ML20056A557

Requests Addl Info Re DPC-NE-2004, Core Thermal-Hydraulic Methodology Using VIPRE-01 for McGuire & Catawba. Requests Response Expeditiously

ML20056A557
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba, McGuire, Mcguire
Issue date:	08/02/1990
From:	Hood D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Tucker H DUKE POWER CO.
References
TAC-73765, TAC-73766, TAC-73767, TAC-73768, NUDOCS 9008080221
Download: ML20056A557 (7)

Text

3

,J'-

August 2, 1990

.. e

- Docket Nos.

50-369, 50-370, 50-413 and 50-414

Mr. H. B. Tucker, Vice President Nuclear Production Departrent Duke Power Company P. O.-Box 1007 Charlotte, North Carolina 28201-1007

Dear Mr.,

Tucker:

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON DPC-NE-2004, CORE THERMAL-HYDRAULIC METHODOLOGY USING VIPRE-01 FOR MCGUIRE AND CATAWBA (TACS 73765/73766/73767/73768)

The NRC staff is reviewing the Duke Power Company topical report DPC-NE-2004, which you-submitted for application to McGuire and Catawba Nuclear Stations.

Enclosed is a: request for additional information as a result of our review of the report.

Please respond to the enclosure expeditiously in order that we may complete the review to the previously establisheci schedule.

If you have questions, contactmeat(301)492-0905 orK.Jabbcurat(301)492-0904.

The reporting and/or recordkeeping requirements contained in this letter affect fewer than ten respondents; therefore, 0MB clearance is not required under P.L.96-511.

Sincerely, Original signed by:

Darl S. Hood, Project Manager Project' Directorate 11-3' Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosure:

As stated cc w/ encl:

See next page DISTRIBUTION:

' Doc ketn F,11e o R. Ingram NRC &' Local PDRs D. Hood PDII-3 R/F K. Jabbour Catawba-R/F OGC (info. only)

McGuire R/F E. Jordan S.'Varga-ACRS(10)

G. Lainas OFFICIAL RECORD COPYs.3d

}

O PM:PDII@d{

Document Name: HCGUIRE CATAWBA RAI L

, )f@l PEPyJ{3

'I L 3 LA:PDIIQ PM:PDII3 RIngrav DHood:sa Jabbour fVlis atthews 5 /.N90

?/g,,/90

/t</90

/[/90

?/2,/90 U(g 9008080221 900802 DR ADOCK 0300 9

7,._

.g-Mr. H. B. Tucker Catawba Nuclear Station Duke Power Company CC'

.A.V. Carr, Esq.

North Carolina Electric Membership

,l Duke Power Company 3400 Sumner Boulevard Corp.

422 South Church Street Charlotte : North Carolina 28242 P.O. Box 27306 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 J. Michael McGarry, III, Esq.

Bishop, Cook, Purcell and Reynolds Saluda River Electric Cooperative, 1400 L Street, N.W.-

Inc.

Washington, D. C.

20005 P.O. Box 929 Laurens, South Carolina 29360 i

North Carolina MPA-1 Senior Resident Inspector Suite 600 Route 2. Box 179N i

13100 Smoketree Ct.

York, South Carolina 29745 P.O.. Box 29513 Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0513 Regionel Administrator, Region II.

U.S. Nuc;aar Regulatory Commission Ms...S. S.-Kilborn 101 Marietta Street, NW, Suite 2900

' Area Manager, Mid-South Area Atlanta, Georgia 30323 1;

ESSD Projects i

Westinghouse Electric Corp.

Mr. Heyward G. Shealy, Chief l

MNC West Tower - Bay 239 Bureau =of Radiological Health

.i P.O. Box 355 -

South Carolina Department of Health-

- Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania -15230 and Environmental Control 2600 Bull Street County Manager 'of York County Columbia, South Carolina 29201' i

York County. Courthouse York, South? Carolina 29745 Ms. Karen E. Long Assistant-Attorney General-

Richard'P. Wilson, Esq.

N.C. Department of Justice a

LAssistant Attorney General.

P.O. Box 629 S.C. Attorney. General's Office Raleigh North Carolina 27602

P.O. Box 1154S Columbia',- South Carolina 29211 Mr. Robert G. Morgan Nuclear-Production Department Piedmont Municipal Power Agency Duke' Power Company

.121eVillage Drive P.O. Box 33189 Greer, South Carolina 29651 Charlotte, North Carolina 28241 Mr. Alan R. Herdt, Chief Project Branch #3 sU.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 101 Marietta Street, NW, Suite 2900 Atlanta,-Georgia 30323 l

~

Mr. H. B. Tucker Duke Power Company McGuire Nuclear Station cc:

Mr. A.V. Carr, Esq.

Dr. John M. Barry 1

Duke Power Company Department of Environmental Heah.h P. O. Box 33199 Mecklenburg County 422 South Church Street 1200 Blythe Boulevard Charlotte, No7th Carolina 28242 Charlotte, North Carolina 28203 County Manager of Mecklenburg County Mr. Dayne H. Brown, Director 720 Fast Fourth Street Department of Environmental, i

Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 Health and Natural Resources Division of Radiation Protection P.O. Box 27687 Mr. J. S. Warren Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Duke Power Company Nuclear ProtM1on Department Mr. Alan R. Herdt, Chief P. O. Bo3 33189 Project Branch #3 Charlotte, North Carolina 28242-U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 101 Marietta Street, NW, Suite 2900-J. Michael McGarry, III, Esq..

Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Dishop, Cook, Purcell and Reynolds 1400.L Street, N.W.

Ms. Karen E. Long Washington, D. C. -20005 Assistant Attorney General N. C. Department of Justice Senior Resident Inspector P.O. Box 629 c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 12700 Hagers Ferry Road Huntersville, North Carolina 28078 Regiona1' Administrator, Region II U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 101 M6rietta Street, N.W., Suite 2900 g

L Atlanta, Georgia 30323 o

Ms. S. S. Kilborn l

Area Manager, Mid-South Area l-

. Westinghouse Electric Corporation ESSD Projects i

MNC West To'wer - Bay 239 P.-0. Box 355 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 L

s l

o

+

'., 7 ENCLOSURE f

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMAT,10N ON DPC-NE-2004 MC0VIRE AND CATAWBA STATIONS'-

CORE THERMAL-HYDRAULIC METHODOLOGY USING VIPRE-01 1.

For McGuire and Catawba application, specify the user-determined input used in the VIPRE-01 models for: (a) heat transfer correlations, (b)

UPFLOW versus RECIRC options, and (c) damping factor (D ).

Also provide R

. bases:or justifications for these selections, i

2.

Justify that the generic 1/8 core VIPRE model with the smallest number of channels and the. assumed core center hot assembly location-is conservative'

-and representative of the future McGuire/ Catawba reload core designs,

'i including the. mixed fuel designs.

.i

'3.

LProvide either (a) comparison to experimental data on pressure drop, or

-(b)-the results of sensitivity studies to demonstrate that the use of the Blasius friction pressure factor expression and~the EPRI two-phase friction multiplier yield: conservative results for both single and

. two-phase flow.

4.

Provide comparisons to Mark-BW confirmatory CHF tests that demonstrate that those results are conservatively predicted by the BWCMV CHF correlation. Given the fact that the DNBRs calculated by BWCMV/VIPRE-01

-and BWCMV/ LYNX 2 disagree by as much as 10% for some data points (see V

1"re 7), explain how the BWCMV/VIPRE-01 prediction of DNBR will always g

.nservative.

Explain how the value of the percent difference between DNBRs calculated by VIPRE-01/BWCMV and LYNX 2/BWCMV indicated in tion 4.1.7.4 is obtained.

e

2 5.

Since the Westinghouse Standard and Optimized 17X17 fuel designs and B&W Mark-BW fuel. designs are not identical, provide a description of the thermal-hydraulic and mechanical differences and their impact on the VIPRE methodology presented.

6.

Explainwhy(seeSection5.5.1)flowredistributioninthehotassembly due to radially peaked power profile would not cause lower DNBRs.

-7.

Explain the differences between the MAP limit methodology used in DPC-NE-2004 and that used in DPC-NE-2003.

-8.

Provide justification that the assumption of 7.5% for the core bypass flow (p.21)isconservative.

Explain further why a bypass flow of 6% was used

-in the statistical core design (SCD) study.

9.

Explain how the application of the response surface model (RSM) methodology to-licensing analysis will account for the fact that analysis of conditions not expressly included in the determination of the RSM J

coefficients yielded results deviating from the VIPRE-01 calculated results by nearly 8% (see Table 11).

10.. Regarding the statistically treated uncertainties:

Present the' data supporting the bounding uncertainties and the shape l

a.

of. distribution for uncertainties for each of-the twelve parameters referred to in Section 6.4.

.g

b. Section 6.4 indicates that the uncertainties will be justified on a plant-specific basis in the Reload Report for the first application' of-the SCD methodology. Do you intend to re-evaluate the statistical DNBR limit if the plant-specific uncertainty and distribution of any i

E>

of the 12 parameters are not bounded by the current values?

L 1

l l

F

1... ;

i 3

4.

11. Section 6.4 briefly describes the propagation of uncertainties. Provide a more detailed description of how the propagation of the uncertainties with nonnal distribution and uniform distribution are treated.

12. Justify using nominal plant conditions, instead of-the liiniting DNB conditions, as "zero point" for the RSM coefficient determination.

i 13.

Explain why at "zero" point the VIPRE-01 and RSM calculated DNBRs do,not match.

~'

14. Since in the range of.DNBR below 2.0, where the-limiting MDNBR occurs..the RSM predicted MDNBRs are less conservative than the VIPRE-01 predicted values in about 50% of the cases (see Tables 10 and 11), discuss how necessary conservatism is introduced into the DNBR prediction in the l

licensing analyses.

l

15. Justify the assumption that each of the 78 points, some of which are first order and some of which are second order, computed with VIPP.E-01 and 1

computed by variation of the coefficients of the RSM equation should be treated with equal weight in determination of the:36 coefficients.

16.

Discuss the impact on MDNBR and on safety of applying the statistical core design (SCD) methodology-to the DNBR computation instead of the' current DNBR computational method.

17. Does DPC intend to perform all DNBR calculations using the SCD methodology? It not, discuss where DPC intends to.use SCD methodology and-where DPC intends to retiin the current DNBR computational method.

18.-

Explain the process by which DPC plans to deal with less than four pump operation in terms of (i) size of channel models to use, (ii)_ validity of sensitivity studies used to select a coarse model, (iii) applicability of 1/8coresymmetryboundarycondition,(iv)locationofahotassembly,(v) inlet flow distribution, (vi) justification and applicability of the SCD c

.,..e.

p.,.;,.

t 4

+

sethodology based upon 1/8 core syuNtry, and (vii) applicability of the "zero" point chosen to evaluate the coefficients in the response surface equation.

s; l

I k

1