ML18219D976

Response to Request for Additional Information Exxon Nuclear Company Report XN-75-27, Supplement 1, Exxon Nuclear Neutronic Design Methods for Pressurized Water Reactors

ML18219D976
Person / Time
Site:	Cook
Issue date:	12/09/1976
From:	Tillinghast J Indiana Michigan Power Co, (Formerly Indiana & Michigan Power Co)
To:	Rusche B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
Download: ML18219D976 (11)

Text

NRC FORM 195

{2-76)

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY OMMISSION I

NRC DISTR IBU~A3N FoR PART 50 DOCI(ET MATERIAL DOCKET NUMBER S'O-3 H FILE NUMBER Mr Rusche

ÃfLETTER 8 OR IG INAI.

DCOPV DESCIIIPTION QNOTOR IZED SUNG LASSIF IE D PROP Indiana. & Michigan Pwr Co New York,, NY J Tillinghast INPUT FORM ENCLOSURE DATE OF DOCUMENT 12-9-76 DATE RECEIVED12 ] 3 76 NUMBER OF COPIES RECEIVED one si ned Ltr notarized 12-9-76....re our 12-2-76 ltr

~

~ ~ ~ tran's'the following:

Response

to NRC questions concerning XN-75-27, Suppl ill "Exxon Nuclear Neutroni Design Methods for Pressurized Water Reactors".....

BONOT REMOVE PLANT NA?K:

D C Cook

$Pl ACKNOWLKf)GED SAFETY ASSXGNED AD:

3HSK3~E RO ECT MA LIC ASST FOR ACTION/INFORMATION PROJECT hfANAGER'IC ASST 12 6 ehf INTERNALDISTRIBUTION EG FXLE NRCPR I 6c E OELD GOSSICK & STAFF MXPC CASE HARLESS PROJECT MANAGEMENT BOYD P,

COLLINS HOUSTON PETERSON MELTZ HELTEMES SKOVHOLT LPDR>>

TXC:

NSIC:

ASLB:

SYSTEMS SAFETY HEINEMAN SCHROEDER ENGXNEERING KNXGHT SIHWEXL PAWLICK REACTOR SAFE ROSS NOVAK ROSZTOCZY CHECK-AT Sc I SALTZMAN RUTBERG EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION NAT~LAB~

REG V ~IE LA PDR CONSULTANTS:

PLANT SYSTEMS TEDESCO IPPOLXTO OPERATING REACTORS STELLO OPERATING TECH EISENHUT B 00 ULR KSON ORt S TE SAFE ERNST BALLARD SPANGLER SITE TECH GAMMILL STEPP HULMAN SITE ANALYSIS VOLLMER BUNCH J ~ COLLINS KREGER CONTROL NUMBER NRC FORM 106 (2.76)

Q

() ~ - >>' -'l

>>ia-

- V'

~~ iPT,;,

'V<

5

,,Z<, . i"'i3 r,'<

j,~'XS~,~

"',l~ ,'Kj< l';Cy$

jpg gyeg>'<

-r.ag

-) p, gg

=

f $', j "g -y'l y >

g" C

'l

~

~

~

~

~

5 4 >v' w

~ *"-~" "a~~~ "a

~< "-"~ )z"'.v

"-)- -r

~cgg~f f>bs<qnp~ fsr q qi>..i.....

gg'..)

)r

INDIANA II MICHIGAN POWER COMPANY P. 0. BOX 18 BOWLING GREEN STATION NEW YORK, N. Y. 10004

'Re(UIetoPJ Docket File

>tk December 9,

1976 i)

Oig

,c'y>>

u Mr. Benard C. Rusche, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulate U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit, No Docket No. 50-315 DPR No.

58 goal DFCg g )gp6 I Aht~~~~"

Dear Mr. Rusche:

4 This letter transmits our response to the NRC request for additional information in Mr. D. Ziemann's December 2,

1976 letter regarding Exxon Nuclear Company Report XN-75-27, Supplement 1,

"Exxon Nuclear Neutronic Design Methods for Pressurized Water Reactors.

Responses to informal questions on single failure criteria and core stored energy are also transmitted by this letter.

With regard to Mr. D. Ziemann's December 2,

1976

letter, the xesponses to questions A.l through A.6, B.l, and B.2 were provided to the NRC by Carolina Power and Light in their'ecember 2,

1976 letter from E. E. Utley to R.

W. Reid.

These responses are applicable to the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit No. 1.

The responses to questions A.7 and A.S are included as Attachment A to this letter.

S I

4 4

II I

t

't I

4 4 4

I I

(

4 4

r,

(

P 4

h 4

lt Il

~,

(

r*

II t

I I 4Il't

~ 4 4 ~

C;~r r

(

Mr. Benard C. Rusche 2

December 9,

1976 Our responses to the informal NRC staff questions are included as Attachment B to this letter.

Very truly yours, i i g a t Vice Preside t JT:mam Attachment Sworn and subscribed to before me this

'7 th day of December 1976 in New York County, New York Notary Public DAVIDG. HUME NOTARY PUBLIC, State of New York

(/4 No. 31<608113 Qualitied in New York County Commission Expires t(larch 30, 1977, cc:

G. Charnoff R. C. Callen R. J. Vollen P.

W. Steketee R. Walsh R. S. Hunter R.

W. Jurgensen Bridgman

I

/

Jl':C

.~,

1 S

hd

')ll 1

f.il tI 6

V K

TJ

> ~

o ~

Attachment A

Question A.7 Provide a plan to verify the analytical model used for 193 assembly plants beyond Cycle 1 to assure that an empirical correction is not required as exposure accumulates.

Res onse to Question A.7 A power map willbe taken at least once for every 31 days*of operation for which comparisons between calculations and measurements of power distribution willbe made.

Com-parison willbe made between calculated and measured power distribution during Cycle 2 startup which is scheduled in early 1977.

The initial results for Cycle 2 willbe reported to the NRC 90 days following the startup.

uestion A.S Asymmetries in. the "measured'assembly powers up to

-7% (fig. 3-5, assemblies G-11 and E-9) are reported.

What is the cause of these variations?

Res onse to Question A.S The asymmetries cited were caused. by measurement errors due to drift in certain detectors.

The results reported on map 30 reflect this fact which was particularly associated with detectors A and B.

At the time map 30 was taken, (April 4, 1975),

AEP personnel became acutely aware of the problem, and remedial steps were taken to correct this condition.

The detector's manufacturer was also notified of this problem.

As a result of these efforts, detectors A, B and F

were replaced on April 21, 1975.

The improvements from this replacement can be seen in the attached map 34 (taken on April 29, 1976),

where detector drift was much smaller.

Following this, a constant monitoring of detector behavior has been carried out at. the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Unit No. 1.

The intent of this program is that if any uncorrectable abnormal detector behavior is observed, the anomalous detectors will be replaced.

Effective full power days.

F ~

4

) t

)p tl J'

\\

t

• F

If II I

I J

t Ff It p

p tf J'

F J

t F

t(

p h

It n

tl p

y p-

~

~

ir p

p l

(

p ff Vgj I, w'

Attachment B

ADDITIONALQUESTIONS ASKED BY NRC STAFF Describe the single failure assumed in the ECCS accident analysis as reported, in XN-76-51.

Res onse to Question l.

The single failure assumption in XN-76-51 is consistent with the single failure assumptions used for the Cycle 1 analysis of the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant.

Specifically, this failure was the failure of a single low pressure ECCS pump.

With regard to containment pressure

response, what is the difference between core stored energy of the original (Cycle

1) core and Cycle 2 core?

Res onse to Question 2.

A conservative comparisori.'was made of the stored energy difference between the Westinghouse supplied fuel and the ENC supplied fuel in the Donald C. Cook Unit I Nuclear plant.

There is no difference in the energy in the coolant and in the non-core related parts of the reactor system between the ENC fueled core and the Westinghouse fueled core; the only difference is in the variation in the core design.

Approximately 6.5% of the total energy in the reactor

system, including the coolant, is contained in the reactor fuel.

The only significant, difference between the Westinghouse supplied and the ENC supplied fuel is the thicker clad in the ENC fuel.

This results in less than a 20'F increase in the average temperature of the ENC fuel over the Westinghouse fuel, which is equivalent to about a

l-l/2% increase in energy.

Thus, the total system stored energy is increased less than 0.065 x 0.015

=.001 or 0.1%'.

This increase is insignificant in respect to containment pressure during a LOCA.

~ e

'I\\

~'

I

~

I

~

~

r tt Ff S

J

~

Sg F

9-10 ll 12 13 14 15 Oo598 Oe677 Oe80)

Oo 717 Oe801 0 ~ ()70 Oo)95 0 468 0 84 I 0 985 I ~ 031 0 980

'1 ~ 030 0 970 I ~ 002 0 969 0 837 0 466 Oe466 0 ~ 971 0 ~ 852 I ~ 091 le)50 I ~ 224 le748 I ~ 193 I ~ 118 I 073 Oe849 0 ~ 969.0 ~ 466 Oe836 Oe852 I ~ 22?

I eo 13 I ~ 214 I ~ 160 I ~ 267 (I ~ 134 I ~ 165 Oe900 lo2)7 0 F 859 oo852 0 594 0 480 I ~ 087 0 9Q>

I ~ 167 I ~ 100 I ~ 2)5 I ~ )2)

I 170 I ~ 085 I ~ 156 0 994 I 104 0'91 0'98 0 689 I ~ 025 I ~ 171 I )96 I ~ 092 I ~ 159 I 020 I ~ 185 I 004 I ~ 134 I ~ 090 I ~ 186 I ~ 158 I ~ 03) 0 ~ 689 Oo831 0 ~ 997 I ~ 219 I ~ 131 I ~ 184 leo I I I ~ 147 I ~ 090 I ~ 172 I ~ 033 1o237 I o)14 I e207 loool Oo834 0 ~ 744 I 068 I ~ 2)6 I ~ 254 I ~ )23 I ~ 164 I ~ 093 I ~ )84

) ~ 099 I )S7.

I ~ 136 I ~ 224 I ~ 186 I ~ 074 0 748 0 831 O ~ 997 I ~ 219 I ISS I

193 I.OO6 I ~ I e5 I ~ 090 I ~ 164 I ~ OIS I ~ 195 I ~ 140 I ~ 194 0 ~ 999 0 e 836.

Oe665 Oo99b I ~ 191 I ~ 201 I ~093 I ~ 150 I ~ 010

. ) o )55 1o013

) o)69 I ~ 103

)o217 le)43 I ~ 036 0'93 K

0 577 0 950 I 096 0 997 I ~ )43 I~ 088 I ~ 192 I

106 I ~ 184 1 093 I ~ IOO 0 955 I ~ 071 I ~ 027 0 624 L

0 ~ 829 OeS Std I ~ ?18 Oo989 I ~ 195 I ~ 142 I ~ 254 I ~ 148 I ~ 176 Oo955

) ~ )84 Oo 855 0 ~ &77 Oo471 Oe979 0 ~ 857 I ~ 095 le)59 I ~ 192 I ~ 171 I ~ 208

~

I ~ 161 I ~ 080 0 ~ 837 Oe485 0 ~ 48S 0 ~47) 0 ~ 845 Oo989 I~ 019 Oo979 I ~ 056 I ~ 002 I e041 Oo9f9 Oe824 0 ~ 468 0 ~ 600 Oe676 0 ~ 821 0 ~ 740 0 ~ 831 oe696 0 ~ 594 NAP 34.

COOK'NIT I, BOL,. HZP;

ARO, D IN, D+C IN, D+C+B IN, SET 1 AEP THIMBLE DATA NUCLEAR PEAKING FACTORS FOR ENTHALPY RISE FOR ASSEMBLAGES IN THE PONER NORMALIZATION

( I N 1N) I

) o 1L1Le

~lg++e tkf)e 1

)~l ~

leg

)~ee

~o(e

)'e ~

oo )

1

~ <<r ~~ ~r e

e