ML20058N991
| ML20058N991 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 07/20/1990 |
| From: | Fitzpatrick E GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| IEB-90-002, IEB-90-2, NUDOCS 9008150288 | |
| Download: ML20058N991 (13) | |
Text
-
ALL PROTRMTARY INFOM1ATION MAS lEN RD10VED TROM
'r j
TilIS COPY l
OPU Nuoleer Corporation Post Office Box 368 j
Route 9 South Forked River. New Jersey 087310388 609 971 4000 Wnter's Direct Dial Number:
July 20, 1990 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
Attna Document Control Desk Washington, D.C.
20555 Dear Sirt l
Subject:
Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Docket No. 50-219 NRC Bulletin 90-02 Response to Request for Additional Information on March 20, 1990, the USNRC issued Bulletin 90-02, " Loss of Thermal Margin Caused by Channel Box _ Bow".
CPU Nuclear _ responded to the bulletin by letter dated May 21, 1990.
Subsequent to that response, the NRC requested additional i
detailed information to support the GPU Nuclear response.
Attachment I to this letter fulfills that request. The information has been determined to be r
proprietary, and the affidavit required by 10CFR2.790(b)(1) is included as the s'
first three pages of Attachment I.
i I
As a reuse of fuel channels at the Oyster Creek is scheduled to continue i
through the 13R refueling outage scheduled for January, 1991, it is requested that the USNRC complete the review of the attached material'by September 30, i
1990.
1 I
If there should be any further questions, please contact Mr. John Rogers at i
609-971-4893.
1 ry uly y,ours, /
/T E.,.
itzpatrick V e resident and Director yster Creek EET/JJR je (JR-LTRS2?
cci Mr.
homas Martin, Administrator Regio, 1 U.S. Nu,.tr Regulatory Commission M
475 A11eno0:e Road ONQ King of Prussia, PA 19406 No(L two M
NRC Resident Inspector
&O O,, ster Creek Nuclear Generating Station COMQ Mr. Alexander Dromerick 4
pg U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Station P1-137 0
Washington, DC 20555 t
-00 l
g
\\
oao nm.
i ViO GPU Nuclear Corporation is a subsidiary of General Public Utikties Corporation
q y
r--
l f
1
?
i l
Attachment I
'i Technical Response e
f i
t This attachment contains Proprietary Information as defined in 10CFR2.790(a)(4).
7 An affidavit as required by 10CFR2.790(b)(1) to support this determination follows on the next three pages.
1 I
ALL PROPRIETARY
'INFORMATION HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM l
THIS COPY i
5 I
s I
l'-
l l
1
1 General Electric Company AFFIDAVIT I
i i
i I, Janice S. Charnley, being duly sworn, depose and state as follows:
1.
I am Manager, Fuel Licensing, General Electric Company, and have been delegated the function of reviewing the information described in 3aragraph 2 which is sought to be with.
held and have been m thorized to apply for its withho. ding.
5 2.
The informatior
,ght to be withheld is contained in Attachment I of the letter, E.E.
FitzPatrick (OPU) to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Response to Requestfor i
Additionalinfonnation Regarding Channel Bow, dated July 20,1990, ior the Oyster Crcek Nuclear Generating Station.
3.
In designating material as proprietary, General Electric utilizes the definition of proprietary information and trade secrets set forth in the American Law Institute's Restatement of i
Torts, Section 757. This definition provides:
"A trade secret may consist of any formula, pattern, device or compilation ofin-formation which is used in one's business and which gives him an opportunity to obtain an advantage over competitors who do not know or use it.... A substantial element of secrecy must exist, so that, except b would be difficulty in acquiring information...y the use of improper means, there
. kme factors to be considered in determining whether given information is one's trade ecret are: (1) the extent to which the information is known outside of his business; (2) ti.e extent to which it is known by employees and others involved in his business; (3) the extent of mea-sures taken by him to guard the secrecy of the information; (4) the value of the in-formation to him and to his corapetitors;(5) the amount of effort or money ex.
pended by him in developing the information; (6) the ease or difficulty with which the information could be properly acquired or duplicated by others."
4.
Som,e examples of categories of information which fit into the definition of proprietary infor-i mation are:
Information that disclosed a process, method or apparatus where prevention of its use a.
by General Electric's competitors without license from General Electric constitutes a competitive economic advantage over other companies; b.
Information consisting of supporting data and analyses, including test data, relative to a process, method or apparatus, the application of which provide a competitive economic advantage, e.g., by optimization or improved marketability; Information which, if used by a competitor, would reduce his expenditure of resources c.
or improve his competitive position in the design, manufacture, shipment, installation, assurance of quality or licensing of a similar product; d.
Information which reveals cost or price information, production capacities, budget levels or commercial strategies of General Electric, its customers or suppliers; r
e
e.
Information which reveals aspects of past, present or future General Electric cus.
tomer funded development plans and programs of potential commercial value to General Electric; f.
Information which discloses patentable subject matter for which it may be desirable to obtain patent protection; g.
Information which General Electric must treat as proprietary according to agreements with other parties.
S.
Initial approval of proprietary treatment of a document is typically made by the Subsection manager of the origmating component, who is most likely to be acquainted with the value and sensitivity of the information in relation to industry"knowledje. Access to such documents within the Company is limited on a "need to know basis anc such documents are clearly identified as proprietary.
6.
The procedure for approval of external release of such a document typically requires review by the Subsection Manager, Project 2nanager, Principal Scientist or other equivalent author-ity, by the Subsection Manager of the cognizant Marketing function (or delegate) and by the Legal Operation for technical content, competitive effect and determination of the accuracy of the proprietary designation in accordance with the standards enumerated above. Disclo-sures outside General Electric are generally limited to regulatory bodies, customers and po-tential customers and their agents, suppliers and licensees and then only with appropriate protection by applicable regulatory provisions or proprietary agreements.
7.
The document mentioned in paragraph 2 above has been evaluated in accordance with the above criteria and procedures and sas been found to contain information which is propri-etary and which is customarily held in confidence by General Electric.
8.
The document mentioned in paragraph 2 above is classified as proprietary because it contains details concerning current General Electric fuel designs which were developed at considerable expense to General Electric which are not available to other parties.
9.
The information to the best of my knowledge and belief has consistently been held in confi-dence by the General Electric Company, no public disclosure has been made, and it is not available in public sources. All disclosures to third parties have been made pursuant to regulatory provisions or proprietary agreements which provide for maintenance of the infor-mation in confidence.
10.
Public disclosure of the information sought to be withheld is likely to cause substantial harm to the competitive position of the General Electric Company and deprive or reduce the availability of profit making opportunities because it would provide other parties, including competitors, with valuable information regarding current General Electric fuel designs which were obtained at considerable cost to the General Electric Company.
l Amdavit Page 2
t 1
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
)
COUNTY OF SANTA CIARA ) ss:
1 Janice S. Charnley, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
That she has read the foregoing affidavit and the matters stated therein are true and correct to the best of his knowledge,information, and bel f.
Executed at San Jose, California, thid day of 1990.
t I f
/
/
kDA s'
S. Charnley _ _
i neral Electric Company
~
Subscribed and sworn before me this.f /
ay of
- 1990, f
/
hm f h.b/f i
OFFICIAL SEAL MARY L KENOAL
/
Nowy L
Notary Public Caliform.a 1
SANTA CLARA COUNTY Santa Clara County
]
14 Comm. Esp. Mar. 26.1993 1
N i
l l
('n-Affdevit Page 3
(
i
~
Peaue 31_,1,1
'A complete description of the methodology used in computing the ef fect on thermal margins including data base, assumptions used and derivation of correlations and equations.
j CPUN Response 1
The fuel channel bows for Oyster Creek are predicted from a correlation developed from the GPUN channel measurement data bare.
This data base was presented in Figure 2 of Reference 1.
The correlatic.: is a function of geometry, channel exposure, and flux gradient and ist LB = 0.0021
- BFC + 0.0416
- BFP
[
where LB - The predicted bow BFC - The bow factor for bow developed in the central region of the core.
It is a function of channel exposure.
BFP - The bow factor for bow developed in the peripheral region (edge and adjacent to the edge) of the core.
It is a function of core geometry and channel exposure.
The two part correlation reflects the results of oyster Creek channel' measurements. The first part calculates the bow for channels located in the r
central region of the core and the second part calculates the bow for the peripheral region.
Channel measurement data clearly shows a faster rate of bow on the core periphery due to the flux gradient. This is the basis for CPUN limiting the reuse of channels to those that have been located only in the central region of the core.
t This correlation is used in a computer code to calculate the maximum bow in both the x and y direction (see Figure 1) for each channel in the core, and the core average maximum bow for both the x and y direction.
The larger of the x and y bows is used in the calculation of the impact of channel bow on thermal limits.
I A fuel channel data base is maintained to track channel history.
The data base includes core location, exposure, and fuel bundle ID for each channel throughout the life of the channel. The channel performance can be predicted with a projected cycle exposure.
The correlation above with the channel history data base is used to calculate the end of cycle channel bows.
The calculated end of cycle bow is then used to determine ".he impact on the bundle peaking factors.
The assumptions used here are the same as presented by General Electric in Reference 2 and are:
1.
The change in rod power distribution due to channel bow is a function of the i
average bow of the four bundles surrounding a control blade.
2.
The power ratio Rod Power (with bown Rod power (without bow) depends on the amount of bow, the lattice void fraction, the bundle exposure and the position of the rod in the bundle.
It is independent of channel design and enrichment distribution.
, ~~
\\
j i
~2-1 3.
The rod power ratios mentioned in assumption 2, above, can be determined from calculations where all four bundles surrounding a control blade are offset the same amount.
The increase in peaking results in an increase in the fuel bundle R-factor.
The calculation of a modified R-f actor was presented in Reference 1, and is the same equation as derived by GE in Reference 2.
Tl:ESE PARAGRAPilS CONTAIN PROPRIETARY INFORMATION AND API NOT TOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE. TilEY ARE INTENTIONALLY LETT BLANK.
Reauest 2:
"The effect of channel bow not only on the critical Power Ratio limits but also on the Linear Heat Generation Rate (LHGR) and Maximum Average ' lanes Linear l
Heat Generation Rate (MAPLHGR) limits."
GPUN Resoonset TilESE PARAGRAPllIS CONTAIN PROPRIETARY INFORMATION AND ARE NOT FOR PU3LIC DISCLOSURE.
TIIEY ARE INTENTIONALLY LETT BLANK.
l l
m
.o I
f i
i i
f
~3<-
i t
l Ti!ESE PARACRAPilIS 1
CONTAIN FROPRIETARY INTORllATION.AND ARE l
UOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE.
l TilEY ARE INTENTIONALLY l
LETT BLAtiK.
l P
'I r
1 l
i Raouest 3:
"The effect on tue Traveling Incore Probe (TIP) system measurements uncertainty should also be evaluated".
GPUN Response i
TilESE PARACRAPilIS CONTAIN PROPRIETARY INFOR)lATION AND ARE NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE.
TIIEY ARE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
I'
(
1
c_-_-_
l 1 To further investigate the effects of the channel bow on the performance of the TIP system, the number of reused channels which surround the TIP was identified and the percent error between the measured and predicted thermal flux shape for each TIP was compared. Table 1 identifies the number of reused channels surrounding each TIP and Table 2 identifies the average error associated with the TIP.
Table 2 clearly shows the average error over the cycle to date is not significantly influenced by the number of reused channels which surround the TIP.
The error ranged from 5.57 to 7.94% RMS.
This error is acceptable and is within the uncertanties of the TIP system.
Another means of evaluating the effect of reused channel bow on the TIP i
performance is to evaluate the cumulative cycle statistics shown in Table 2.
This evaluation compares the measured and predicted flux shapes and identifies the measuremer.* error. The measurement error did not show any correlation to the number of reused channels which surround the LPRM (TIP). The error ranged from 1.77% to 2.61%.
This range of measurement error is such that the influence of channel bow is not detectable.
The conclusion which can be drawn from this data is that channel bow, either from one or two lifetime channels, has an insignificant effect on the flux measurements and, therefore, the thermal limits need not be adjusted to account for channel bow.
References:
1.
Letter, GPUN to NRC, dated May 21, 1990:
" Response to NRC Bulletin 90-02, Loss of Thermal Margin caused by Channel Box Bow."
2.
Letter, CE to the NRC, No. MFN 088-89, dated November 15, 1989:
" Fuel Channel Bow Assessment".
i l
I i
y-l'l e
MIS !'lP::A;, 7 R I.A:X :XA :NI:,
)
- JIZ :407 : I g:,;W l
o o
it il i
f' i)i, l
q' y-4
- x d
i nn i
- n.n
- m :L n x t 1%
.s e-(
n..
4,Y l
'N n
. n.c I
Y x:
( )
I l
s l
's 3 d.
i i
d L
o v
Y X
noTTi x Ano y i:W u.c :tr:nID AS POSIT:*/T AWAY FROM THE CONTROL BLACE FOR EACH OP.ANNEL l
i
?
RJEL CHANNEL AXIS IDENTIFICATION 1
FIGURE 1 4
~^
,e TABLE 1 Nomher of Roused channels Surroundina Each LPRM fTIP)
LPRM fT!P)
Nomher of Roused LPRM fTIP)
Nn=her of Reuand Number Channels Number Channelg 1
2 16 0
2 1
17 0
3 4
18 2
4 2
19 1
5 3
20 1
6 0
21 2
7 0
22 1
8 0
23 1
9 1
24 1
10 1
25 1
11 2
26 2
12 1
27 0
13 2
28 2
14 1
29 3
15 1
30 3
31 1
(JR-LTRS2-12-21)
b 4
.i
~
2 3
S 1
MR 1
8 7
1 4
8 0
e 1
5 0
9 7
3 a
6 5
6 7
5 6
ar r
e o
v r
A rE 0
S 9
/
2 0
2 5
0 1
8 7
3 0
5 2
/
6 5
6 9
4 e
6 g
ar 0
e 9
v
/
7 7
8 4
0 A
7 8
0 1
9 0
1 2
/
6 6
8 9
7 1
4 e
lc r
9 t
y o
8 r
e C
/
1 2
3 9
3 S
r 7
9 6
8 0
8 v
E P
2
/
0 5
5 8
5 r
I a
S 1
2 n
M T
1 u
R 1
s f
u o
9 e
S 4
8 l
e
/
9 4
4 8
8 e
r e
t 2
v o
c 0
2 4
8 5
a
/
2 c
r a
D 0
6 5
5 6
5 r
r 1
E k
E e
L e
v B
e S
A A
r M
T C
R 1
8 7
7 2
5 1
r
/
1 9
1 6
6 e
2 t
t
/
5 5
5 8
6 s
e 6
v S
O P
9 I
8 T
/
4 5
6 6
4 3
2 8
1 0
1 1
/
5 4
5 5
5 5
sp IT p
u f
o o
r 6
3 8
3 1
G 1
re n
b i
mu N
de d
s n
u u
e o
R r
A f
O 1
2 3
4 o
s l
P r
e I
e n
T b
n m
a u
h N
C o
I 4
TABLE 3 i
I i
Qvater creek cvele 12 j
l I
combined TIP Measur-- nt Error Su-rv Number of Reused Number of TIPS Averace TIPS Channels Around in Groue Measurement Error IIP.
gggpr tt ausi t
i i
0 6
2.32 1
13 logo i
v 2
8 2.56 y
l l
l 3
3 2.61 4
1 1,77 i
l'
.,,w,
-. +
,..m.,
~
. - -