ML18057B259
| ML18057B259 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 09/03/1991 |
| From: | Brian Holian Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Slade G CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| References | |
| TAC-59970, NUDOCS 9109120203 | |
| Download: ML18057B259 (4) | |
Text
Docket No. 50-255 Mr. Gerald B. Slade Plant General Manager Palisades Plant 27780 Blue Star Memorial Highway Covert, Michigan 49043
Dear Mr. Slade:
e September 3, 1991 DLSJRIBUTION
[Docket _Fj le NRC & LPDRs PD31 Rdg File Palisades Plt File BBoger JZwolinski LMarsh BHolian OGC ACR( 10)
RJones 8/E/23 LLoi s 8/E/23.
BElloit 7 /D/4 BClayton RIII
SUBJECT:
PALISADES PLANT - REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING rLUENCE ESTIMATE, 10 CFR 50.61 (TAC NO. 59970)
On April 17, 1991, Consumers Power Company (CPC) submitted. a report titled "Benchmarking and Validation of In-House DOT Calculation Methodology." Attached to the submittal was a Westinghouse letter-report dated April 27, 1990. This submittal was written to respond to staff questions on CPC's DOT methodology benchmarking and uncertainty analysis of October 10, 1990.
The NRC staff has reviewed this fluence estimate submittal and has concluded that additional information is required for the staff to complete the review.
The submittal and its attachment are simply not responsive to the original concerns. The enclosed questions need to be explicitly addressed in order for the staff to complete its review of the proposed fluence estimates. Please submit written responses to the questions in the enclosure within 60 days of the receipt of this letter. Your prompt, yet thorough response will enable the staff to complete its review in a timely manner.
If you need*any clarification of the enclosed questions, please contact me.
This requirement affects fewer than ten respondents, therefore, it is not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under P.L.96-511.
\\
I p
PDR Sincerely,
()R lC,tt..>Al
~\\G>Nef)
~'I
-Brian Holian, Project Manager
~roject Directorate III-1 910.912o2oa*~9.i*o903 L~,
PDR.
ADOCl'.'105000255,. /
"---~---- ---~-----------
Division of Reactor Projects III/IV/V
- Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation l---~--
Enclosure:
As stated NRC fl'LE CENTER COPY cc w/enclosure:
See next page I\\
aFc
- LA:PDIII-1
- PM:PDIII-1
- D:Porn-11rc =
=
:-------~---:-----------~~=--------- ----:--------------:--------------
NAME
- MShuttl ort
- BHolian:jk~':LMarsh
=:-;;~------- ---:--------------:--------------:--------------:--------------
DATE
- ~73e;;f /91
- <Z I z&,t'9l
- 1 /' /91 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY Document Name:
PALISADES RAI
Mr. Gerald B. Slade Consumers Power Company cc:
M. I. Miller, Esquire Sidley & Austin 54th Floor One First National Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60603 Mr. Thomas A. McNish, Secretary Consumers Power Company 212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, Michigan 49201 Judd L. Bacon, Esquire Consumers Power Company 212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, Michigan 49201 Regional Administrator, Region III U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 Jerry Sarno Township Supervisor Covert Township 36197, M-140 Highway Covert, Michigan 49043 Office of the Governor Room 1 - Capitol Building Lansing, Michigan 48913 Mr. Patrick M. Donnelly Director, Safety and Licensing Palisades Plant 27780 Blue Star Memorial Hwy.
Covert, Michigan 49043 Resident Inspector c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Palisades Plant 27782 Blue Star Memorial Hwy.
Covert, Michigan 49043 Palisades Plant Nuclear Facilities and Environmental Monitoring Section Office Division of Radiological Health P.O. Box 30035 Lansing, Michigan 48909 Gerald Charnoff, P.C.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts &
Trowbridge 2300 N. Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20037 Mr. David L. Brannen Vice President Palisades Generating Company c/o Bechtel Power Corporation 15740 Shady Grove Road Gaithersburg, Maryland 20877 Roy W. Jones Manager, Strategic Program Development Westinghouse Electric Corporation 4350 Northern Pike Monroeville, Pennsylvania 15146
- QUESTIONS REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THE PALISADES PRESSURE VESSEL FLUENCE ESTIMATE Enclosure
- 1.
Nowhere in this submittal is there an attempt to determine the uncertainty of the measured values.
Experience indicates that individual capsule measurements have an uncertainty of +/- 40%.
A variation of 10% was noted between top and bottom dosimeters in capsule A-240, and of 20% in Capsule W-290.
What is the source of these differences? And most importantly what other factors contribute to the uncertainty of these measurements?
- 2.
What is the expected uncertainty of the ex-vessel flux measurements?
- 3.
Tables 3.1, 4.1, and 4.2, include a comparison of CPC and Westinghouse calculations and capsule measurements.
However, it has come to the staff's attention that the Westinghouse fluence calculations include a 13% nonconservative bias which must be compensated.
Has this correction been made?
4~
What is the axial flux distribution you used in your calculations and how was it derived?
- 5.
How is the effect of the peiipheral assembly plutonium taken into account?
- 6.
What cross sections have you used? The.staff has become aware that ENDF/8-IV based iron inelastic scattering may be nonconservative for fluence estimates compared to ENDF/87VI cross sections.
- 7.
What are your azimuthal and radial meshes and how have you assured yourselves that they are adequate, particularly around the capsule. The presence of the vessel wall in capsule W-290 makes the choice of meshing particularly critical.
- 8.
Has CPC considered benchmarking the DOT code to any of the NRC sponsored (critical poolside assembly {CPA) and critical poolside facility (CPF))
critical assembly me~surements at ORNL?
- 9.
Was the peripheral assembly power represented "pinwise" or as an assembly average?
- 10. The CPC report discusses the results of the Westinghouse analyses of Cycles 1-7. The attached Westinghouse report indicates analyses for Cycles 1-5. Is there additional analysis? Please explain.
11.- The Westinghouse report states that the CPC DOT calculations are " ***
based on a good model **** " Please be more specific on what "good" means.
- 12. The paragraph 3 qualitative argument about leakage and outer assembly power is very tenuous and it does not support the conclusion that the calculations are correct. Please be more specific and use quantitative arguments.