ML17342A774
| ML17342A774 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie, Turkey Point, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 07/13/1987 |
| From: | Abramson P, Komoriya H INTERNATIONAL TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. |
| To: | Liang C Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17342A775 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-FIN-D-1350 NUDOCS 8707230420 | |
| Download: ML17342A774 (4) | |
Text
International Technical Services Inc.
420 Lexington Avenue, New York, New York 10170 (212) 949-4288 July 13, 1987 Mr. Chu-Yu Liang Reactor Systems Branch Division of Engineering and System Technology Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cmmission Washington, D.C.
20555
Subject:
letion of Work R irements for Task IIIof FIN D1350
References:
2.
3.
nRETRAN Code:
Transient Analysis Model Qualification,"
FPL Report HIH~6, July 1985 FPL's Response to Request for Additional Information, L-87-164, April 10, 1987.
Woody (FPL) to NRC, Kuxh 2, 1987
Dear Mr. Liang:
Enclosed is the Technical Evaluation Report (TER) in respect of our review of the Florida Power ard Light (FPL) topical report entitled "REIRAN Code: Transient Analysis Model Qualification", dated July 1985 [1] ard FPL's
- response, L-87-164, to our request for additional information dated April 10, 1987 [2], and represents-cmtpletion of work for Task IIIof FIN gD1350.
After a series of discussions between the applicant and the
- NRC, FPL modified the stated objective of its submittal to be the demonstration of FPL's technical cctmpetence to perform transient systems analysis with the RETRAN cczqmter code for their Turkey Point Units 3
and 4
(3-loop Westinghouse plants) ard St. Iucie Units 1 and 2
(Gcanbustion Engineering plants) [3].
FPL expressly elect~ not to seek "appmval for any [specific]
cctmbination of input and RE:.TRAN version for a specific application",
and not to seek approval of licensing methodology [3].
Our starKiard for making a deterttdnation regmzHag demonstration of 8707230420, 870713 PDR ADOCK 05000250 P
'DR r
l
technical campetence was that the submittal contain (i) a discussion, explanation ard justification for the plant nodalization, control system mcdeling ard interral code model selection, (ii) at least one thorough analysis of a complicated transient, in which the analysts irdicate their urderstarding of both the plant behavior ard the code ccanputation by explanation of the behavior of various plant pa~meters by inter-camparison during the transient ard inclusion of parametric studies to identify uncertainties ard/or explain anamalous
- behavior, and (iii) a discussion of the limitations of the models used in the code during the transients studied.
Our standard for making a determination of model qualification is the accuracy with which the REZEQN results predict plant data or scale tests ard the applicant's dition ard justification of their nodalization, internal code model selection and demonstration that such internal models are used within their range of applicability ard within the approval granted for use of R1ZRAN to UGRA.
As the above criteria indicate, technical ccaqmtence is a broad term which includes not only (1) preparation of input to the. code which models the plant and obtaining output which presents transient results, but also (2) justification of the input as technically sourd ard thorough interpretation ard analysis of the results.
FPL's original application ard their responses includes only minimal information covering point (2).
Since this submittal does not include sufficient information supporting point 2, our review is necessarily confined to point 1.
FPL's letter [3] states'that "for eve anal sis submitted in the future in rt of a
licens
'ction, FPl will have to demonstrate by sensitivity studies or other means that (the) results are within the particular acceptance criteria appropriate for that analysis".
It is our urderstancUtng, therefore, that future FPL submittals willthoroughly address point 2.
With respect to point 1, FPL has prepared input for ard obtained output in respect of each of the transients contained in the submittal and in most the output does not appear to be technically unreasonable.
We therefore reccxmerd approval of the applicant's technical corq~tence in the sense of demonstration of its ability to prepare input to simulate transients using the RE%RAN nzttputer code and to obtained output therefrom.
In addition, within the limits and qualifications listed below, we recaamerd approval of the applicant's ability to interpret results.
Since FPL chose not to preset justification for its nodalization or model selection, we cannot state that FPL has generally demonstrated its technical competence to perform analysis, although portions of the Turkey Point SBIOCA and SGTR analyses and the St. tucie Steam Line Break analysis are good.
Since the report does not sufficiently address point 2, it does not contain adequate material to serve as a document which may be generally referenced to support future FPL licensing submittals nor does it contain sufficient material to provide a
basis for assessment of accuracy or adequacy of their plant models (single-ard two-loop plant models were developed).
Use of these mcdels in future submittals would require:
1.
The applicant must justify its nodalization and control system 2
modeling for each transient and for each of their two different plant designs, including asymmetrical plant conditions.
2.
She applicant must justify, in depth, by detailed reference to either the approval granted to UGRA or by its own analysis and information, each of the R1.HEN models and correlations selected for each transient.
3.
%he applicant must justify its use of core physics parameters and methodology.
In addition, the applicant must provide detailed analysis of each transient included in any such future submittal.
- Finally, we suggest, because the responses indicate that in several instances FPL has not carefully reviewed their input or their plots prior to submittal, that it may be useful for the NRC to audit, in We same manner as was done by the NRC for TVA, the applicant's Quality Assurance procedure with respect to their performance of analysis.
If you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Yours sincerely, H. Kamoriya Attachment cc:
W. Hodges, NRC/NRR/DEST R. Jones, NRC/NKpDEST/RSB S. Bajwa, NRC/%~TAM C. Poslusny, NRC/~%AM J. Bazin, NRC/DC