ML19330B446

Forwards Addl Response to Questions on Cycle 4 Basic Safety Rept,In Response to 800620 Ltr.Info in 800707 Submittal Is Not Proprietary to Westinghouse or C-E

ML19330B446
Person / Time
Site:	Millstone
Issue date:	07/22/1980
From:	Counsil W NORTHEAST UTILITIES
To:	Clark R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
TAC-11348, TAC-11561, TAC-12505, TAC-42846, TAC-43380, NUDOCS 8008040030
Download: ML19330B446 (10)

Text

"I o

NOltrHI!Afir IrrILFFII!S

.Z T 7, T ";~~.,T""

3 ffnno*nE coNNocucur osiot r ^:0, . 7l'1. ' (2033 sco-6911 L L J 'T.': ~ r ;:

July 22, 1980 Docket No. 50-336 A01085 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attn: Mr. Robert A. Clark, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #3 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555

References:

(1) W. G. Counsil letter to R. keid de.ted March 6,1980.

(2) R. A. Clark letter to W. G. Counsil dated June 20, 1980.

(3) W. G. Counsil letter to R. A. Clark dated July 7, 1980.

(4) R. A. Wiesemann letter to 11. R. Denton dated February 29, 1980.

(5) R. A. Wiesemann Jetter to D. G. Eisenhut dated July 27, 1976.

(6) A. E. Sherer letter to J. R. Miller dated May 16, 1980.

Gentlemen:

Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 2 Response to Questions on Cycle 4 Basic Safety Report In Reference (1), Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNECO) docketed the Basic Safety Report (BSR) in support of Cycle 4 operation of Millstone Unit No. 2.

The BSR is intended to serve as a reference fuel assembly and safety analysis report for the use of Westinghouse fuel at Millstone Unit No. 2.

In Reference (2), the NRC Staff requested that NNECO provide additional informa-tion regarding fuel design and physics calculations to complete the review of the BSR.

NNECO provided a response to each of the Reference (2) requests in Reference (3) with the exception of Question 10. It was noted in Reference (3) that the pro-prietary nature of the response to Question 10 required that it be submitted as a separate response. Therefore, NNECO hereby provides the response to Question 10 of Reference (2) in Attachment 1.

Subsequent discussions with both fuel vendors, Westinghouse and Combustion Engineering, following the Reference (3) submittal, have indicated that the information contained in the response to Question 10 of Reference (2) is not proprietary to either vendor, and it is being docketed by NNECO in non-proprietary form, g3O <

8008040 l l

d

e

. NNECO is also including, as Attachment 2, a revised Figure 4-21 to the Basic Safety Report, Reference (1), The attached figure includes a revised INCA measured value of 1.110 for the peak / average power distribution in Box 15.

We trust you find this information satisfactorily dispositions the Reference (2) concerns and apologize for any inconvenience which may have resulted from the Reference (3) Information.

Very truly yours, NORTilEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY

't e

'(, ;i ; ! '/'

' ' ll! -'i 4 *

('

W. G. Counsil Senior Vice President Attachments l

I

\

)

l l

1

DOCKET NO. 50-336 ATTACIDIENT 1

,  ?!1LLSTONE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT No. 2 RESPONSE TO BASIC SAFETY REPORT, QUESTION 10 JULY, 1980

10. Comparisons of power peaking in fuel pins adjacent to CEA water holes using TURTLE (diffurion theory) and KENO (Monte Carlo) have shown ai

~

underprediction by diffusion theory, as expected. Please provide additional inforsation such as cogarisons between KENO calculations and experimental measurements of water hole power peaking, to justify the KENO calculational uncertainty used.

RESPONSE: The total water hole peaking factor bias to be used in INCA csn be calculated from (TURTLE-KENO) plus (KENO-experiment) differences which is equivalent to the bias (TURTLE-experiment). By inference, the  !

difference between TURTLE and water hole experiments was calculated using INCA results. For pugoses of licensing TURTLE for use with large water hole lattices, the INCA comparisons described below justify a water hole peaking factor bias of 2.8% to be used in INCA for measured peaking factors.

The total water hole peaking factor bias (TURTLE-experiment) was cal-culated from a comparison of INCA and TURTLE values of the ra'tio hot rod to assembly average power, ir. cycles 1, 2 and 3. This cogarison provides the water hole bias because:

i a) The ratio. hot red to assembly average power, from INCA is the same as the hot pin relative power predicted by the design code (PDQ) used i

l" for INCA input f a. Cycles 1, 2 and 3.  ;

i b) The hot pin power always occurs next to a water hole.

c) The water hole peaking factor bias used in INCA for Cycle 3 is,4.2%U) l which results from extensive comparisons between PDQ and water hole l expe riments.  !

. d) The total water hole peaking factor bias to be used in INCA with i TURTLE input is bounded by correcting the Cycle 3 bias of 4.8% by the bia,s between TURTLE and PDQ hot pin powers.

l Comparisons between TURTLE and INCA peak to average rod power for six INCA maps in cycles 1 and 2 are given in the B5R and results for two i l

Cycle 3 maps are shown in Figures 2 - 3 The results for all 3

( cyclats are given in Figurt 1 and indicate a bias of 2% between TURTLE and PDQ. .

a The total water hole peaking factor bias to be used in INCA with TURTLE is thus 4.8 - 2.0 = 2.8%.

(1) CEN-88(N)-NP, Increased Water Hole Peaking in Operating Reactors (Millstone 2), March 30,1978.

\

,"e ,

.. s.

Fgur 1. (o pruod of POW ud 'DAR'n C Assembl3 P4 ak h d et tnq< Th. 6o s l

y g

or 3 . . . . . . . . .. .

o C,

i e .

O ..-

9 w -- --

E a f. . . . ,, . 1. A 2o-Iw.l>

5- .....* s edical<d p{ . '. ~

.......:'...=......--

'x ' _. . . . :. 1.

cio.c t .

cias2. . .. . . . .

. cycts3 t9a.es (1,2.,3 ')

. succcs s op ot,rA . .

J

'O  % ch 5 l ud 1 - W.P-%60 Ajures, 4-It %g k 9- es

~

O a c vk 3- vn as b .3 tabewai. l l

Q l

. . . ... . l g

~ *

• FIGURE *i .

1.062 .

M11 stone Unit 2 Ped / Average *cwer Distribution Cycle 3 HFP-ARD- 3250 WO/m j', g8

~~

4 l ,

-3.612  ; ..

1.084 '

1.116 -

1.095 1.129 ~

-0.011 -0.013 l. ,

-1.003 -1.196 ,

1.122 1.113 '

'l.080 1.144 1.142 1.115 -

-0.222 -0.029 4 .035

-1.983 -2.649 -3.198 e

1.070 1.085 1.107 1.079 1.104 1.104 1.137 '1.110

-0.034 - 0.019 , -0.030 .0.031

-3.175 -1.722 -2.711 -2.898

~

1.197 1.101 1.108 1.092 ,

1.133 1.117 1.113 1.118 1.120 1.116 l

-0.012 -0.010 -0.028 0.017 0.090 .

6.686 -1.106 -0.939 *

-2.542  : 1.463 1.097 1.096 1.088 1.163 1.125 1.132 1.196 1.129 1.140 - 1.108 1.209 1.123 -0.061 0.009 -0.032 4 .044 -0.020 -

-0.046

.2.956 -4.019 -1.966 -3.928 -5.463 0.797

• 1.190 1.080 1.146 1.552 1.087 1.169 1.183 1.115 1.193 1.589 1.104 1.184

-0.01S 0.007 -0.035 -0.474 -0.037

-0.017 -4.133

-1.567 -1.325 0.577 -3.235 ,-2.362 1.094 1.179 1.349 1.661 1.071 4 1.709 1.094 1.110 1.203 1.383

-0.016 -0.024 0.034 -0.048

-0.023 -2.903

-2.147 -1.483 -2.062 -2.501

. 1.350 1.618 IG

,' 1.370 1.635 l 1

-0.020 -0.017 Calculated (TURTLE) a l

-1.49 .1.047 '

65

m* - '

FIGURE 3' 1.049 . H111 stone thlt 2 Peak / hen Pewr 1.086 . Distribution Cycle 3 HFP- 5850 WD/MN

-0.037

-3.528 ,

l I

, 1.077 1.107 l '1.092 1.124 .

( -0.015 -0.017 l

-1.437 -1.580 l l

i l

1.114 1.104 1.073 l 1.138 1.128 1.102 .

.. - l

-0.024 -0.024 -0.029

-2.154 -2.215 -2.678 1 . 061 1.077 1.096 1.0 71  :

1.098 1.101 1.125 1.101 l

-0.037 -0.024 -0.02W -0.030

-3.524 -2.238 -2.623 -2.831, ,. .

1.176 1.092 1.095 1.083 ' 1.119 1.113 1.110 '

1.114 1.106 i 1.105 0.063 -0.018 .-0.019 -0.022  ! 0.011 5.319 -1.617 -1.754 -2.064 f0.961 1.112 1.094 1.096 1.079 1.147 1.124

. 1.111 1.122 , 1.129 1.099 1.189 1.175 0.001 -0.028 t, - 0.033 -0.020 -0.042 -0.0513 0.089 .-2.565 -3.007 .-l.857 -3.668 -4.566 1.078 1.161 1.169 1.075 1.136 1.536 3 1.095 1.172 1.167 1.109 1.178 1.564 i

-0.017 -0.011 0.002 -0.034 -0.042 -0.028 1.537 -

-0.911 0.152 -3.192 -3.699 -1.836:

1.064 1.086 1.179 1.341 1.640 1 . 091 1.107 1.205 1.369 1.674

0.027 -0.021 -0.026 -0.028 -0.0M

! 2.573 -1.980 -2.203 -2.097 -2.079

- =

i .

1.346 1.600 INCA j', ~ I' ? ' ' ~ : k;,.

fl'"I'd M)gg;Q;h.

i; . ..

y

-0.974 -0.455

.s

DOCKET NO. 50-336 ATTACllMENT 2 MILLSTONE NUCLEAR POWEk STATION, UNIT NO. 2 REVISED BASIC SAFETY REPORT, FIGURE 4-21 l

i l

l l

l l '

i d

a JULY, 1980

Figure 4-21 Millstone Unit 2 Peak / Average Power Distribution Cycle 2 HFP-ARO 500 MWD /MTU

-0$045

-4.294 1.132 1.141 1.140 1.137

-0.008 -0.004

-0.707 -0.351 1.054 1.174 1.055 1.101 1.179 1.112

-0.047 -0.005 -0.057

-4.439 -0.426 -5.403 1.112 1.145 1.138 1.111 1.1 32 1.155 1.197 1.142

. -0.020 -0.010 -0.059 - 0. 0 31

-1.799 -0.083 -2.790 -2.790 1.083 1.155 1.098 1.115 1.103 1.101 1.111 1.154 1.119 1.106

-0.006 0.044 -0.056 -0.004 -0.003

-0. 54 8 3. 81 0 -5.100 -0.359 -0.272 1.118 1.111 1.076' 1.083 1.113 1.172 1.107 1.126 1.110 1.137 1.113 1.142 1 0.011 -0.015 -0.034 -0.054 0.0 0.030 ,

0.984 -1.550 -3.160 -4.986 0.0 3.560 1.090 1.106 1.110 1.126 1.065 1.111 1.141 1.1 30 1.117 1.157 1.570 1.61 7

\.

l

-0.016 0.092 -0.046 0.011 -0.040 -0.047 '

-1.468 7.553 -4. 319 0.964 - 3. 3 81 -2.994  !

15 1.089 1.211 1.187 1.338 1.6 71 1.153 1.191 1 .2 31 1.391 1.722

)

l

-0.064 0.020 -0.044 -0.053 -0.051 1

-5.877 1.652 -3.707 -3.961 -3.052 l

1. 365 1.61 7 INCA

- -0. Calculated (TURTLE)

-1.319 -1.608 A j

. is i i  !