ML20106J850
Text
/
h
. ATOMIC E ERGY OMMISSIOP h
l 'l C
- I WAsHWOTON, D.C. MHS
~
SEP 2 019h
_ 4 ket No. 50-219 LICENSEE: JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY (JCPL)
FACILITY: OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION (OC)
SUMMARY
OF MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 4,1973, TO DISCUSS LIMITS ON -
EXXON FUEL IN OYSTER CREEK
' On Sep*. ember 4,1973, representatives of JCPL, GPU Service Corporation, and Exxon Nuclear Corporation met with members of the Regulatory staff to' discuss the limits placed on the average planar linear. heat seueration
' rate (APLHGR) for the Type III fuel in Oyster Creek.
A list of attendees-is attached to this report.
Significant points discussed are summarized below.
1.
Cap Conductance
- The licensee _ contended that they had followed the requiren. ants as stated in Enclosure B to our July 16, 1973 letter, in that they had constructed a gap conductance vs. LHGR* curve that was based on i
available data and that based on that data would predict with 95 per-cent confidence that 90 percent of future events will exceed the prediction.
The staff indicated that the quality of the data that was available was subject to question and that the uncertainty. associated with the data led us to a preference for the GE correlation which gives more conser-vative predictions in the lower kW/ft region of the correlation. Exxon stated that they planned to submit their analytical gap conductance model in October.
2.
Spray Heat Transfer Coefficient JCPL stated that they had particular concern over the 1000F penalty applied to the Exxon Type III fuel because of the passive rod in the center of the fuel assembly.
It is this penalty which is limiting them to 91 percent of rated power. They feel that the FLECHT data is conservatively applicable to the Exxon fuel.
The conservatism is gained
%p\\
/
- ?.
C:
sEp 0 1973 2-in that they conclude there is probably an enhancement of the spray heat transfer coefficient for which they are not taking credit.
They presented, as qualitative justification for this conclusion the results of the FLECHT ZR2K test using the temperatures of rods adjacent
.to rods with failed heaters as an indication of improved cooling.
The licensee stated that they would submit for the staff's review addi-tional argument in support of their contention.
3.
Comparison of Exxon's MOXXY results with AEC MOXY results The Exxon representatives brought their input and output printouts for their M0XXY calculation and these were compared to the AEC printouts to determine what differences there might be in the calculation. This portion of the meeting could not be completed and the Exxon personnel were to come in the following day to continue this comparison.
It was agreed that the follow-up would be with the Technical Raview personnel.
t/
k T. V. Wambach Operating Reactors Brani:h #1 Directorate of Licensing
Enclosure:
i List of Attendees 1
cc: Docket File AEC PDR Local PDR RP Reading File L Reading File RP Assistant Director T. J. Carter R. J. Schemel i
J. M. Hendrie TR Assistant Directors TR Branch Chiefs T. V. Wambach R. Bevan Attorney, OGC RO (3)
ACRS (16)
Staff Participants e
f m
y
'
- f '.
C LIST OF ATTENDEES NAME AFFILIATION B. H. Cherry.
GPUSC T. R. Robbins GPUSC (Pickard Love & Assoc.)
N. G. Trikouros GPUSC L. G. Steves Exxon Nuclear Co.
K. P._Galbraith Exxon Nuclear Co.
R. F. Denning GPUSC W. B. Hardin AEC, L K. O. E. Fickeissen JCP&L G. R. Bond GPUSC V. P. Zodiaco GPUSC R. E. Collingham Exxon Nuclear Co.
L. S. Rubenstein AEC, L 1
T. V. Wambach AEC, L W. Minners AEC, L G. N. Lauben AEC, L
+
R. W. Reid AEC, L T. J. Carter AEC, L R. Lobel AEC, L W. S. N,echodom ENC j
A. R. Rosztoczy AEC, L j
G. A. Sofer ENC i
1
- -