ML20093C503
| ML20093C503 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fort Calhoun  |
| Issue date: | 02/24/1984 |
| From: | William Jones OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT |
| To: | John Miller Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19292C718 | List: |
| References | |
| LIC-84-057, LIC-84-57, NUDOCS 8403010312 | |
| Download: ML20093C503 (20) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.,ce
=
we ;
...w'7=
n Arm Omahs Pubhc Power D6 strict 1623 Hamey Omaha Nebtasha 6810?
402<536 4000 February 24, 1964 LIC-84-057 Mr. James R. Miller, Chief U.
S. Nuclear Regula tory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Division of Licensing Operating Reactors Branch No. 3 washington, D.C.
20555
Reference:
Docke t No. 50-285
Dear Mr. Miller:
L Statistical Combination of Uncertainties Report Fort Calhoun Station Unit No. 1
)
Pursuant to discussions held with Mr. E. G. Tourigny of your staff on February 10 and February 14, 1984 and in response to your letter dated February 13, 1984, the attached information is pro-vided in regard to your request for additional information concern-ing the above subject.
Attachment A reflects the proprietary version and Attaensent S reflects the non-proprietary version.
Please note that pursuant to 10 CFR 2.",90(b)(1), certain port.ons of the attached information has been deemed trade secrets and/or privileged commercial information by Combustion Engineering, Inc.
(CE).
Accordingly, please find attached the District's appli-cation for withholding this information from public disclosure, as well as CE's affidavit in support of the application.
Sincerely, ll }
M[
W. C.
Een P
P M
Division Manager Production Operations WCJ/JJF:jan Attachment f
LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae cc:
1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
r
' Washington, D.C.
20036 1,
Mr. E. G. Tourigny, Project Manager h
Inspector plO p/
Mr. L. A. Yandell, Senior Resident sa4 Emotou entwynga,iopportun4 rr
l l
$(l IM r o D i T':L IIN I T E D NU('i.E A R R EG'1L ATORY t ' t ; *.* "
- l u-In t h e-Matter of
)
OMAHA PUHLIC POWEh DISTHICT
)
Docket No.
-:
- S (Fort Calhoun Station,
)
Unit No.
1)
)
APPLICATION FOR I
WITHHOLDING INFORMATION l
l FROM PUBLIC DISCLOSURE
.i
. t Pursuant to Section.2.790(b)(1) of the regulations of tne Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("the Commission"), Omaha Put>1 i c Power District ("the District") submits this application to witb-hold certain information from public disclosure.
Applicant h a t4 been informed by Combustion Engineering, Inc. (CE) that this in-(
formation is owned by CE and that in the opinion of CE the inter-nation in question contains trade secrets and/or privileged or r
I confidential commercial or financial information.
An attached affidavit executed by CE identifies the docu-ments sought to be withheld and sets forth the bases on which l
1 the information may be withheld f rom public disclosure by the Com-mission.
The affidavit also addresses the consideratione liste.1 in Paragraph (b)(4) of Section 2.790 with specificity.
(
Respectfully submitted, OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT By b!
fre.--
J W. C. Jones Division Manager Production Operations Sworn to before me this
(
a7 day of February, 1984.
il
- _ B -
y f7 No44fy Public
' e mmager tsedesses y
b>W1 h
3
NYMN
! $Nsk MIdM14/MiltMdd[MhMNM.Muhd@9.-#,e,,
AFFIDAVIT PtJR5tJANT TC10CFR2.7p Combustion Engineering, Inc.
)
State of Connecticut
)
County of Hartford
)
SS.:
- 1. A. E. Scherer, depose and say that I am the Director, Nuclear Licensing, of Combustion Engineering Inc., duly authorized to make this affidavit, anc 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 2.790 of the Caussission's replations and in can'jenction with the application of Omaha public power District for withholding this information.
l The information for which proprietary treatment is sought is contained in
[
the following document:
4
/
Attachment to #p0 Letter LIC-84-057 dated February 24, 1984, from W. c.
I Jones (9pD)toJ. Sillier (OSIRC).
4 This decoment has been appspriately desipated as proprietary.
f4 I have personal knowledge of the criteria and procedures utilized by Ceeustian Engineering in desipating information as a trade secret, privileged j
or as confidential commercial or financial information.
k pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (b) (4) of Section 2.790 of the Commission's mylations, the following is furnished for consideration by the Consission in determining whether the information sought to be withheld fron public disclosure, incinded in the above referenced document, shoul.1 be withheld.
$l l
li 1.
T he i n f orru t t on sou ght to be withhrht f#a.piabir' c: _ la
- r" 9
l methods of developing uncertainty distributions, liniting u '<ses of net uncertaint ies and setpoints of technical specifit.otions f or DDPD's F ort C@ o.r-
{
reactor, which is owned and has been held in confidence by Combustion Engineering.
2.
The information consists of test data or other similar data concernira; a process, method or cosponent, the application of which results in a 4
substantial coripetitive 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. Conbustion Engineering has a rational basis for determining the types of information customarily held in confidence by it and, in that connection, utilizes a systen o
}
to determine when and whether to hold certain types of information in
[
confidence. The details of the aforementioned system were provided to the fleclear Regulatory Commission via letter DP-537 from F.M. Stern to Frank Schroeder dated December 2,1974 This systam was applied in determining that the subject document herein are proprietary.
4.
The information is being transmitted to the Corciission in confider.:e under the provisions of 10 CFR 2.790 with the understanding that it is to be received in confidence by the Comission.
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 nade pursuant to regulatory provisions or proprietary agreements which provide f or maintenance of the information in confidence.
6.
Pubitc disclosure of the information is likely to cause substantial harm to the competitive position of Combustion Engineering ber.ause:
__.___r.,._._____
_,my
_-v.,-_,y.-,,,,y-..
,,,,,,,,,,,_.-__,,_e.,,--.--,m,,
a.
A similar product is nanuf actured and sold by n3jor pressur ired water reactor competitors of Combustion Fa 'ineering.
(
b.
Development of this irformation by C-E required thousands of manhours of effort and hundreds of thousands of dollars.
To the best of my k
knowledge and holief a competitor would have to undergo similar expense in r
generating equivalent information.
3 J
c.
In order to acquire such information, a competitor would also y
h
. require censiderdle time and inconvenience related to the methodology deveicp.
p 9, anat and calculation of net uncertainties and setpoints of technical M,-
{
specificattens for OPP 9's Fort Calhoun reactor.
c t
- F, ;
d.
The leformation required sipitficant effort and expense to obtain i
the licenstag approvals' necessary for application of the information.
.t v.
L
- Rueidence of this empense sould decrease a cogetitor's cost in applying the i:
L
+0 t~
leforsetten and.alertettog the product to which the information is applicable.
l
_. 'hi 2-
).
, 's.? Theleformation consists of methods of developing uncertainty
.'y v
f WIstr*hutiges,11elting values of not macertainties and setpoints of technical p
s -
c specificettene for OPPD's Fort Calhoun reactor, the application of which 3
provides a campetitive economic advantage.
The availability of such
)
informaties to cespetitors would enable them to modify their product to better I.
g campete with Codestica Engineering, take marketing or other actions to improve ap gheir product's positten or impair the position of Combustion Engineering's 6
(
product, and avoid developing similar data and analyses in support of their f
'e processes, methods or apparatus.
f.
In pricing Cetustion Engineering's products and se'rvices, significant research, development, engineering, analytical, nanufacturing.
licensing, quality assurance and other costs and expenses must he include 1 The ability of Combustion Engineering's competitors to utilize such infornation
(~
x
%aQ" Mima %tM24h2?SN4. kt%h;3.1L Y.
r i.
1, R1
(
i without sistler expenditure of resources may enable then t o sell at prices reflecting significantly lower costs.
l j
g.
Use of the information by competitors in the international l
)
f marketplace would increase their ability to market nuclear stean supply syste ns s
by reducing the costs associated with their technology development.
In addition, disclosure would have an adverse economic impact on Combustinn Engineering's potential for obtaining or maintaining foreign Itcensees.
i Further the t;r=t sayeth not.
Director 5
Nuclear Licensing
}
?
(
c smera te before se thfsM ay of W4s I
d s
- 'o s k = -Aras de 4
$N NZ.R FUBUC STATE cf CO.'inci.nl la &:a7 t
C018tE'M LXP:TE IMCM 31. 383 p
l l
- ~ -
- - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ ~ - - ' - ~ ' ' ' ~ ~ ~ ' ' ' ' ' - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -
[
[i ATTACHMENT B
(
[:
1
(
NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION
't a
v PROPRIETARY INFORMATiON HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM BRACKETS ([ ])
i i
l i
n l
n.
m.xn -
..r v
tc AT TACHtiE N T
['
NRC Question:
Section 2.2 of Part 1 of the report indicates that. % m:'
cnanges in the analytical technique' (u:,cd to evaluate tt.c uncertainty factors for other CE p1W.s mploying ar.alog rc-actor protection systens) have been made to acconmodate the 4
earlier generation RPS in use at Fort Calhoun. (a) What at the differences between the Fort Calhoun RPS and that usal Calvert Cliffs and St. Lucle?
(b) What are the changes ir the analytical technique to accomodate the differences?
(:
What are the differences between the CESCU stochastic simula-tien methodology and that used for Calvert Cit ff s and St.
Lucia?
Response
Part (a)
There are four important. differences between the Fort Calhoun RPS and that used in the Calvert Citffs and St. Lucie urits.
These Jiffeiences are as follows:
1.
The TM/LP trip at the Calvert Cliffs and St. Lucie units uses the following equation:
Pvar * *
- A1 - QR1 + 3 T n + Y i
dere Pvar variable low pressere trip limit.
=
A1 a function of measured ex-core ASI
=
(seeFigure1).
QR1 a function of neasured core power
=
(seeFigure2).
Tni measured coolant inlet temperature.
=
a, e and Y = preset constants.
The TM/LP trip at Fort Calhoun uses the following equation:
Pvar = a PF(Q) 6 T n + Y i
where all tems are the same as in the previous equation except for:
measured core power, and 0
=
Pf(Q) = a function of core povar (see figure 3),
As noted from these equations, the Fort Calhour it'/LP s
trip setpoint is not cmpensated for changes in AM.
2.
The LHR trips at Fort Calhoun and Calvert Clif f ; are called the Axial Power Distribution Trips (Early Sy.-
.l tem).
It mor.itors core power and ASI as illustrce '
Figure 4 The St. Lucie LHR trip is called the 1 oca!
-l Power Density Trip (standard system).
Th-sysi n p' -
k 4'
5l
ces y. :M ysrameters of c:
pc e s ar A.
tr,
provide tho flevibility of pro. en..
q trr y;
- ~unct t or s (see Figures 5 an16).
L 9..,
n' QR2 vs. to* r function is 9..nerally e to i o i..
3.
The Cal sert C li f f s and St. L uc i c c@ e- ? pNe r 4.ulat_,
are characterized by the folloping ecuotice:
aT Power = K, AT + Kg aT (Tc-4n.5) + K<
AT2, i of 3t ( -
. ~,
static tem dyn n.1 c c u r ten where Tc measured cold leg tenperature,
=
Th measured hot leg tenperature.
ll
=
AT Th - Tc
=
i-427.5 reference temperature for RTDs,
=
K., Kg and Ky = constants for static delta-T power, t and a constants for dynamic conpensation tem,
=
and time t
=
The Fort Calhoun system does not contain dynamic conpen-sation.
l, 4.
The Fort Calhoun and Calvert Cliffs Power Ratio Signal i
Caleviator (PRSC) compare the measured ex-core ASI with the
{
allowed ASI band as determined from the excore DNB or LHR tre tents. The allowed ASI band for a given power level is dialed into the system.
The dialed setpoints change as a function of power level.
j' The St. Lucie PRCS automatically calculates the allowed AS!
I band. The breakpoints determining the LCO tent ; are pro-4 grammed into this systen.
Part(b)
There are no changes in the Monte Carlo simulation techniaue used to perform the analysis at Fort Calhoun.
It is the sa e as that used for Calvert Cliffs and St. Lucie.
The only changes are in the input-description of uncertainties.
The Calvert Cliffs TM/LP analysis (DNB LSSS) requires only one electronic processing uncertainty sinc.c axial shane inder t-an input to the trip function. At Fort Calhoun Abl is ntt.
input to the TM/LP trip function, but appropriate ASI lini* -
are enforced by the LCO specification.
For fort Calha m, therefore, two electronic processirl uncertain *.; ter.m ar<-
required for the DNB LSSS: the IM/i' trip uncer: 2 i r.: / a nd '
ASI monito-ing uncertainty.
I c
- - ~ - - -
- - - - - - - * ~ ~ ' ~ ' ' ' ' ' " ~ ~ ' ' ~~~~
Pa t (c)
The dif ferences between the Cfsw.te "ast 1 slaul t'
methodology and that used earlic7 e 'alvert tlifts o Lucie are minor. The CFTOP code e m ion uset in the ev ' t SCO analy:,es has been superseded tv the CETOP-3 code no. m -
by CE in core themal design.
CESCR now uses the CE10P D code for all DNS evaluations.
In addition, minor ctta r ge,
~
were made in CESCil to accavmodate changes in CE's cmput t rc systen and to automate certain file handling.
The overall analysis sequence and statistical algorithms are identical ta that employed in eariter SCU analyses.
NRC Questfon:
How are the uncertainty components cmbined to derive the St.S (APD L555) lied to these pertinent uncertainty c andSES(DNBLSSS).
What are the senstt is-ity facters app
Response
The overall LS$f uncertaf nty factors (SMLS, SMDS) are thr re-sett of the ceabination of individual uncertainty caaponents by the Itonte Carlo simulation systems described in Section 2 and Appendix A of Part 1.
The sensitivity factors are tep11-cit in the models used in the overall simulation.
NRC Question:
The [
.) 'and the shape annealing un-certainty is proportional to the [
] as 1
shown in Tables 81-1 to 81-3 What are the values of thew uncertaintfes used in arriving at the SMLS and SMDS values?
Response
The SCU analysis uses a selection of power shapes ditch are rgresentative of those obtained in the shape analysis prote-s dure for plast setpoint determination. These shapes covar a range of core average AS!'s from -0.4 to +0.4.
These core average ASI's are converted to peripheral AS!'s by the [
) la equatton 81-12.
Since the uncertainty in L
i
.hape anneallog is proport1onal [
.]. the
] is o
used correspoedi to the 3.
Ihis is used only in the anal is and produces the [
f
) on shape annealing uncertainty.
This is conservative forL 3 cases.
i; IstC Question:
Tables 3-1 and 81-1 show a monitoring system processing uncer-F tainty of [
').
Appendix B3 also provides a general j
description of calculating the processing uncertainty.
(a)
What are the process warf ables and their uncertainty values considered in obtaining the overall processing uncertainty of
[
]? (b) Why is the value so small compared to i
] for Calvert Cliffs and [
] shown in t
Table 3-27 (c) Why are the coolant inlet temperature and RCs pressure uncertainties different between Tables 3-1 and 3-??
Response
The ASI processing uncertainty represents a bounding value o' the uncertainty introduced by the electronics and egalpwnt associated with the Reactor Protect ton and Monitoring hs-This uncertalnty accounts for the errors in cor.pwen, j
t ens.
tolerances and calibrations in the RPS equipwnt but does nA m_y_.
..,.,___,,m.,my,
--yy_,7m,.n-,m_,
t r. 's - p a s. n.? : c:r-sife c W re.
The i t t
., y _-
- v v e ' t then that empl oyc 1 at Cal s u t i ' t '
r.
U '*
cmpanent and calibration pc 3.
we '
cert ainty due to these covow
- s.
ic s w the fort ialhoun RM is more accm 2'-
' r tN Ca' r
arH St. Lucie systens, but s ic.; ' y ; <.,
't has a is n
tainty for use in SCU.
The uncertainties in Table 3-? r epres..t the prev, w tainties used in deterministic evaluations. As put 0
?-
SCU program, uncertainties were evaluoted more riwr m provide accurate inputs to the Monte Carlo simulat tor.'.
Thcse values are provided in Table 3-1.
MRC Question:
Table 3-1 Indicates that the penal;/ for rod bow up t L'.
NdD/MTU is included in the uncertaint/ of [
] fc r m,.
peaking factor. 'Wat is the value for rod bos peraltj?
Response
The original SCU reports for Calvert Cliffs and St. i< e were issued prior to IWtC approval of the CE Rod kw (CEWD-225-P-A) and the INCA /CECOR Power Peaking l!ncertain*
Topical (CEWD-153-P, Revision 1-P-A).
Interim valuer. we.
esed for power peaking uncertainties.
Now, both topicals approved. Therefore, a combined power peaking uncert sint, 4s used which combines the uncertainty in peaking due te rod b a with the CECOR peaking factor uncertainty.
The rod be-uncertainty is calculated using the methods in CEPD-205 fv 50,000 lefD/MTU and 4.1 w/o enrichments.
This results in an oncertainty with a mean value of [
.] and a standard deviation of [
] applied to both F q and Fr-Yhe CECGt uncertainties have a standard deviation of [
]
and a mean of [
] for F and [
] fo r F the uncertainties gives a st!ndard deviation of f. Co-birit
] ar O
mean of [
] for Fr and a mean of [
] fo r F,.
Iht r
95/95 value of the uncertainty is [
].
The simulatton uses the mean and standard deviation vals describe the peaking factor uncertainty distribution; the 95/95 value is provided for conparison purposes here.
NRC uestion:
How is the transient power decalibration (TPD) alio,eeno:
c tained?
Response
Yhe transient power decalibration (TPD) is an allowancc e-not an uncertainty. Therefore, generation of the <aiue is not included in the SCU topical.
It is deficut ir. Crvb!
P Revision 1-P, and is accounted for in the fort C a!hoon r Ioad analysis.
NRC Question:
a.
In the TM/LP pressure LSSS limit calculatto. W i:
that the TPD is [
] the corc :,-
a tain BLSSS in Equation 3-7?
DNB b.
Why are the power measurenent certainties temperature measuret.1ent uncer-
.t es ( PU) '
] the power and input t" u ihre ([que and C-8) for the low pressuo it ? cal r uir Mf]MC%M" as MW L' 3" ~ "%
~
d '
e-5 Fs - ne
? he discuss aris in Sec* iun ^ 1. '.
l; i n Appenc i x. of Part 1, er-tr App > t:
Net 3 4
atterpts to shew the di f ferences bo' u e h.
t'e st-ly ccribined ncertainttes on the d e rr ' n ; t. icelly -
b; ;
uncertainties were incorporated inti t.
devel opment.'
'n.
[h setpoints via the [
] discussed i- :
s Setpoint Topical, CE*PD-199-r, Rev. ;-P.
The spect f u op.'
{l-tions of Section ? and these appendices represent a <.N -t l i-hand summary of the end results of the Setpoint Topica!
tl
[
].
Jq The uncertainties described in all of these discuss $erts a-r 1:
accounted for before the limits are obtained. The plar, 's 9
protective system does not incorporate these uncerte tnties directly. Rather, the protection systen's setpoints are compared with the conservatively defined limits.
Thus, TPD, BMU, and TMU are [
] to provide con.
vr i
tively generated setpoints for the protective syste, ou* ot to be compared to.
NRC Question:
a.
Is there an error in aquation B1-12? Should the I I
] not ue included?
j, I
b.
Are Figures 2-1 and 2-2 reversed c.
Is the second term in Equation A-13 A8 pg?
I 0
d.
Should the equatjon 82-2 be at follows: APwr - (2)))
per/a afw) AMf.)
+...?
i
Response
(a),(b),(c),(d).
Yes. See Errata Sheet 1 attached, for
[
the correction of these errors and others which were uncov-ered during the review of the SCU reports prompted by this j
series of questions.
NRC Question:
Table A-1 of Part 3 report shows the ASI processing uncer-
~
tainty of [
l psia for the DNB LCO, which is incorre-t.
What is the correct value?
L l
Response
The correct value for the ASI processing uncertainty sh"uld i
be['
] for the DNB LCO, as indicated in Errata Shert H
2, attached.
1 1
I El lF 4-3 K
'DW
i i
FIGURE 1 TYPICAL Ag FUNCTION FOR THE STANDARS TMLP TRIP SYSTEM 1.30 I
I I
I
]
I I
I I
l WERE: QDN8
- A x QRg l
ID P
-630 AND PfAR
='1388 x QDNB + 12.5 x TIN
~
i 1.20
]
l 4
1.15 l
Ay
-0.346i +.104 f
A 1 y
Ay = 0.463Y + 0.861 1.10 o
y i
i 4
1.03.7 1
1.00 1
1 1
1 I
I I
I
-0.5
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1 0
0.1
- 0. 2 0.3 0.4
- 0. 5 i
1 I
'--~"1
F...:: r..
e n :.t on. o.c.c c.
.. o r.a : in,tr ; :::
t 1.2
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
5 i
i 1
/
1.0 9
~~'
O.94 t
l
- 0. S t
R i
QR 1
0.90 i
0.6 i
i l
0.4 l
~1 0.32 1
0*3 1
WHERE: A x QR = 0 t
y 0NB 0.2
~~
AND Ph{IP,1333
- ODNS + 12.5 TIN - 625.'
R I
I I
I I
J 0 0 0.2 0.4
- 0. 6 0.8 1.0 1.2 0+0PL O
r Q?N'f?N'
J, FIGUllE 3 TYPICAL PF6b) F1sICTICII FM THE EARLY TWLP TRIP SYSTEMS j.
I8 g
g g
a y
i 1.5 h
i 1.4 1
i I
)
o Z
1.5 a
i 1.2 g
6 i
1.1 i
- e f
f f
I i
t g
40 50 60 10 fio 03 100 CORE POWERi % OF Rt.Tip (r:)
l l
t~
\\
l'lGU;l 4
\\
a T)PICAL thi L W, 10i. THE (Ar.!) $)$T[n l
l i
II
- 1. 4 t
u L
4 i
l
- 1. 3 d
t, '
I t
3t' (0.0. 1.2)
I
- 1. 2
-i 4
I. I
~
l
(-o.2, 1.0)
(o.2, 1.c;
_]
a s.s
-E b
f f
I g,g
(-0.4, 0.8)
(0.4, 0.8) 4
- a. s
~
3
- 8. 7
- 8. 6
~
i I
f-S. 5
- s. 6 - E. 5
- c. 4
- e. 3
- e. 2 a.1
- s. o
- c. :
n2 c3 C. t Pi i
M IAL fu'."*
l.'C ' 1
(
a 4 25 I'
P e-
. - - -.. ~. -
m, 3
9 e
9 I
I I
I I
I I
. I _
Fnmm
..m F.
9 ee
~
si br, a
g
=
a M.
mM r
Mdh o
g g
w n
8 r
~
s
>. u h"
h M e g'
h M
l.
$"k>
~
a L
Es
~
h D
k f*1 Od N
ti
$m=
I l
1 I
I I
I I
e M
S b
G W
w m
N a
t i, E
$4 4I t.'
WI MI
((
e,'
d 6
0.7ll)Y4?O s's0 t
t 4-2C
I;a I 1 If ' i. t. i-THIsiM ; A 3 - 3 (QRs \\:
A51 L
- . 4
- l. 3 (0.0,1.2)
- 1. 2 I
i l
1.1 t
]
E I
i W
.a -
(-o.2,1.0)
(c.2, i c)
E a
l
~
(
4 l
- 3. 9 J
- s. s
(.0.4. 0.8)
(0.4, 0.8) i I
}
f
- 8. 7
_I I
i i
I
- a. s I
i i
l l
_I I
I __
i 4
(
. e.
1
-0. C
-0 5
-0.4
-c.3
- 2. 2 0.1
- 0. c t, t n : r t,.. -
..t 4-27 l
- r
- ~
Y-
[ MO)w
, - - - ~ ^
w-
' '- W =
3
- 11 ErTata snc4t 1 For CEN-257(0)-P. Part 1 a
Page 2-5 Change Figure Number from "2-1" to "2-2:"
Page 2-6 Change Figure lhamber from "2-2' to "2-1" v
L 0
5 Page 3-2 Change Equation 3-3 tt l
t 1
free e
4 to e
k Jo a
fdn P
i f
fon B,,,
s
. TPD B,p, a
y o.
)
(i.s S) _
l t
I i
C l
f.
Page 3-5 Change Table 3-1 f
1[
free
- oore eeolent inlet temperature (*F)
NA Q9. 5 " ' l' to
- core coolant inlet temperature (*F)
NA
( + 0. 5' " I" 3
f, Page A-4 Change Equation A-13 c
free
- [B,a PN"k 88"k to
- [B
=Pfdtg
- AIopek Ik" l
J
&nd the note to Equation A-13
(
froe
- [ B, a Sampled Overpower ur. certainty due to ASI ur.certair,ty;'
from
- [ AB, a sampled overpower uncertainty due to ASI uncer tair.t y]a Page B-13 Change Equation (B1-12) from
"[IC, gQ(r) +
C,yR u
p (p;,w,,
I C, yQ, 9 (r) + pC, pH Q
to
"[I l
P
(),,
y, l
- - - - ^ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
O r g. P.
c+. n e Equatter. B2-2*
frce
=Ph'? r (2((Pwr/Mfw) Mfr.)2 + 2((Pwr/Tf w) irw)2 +
2((Pwr/Pfw) Pfw)2 + 2((Pwr/Psec) Psac)2 +
((Pur/PI) 81)2 + ((Pwr/Qpar) Optr)2 4((Pur/Qp) QP)2 = 2((Pwr/Mbd) Mbd)2,
2((Pur/Tbd) Tbd)21/2 3
to
\\
r r
2 2
I ur ANfw
+
2,
+
(3 GTfw i
l p
2
+ 2 3Pwr A Psec,2 (Spur ) APfw 2
i
+
3ptw 3 see P
i 2
(8 481
+ 2 3Pwr 4
AQpzr
+
30 par i,
d 2
(3Per) AQp 4
2 i
+ 2 2 Pw" 4
AMbd i +
80P 3Mtd 2\\1/2a i
2 Pwr Afbd
)
~
Page C-3 Change Equation C-3 from to P
fdn Pfor.
8,p, s
- htU Bop, s (1+7az)(1+PU)
(1+ Tat)(1+PU).
c
~
l Erwta Sheet 2 Fcr CEN-257(0)-P, Pa t 3 i
Pafe 2-5 Change Equation 2-2
" [ 8,g a Pfdn + B,p,
+ BMU I" from k
g
- ( 3,p Pgg
+ A B,
+ BMU ]"
to g
And the note to Equation 2-2 from
- [8
= Sampled overpower uncertainty due to ASI ur.certair.t yl-to
"[A8 a Sampled overpower uncertainty due to ASI ur,eertair.t.yl" gg 4
Page A-3 Change Processing Uncertainty (L) from "DNS (psis)
[+.012(5) 0.01" to
'958 (asiu)
(+.012(5) 0.01" Page B-3 Change Equation B-4 DN!=Efdn from ggy (1+Taz)g3 pg) c D $l = Erdn BMU to (1+Taz)(1+PU)(ROPM)
(
i
~ 1-
'E 1
---