ML19320D157

Forwards Request for Addl Info for Review of Plant Operation in Cycle 2.Responses Should Be Received by 800715 to Permit Completion of Review by Projected Startup Date

ML19320D157
Person / Time
Site:	Davis Besse
Issue date:	07/01/1980
From:	Novak T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Crouse R TOLEDO EDISON CO.
References
NUDOCS 8007210035
Download: ML19320D157 (5)

Text

V i

)

p

%y

,(fu..%(o, UNITED STATES y 7 y, g

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5

l WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

/

July 1, 1980

+....

Docket No. 50-346 Mr. Richard P. Crouse Vice President, Nuclear Toledo Edison Company Edison Plaza 300 Madison Avenue Toledo, Ohio 43652

Dear Mr. Crouse:

In our review of Toledo Edison's submittals dated March 3 and May 21, 1980, relating to the operation of Davis-Besse. Unit No.1 in Cycle 2, we have identified the need for further information necessary for us to complete our review. The information we need i: contained in the enclosures.

Your most recent monthly operating report has projected a startup date of August 1, 1980. Based on this projection, it is requested that answers to the enclosed questions be provided to us by July 15, 1980, in order to assure that we can complete our review on time.

Sincerely,

~b 5l

':.~r Tliomas M. Novak, Assistant Director for Operating Reactors Division of Licensing

Enclosures:

1. Questions on Nuclear Design & Transient Analysis

2. Questions on Startup Testing cc w/ enclosures:

See next page i

i i

4

',800.72106 I

~

d Toledo Edison Company ecw/ enclosure (s):

Mr. Donald.H. Hauser, Esq.

1,'. S. Nuclear Regulatory ramission The Cleveland Electric Resident inspector 's Office 5503 N. State Route 2 Illuminating Comoany P. O. Box 5000 Oak Harbor, Ohio 43449 Cleveland, Ohio 44101 Director. Technical Assessment Division Gerald Charnoff, Esq.

Shaw, Pittman, Potts Office of Radiation Programs and Trowbridae (AW-459) 1800 M Street,'N.W.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D.C.

20036 Crystal Mall #2 Arlington, Virginia 20460 I

r, en y, er1ry and Hodge U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 300 Madison Avenue Federal Activities Branch Toledo

• Ohio 43604 Region V Office ATTN: EIS COORDINATOR fir. Robert B. Borsum 230 South Dearborn Street Babcock & Wilcox Chicago, Illinois 60604 i

Nuclear Power Generation Division Suite 420, 7735 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda, Maryland 20014 Ohio Department of Health Ida Rupp Public Library ATTN:

Director of Health 310 Madison Street 450 East Town Street Port Clinton,0hio 43452 Columbus, Ohio 43216 President, Board of County Comissioners of Ottawa County Port Clinton, Ohio 43452 Attorney General Department of Attorney Genera.'

30 East Broad Street l

Columbus, Ohio 43215 l

l Harold Kahn, Staff Scientist Power Siting Comission 361 East Broad Street Columbus, Ohio 43216 Mr. Rick Jagger Industrial Comission State of Ohio 2323 West 5th Avende Columbus, Ohio 43216 Mr. Ted Myers Licensing Engineer Toledo Edison Company Edison Plaza 300 Madison Avenue Toledo, Ohio 43652~

r et

i; ENCLOSURE 1 Questions on Nuclear Design and Transient Analysis for Davis-Besse 1.

The Technical Specification on total peaking factor permits Fq values as high as 2.94/P where P is the fraction of full power. The Bases for Specifications 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 state that a total peaking factor of 2.56 was used at a core power of 112% of full power to show com-pliance with CNBR limits. But if normal operation is permitted with a peaking factor of 2.94 and an overpower transient (such as rod bank withdrawal) occurs DNBR limits appropriate for anticipated transients would be violated.

Please explain the apparent discrepancy or resolve it.

2.

In the FSAR the fuel misloading error was treated by asserting that

.it was very unlikely that it could occur due to the great care taken in the manufacture and loading of assemblies.

Further it was asserted

- that serious misloading errors would be discovered during startup testing.

Report BAW-10028, "Effect of Asymmetries in Fuel Loading," shows that certain misloadings can result in violation of thermal limits.

Have these conclusions been confirmed for the second cycle of Davis-Besse?

Has an analysis similar to that performed for the Midland Plant (Docket 50-329/330,' Response to RAI 232.12) been dane?

0 4 -

4.

,n.--,...

,n.,. - -, -.,

-?

~

,l-.y

--.-~,L-n

i ENCLOSURE 2 Questions on Startup Testing for Davis-Besse An acceptable physics startup test program for a PWR reload has been established and is detailed in a November 28, 1978, memorandum from Paul S. Check. Terminology in the following question will be based

.on that memo. Of particular importance is the paragraph on test

' criteria.

"The test criteria ~ have been divided into two categories, review criteria and acceptance criteria.

Review criteria that are proposed should be sufficiently narrow as to highlight any deviation which may indicate that the core was incorrectly loaded or that the assumptions made in the safety analysis were not valid.

Procedures to be followed if the review criteria are not met should be dis-cussed. These procedures should be developed so that they are not necessarily keyed to shutting down the plant but initiate further review or analysis to assure safe operation for the length of the cycle.

In addition, broader acceptance criteria should be proposed that assure that the response of the plant to accidents and transients is in accordance with the design.

A discussion of the procedures to I

be followed in the event these broader acceptance criteria are also exceeded should be provided if the plant is not to be shut down."

Specific questions regarding the Davis-Besse submittal on startup testing are as.follows:

1.

Section 9.2.1 critical boron concentration states that the acceptance criteria.

Please state the review criteria for this test will be +100 ppm.

2.

Section 9.2.2 Temperatyre Reactivity Coefficient states an acceptance criteria of +0.4 x 10-* t.k/k/0F.

Please state the review criteria for this test.

3.

Please state what further rod worth tests will be performed if the sum of the measured values for groups 5, 6 and 7 is more than 10%

less than the predicted value for this sum.

~ 4.

Your description of the ejected control rod reactivity worth test does not state that four symmetric control rods will be measured.

As stated in BAW-1477 "0conee 1 Cycle 4 Quandrant Flux Tilt" page 12, this test "has proven to be an indicator of core symmetry." Please indicate that the measurement of ejected rod worth of four symmetric locations is part of your test program and state the review criteria.

5.

The acceptance criteria stated in Section 9.3.1 Core Power Dist-ibution Verification at -40, 75 and 1001: FP With Nominal Control Rod Feition is acceptable.

Please state a review criteria for these tests.

It is nomally stated as a percentage which the RMS of the detector readings will not exceed.

ENCLOSURE 2 (Cont'd.).

6. - Please state both acceptance and review criteria for the cr.t.'J11 borgn concentration comparison (measured vs predicted) at steady-state full power.

-7.

Indicate 'your commitment to submit a physics startup test report within 45 days of completion of the tests.

e

\\

l i

.