~

52.4 28.0

~

CD

$56.4 552.8 0.7 3.6 SA 237.1 221.4 fi ~ ~

15.7 [}

SB 1001.3 913.5 9.6 87.8 SC 399.6 382.3

~

SD 400.3 382.0

~

4.5 17.3 4.8 18.3 SE 472.2 465.5 1.4 6.7 TOTAL 4923.1 4732.0 4.0 191.1 Catawha 1 Cycle 12 WORTH (pem)

DIFTIRFNCE BANK Measured Predicted

'7c (M-PVP pcm CA 274.9 2%.4

-7.3._..

.__.. 21.5 _ _

CC 783.3 771.4 1.5

~~lI.U CD 4M.2 469.5

-1.1

-5.3 7

UC 445.8 437.5

~

1.9 8.3 SD 470.5 442.9 6.2 27.6 SE 510.1 506.4 0.7 3.7

. TOTAL 4795.9 46M.5 2.8 131.4 McGuire 2 Cycle 13 WORTH (pem)

DIF11RENCE BANK Measured Predicted

'7c (M-PVP pcm CA 338.6 363.0

-6.7

-24.4 CB CC

_, _, 679,.8_ _ 630O _

_7.9 _,,

_ _ 49.8_

816.3 814.2 0.3 2.1 CD

___ 594.6 570.3 4.3 24.3 SA 278.1 256.5

~

8.4 21.6 SB 979.2

-.929 5.--

5.3. -

.-49.7..- -

SD 473.3 444.3 7 5~0 6.5 SE 500.7 509.3

-1.7

-8.6 TOTAL 5122.0 4954.0 3.4 168.0 t l.

Table 6 Comparison of Predicted Rod Worths Based on Westinghouse and Duke Data Catawha 1 Cvele 11 Predcted ROD WORTH (pem)

DIFIIRihCE BANK Westingh<mse Duke

% (D-WVW pcm CA 397.4 3%.9

-0.1

-0.5 CB 610.3 587.4

-3.8

-~~' 2.9

-2 CC 888.0 892.5 0.5 4.5 CD 631.2 612.9

-2.9

-18.3 SA 232.6 209.4

-10.0

-23.2 SH 890.0 888.0

-0.2

-2.0 SC 443.0 428.0

-3.4

-15.0 SD 440.1 424.3

-3.6

-15.8 SE 494.2 500.1 1.2 5.9 TOTAL 5026.8 4939.5

-1.7

-87.3 McGuim 2 Cvele 12 Predcted ROD WORTH (pcm)

DIF11RFNCE BANK Westinghouse Duke

% (D-WVW pcm CA 336.8 323.8

-3.9

-13.0 -

i' CB M4.2 MS.6 0.2 1.4

~

CC 811.7 808.3

-0.4

-3.4 CD 613.5 606.5

-1.1,_ _ _-7.0__

SA 288.2 274.4

-4.8

-13.8 SB 1G10.1 1045.1 0.5 5.0 SC 489.8 483.2

- 1.3

-6.6 SD 490.8 484.2

-1.3

-6.6 i

SE 506.4 500.7

- 1.1

-5.7 TUTAL

$221.5 5171.8

-1.0

-49.7 McGuim 1 Cvele 13 Predcted ROD WORTH (pem)

DIF11RFNCE BANK Westinghouse Duke

% (D-WVW pcm C_A_

304.6 302.9

-0.6

-1.7 _

CB M5.3 M6.8 0.2 1.5 i

CC 725.4 740.8 2.1 15.4 CD 569.9 557.1

__ - 2.2 _._ ___- 12.8_._

SH 978.1 998.9 2.1 20.8 SC 455.8 443.8 2.6

-12.0 SD 455.4 443.4 _.

_-2.6

_,, _i_2.0_,_

j SE 513.2 521.7 1.7 8.5 i

TOTAL 4916.1 4912.0

-0.1

-4.1 l.

Table 6 (continued)

Comparison of Predicted Rod Worths Based on Westinghouse and Duke Data Catawha 2 Cvele 10 Predicted MOD WORTil(pem)

DIFITRFNCE BANK Westinghouse Duke

% (D-WVW pcm CA 422.1 412.9

-2.2

-9.2 Cil 552.9 543.7

-1.7

-9.2 CC 851.9 857.9 0.7 6.0 CD 563.3 552.8

-1.9

~71ii5~

l SA 240.1 221.4

-7.8

-18.7 SB 916.2 913.5

-0.3

-2.7 SC 393.5 382.3

-2.8

-11.2 SD SE 393.7 382.0

-3.0

-11.7 477.1 465.5

-2.4

-11.6 TOTAL 4810.8 4732.0

-1.6

-78.8 Catawha 1 Cycle 12 Predicted ROD WORTil(pem)

DIF11RINCE 1

BANK Westinghouse Duke

% (D-WVW pcm CA 288.2 2%.4 2.8 8.2 CB 696.9 667.7

-4.2

-29.2 CC 766.1

~ ' 771.4 0.7' 51 CD 478.2 469.5

-1.8

-8.7 S A, _,,_ _ __,

326.5

_ 295.8 -

_ -9.4

_-301__

SH 782.1 776.9

-0.7

-5.2 SC 457.5 437.5

-4.4

-20.0 SD 461.6 442.9

-4.1

-18.7 SE 498.3 506.4 1.6 8.1 TOTAL 4755.4 46M.5

-1.9

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

DIFHRFNCE BANK Westinghouse Duke

% (D-WVW pcm CA 352.8 363.0 2.9 10.2 CB M3.3 630.0

-2.1

-13.3 CC 780.9 814.2 4.">

33.3 CD 609.2 570.3

-6.4

-38.9 SA 295.7 256.5

-13.3

-39.2 SB

- ~. -908.7

- 929.5- -. 2.3 -.--

-. 20.8 _ -. -

i SD 469.2 444.3

-5.3

-24.9 SE 487.4 509.3 4.5 21.9 TOTAL 5010.4 4954.0

-1.1

-56.4 I

4 Tabic 7 Comparison of Measured Rod Worths Based on Westinghouse and Duke Data Catawha 1 Cycle 11 Measured ROD WORTH (pem)

DIF11RFNCE BANK Westinghouse Duke

% (D-WVW pcm CA 374.6 369.8

-1.3

-4.8 CH, _

634.7 627.0

_, - 1.,2 _ _ -7.7 CC 889.5 886.9

-0.3

-2.6 CD 695.0 687.7

-1.1

-7.3 SA 235.6 234.5

-0.5.-. - -1.1

~

459.7

-1.8 d6

~

SC 468.3

~

~

SD 462.9 458 2

-1.0

-4.7 SE 460.8 455.5

-1.2

-5.3 TOTAL 5111.1 5062.5 1.0

-48.6 McGulm 2 Cycle 12 Measured ROD WORTH (pem)

DIF11RlWCE BANK Westinghouse Duke

% (D-WVW pcm CA 293.9 292.9

-0.3

-1.0 CH 667.3 660.3

_ _ l0 _

-7.0 CC 763.0 761.3

-0.2

-1.7 CD 624.0 620.2

-0.6

-3.8 SA 305.5 303.1 ~

-0.8

-2.4 SH 1067.4 1067.1 0.0

-0.3

~

SC 511.1 505.3

-1.1 SD 513.1 508.1

- 1.0

-5.0 SE 489.0 485.3

-0.8

-3.7 TOTAL 5234.3

$203.6

-0.6

-30.7 McGuim 1 Cvele 13 Measured ROD WORTH (pem)

DIF11RFNCE BANK Westinghouse Duke

% (D-WVW pcm CA 290.4 289.5

-0.3

-0.9 CH 670.4 _

661.1

-1.4

-9.3 CC 709.3 708.6

-0.1

-0.7 CD 569.0 SM.4

-0.8

-4.6 SA 262.9 260.5

-0.9

-2.4 SB 994.7 993.2

-0.2

-1.5 SC 4M.I 459.0

-1.1

-5.1 SD 455.7 450.3

-1.2

-5.4 SE

$13.3 510.1

-0.6

-3.2 TOTAL 4929.8 4896 7

-0.7

-33.1

~

Table 7 (continued)

Comparison of Measured Rod Worths Based on Westinghouse and Duke Data Catawha 2 Cscle 10 Measured ROD WORTH (pem)

DIF11RINCE BANK Westinghoun Duke

• /c (D-WVW pcm CA 377.8,,_

374.2

-1.0

-3.6 _ _

CB 601.1 596.1

-0.8

-5.0 CC 885.9 885.9 0.0 _

0.0 CD 558.9 556.4

-0.4

-2.5 SA 236.4 237.1

_,_0.3,,

0.7 _,

SH 1(01.5 1001.3

-0.3

-3.2 SC 402.5 399.6

-0.7

-2.9 SD 403.5

- 400.3

~~

-0.8

~

-3.2 SE 477.1 472.2

-1.0

-4.9 TOTAL 4947.7 4923.1

-0.5

-24.6 Catawha 1 Cycle 12 l

l Measured ROD WORTH (pem)

DIF11RENCE BANK Westinghouse Duke

% (D-WVW pem CA

_,,,_ 275.3 274.9

-0.1

-04 CH 71st 715.3

-0.6

-4.3 j

CC 780.6 783.3 0.3 2.7 CD 467.2 4M.2

-0.6

-3.0 SA 317.0 317.7 0.2 0.7 SB 814.6 814.1

-0.1

-0.5 l

SC 449.1 445.8

-0.7

-3.3 j

SD 474.3 470.5

-0.8

-3.8 SE 511.2 510.1

-0.2

-1.1 TOTAL 4808.9 4795.9

-0.3

-13.0 McGuirr 2 Cycle 13 l

Measured ROD WORTH (pem)

DIF11RENCE I

BANK Westinghouse Duke

% (D-WVW pcm CA 340.6 338.6

-0._6_._

-2.0_ _

CH 690.4 679.8

-1.5

-10.6 CC 815.0

_ 816.,3_

0.2 1.3 _

CD 598.9 594.6

-0.7

-4.3 SA 277.6 278.1 0.2 0.5 S B_ __. _984 6__. _. 979.2

_0.5, _

__, 5.4 _

i l

SC 466.4 461.4

-1.1

-5.0 SD 478.6 473.3

-1.1

-5.3 SE 502.9 500.7

-0.4

-2.2 TOTAL 5155.0 5122.0

-0.6

-33.0 l

1 l L

Criteri3 Fcr a Utility P;rforming Dynamic Rod Worth M:asurement (DRWM) Comput tions (reproduced from WCAP-13360 P A, Revision 1)

APPENDIX A In order for a utility to perform their own physics calculations to support the use of the Dynamic Rod Wonh l

. Measurement (DRWM) technique during the Low Power Physics Testing (LPPT), the following five criteria must be met. Compliance with the following five criteria demonstrates a utility's qualification and constitutes inherent NRC approval to use DRWM in their LPI'T. To document its qualification, the utility must send the NRC a notification of compliance with the criteria and the date of the intended first application of the codes to determine the DRWM physics constants for LPfrl'. Any voluntary limitations or restrictions of the utility's use of the DRWM methodology must also be addressed in the notification. The NRC would then, at their option, audit the application of the utility's DRWM program to ensure compliance.

1)

Criterion 1: Elicibility of Codes for DRWM Computations 1

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

2)

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

3)

Criterion 3: Traininc and Oualification of Utility Personnel i

The first application of DRWM for LPI'I' will be performed by Westinghouse. This will ensure that DRWM is applicable to the specific plant, provide utility personnel with training in the DRWM technique and be used to meet Criterion 4 - Comparison Calculations for the DRWM Technique.

The first application of DRWM for LPPT by Westinghouse will be applicable for all of the same plant type at the plant site of application. If the fue! vendor should change subsequent to the first i

application, a second application by Westinghouse is not required.

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

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

This training shall include the ability to set up input decks, understand and interpret output results, understand applications and limitations, and to perform analyses in compliance with the procedures provided by Westinghouse.

I 4)

Criterion 4: Comparison Calculations for the DRWM Techniaue i

Prior to the first application by a utility using their own methods to perform physics calculations in support of DRWM for LPIrr, the utility will demonstrate its ability to use the methods supplied by i

Westinghouse by comparing its calculated results with the analyses and results obtained by Westinghouse during the first, or subsequent, application (s) of DRWM at the utility's plant. These cornparisons must be documented in a report which is part of the utility's QA records. Any significant differences between the calculations and the comparison daia must be discussed in the report. As a minimum, the following parameters should be compared to the supplier of the DRWM methodology calculations, and should agree within the given acceptable deviation:

P_arameter Accentable Deviation Calculated Bank Worth i2% or 25 pcm Calculated Total Worth of All Banks 2%

Measured Bank Worth Obtained for 2% or125 pcm First Application Measured Total Worth Obtained for 12%

First Application I

Criteris For a Utility Performing Dynamic Rod Worth Mcasurement (DRWM) Computations (reproduced from WCAP-13360-P-A, Revision 1) 5):

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

following:

a)

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

b)

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

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

. w.