ML20039F395
| ML20039F395 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Calvert Cliffs  |
| Issue date: | 01/05/1982 |
| From: | Lundvall A BALTIMORE GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | Clark R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20039F396 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8201120414 | |
| Download: ML20039F395 (9) | |
Text
.
- G.
.g' A.
B ALTif/. ORE
' GAS AND ELECTRIC CHARLES CENTER P.O. BOX 1475. BALTIMORE MARYLAND 21203 P
^
h AmtHun E LUNDVALL. Jm.
VtCE PRESIDENT g
SUPPLY 4
Y44 Ef
{g January 5,1982 S"t
/
'2.
+
_co
. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 1
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 ATTENTION:
Mr. R. A. Clark, Chief
}
Operating Reactors Branch #3 Division of Licensing-.
SUBJECT:
. Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Unit No.1 Docket No.~50-317 Responses to Questions on Phase I Cycle 6 Reload Application REFERENCE (A):
A. E. Lundvall to R. A. Clark letter dated 11/19/81, Phase I Cycle 6 Reload Application -
for Amendment to Operating License Gentlemen:
This letter transmits responses to several informal questions on Reference (A).
The response to one of the questions makes reference to "CETOP-D Code Structure and modeling Methods for Calvert Cliffs Units 1 and 2, December 1981, CEN-191(B)-P".
That document and its proprietary affidavit are attached to the response. Please withhold CEN-191(B)-P from public disclosure in accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 2.790.
fAOI J
/
L/O ygl burst 6lNS
~"
8201120414 820105 PDR ADOCK 05000317 P
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation January 5,1982 Page 2 Should you have any questions, please contact us.
Very truly yours, BALTIMORE GAS ND LEC I COMPANY
].
durz l& w A. E. Lundvall, r.
Vice President Supply Attachment Copies To:
J. A. Biddison, Esquire (w/out Attach)
G. F. Trowbridge, Esquire (w/out Attach)
D. H. Jaffe - NRC P. W. Kruse, CE -
-l
Question 8:
.Why the values of following are significantly different for Cycle 6 compared to Cycle 5 (Table 6-1):
I.
Total reactor coolant flow in GPM
- 11. Coolant flow through the core III. Average mass velocity IV. Total pressure drop across vessel V.
Film coefficient at average conditions VI. Average core enthalpy rise
Response
The differences between cycle 5 and Cycle 6 values in 1
Table 6-1 of the Cycle 6 license submittal noted above result from the application of the Statistical Combination of Uncertainties (SCU) methods described in Reference 1 to Cycle 6.
The SCU methods combine measurement uncertainties and other state parameter uncertainties statistically to obtain a penalty on power that accounts z._
for each of the component uncertainties. Consequently, no allowance is needed for uncertainties in the individual values of the parameters.
The value of the total reactor coolant flow quoted for Cycle 5 in Table 6-1 is 370,000 gpm. This value was not s
used in conjunction with the SCU methods, hence it includes an allowance of 11,600 gpm to accommodate flow measurement uncertainties.
This allowance was removed in Cycle 6, since the SCU methods are applied.
Thus, the Cycle 6 total reactor coolent flow is 381,600 gpm. This increased value of. the total reactor j
coolant flow for Cycle 6 gives rise to the other differences i
between Cycle 5 and Cycle 6 values noted in this question.
The increased flow in gpm translates into an increase in coolant flow through the core and average mass velocity.
The increased flow rate also increases
pressure losses through the core thus increasing the core pressure drop. Similarly, an increase in' flow rate increases the Reynold's number of the flow 'in the core, thereby increasing the average film coefficient and decreasing the average film temperature difference.
Furthermore, the increase in flow rate decreases the average core enthalpy rise since more flow is-availabl to remove the same amount of heat.
It is noteworthy that the differences between Cycle 5 and Cycle 6 discussed above reflect only a change ir, the methods used to accommodate uncertainties in the analyses, not a change in the actual coolant conditions that occur during reactor operation.
l '
F m
m mm.
m m
Question 10:
Provide the following sheets corrected in your June 2,1981 letter on Calvert Cliffs 1 docket sheet numbers 1-4,1-14, 2-1, 2-3, 2-6, 2-9, 3-2, and 4-5.
Response
A corrected version of the CETOP-D report for'Calvert Cliffs is included in Reference 1.
The corrections included in Reference 1 are denoted by vertical lines in the right hand margin.
Reference (1): CEN-191(B)-P, "CETOP-D Code Structure and Modeling Methods for Calvert Cliffs Unit 1 and 2",
Dec., 1981. Copies 1-25 and fifteen (15) non-proprietary copies.
4 N
4 i
ss L
Question 11 In Section 6.2 of Reference 1,it is stated that an examination of power distributions for Cycle 6 shows that sufficient margin exists in those assemblies for which a bowing penalty must be assessed to more than offset such a penalty. Please quantify the magnitude of this margin.
Answer A total of 137 fuel assemblies will exceed the NRC specified DNB penalty threshold burnup of 24 GWD/T (Reference 2) during Cycle 6, the maximum assembly burnup reaching 42.8 GWD/T by the end of cycle.
For those assemblies which will experience a burnup of between 24 and 28.3 GWD/T at any time during Cycle 6, the minimum best estimate margin available relative to more limiting peaking values present in other assemblies is greater than 10E The DNB rod bow penalty for this burnup range, as determined -from Reference 2, varies from 0 to 1.4%
For assemblies which experience burnups in excess of 28.3 GWD/T, up to a maximum of 42.8 GWD at EOC6 for one assembly, the minimum best estimate margin available is considerably greater than 20E The DNB rod bow penalty for this. latter burnup range varies from 1.4 to 6.3E In summary, for both burnup ranges, the magnitude of the margin available is considerably in excess of the corresponding DNB rod bow penalty.
Reference 1.
Letter, A. E. Lundvall, Jr. (BG&E) to R. A. Clark (NRC), "Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Unit No.1, Docket No. 50-317, Phase I Cycle 6 Reload Application for Amendment to Operating License", November 19,1981 2.
Letter, D. F. Ross and D. G. Eisenhut (NRC) to D. B. Vassalo and K. R. Goller (NRC), " Revised Interim Safety Evaluation Report on the Effects of Fuel Rod Bowing in Thermal Margin Calculation for Light Water Reactors", February 16, 1977
AFFIDAVIT PURSUANT TO 10 CFR 2.790 j.
Combustion Engineering, Inc.
)
State of Connecticut
)
County of Hartford
)
SS.:
I, J. M. West depose and say that. I am the Vice President, Nuclear Power Systems, Combustion Engineering, Inc., duly authorized to make this affidavit, and have reviewed or caused to have reviewed the information which is identified as proprietary and referenced in the paragraph immediately below.
I am submitting this affidavit in conformance with the provisions of 10 CFR 2.700 of the Commission's regulations and in conjunction with the. application of Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, for withholding this information.
~
The information for which proprietary treatment is sought is contained in the following document:
Cell-191(B)-P, CETOP-D Code Structure and Modeling Methods for Calvert' Cliffs Units 1 and 2.
This docuaent has been appropriately designated as proprietary.
I have personal knowledge of the criteria and procedures utilized by Combustion Engineering in designating information as a trade secret, privileged or as confidential commercial or finanical information.
Pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (b) (4) of Section 2.790 of the Commission's regulations, the following is furnished for consideration by the Cannission in determining whether the information sought to be withheld from public disclosure, included in the above referenced document, should be withheld.
1.
The information sought tc be wit % 1d from public disclosure concerns the development and application of a thermal-. hydraulic code used in design analyses and the use of experimental data in the code, which is owned and has been held in confidence by Combustion Engineering.
2.
The information consists of test data or other similar data concerning a process, method or component, the application of which results in a substantial competitive advantage to Combustion Engineering.
3 The information is of a type customarily held in confidence by Combustion Engineering and not customarily disclosed to the public. Combustion Engineering has a rational basis for determining the types of information customarily held in confidence by it and, in that connection, utilizes a system to determine when and whether to held certain types of information in confidence. The details of the aforementioned system were provided to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission via letter DP-537 from F. M. Stern to Frank Schroeder dated December 2, 1974. This system was applied in determining that the subject documents herein are proprietary.
4.
The information is being transmitted to the Commission in confidence under the provisions of 10 CFR 2.790 with the understanding that it is to be received in confidence by the Commission.
5 The information, to the best of my knowledge and belief, is not available in public sources, and any disclosure to third parties has been made pursuant to regulatory provisions or proprietary agreements which provide for maintenance of the information in confidence.
6.
Public disclosure of the information is likely to cause substantial harm to the competitive position of Combustion Engineering because:
a.
A similar product is manufactured and sold by major pressurized water reactors competitors of Combustion Engineering.
b.
Development of this information by C-E required thousands of manhours of effort and hundreds of thousands of dollars. To the best of my knowledge and belief a competitor would have to undergo similar expense in generating equivalent information.
c.
In order to acquire such information, a competitor would also require considerable time and inconvenience related to thermal-hydraulic code j
development and application and the use of experimental data in the code.
d.
The information required significant effort and expense to obtain the licensing approvals necessary for application of the information.
Avoidance of this expense would decrease a competitor's cost in applying the information and marketing the_ product to which the information is applicable, j
e.
The information consists of descriptions concerning the development and application of a thermal-hydraulic code used in design analyses
/
and the use of experimental data in that code, the application of which provides a competitive economic advantage.
The availability of such
c information to competitors would enable them to modify their product to better compete with Combustion Engineering, take marketing or other actions to improve their products's position or impair the position of Combustion Engineering's product, and avoid developing similar data and analyses in support of their processes, rtethods or apparatus, f.
In pricing Ccxnbustion Engineering's products and services, significant research, development, engineering, analytical, manufacturing, licensing, quality assurance and other costs and expenses must be included. The ability of Combustion Engineering's competitors to utilize such information without similar expenditure of resources may enable them to sell at prices reflecting significantly-lower costs.
g.
Use of the information by competitors in the international marketplace would increase their ability to market nuclear steam supply systems by reducing the costs associated with their technology development.
In addition, disclosure would have an adverse economic impact on Combustion Engineering's potential for obtaining or maintaining foreign licensees.
Further the deponent sayeth not.
d 2_
J. M. West Vice President fluclear Power System Sworn to before me this '/ day of S/Wo% /90 awA Udnder llotary Public DAWN E. SANDER, NOTAP,Y PU3t.iC State of Connecticut No. 61536 Commission Expiros March 31,1965
- -.. -