ML18030A078

Transmits Powerplex Response Data Comparisons to Support Approval of Topical Rept PL-NF-90-001, Application of Reactor Analysis Methods for BWR Design & Analysis Dtd Aug 1990.Encl Data Comparisons Withheld (Ref 10CFR2.790)(b))

ML18030A078
Person / Time
Site:	Susquehanna
Issue date:	10/17/1991
From:	Keiser H PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:	Butler W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML17157A903	List: ML18030A078
References
PLA-3663, NUDOCS 9110280248
Download: ML18030A078 (8)

Text

LERATED DI HUBUTION DEMON TION SYSTEM t

~ S ~

e REGULATORY INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (RIDS)

ACCESSION NBR:9110280248 DOC.DATE: 91/10/17 NOTARIZED: YES DOCKET FACIL:50-387 Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Unit 1, Pennsylva 05000387 50-'388 Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Unit 2, Pennsylva 05000388 AUTH. NAME AUTHOR AFFILIATION KEISER,H.W. Pennsylvania Power & Light Co.

RECIP.NAME RECIPIENT AFFILIATION BUTLER,W.R. Project Directorate I-2

SUBJECT:

Transmits Powerplex response data comparisons to support approval of util application topical rept PL-NF-90-001, "Application of Reactor Analysis Methods for BWR Design & D Analysis for Aug 1990."

S DISTRIBUTION CODE: APOID TITLE: Proprietary Review COPIES RECEIVED:LTR i Distribution ENCL Q SIZE: Q +

Operating Reactor NOTES:LPDR 1 cy Transcripts. 05000387 A LPDR 1 cy Transcripts. 05000388

'D RECIPIENT COPIES RECIPIENT COPIES ID CODE/NAME LTTR ENCL ID CODE/NAME LTTR ENCL D PDl-2 LA 1 1' PD1-2 PD 1 1 RALEIGH,J. 3 INTERNAL: ACRS 6 6 AEOD OGC/HDS2 1 0 E 01 EXTERNAL: NRC PDR 1 0 NOTES: 2 2 R

I D

A D

D NOTE TO ALL "RIDS" RECIPIENTS:

S PLEASE HELP US TO REDUCE WAS'ONTACT THE DOCUMENT CONTROL DESK, ROOM Pl-37 (EXT. 20079) TO ELIMINATEYOUR NAME FROM DISTRIBUTION LINIS FOR DOCUMENTS YOU DON'T NEED!

TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED: LTTR 17 ENCL 15

0 4

4yw Pennsylvania Power 8 Light Company Two North Ninth Street ~Allentown, PA 18101-1179 ~ 215/774-5151 Harold W. Keiser Senior Vice President-Nuclear 215/7744194 OCT l7 $ 81 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attention: Dr. W. R. Butler, Project Director Project Directorate I-2 Division of Reactor Projects U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 SUSQUEIIANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION LICENSING METHODS: SUPPORTING INFORMATION Docket Nos. 50-387 PLA- 6 FIL R41-2 A and 50-388 ir W

References:

1. "Application of Reactor Analysis Methods for, BWR Design and Analysis",

PI NF-90-001, August 1990.

2. "Qualification of Transient Analysis'Methods for BWR Design and Analysis", PI NF-89-00$ , December 1989.

3. PLA-3641, H.W. Ket'ser to W.R. Butler, "Licensing Methods: Plan for U1C7", dated August 29, 1991.

Dear Dr. Butler:

To support the NRC's approval of PP&L's Applications Topical Report (Reference 1), we are transmitting data comparisons which PP&L discussed in a meeting with NRC and BNL representatives on October 4, 1991 at the NRC's White Flint office. This data was used to demonstrate that the current Siemens Nuclear Power Corporation (SNP) core monitoring system uncertainties are conservative for monitoring the core with PP&L generated input in the Susquehanna POWERPLEX core monitoring system. After discussion with the NRC staff and the reviewer, however, PP&L has agreed to use the more conservative SNP uncertainties, rather than the PP&L generated uncertainties.

Please note that the data comparisons which are included in Atta'chment 1 are considered proprietary by SNP. As required by 10CFR2.790(b) an affidavit to support withholding this information from public disclosure is contained in Attachment 2. The proprietary portion of Attachment 1 will not be included in the approved version of the PP&L Applications Topical Report.

91102S0248',91'10'17,? t t

'AGOCK 05000387 l

'DR P PDR

l r(

II K

II

0

~ ~e I

FILES R41-2/A7-8C PLA-3663 Dr. W. R. Butler As conveyed to Messrs. John Emmett and Andrew Dyszel, the transmittal of the enclosed material closes the last remaining issue identified during the review of PP&L's Applications Topical Report. Further, it is our understanding that the NRC will proceed with issuance of Safety Evaluation Reports for PP&L's Applications Topical Report (Reference 1) and Transient Analysis Topical Report (Reference 2). PP&L, in turn, is proceeding with the performance of the Unit 1 Cycle 7 reload analyses using the approach agreed to by PP&L and NRC (as described in Reference 3 and herein).

In closing, PP&L would like to compliment the NRC and BNL representatives for their prompt response and cooperation in resolving this last remaining issue. Any questions on this submittal should be directed to Mr. R. Sgarro at (215) 774-7916.

Very truly yours, H. W. Keiser Attachments cc: QgRC Document Contro13)eak.(original)

NRC Region I Mr. G. S. Barber, NRC Sr. Resident Inspector - SSES Mr. J. J. Raleigh, NRC Project Manager - OWFN Mr. L. I. Kopp, NRR/SRXB-OWFN

4 i

ATI'ACIIMENT1 TO PLA-3663 FILES R41-2/A7-8C ATTACHMENT1 POWERPLEX TIP RESPONSE COMPARISONS TO SUPPORT APPROVAL OF PP&L'S APPLICATIONS TOPICAL REPORT (PL-NF-90-001)

The Susquehanna data comparisons calculated by PP&L that are shown in this attachment support the conclusions that: 1) the POWERPLEX core monitoring system with PP&L generated CPM-2 input yields more accurate results than the POWERPLEX core monitoring system with SNP generated XFYRE input, and 2) the currently approved SNP power distribution uncertainties are conservative for Susquehanna when PP&L develops the input to the POWERPLEX core monitoring system. PP&L's core monitoring system, POWERPLEX, was developed by SNP and uses XTGBWR as the core simulation code and measured LPRM data to modify the XTGBWR calculated "base" power distribution to obtain a "measured" power distribution (i.e., UPDATE).

The POWERPLEX nodal TIP RMS data presented in the following figures is an indication of how accurate the 3-D TIP response (i.e., power shape) is calculated by the core monitoring system prior to UPDATE. All the nodal TIP RMS values in the attached figures were calculated by PP&L from the "base" data. In all but a few cases, the nodal TIP RMS for POWERPLEX with CPM-2 input is less than that of POWERPLEX with XFYRE input, These results indicate that, for Susquehanna, POWERPLEX with CPM-2 input is more accurate in calculating the power shape than POWERPLEX with XFYRE input. This conclusion corroborates the PP&L uncertainty calculations presented in Reference 1-2. However, after discussions with the staff, PP&L has agreed to use the currently approved SNP set of power distribution uncertainties from Reference 1-3. Based on the above data comparisons, the SNP power distribution uncertainties are conservative for monitoring the core with CPM-2 input in the Susquehanna POWERPLEX core monitoring system. Therefore, the SNP uncertainties from Reference 1-3 will be used in the Safety Limit MCPR calculations in lieu of PP&L's proposed uncertainties.

Please note that the PP&L results based on XFYRE are considered proprietary by Siemens Nuclear Power Corporation (SNP) and will not be included in the approved version of the PP&L Applications Topical Report.

References:

1-1 "Application of Reactor Analysis Methods for BWR Design and Analysis", PI NF-90-001, August 1990.

1-2 PI'A-3578, H.W. Keiser to W.R. Butler, "Final Response to RAI on PI NF-90-001", dated June 4, 1991.

1-3 "Exxon Nuclear Methodology for Boiling Water Reactors - Neutronic Methods for Design and Analysis", XN-NF-80-19 (P)(A), Volume 1 and XN-NF40-19 (P)(A), Volume 1, Supplements 1 & 2, March 1983.

0 4

I

<<f