ML20028C736

Forwards Proprietary & Nonproprietary Incore Detector Thimble Reduction Study, Submitted in Support of 821216 Proposed Tech Spec Change Request 75.Proprietary Rept Withheld (Ref 10CFR2.790).Affidavit Encl

ML20028C736
Person / Time
Site:	Beaver Valley
Issue date:	12/31/1982
From:	Wiesemann R WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, DIV OF CBS CORP.
To:	Varga S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML19262H056	List: ML20028C732 ML20028C736
References
CAW-82-74, NUDOCS 8301140049
Download: ML20028C736 (24)

Text

. . - - - . ..

ATTACHMENT A.

.(

Westinghouse Water Reactor an355 PlusburghPemsylvania15230 Electric Corporation Divisions December ,1982 CAW-82-74 Mr. Stephen A. Varga, Chief Operating Reactors Branch 1 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conunission.

7920 Norfolk Avenue 4

Bethesda, MD 20014

SUBJECT:

Reduction in Incore Detector Thimbles REF: Duquesne Light Company letter Carey to Varga, December 1982

Dear Mr. Varge:

The proprietary material for which withholding is being requested by Duquesne

. Light, Company is proprietary to Westinghouse and withholding is requested

] pursuent to the provisions of paragraph (b)(1) of Section 2.790 of the Consaission's regulations. Withholding from public disclosure is requested with respect to the subject information which is further identified in the j affidavit accompanying this application.

The proprietary material transmitted by the referenced letter supplements the proprietary material previously submitted. Further, the affidavit, AW-76-8, submitted to justify the previous material was approved by the Commission on November 9,1977 and is equally applicable to the subject material.

Accordingly, withholding the subject information from public disclosure is requested in accordance with the previously submitted affidavit, AW-76-8, a copy of which is attached.

Accordingly, this letter authorizes the use of the proprietary information and affidavit AW-76-8 by the Duquesne Light Company for Beaver Valley Unit 1.

' Correspondence with respect to this application for withholding or the accompany affidavit should reference CAW-82-74 and be addressed to the under-si gned.

Very truly yours, 8301140049 830104 PDR ADOCK 05000334 >

P PDR 1

Robert A. Wiesemann, Manager Regulatory & Legislative Affairs

, /bek L'

Enclosure cc: E. C. Shomaker, Esq.

Office of the Executive Legal Director, NRC

AW-76-8' AFFIDAVIT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA:

ss COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY:

Before me, the undersigned authority, personally appeared Robert A. Wiesemann, who, being by me duly sworn according to law, de-poses and says that he is authorized to execute this Affidavit on behalf of Westinghouse Electric Corporation (" Westinghouse") and that .the aver-ments of fact set forth-in this Affidavit are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief: - -

t he'AlfMC?RR Robert A. Wiesemann, Manager Licensing Programs Sworn to and subscribed before me this // day of [bmI 1976.

d

. 1-. 04 4 &

/ Notary Public/

ue rc:-

,i.- in t.,V s. th n. i.. 13, 1978 CL Cw ;dMJ.4 e

w w - - - -. ,,.

y

.. e* ,. l l

AW-76-8 .l l

(1) I:am Manager, Licensing' Programs, in'the' Pressurized. Water Reactor

._ Systems Division, of Westinghouse Electric Corporation.and as such, I have been specifically delegated the function of reviewing the proprietary information sought _ to be withheld from public dis-closure in. connection with nuclear power plant licensing or rule-making proceedings, and am authorized to apply for its. withholding on' behalf of the Westinghouse Water Reactor Divisions.

(2) I am making this Affidavit ~in conformance with the provisions of 10 CFR Section 2.790 of the Commission's regulations and-in con-

. junction with the Westinghouse application for withholding ac-companying this Affidavit. ,

(3) I have personal knowledge of the criteria and procedures utilized -

by Westinghouse Nuclear Energy Systems in designating information as a trade secret, privileged or as confidential com ercial or financial information.

(4) Pursuant to, the provisions of paragraph (b)(4) of Section 2.790 of the' Commission's regulations, the following is furnished for consideration by the Commission in determining whether the'in-formation sought to be withheld from public disclosure should be withheld. ,

(i) The information sought to be withheld from public disclosure

. is owned and has been held in confidence by Westinghouse.

1 5

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . . . _ _ _ . - _, , , . _ . , _ _ , , , . , , . . _ . . , ,m. _ . . .. m, ,. _., ., -

AW-76-8' (ii) The information is of a type customarily held in confidence by Westinghouse and not customarily disclosed to the public.

Westinghouse has a rational basis for determining the types of information customarily held in confidence by it and, in that connection, utilizes a system to determine when and whether to hold certain types of information in confidence.

The application of that system and the substance of that system constitutes Westinghouse policy and provides the rational basis required.

Under that system, information is held in confidencs if it falls in one or more of several types, the release of which might result in the loss of an existing or potential com-petitive advantage, as follows:

(a) The information reveals the distinguishing aspects of a process (or component, structure, ' tool, method, etc.)

where prevention of its use by any of Westinghouse's competitors without license from Westinghouse consti-tutes a competitive economic advantage over other companies.

(b) It consists of supporting data, including test data, relative to a process (or component, structure, tool, method, etc.), the application of which data secures a competitive economic advantage, e.g. , by optimization or improved marketability.

u- - g , - , , - --,ev. ,

AW-76-8 (c) Its use by. a competitor would reduce his expenditure of resources or improve his competitive position in the design,- manufacture, shipment, installation, assurance of quality, or licensing a similar product.

(d) It reveals cost or price information, production cap-acities . budget levels, or commercial strategies of Westinghouse, its customers or suppliers.

(e) It reveals aspects of past, present, or future West-inghouse or customer funded developtrent plans and pro-grams of potential commercial value to Westinghouse.

(f) It contains patentable ideas, for which patent pro-tection may be desirable.

(g) It is not the property of Westinghouse, but must be '

treated as proprietary by Westinghouse according to agreements with the owner.

There are sound policy reasons behind the Westinghouse -

system which include the following:

l 1

(a) The use of such information by Westinghouse gives j

~

Westinghouse a competitive advantage over its ccm-peti tors . It is, therefore, withheld from disclosure to protect the Westinghouse competitive position.

I

. .- . Tf' AW-76-8 l

(b) It is information which is marketable in many ways.

The. extent-to which such'information is available to competitors diminishes the Westinghouse ability to.

sell products 'and services ~ involving the use of the information.

(c) Use by our competitor would put Westinghouse at a competitive disadvantage by reducing his expenditure.

of resources at our expense.

(d) Each component of proprietary information pertinent to a particular competitive advantage _ is potentially.

as valuable as the total competitive advantage. If competitors acquire components of proprietary infor-mation, any one component may be the key' to the entire puzzle, thereby depriving Westinghouse of a competitive advantage.

(e) U,nrestricted disclosure would jeopardize the position of prominence of Westinghouse in the world market, and thereby give a market advantage to the competition in those countries.

(f) The Westinghouse capacity to invest corporate ssets in research and development-depends upon the success in obtaining and maintaining a competitive advantage.

i r

i

AW-76-8 (iii) The information is being transmitted to the Commission in confidence and, under the provisions of 10 CFR Section 2.790, it is to be received in confidence by the Commission.

, (iv) Th'e information is not available in public sources to the .

- best of our knowledge and belief.

(v) The proprietary information sought to be withheld in this submittal is that which is appropriately marked in the attach-ment to.Wesurghousa letter number NS-CE-1139, Eicheldinger to Stolz, dated July 19, 1976, concerning supplemental infor-mation for use in the Augmented Startup and Cycle 1 Physics.

Program. The le.tter and attachment are being submitted as part of the above mentioned program in response to concerns of the Advisory Committee on Reacter Safeguards with the new Westinghouse PWR's, which are rated at higher power densities than currently operating Westinghouse reactors.

This information enables Westinghouse to:

(a) Justify the Westinghouse design correlations.

(b) Assist its customers to obtain licenses.

(c) Provide greater flexibility .to customers assuring them of safe reliable operation.

(d) Optimize performance while maintaining a high level of

fuel integrity.

l m.

n

-AW-76-8 (e) Justify operation at a reduced peaking factor with a

, wider target band Ethan normal.

- (f) Justify ' full power opera' tion and meet warranties.

Further, the information gained from the Augmented Startup and Cycle 1 Physics Program is of commercial value and is sold for onsiderable sums of money as follows:

(a) Westinghouse uses the information to perform and justify analyses which are sold to customers.

(b) Westinghouse uses the information to sell to its customers for the purpose'of meeting NRC requirements for full power licensing.

(c) Westinghouse could sell testing services based on the experience gained and the analytical methods developed using this ~information.

Public disclosure of this information concerning the Augmented Startup program is likely to cause substantial"h~ arm to the coiapetitive position of Westinghouse by allowing its com-petitors to develop similar analysis methods and models at a much reduced cost. ,

8 6

ww I

~

, g .- -

8- AW-76 .

The analyses performed, their methods.and evaluation repre-sent a considerable amount of highly qualified development effort, which has been underway for many years. If a com-petitor were able to use the results of the analyses in the attached document, to normalize or verify their own

. methods or models, the development effort and monetary expen-diture required to achieve an equivalent capability would

.be significantly reduced. In total, a substantial amount of money and effort has been expended by Westinghouse which could only be duplicated by a competitor if he were to invest similar sums of money and provided he had the appro-priate talent available.

Further the deponent sayeth not.

O m

e

.- , v - - - - - - v-- , -, . .-- . , ,-, .. . . - , -

l ATTACMENT C ~

Beaver Valley Unit 1 Incore Detector Thimble Reduction Study Methodology To assess the additional peaking factor measurement uncertainties asso-ciated with a-50% reduction in the number of moveable detector (M/D) thimbles, three full power INCORE power distribution maps from Beaver Valley Unit 1 Cycle 2 were regenerated with random deletions of 25 thimbles. For each of the Cycle 2 maps, five separate random dele-

~

tions were made, giving a total of 15 thimble deletion maps. The measured peaking factors from the thimble deletion maps were then com-pared with the measured peaking factors in the reference maps, i.e., the original Cycle 2 maps employing all 50 moveable detector thimbles. ,

These comparisons yielded the additional measurement uncertainties asso-ciated with the 50% thimble reduction. Estimates of additional measurement uncertainties were made for both FAH and F . Also, q

thimble deletion effects on the INCORE measured axial offset and core quadrant tilt were assessed in a similar manner.

To examine the effect of thimble deletion on measurement of off-nonnal power distributions, a dropped rod map from the Cycle 1 startup physics testing was regenerated with random deletions of 25 thimbles. The measured peaking factors from the thimble deletion maps were then com-pared to the reference map as for the normal operation maps described

above.

2573F:6 d

Results Table 1 provides the INCORE measurement data for the Cycle 2 nomal operation reference maps and the thimble deletion maps. As indicated, the mean percent difference and one-sided 95/95 tolerance for FAH were

[ ]+ respectively. For F ,g the corresponding values (a,c) were [ ]+ respectively. Statistical combination of (a,c) thess values with current peaking factor measurement uncertainties will be discussed below. Also shown in Table 1 are the peaking factor assembly locations. Figure 1 shows the M/D locations for the Beaver Valley core.

The mean axial offset difference for the 15 thimble deletion maps was found to be [ ]+ while tne mean quadrant tilt difference was (a.c)

E 3! (ac)

Table 2 shows similar data for the Cycle 1 dropped rod map.

F3H Thimble Deletion Uncertainty The FAH measurement uncertainty appearing in the Beaver Valley Tech.

Specs. is 4%. This can be statistically combined with the mean bias and (KS) values from Table 1 in the following manner:

[ (a,c) r 3+

i I

2573F:6 t

l A discussion of the above expression is provided in Appendix A. When the values from Table 1 are inserted into the expression:

u

[' M F3 H (5M T.D. ) = [

= 1.047 Consequently, the FAH measurement uncertainty increases from 1.04 to 1.047 when 50% of the moveable detector thimbles are deleted. This result will be conservatively rounded up to 1.05.

[ (a c)

Y S

l 2573F:6

. , _ , , , . ._ , _ _ _ , _ _ _ , , , , , ,,_._,,___.m.,

\

E (a,c)

]+

1 FQ Thimble Deletion Uncertainty The expression for the thimble deletion Fg uncertainty is analogous to the FAH expression. The Tech. Spec. F g uncertainty is 5%. Conse-quently, from Table 1:

Fu,p 3+

(a,c)

-Q

= 1.066

. I I

i i

2573F:6 e

., , , . - , , ,- , .y,.-.. --w-.. - . - - -.,s ,,, , , - , , , ,.--,,m.,,7 g.a , .- ,

Conservatively rounded up to 1.07, this represents the appropriate Fg uncertainty for 50% thimble deletion. Furthermore, since Fxy is a component of gF ,1.07 is appropriate for F 9 as well.

1 Axial Offset and Quadrant Tilt 1

The mean change'in quadrant tilt was found to be only [ ]+ (a.c) l Similarly the mean change in axial offset was also quite small at  ;

E ]+ These values' indicate that thimble deletion has (a.c) negligible impact on the core average axial power shape measurement.

Changes of this magnitude are not significant and will not adversely affect excore detector calibration.

l Off-Nomal Power Distributions l

The data in Table 2 generated from a Cycle 1 dropped rod map, is pro-vided to demonstrate that thimble deletion to the 50% level does not significantly degrade the ability of the moveable detector system to measure off-normal core power distributions. As Table 2 shows, the measured peaking factors for the thimble deletion cases are quite com-parable to the reference case. The measured tilt values also indicate that even with the reduction in thimbles, the quadrant tilt factor is adequately measured.

Technical Specification Changes Attachment A contains the requested changes to the Beaver Valley Tech.

i Specs. Note that the peaking factor uncertainties have been increased to reflect the additional uncertainties caused by thimble deletion. For F,F9 g , and FAH, the peaking factor uncertainty has been changed to a functional fom dependent on the number of available thimbles. The uncertainty has been assumed to ir. crease linearly from the nominal values to the 50% deletion values.

1 P

f: .

L L

2573F

6

- - . . , - - - , , - ., - , , ,,.,e . - . - -.,.s.-., n-,, .,,s.., .,.e

=

Conclusion With the inclusion of the additional peaking factor uncertainties in the plant Tech. Specs., it is concluded that o'peration of the moveable ,

detector system with 25 or more thimbles is acceptable provided that the appropriate uncertainties described above are applied to the INCORE measured peaking factors.

t 9

f 1

• (

r P

[

2573F:6

. ~ , . - - - , , - - - -, -,,-- ,-- ~ --

.w. .~..-..a..'~ ~

^ :, < - .

~ ' ' ' - -

4

- TABLE 1 COMPARISON OF NORMAL OPERATION AND THIMBLE DELETION INCORE MAPS Core Cycle 2 Thimbles Meas. Meas.

i Power Burnup Deleted Meas. F0 Fo Meas. FAH Fan Tilt a Tilt + ~ AO -aA0**

Map (%) (MWD /MTU) (%) Fg Location  % Otff* FAH Location  % Diff* Factor (%) (1) (%) ,

~Y 12 99.7 931 Ref (a,b,c) 12 99.7 931 50 12 99.7 931 50 12 99.7 931 50 12 99.7 931 50 i 12 99.7 931 50 16 97.5 1552 Ref 16 97.5 1552 50

5. 16 97.5 1552 50 16 97.5 1552 50 16 97.5 1552 50 16 97.5 1552 50 i

18 100 1997 Ref 18 100 1997 50 18 100 1997 50 18 100 1997 50 18 100 1997 50 18 100 1997 50 Ref. - Del. x 100%

4

• % Diff = Del. ,

+ Atilt = (Ref. - Deleted) x 100% ~

• • AA0 = Ref. - Deleted -

^ ^ - ' ~ ^

.?a - _ . . , . . . ^<.c - ... u._. .. . a i . ~ . .

s k

TABLE 2 COMPARISON OF DROPPED R00 AND THIMBLE DELETION INCORE MAPS Core Cycle

• Thimbles Meas. Meas.

Power Burnup Deleted Meas. Fg Fo Meas. FaH FaH Tilt a Tilt + AO aA0**

Map (%) (t1WD/MTU) (%) Fg Location % Olff* FaH Location % Diff* Factor. (%) (1) (1)

-+

3 12 30 0 Ref 2.207 (*

. 12 30 0 50 2.193 i

12 30 0 50 2.198

, 12 30 0 50 2.199

12 30 0 50 2.232

$ 12 30 0 50 2.185 i

Ref. - Del. x 100%

• % Diff = Del.

+ Atilt = (Ref. - Deleted) x 100%

• • aA0 = Ref. - Deleted J

4 ,

I j

_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . - - - _ , _ -m.- _r

- ,w, .. , w --- 9 _. , __3 y- -

i

.i TABLE 3 QUARTER CORE MEASURED PEAKING FACTORS Syuuntric Syuuntric Map FAH Locations Fg Locations (a.c)

[

n 3+

4 9

l 4

2573F:6

_. + . -

e . mm e .m - ~ e m w . e . aue .s s . - . , es ;. s , e ,

RPNM LKJHG F EDCB A

.I

• O 2

O, C

• 3

@ C*@ O @

4 o . .

• O 5

. - O*O C * @ @

6 0 @

• 0 ,

7 00 * ,

• O ' *

. o @ @ o o O

• C @

• O 270 8

• 9 0,* Ca @

O + = 10 11

.O

• O @ @

• 0,* @ 12

. O @

13 14

• 0  ;

is

• 00 Flcw Mixing,Thermocouples and Inco e Movable Detector Locations o Thermocouple (si)

Flow Mixing Device (47) g Incore Movable Detectors (50)

FIGURE l INSTRUMENT LOCATIONS '

,i

Fiqure 2 M

Percent Differenceso in Reaction Rate integrals A P N M L K . .J ...H. . .G . . F E D C a n

. . 7.1. .

1 . . . .

. .- . . . . 5.6. .

2 . . . . . . . .

. .5. . . -1.5. 2.6. . . . 5.7

1. 3 . . . . . . . . . .

1 . . ... ... ... . . . . . . ... ... ... ... ... ..

21 . . . -1.4 . . .9. . -1.9. . . .

, 4 . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . .5. . -1.3. . -1.7. . . . .6. .2. . 5.3.

5 . .. . . . . . . . . . . . ..

. . . . -1.F. . . -1.0. . -2.7 . . . .

6 . . . . . . . . . . '. . . .

. . . .8. . . . -1.7. . -3.4. . . -1.2. . . 2. .

7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

~

. 8.9. . . 4. . .4 . .- . . -1.7. . . .6. 3.1.. .

8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4 .. . . . . -3.4.' . . . .5. -1.6. . . . . 8.2.

i 9. . . . . . . . .' . . .- .- . . ..

. . .9. . . . -1.7. . . . . -2.2. . 1.4 10 . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .

.. . . . ... ... ... . . . . . . ... ... ... . ... ... ... 1 . .

. . . . -3.3. . . .5. . -1.2. -2.0. . . .

11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. .2. . . . -5.4. . . . . .2. 2.0.

12 . . . .' . . . . . . . .

. . . . . -1.0. . .0. . .

13 . . . . . . . . . .

. 6.5. . . . .5. . .

1L . . . . . . .. .

. 4.0. . .

15 . . . .

1 i6 I .

• Meas. - Pred.

. X 100%

Meas.

1 N

4 -A 7,

l I

1

~

-APPENDIX A' l Discussion of F"H 3 Expression The expression for the measured FAH difference as calculated in Table 1 is:

[ (a.c) 3+

4 i

l 2573F:6

. . , . . . , - , ,w %. -. -,.. - - - +,. _ ,.,m - , --

,--..,..-.---.-,,,-,.,-.-,,,.e -

[

]+ (a.c)

The 95/95 one-sided upper tolerance interval associated with the above error expression is:

(a,c) 3+

t 4

t I

l f

2573F:6 s .. , . - . - _- . . -_.

l l

Furthermore, since the .(MRR/PRR) ratios in the thimble deletion and reference maps have the same uncertainty: .

l (a,c) l E i 1

3+

The desired uncertainty, (H, can be expressed as:

[ (a.c) r I

~

]+

b Values for (KS)g and (KS)R from WCAP-7308 are [ ]* (a,c) respectively. These values are independent of thimble deletion and are components of the uncertainties in both F3 and FR 3

f. Furthennore, (KS)g i s essentially (KS){f, defined in (A-5), and represents the 95/95 upper tolerance interval for the (MRR/PRR) ratios in the reference maps. From (A-1) it is vident that the (KS) for AFaH' IKSIFaH, intrinsically 2573F:6

$ w- , --ww -- , . .,, , . - -----v- -.e- + - -

-m-,--.-----.-.----a m , - -- *-- y

O TD includes-[ ]+ since the FAH expression includes FAH, the FAH value. (a.c) obtained by extrapolation from only [- ]+ of the total number of thimbles (a.c)

(versus the full complement of thimbles in the reference maps). [ .]+ (a,c) is essentially (KS)fD , the tolerance interval for the (MRR/PRR) ratios in the thimble deletion maps., (A-8) can be rewritten, then, as:

l [

(a,c) 4 2

]+

4 1 i

s 2573F:6 i

• . yD %*h 8444$ 6.45 *4 % $stp a4 6ggGism epga g,y,e%.p,awa , g

-. , _ ,-. , _ _ _ _ _ _ ,