ML17209B021
| ML17209B021 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 04/28/1981 |
| From: | Clark R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Robert E. Uhrig FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8105060020 | |
| Download: ML17209B021 (8) | |
Text
Docket No. 50-335 Dr. Robert E. Uhrig Vice President Advanced S, stems 5 Technology Florida Pointer 5 Light Company P. 0.
Box 5291000 Miami, Florida 33152
Dear Dr< Uhrig:
APR 2 8 1981 Itt;
~~" ~~ 198fc
~ Sg COJ4IIISS~
He have reviewed the Topical Report CEN-126(F) you submitted on May 29, 1980 and have determined that the additional information identified in the enclosure"is necessary to complete our review.
Please provide this information within 45 days of receipt of this letter.
,Sincer ely, Of/QIABI.s)QI>ed by Robert A /fary Robert A. Clark, Chief Operating Reactors Branch 83 Division of Licen ing
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
See nevi page 8~ 65060 0, DIS ocket Fi NRC L
POR NSIC TERA ORB/$ 3 Rdg DEisenhut OELD IKE (3)
ACRS (10)
JHe1temes Gray File RAClark PMKreutzer (3)
CNelson LKopp WJohnston DFieno OFFICE/
SURNAI/IEP OAVEf>
.QRM3.'.......OR
. CN.
n/pn
- g. Quirk........
4/p /81 4/~81 ORM3.'A PM t er
~
4/g //81 NRC FORM 3/8 IIO/80I NRCM 0240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
- USGPO: I980-329.824
i
'E Cl
'll V,p
+c, 1
V
/
~S AKCII
+
'i+c QN
+~*~4 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 APR 26 1981 Docket No. 50-335 Dr. Robert E. Uhrig Vice President Advanced Systems II Technology Florida Power 8 Light Company P. 0.
Box 5291000 tliami, Florida 33152
Dear Dr. Uhrig:
We have reviewed the Topical Report CEN-126(F) you submitted on May 29, 1980 and have determined. that the additional information identified in the enclosure is necessary to complete our review.
Please provide this information within 45 days of receipt of this letter.
Sincerely,
Enclosure:
As stated Robert A. Clark, Chief Operating Reactors Branch 83 Division of Licensing cc:
See next page
Florida Power
& Light Company ceo Robert Lowenstei n, Esquire Lowenstein,
- Newman, Reis
& Alexrad 1025 Connecticut
- Avenue, N-W.
Washington, D. C.
20036 Norman A. Coll, Esquire McCarthy, Steel, Hector
& Davis 14th Floor, First National Bank Building Miami Flori da 33131 Indian River Junior College Library 3209 Virginia Avenue
'ort
- Pierce, Florida 33450 Admi nistrator Department of Envi ronmental Regulation Power Plant Siting Section State of F 1 ori da 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Flori da 32301 Mr. Weldon B. Lewis County Administrator St-Lucie County 2300 Virginia Avenue, Room 104 Fort Pierce, Florida 33450 Director, Criteria and Standards Division 0ffice of Radiation Programs (ANR-460)
U.S. Environmental Protecti'on Agency Washington, D. C.
20460 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IV Office ATTN:
E IS COORDINATOR 345 Courtl and Street, N-E-Atlanta, Georgi a 30308 Mr. Charles B. Brinkman Manager - Washington Nuclear Operations C-E Power Systems Combustion Engineering, Inc.
4853 Cordell Avenue, Suite-A-1
- Bethesda, Maryland 20014 Mr. Jack Schreve Office of the Public Counsel Room 4, Holland Building Tallahassee, Flori da 32304 Resident Inspector/St.
Lucie Nuclear Power Station c/o U.S.N.R.C.
P. 0.
Box 400 Jensen Beach, Florida 33457 Bureau of Intergovernmental Rel at ions 660 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Cg ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUEST ST.
LUCIE UNIT 1
CEAW TOPICAL REPORT CEN-126 F
1.
Demonstrate that the CEAW event is calculated at the most reactive core condition for a given operating cycle.
2.
Is the analysis intended to cover the condition of a partial bank with-drawal in which all rods are not withdrawn?
3.
What rod bank was assumed withdrawn in determining the rod shadowing factor (RSF) at each node?
Is this choice conservative?
4.
ANISN is used to evaluate the percent change in detector response per degree change in moderator temperature.
Are changes in moderator temper-ature in the core bypass, and downcomer regions accounted for separately?
How are axial effects accounted for in the evaluation of the detector response sensitivity to power shifting due to mode> ator temperature changes?
5.
Is the SHADRAC calculation done in 2-0 or 3-0?
If the calculation is 2-0, how are 3-D effects accounted for?
6.
The radial peaking (F
) does not always decrease when the CEAs are with-R drawn.
Is the assumption of a decrease in radial peaking implicit in the CEAW analysis?
7.
How does the conservatism of the initial conditions included in Table 4-1 compare to the conservatism of those used in CENPD-199 for the CEAW analysis?
8.
A Temperature Shadowing Factor (TSF) has been assumed in the calculation-Since the TSF depends on water thickness and geometry we would expect this value to be plant specific.
Yerify,that the TSF used in CEN-126(F) is applicable to St. Lucie l.
9.
Demonstrate that the selection of the parameters listed in Table 4-1, together with the ranges in gap thermal conductivity, moderator temper-
~ ature coefficient, and CEA worth invesigated, leads to the required absolute minimum in DNBR.
10.
In the calculation of time of minimum DNBR with TORC, are the initial integrated radial and axial power distributions used.
If so, what error is introduced by this approximation?
ll.
In view of the 3-D nature of this transient, how has the conservatism of the CEAM analytical methods with respect to SAFDLs been demonstrated for initial and reload cores?
12.
Mhich CEA banks are assumed to be withdrawn during the CEAW event described in Section 5.1?
13.
Discuss if and how temperature shadowing effects are accounted for in gUIX.
. 14.
The,change in overpower margin at the time of minimum DNBR is determined from the change in the axial power.shape and radial peak for the range of ASI within the allowable DNB LCO band.
How is the rate of change of overpower margin with respect to integrated radial peak and axial shape index established?
Are the ranges and resulting values considered here conservative and adequate to represent extreme CEAW situations (i.e., large CEAM reactivity
- rates, core conditions characterized by large reactivity inventories, worse control bank configuration's, strong temperature shadowing effects, etc.)?
Are the sensitivites
( rate of change of overpower margin with respect to integrated radial peak and axial shape index) actually constant and if not what is their-variability?
15.
In determining B, what specific axial shape index shift and radial 3
peak decrease is used?
For example, is the axial shape index shift determined from gUIX calculations, at initial and minimum DNBR state-points?
16.
There seems to be an inconsistency in the expression giving ROPM (item 8,
page 5-3):
B is in units of power while B
is OPM (a ratio of powers).
2 3
Please explain.
17.
This analysis assumes first order perturbation theory in the calculation of the net penalty factor, B.
Demonstrate that the anticipated perturbed 3
reactor conditions will.result in a relatively small (much less than unity) value of B /B
. If during operation, this assumption is violated and B
3 2
3 approaches B
(
how will the RPS sense this condition and prevent violation 2
of safety limits?
18.
Describe how the change in 3-0 peaking (page 5-4) is determined.
19.
Significant sources of uncertainty include instrument reponses, calculational uncertainties in shape annealing, rod shadowing factors, the components of the penalty factor B, and the calculational uncertainties implicit in the 3
use of CESEC.
How are these uncertainties accounted for in the analysis?
4
't