ML19350F005
| ML19350F005 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Zion File:ZionSolutions icon.png |
| Issue date: | 05/29/1981 |
| From: | Tramm T COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| To: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19350F006 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8106240037 | |
| Download: ML19350F005 (8) | |
Text
- ]
r e f.P
.7
'N Commonwealth Edison).
/
) One First Nationd Plaza, Chicago; lilmois.
f (O 5 Address Fieply to: Post Offica Boi 767
~
,/ Chicago, flhnois 60690 0
9-\\
JO,y A
.~
n May 29, 1981 l- ' **4 8g U-7 4
k Mr. Hafolo R. Denton, Director D
s'8 Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Q
.D U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ISg Washington, D. C.
20555
SUBJECT:
Zion Station Units 1 and 2 Fuel Management Topical Report
- NRC Docket Nos. 50-295 and 50-304.
Dear Mr. Denton:
'On Tuesday, May 12, 1981, Commonwealth ~ Edison Company (CECO)
- personnel met with NRC Staf f personnel in your Bethesda of fices to discuss CECO's Pressurizea Water Reactor (PWR) fuel management capability and the projected contents of CECO's PWR fuel management topical report.
In order to provide the Staff with Ceco's perspective of this meeting CECO has prepared the meeting summary in
-Attachment A.
Attachment B is a list of meeting attenuees and-Attachment C contains a copy of the CECO-. slides presented.
One (1)-signed original and thirty-nine (39) copies of this transmittal are provided f or your use.
Very truly yours, TN,[h--
T. R. Tranni Nuclear Licensing Administrator Pressurized Water Reactors WFN:lm ID:0074T Attachments cc: Resident Office-Zion I
810624()og k
7 m
-e.
ATTACHMENT'A
- Sungnary of.May,12,1981, Meeting to Discuss Conunonwealth Edison PWR Fuel Management m
. initially, 'Dr. William F. Naughton of CECO brief ly-revieweu the-meeting agenda (Slide 1) and : illustrated to th'e Staf f (Slide 2) where the CECO Huclear Fuel Services Department and its personnel in attendance at the meeting fit into the overall CECO organizational structure.
. INTRODUC TION (Slides.3 through 7)
Dr. Michael Cenko of CECO, who is Chairman of the CECO PWR Vendor Incependence Program (VIP) Task Force, began-the formal presentation by introducing (Slide 3).the CECO meeting objectives, uniqueness of Ceco approach, the program schedule and the multi-disciplined approach of the CECO PWR.. VIP Task Force.
In assuming fuel management responsibility (Slide 4) Dr. Cenko emphasized that CECO's long range plans are to perf orm alI calculations, ' evaluations and analyses essential f or f uel management. However, Dr. Cenko pointed out that CECO was, at this time, assuming the nuclear design portion (neutronic only) of PWR tuel management. CECO initially plans to take over the.neutronic designs f or the Zion plants and by mid-1980's the designs f or its Byron and Braiowood plants..in conjunction with these plan >,
~
.Dr. Cenko indicated that this was the appropriate time in the CECO program development to obtain NRC feedback. Hence, a key objective of this meeting was for CECO to receive and include in its program and topical report, where appropriate, key NRC items of interest.
In highlighting the uniqueness of the CECO approach to nuclear design (Slide 5), Dr. Cenko stressed that no other utility has utilized this approach.
It is not a program based on an EPRl/ARMP or European fuel management methodology.
It is an approach based on extensive use of Westinghouse methodology using current Westinghouse nuclear design codes supplemented by extensive Westinghouse design participation training, i.e. CECO engineers performing and being responsible for vendor relerd designs in the vendor shop.
Dr. Cenko then described the CECO program schedule (Slide 6) which has been. in progress-f or several years and which will culminate with the startup of Zion Unit i Cycle 8, currently scheouleo f or early April 1983.
The nuclear design tasks f or this cycle, which will be the first designed by CECO, will commence later
-this year.
9 J
Attachment A A brief description of the areas addresseu by the multi-disciplined CECO VIP fask Force (Slide 7) was also presented.
During this discussion the Statt inquired as to:
1)
What problems CECO had in converting the Westinghouse codes from CDC to IBM machines? and 2)
What about Westinghouse code updates or changes in methodology?
With regara to the code conversion, CECO indicated that no special problems had been encountered. With IBM's quadruple precisiori capability, test problems run using the same code on bot.h machines, were accurate to the seventh or eighth dectnal place.
Iri response to the second question, CECO indicated that:
1)
Reload f uel contracts t or CECO P',R's are with Westinghouse through the mid-1990's; 2)
Mechanisms (interf aces) are beitig f onnulated between Westinghouse and CECO to provide f or technology transiers; and 3)
CECO is a very active member in the EPRI/ARMP users group and hence, is at the f oref ront of industry methodoloay changes and improvements.
CECO PWR Fuel Management Approach (Slides 8 through l?)
In discussing the Ceco PWR f uel management approach (Slide 8),
D-Cenko pointed out that the scope of the CECO methodology will essentially consist of the calculations described in Chapter 3 of the Westinghouse Reload Saf ety Evaluation Methodology, WCAP-92/2 (Slide 9).
In essence, the CECO nuclear designer will pertonii all the neutronic calculatioris that the Westinghouse nuclear designer perf onns using the same computer codes (Slide 10). Or Cenko emphasized that iri.tortnulating this approach Ceco recognized that specializeo on the Job training in the vendor shop would be essential, not only in the nuclear design area but also ivi the managerial ana code aiethods/ automation areas (Slide 11).
Thus, the Director of CECO's Nuclear Fuel Services Department, Dr. H. E. Bliss, was trained f or approximately one year at Westinghouse in the management aspects of nuclear design and Dr. Cenko, in the Westinghouse cooe methods and automation.
In addition, to date, CECO has accumulated f our (4) man-years of training in a Nuclear Design Participatory fraining Program at Westirighouse.
These engineers have perf onned all of the aspects of nuclear design delineated in Chapter 3 of the Westinghouse topical, WCAP-92/P.
These engineers have also bee 1 responsible f or and have coitipleted,
r; - c
.t-g.
~
Attachment A -Just as Westinghouse nuclear designers would have, nuclear designs f or the currentf two operating cycles at Zion-Station (Slide 12).
' Currently,-two aoditional Ceco engineers are in training performing the nuclear designs f or the next two lion reload cycles. Thus, at the: time CECO commences its initial nuclear aesign, seven nuclear
. engineers will have accumulated approximately eight (8) man-years of nuclear cesign participatory: training at Westinghouse.
Verification of CECO Approach (Slides 13 through 16)
~
- Mr. Bruce Momsen of CECO presented the mechanism whereby CECO would verify its nuclear design approach, i.e., through benchmarking. Specifically, Mr. Momsen addressed CECO's large-database, the parameters to be benched and the acceptance criteria f or the Ceco results (Slide 13).
Mr. -Momsen indicated that CECO had accumulated eleven (11) sets of startup physics test data and ten'(10) cycles of PWR operations (Sliae 14) including cycles:
1) 0perated at full and part power; 2)
With and without burnable poisons; and 3)
With variea reload enrichments, assemblies and loading patterns.
In order to prove CECO's capability to independently calculate the neutronic parameters necessary for normal plant operation and to valiaate current saf ety analyses, detailed comparisons between CECO calculations and plant operational and physics measurements will be made.
To this end, CECO has chosen the f ollowing parameters f or benchmarking (Slide 15):
1)
-Core reactivity; 2)
Power distribution; 3)
Control rod worth; and 4)
Moderator temperature coefficient.
i v
Drawing on the af orementioned large database, Mr. Momsen indicated that CECO will verify by statistical-analysis that the CECO results
~
are comparable to Westinghouse analytical accuracies (Slide 16) as stated in WCAP-9500, "Ref erence Core Report, 17x17 Optimized fuel
- Assemoly". Mr. Momsen pointed out that CECO f ully expects to meet l
the Westinghouse accuracies, primarily because CECO has been trained
~
at Westinghouse as' nuclear designers and will be utilizing Westinghouse computer codes and design methodology. Mr. Momsen i
t L'
l'
. c Attachment A -
further; explained that once CECO has completed the benchmarking and verification of' analytical accuracies, then CECO will apply the sene calculational uncertainties as Westinghouse coes to the key
-neutronic parameters.
During Mr. Momsen's presentation the Staff asked:
x 1)
Whether CECO intended to benchmark Zion gamma-scan results?,
12 )
What effect would hainium versus Ag-in-Cd have on CECO methodology, if Westinghouse converts its product line?;
3)
Will CECO benchmark any measurements previously made at power?;
4)
Since Westinghouse has statea that their uncertainties ~are based on their methodology using their engineers, how can
. CECO who will be-using Westinghouse codes but CECO engineers use the some uncertainties?; and 5)
Whether CECO would include a Startup Physics Test Program ds ar appenoix to the topical report?-
In response,. CECO indicated that:
1)
It' had 'not intenden to benchiiidrk the ganma-scan data; 2)
As previously inoicated, CECO's current PWR fuel contracts
. are with Westinghouse and run into the mid-1990's and theref ore, any proposed control rod material changes could
. be adaresseo through these contracts; 3)
Prior to the benchmarking activity, individual measurements and experiments will be reviewed in detail to determine it.
they are valia and appropriate for a meaningful benchmark; 4)
The same uncertainties can be applied because CECO will utilize Westinghouse methodology and codes, in a controlled manner similar to Westinghouse, with CECO engineers trained at Westinghouse in their methodology and on their codes; and 5)
It would consider the Staff suggestion of an appendix to the topical report containirig a Startup Physics Test
]
Program.
_r,.
m
.r,~r
.,--.w.
s.
Attachment A Clos'ingiStatements (Slides 17 through 20)-
In closing the formal presentation (Slide 17), Mr. Momsen presentea the proposed CECO topical report outline f or its PWR neutronic methodology (Slide 18) and indicated that Dr. Naughton woulo re-review the program schedule providing special emphasis on those items that cirectly impact the Staf f (Slide 19).
Mr.'Monsen stressed that the CECO topical report would emphasize (Slide 18) verification of PWR neutronic methods through comparison with plant operi, tion and physics tests, specit ically addressing the previously dis',;usseo - parameters that'were selected for benchmarking..Mr. Momsen also stressed that in the oescription of the CECO PWR neutronic methods, i.e. the basic codes and linkages useo and the calculational overview, CECO intended to heavily reference the Westinghouse Reload-Saf ety Evaluation Methodology document, WCAP-9272.
At this point Dr. Naughton's schedule review was temporarily skipped and the meeting went into the NRC discussion phase (Slide 20).
The primary discussion point centered on what approval CECO was seeking from the Staff.
The Staff indicateu that it intended to review the CECO topical and issue an SER specifying what the topical was approved tor.
Hence, the Stat t needed to know such things as whetheriCEco was including xenon transients, CAOC, band widening / narrowing or just steady-state conditions.
Ceco stressed that it was seeking approval to perf orm the calculations identified in Chapter 3 of the Westinghouse t.pical report,1 CAP-9272.
However, the Staff pointed out that it has not, nor does it intend in the near future, to..f ully approve the Westinghouse document; hence, referencing an unapproved document is insufficient.
The Staff stressed that CECO will have to explicitly state what Cdlculations CECO intends to perform and provide the basis upon which the Staf f can determine CECO's capability. During this discussion the Staff also suggested that Ceco provide a side-by-side comoarison to vendor calculations f or some specit ic non-readily measurable neutronic parameters.
CECO indicated that it would consider the Staff suggestions but cautioned that such comparisons may involve proprietary inf ormation.
At the conclusion of these discussions the meeting returned to the program schedule (Slide 19) and its impact on the Staff.
The Staf f indicateo that Ceco's topical should be tied to a specifit reload to obtain priority in the review process.
In aduition, the Staff requires at least six (6) months to review, approve and issue an SER on such a topical, so CECO should adjust its schedule accoroing ly.
t
+
er,..,
,, -,,,w.
Attachinent A In surrination, both CECO and the Staf f agreed that prior to finalizing the contents of the topical, an additional sneeting to review the results would be benef icial to both parties. With that, the meeting adjourneu.
0074T L:
ATTACHMENT B List of Atteridees at May 12, 1981 Ceco /NRC Meeting Discussing Contents of CECO PWR Fuel Management Topical Report.
NAME ORGANIZATION John S. Berggren NRR/SSPB Daniel B. Fieno NRR/CPB Walter L. Brooks NRR/ CPU Howard J. Richings NRR/ CPU Margaret S. Chatterton NRR/ CPU Michael Cenko CECO / Nuclear Fuel Services Bruce F. Momsen Ceco / Nuclear Fuel Services William F. Naughton CECO /Nuc lear Fuel Services Thomas R. Trortun CECO / Nuclear Licensing Adiiin.
)