ML15264A308
| ML15264A308 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 06/04/1985 |
| From: | Stolz J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Tucker H DUKE POWER CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8506200121 | |
| Download: ML15264A308 (3) | |
Text
JUN 0 4 1985 Dockets Nos. 50-269, 50-270 DISTRIBUTION and 50-287 Docket File ACRS-10 NRC PDR RIngram L PDR HNicolaras ORB#4 Rdg Gray File Mr. Hal B. Tucker HThompson EBrach Vice President - Nuclear Production OELD HOrnstein Duke Power Company EJordan JPartlow P. 0. Box 33189 BGrimes LLois 422 South Church Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28242
Dear Mr. Tucker:
SUBJECT:
RELOAD DESIGN METHODOLOGY II REPORT - REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Re:
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3 By letter dated April 3, 1985, you submitted for our review, the "Oconee Reload Design Methodology II" report, DPC-NE-1002. The report presents an alternate nuclear design code sequence to that currently approved in DPC-NFS-1001A. The major difference is that CASMO-2 replaces EPRI-CELL for generation of assembly average reactor physics properties and for generation of two neutron energy group cross sections. Changes have also been made to the thermal hydraulic section to include the use of the BWC heat flux correlation and to the mechanical fuel analysis section. In your letter, you stated that you are planning to use this revised methodology for the upcoming Oconee 1, Cycle 10 reload.
We have been reviewing the Oconee Reload Design Methodology II report, and have determined that we need additional information to complete our review.
To meet your schedule, we request that you respond to the enclosed list of questions within 30 days of receipt of this letter. This request for information affects fewer than ten respondents; therefore, OMB clearance is not required.
Sincerely, John F. Stolz, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #4 Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
As Stated cc w/enclosure:
See next page 0
4:DL ORBKzP laras;cr JS 1 6/ /85 6
/
8506200121 850604 PDR ADOCK 05000269 P
Mr. H. B. Tucker Oconee Nuclear Station, Units Duke Power Company Nos. 1, 2 and 3 cc:
Mr. William L. Porter Duke Power Company P. 0. Box 33189 422 South Church Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 J. Michael McGarry, III, Esq.
Bishop, Liberman, Cook, Purcell & Reynolds 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Mr. Robert B. Borsum Babcock & Wilcox Nuclear Power Generation Division Suite 220, 7910 Woodmont Avenue Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Manager, LIS NUS Corporation 2536 Countryside Boulevard Clearwater, Florida 33515 Mr. J. C. Bryant Senior Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Pegulatory Commission Route 2, Box 610 Seneca, South Carolina 29678 Dr. J. Nelson Grace, Regional Administrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region II 101 Marietta Street, N.W.
Suite 3100 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Mr. Heyward G. Shealy, Chief Bureau of Radiological Health South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control 2600 Bull Street Columbia, South Carolina 29201 Office of Intergovernmental Relations 116 West Jones Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27603 Honorable James M. Phinney County Supervisor of Oconee County Walhalla, South Carolina 29621
ENCLOSURE REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION DUKE POWER COMPANY OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION RELOAD DESIGN METHODOLOGY
- 1. Pg. 1-1. What CASMO feature(s) constitute an improvement of the methodology over EPRI-CELL?.
- 2. Pg. 4-3. Was there ever any information of consequence during reload review which was not documented?
- 3. Pgs. S1 2-1, S1 2-3. Why were critical boron concentrations calculated with all rods out except group 8 only? Why not the other banks?
- 4. Pg. S1 4-1. If the ejected rod worth is defined in terms of measured worth why did you stop measuring? Shouldn't the definition be changed to calculated worth?
- 5. Pg. S1 4-1.
Since the ejected rod worth is no longer measured, why is paragraph 4.1 needed? The calculation description in paragraph 4.2 seems adequate.
- 6. Pg. S1 4-3 4.3. One measurement is hardly worth mentioning as a comparison for a measurement which is not being used and is known to be difficult and inaccurate.
- 7. Pg. S1 4-3. Summary. The comparison cannot be used to support the conclusion.
- 8. Pg. S1 5-3. Table 5-1. Only two measurements? What is the statistical significance of the standard deviation?
- 9. Pg. S2 3-1 3.1. What is the Metal/Water for the Oconee vs the Kritz criticals.
- 10.
Pg. S2 3-4. What are the differences of the CASMO referred to up to now and CASMO-2E (this difference is in addition to the Oconee-Kritz differences).
- 11.
Pg. S2 3-6. Can the 14x14 and 15x15 assemblies be used together? Their difference in their mean looks more as a systematic (bias) deviation due to the Oresence of the absorbers. the significance of the combined mean value is questionable. Have the similarities and differences in M/W, pitch,-diameter etc. been looked at?
- 12. Pg. S2 3-10. Why is the 20,000 MWD/MTU, 700ppm and burnable poison, rods in, case missing?