ML17146B104
| ML17146B104 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 01/11/1988 |
| From: | Thadani M Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Keiser H PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8801130376 | |
| Download: ML17146B104 (7) | |
Text
anuary 11, 1988 Docket Nos.
50-387-388 Mr. Harold W. Keiser Vice President Nuclear Operations Pennsylvania Power and Light Company 2 North Ninth Street Al 1 entown, Pennsyl vani a 18101
Dear Mr. Keiser:
SUBJECT:
RE(VEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RE:
Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2
Our consultants, Brookhaven National Laboratory, have reviewed your Topical Report PL-NF-87-001 related to BWR Steady-State Core Physics
- Methods, dated March 31, 1987.
The review indicates a need for additional information before we can complete the review.
Please provide answers to the enclosed set of questions within 30 days from the receipt of this request so that we can complete our action on your April 28, 1987 request in a timely fashion.
Sincerely,
Enclosure:
As stated DISTRIBUTION NPC PDR/LPDR PDl-2 Reading SVarga/BBoger WButler MO'Brien MThadani/DFischer OGC-Bethesda
/s/
Mohan C. Thadani, Project Manager Project Directorate I-2 Division of Reactor Projects I/II EJordan JPartlow ACRS(10) 88011303'76 g801ii t
PDR ADOCK 05000387
. P..
PDR~
DI- /PM MThadani:mr l //)/88 PDI-2/D WButler y /y)/88
t
)
>I h
<p,S RECT
~ ~
~o
+
Cy C0 UNITEDSTATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 January 11, 1988 Docket Nos.
IBO-387-388 Mr. Harold W. Keiser Yice President Nuclear Operations Penrsylvania Power and Light Company 2 North Ninth Street Allentown, Pennsylvania 18101
Dear Mr. Keiser:
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RE:
Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2
Our consultants, Brookhaven National Laboratory, have reviewed your Topical Report PL-NF-87-001 related to BWR Steady-State Core Physics
- Methods, dated March 31, 1987.
The review indicates a need for additional information before we can complete the review.
Please provide answers to the enclosed set of questions within 30 days
'rom the receipt of this request so that we can complete our action on your April 28, 1987 request in a timely fashion.
Sincerely,
Enclosure:
As stated Mohan C. Thadani, Project Manager Project Directorate I-2 Division of Reactor Projects I/II
Mr. Harold W.
Keiser Pennsylvania Power 5 Light Company Susquehanna Steam Electric Statior.
Units 1
E 2
CC:
Jay Silberg, Esq.
- Shaw, Pittman, Potts 5 Trowbridge 2300 N Street N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20037 Bryan A. Snapp, Esq.
Assistant Corporate Counsel Pennsylvania Power 5 Light Company 2 North Ninth Street Al 1 entown, Pennsyl vani a 18101 Mr. E. A. Heckman Licensing Group Supervisor Pennsylvania Power 5 Light Company 2 North Ninth Street Allentown, Pennsylvania 18101 Mr. Loren Plisco Resident Inspector P.O.
Box 52 Shickshinny, Pennsylvania 18655 Mr. R. J.
Benich Services Project Manager General Electric Company 1000 First Avenue King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 Mr. Thomas M. Gerusky, Director Bureau of Radiation Protection Resources Commonwealth of Pennsylvania P. 0.
Box 2063 Hart isbur g, Pennsylvania 17120 Robert W. Alder, Esquire Office of Attorney General P.O.
Box 2357 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Mr. Jesse C. Tilton, III Allegheny Elec. Coorperative, Inc.
212 Locust Street P.O.
Box 1266 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108-1266 Mr.
W. H. Hirst, Manager Joint Generation Projects Department Atlantic Electric P.O.
Box 1500 1199 Black Horse Pike Pleasantville, New Jersey 08232 Regional Administrator, Region I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406
4
ENCLOSURE
. QUESTXONS ON NNSZLVANXA POWER
'& LXGHT PANY'S TOPXCAL REPORT PL-NF-87-0011 "QUALXFXCATXON OF STEADY-STATE CORE PHYSXCS NETHODS FOR BWR DESXGN,AND ANALYSXS" CPH-2 l.
What. are the bases for. the depletion steps, spatial mesh, energy groups (mac'ro and 2-D), convergenc6 and other parameters used in production calculations with CPH-2/HICBURN?
2.
The 5 energy groups. used for the 2-'
calculations are somewhat coarse.
Please Comment.
3.
Hrw was'the conversion from calculated power to Ba-140 concentrations performed for the CPM-2 rod-wise comparisons to the guad Cities gamma-scan results?
7.
8.
9.
The discussion in Section 2.3 needs more consistency in references to measured and calculated values of power, and Ba-340 and La-140 activities in terms of what quantities are compared and their bases.
Are the presently demonstrated accuracy and biases of CPM-2 calculations expected to hold for 9x9 and other advanced BWR bundle designs?
Have any comparisons been made of CPH-2 to Honte Carlo calculations for 9x9 bundles of the type used in Susquehana Unit 2?
Have any trends
{biases) been obser ved in the accuracy of pin-poHer and LPF predictions vs. elevation, void history, exposure, control, etc?
How.do modifications to ENDF/B-III nuclear data other than those noted for U-238 compare to uncertainties in the basic data.?
The squad Cities-1 EOC2 gamma scan "data are essentially representative of all rods out operation.
What are the implications relative to the accuracy with which CPH-2 calculates individual rod powers for n'ormal rodded conditions, and what assurance. is there that any presently observed conservative trends (biases) are universal, and bounding?
The CPH-2 comparisons to the y-scan data are influenced by the accuracy of the 'SIMULATE-E predictions of local effects {e.g. burnup, void, control history) for the scanned bundles/elevations.
Have the SIHULATE-E local errors been considered to assure that the CPH-2 results are representative?
S IHULATE-E Does the data for assembly power peaking that is used in the calculation of fuel performance parameters (e.g.
HLHGR, CPR) include all CPM-2 calculated statepoints (e.g. every burnup point and.every nominal'and off-nominal condition) or only a subset?
If the latter, how are they selected to ensure conservatism?
2.
a.
What is the "flag" which signals the need for new normalization of the model adjustable input data parameters and/or r'adial and axial albedos?
b.
How often are albedo/normalization parameter changes typically made?
~
~
<<2 c.:
What is, the basis for performing the normalizations when the code is usedin a predictive mode for cores which differ significantly from those
'. previously modeled?
Is the XN-3 correlation valid for 9x9 and other advanced design BWR bundles?
1 4.
The TIP detector model in SIMULATE assumes that. the response from each assembly is not affected by the presence of the other 3 surrounding the TIP..
Has this assumption been tested; is it adequate?
5.
While it is true that peripheral.assemblies and top and bottom axial nodes
" are generally low power, and'hence not of safety: concern, eliminating them from the scan comparisons seems to'remove a p'otentially valuable source of information on the accuracy/adej'u'acy of albedo and reflector b'oundary condition depen'dencies.
Please comment.
C; 6.
Please explain why non-conventional definitions are used in the TIP and y-scan comparisons.
For example,;.it is not obvious why T is used in the denominator for determining the.differences in the radial TIP comparisons.
7.
Does PPAL intend to use PDg-7 for applications significantly different from those for which'benchmarking is provided in the report {e.g. core calculations)?
8.
Do EPRI guideline's exist for the CPM-2 (cross section) - COPHIN - PDg-7 calculational path?
Are they followed by PPhL?
General Have CPM-2/HICBURN, SIMULATE-E, FIBWR and the XN-3 correlation been reviewed and approved by the U.S. -Nuclear Regulat'ory Commission?