ML20155K266
| ML20155K266 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 05/21/1986 |
| From: | Donohew J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Fiedler P GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP. |
| References | |
| TAC-60339, NUDOCS 8605280018 | |
| Download: ML20155K266 (3) | |
Text
May 21, 1986 0
Docket No. 50-219 DISTRIBUTION Docket File J. Donohew Mr. P. B. Fiedler NRC PDR/L PDR C. Jamerson Vice President and Director PD#1 R/F ACRS (10)
Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station R. Bernero 0C File Post Office Box 388 OELD Forked River, New Jersey 08731 E. Jordan B. Grimes
Dear Mr. Fiedler:
J. Partlow
SUBJECT:
OYSTER CREEK LATTICE PHYSICS RELOAD REPORT TR/020 - REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (TAC 60339)
Re:
Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station In a letter dated November 25, 1985, you requested that the staff review for approval Topical Report 020,' Revision 0, entitled " Methods for the Analysis of Boiling Water Reactor Lattice Physics." This topical report is for use in Oyster Creek reload analyses. The staff is reviewing the report and finds that it needs additional information to complete its review. Questions detailing this needed information are enclosed and must be responded to before the review can continue.
You are requested to provide the additional information by July 15, 1986, so that the staff may complete its evaluation by the date you requested in your letter (i.e., October 1, 1986). A telecopy of the enclosed questions was sent to Mr. M. Laggart of GPU Nuclear (GPUN) and discussed by telephone with him on May 13, 1986. The response date has been agreed to by Mr. Laggart.
If it is desired, a meeting with the staff will be arranged on a mutually convenient schedule to discuss the enclosed questions.
The reporting and/or recordkeeping requirements contained in this letter affect fewer than ten respondents; therefore, OMB clearance is not required under P.L.96-511.
Sincerely, k
ack N. Donohew Jr., Project Manager 860521 l BWR~ Project Dire torate #1 52gg0 0500 Division of BWR Licensing P
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Information i
cc w/ enclosure:
j See next page
/
OFC : DBL:PD#1
- DBL:PD
- DBL:PD#VV:
____:_______ 4 :____________:____________:____________:___________
NAME :CJamerso
- JDon
- JZwolinski
!:___.b_6
- 5/d/86
- 5 DATE :5/20/86 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY
Mr. P. B. Fiedler Oyster Creek Nuclear Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Generating Station CC:
(
Ernest L. Blake, Jr.
Resident Inspector Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge c/o U.S. NRC 1800 M Street, N.W.
Post Office Box 445 Washington, D.C.
20036 Forked River, New Jersey 08731 J.B. Liberman, Esquire Commissioner Bishop, Liberman, Cook, et al.
New Jersey Department of Energy 1155 Avenue of the Americas 101 Commerce Street New York, New York 10036 Newark, New Jersey 07102 Eugene Fisher, Assistant Director Regional Administrator, Region I Division of Environmental Ouality U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Department of Environmental 631 Park Avenue Protection King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 380 Scotch Road Trenton, New Jersey 08628 BWR Licensing Manager GPU Nuclear 100 Interpace Parkway Parsippany, New Jersey 07054 Deputy Attorney General State of New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety 36 West State Street - CN 112 Trenton, New Jersey 08625 Mayor lacey Township 818 West Lacey Road Forked River, New Jersey 08731 D. G. Holland Licensing Manager Dyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Post Office Box 388 Forked River, New Jersey 08731
o ENCLOSURE REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR REVIEW 0FTOPICALREPORTTR02d(REV.0)FOROYSTERCREEK The selection of a number of parameters under the control of the user can have a significant impact on the accuracy of the results produced by CPM /MICBURN.
These include the number of groups and group breakpoints for the macrogroup and 2-D assembly calculation, the number of mesh intervals per region (e.g.,
fuel pin-cell, channel box, water gaps,) burnup steps, varicus numerical and iteration parameters.
1.
What values are used for these parameters in the nomal " production" mode, and what values were used in the GPU and EPRI-Studsvik bench-marking results quoted in the report? Coment on what impact any differences might have on the relevance of the quoted benchmark accuracies to results produced in the normal mode.
2.
What is the basis for determining when selected input parameters (including default values) and other aspects of modelling are adequate?
3.
How were calculations performed for the hexagonal TRX lattices if CPM cannot handle this geometry? What is the impact of any approximations made in order to perfom these calculations?
4.
The seven Monte Carlo-CPM k comparisons given in Table 3.2 indicate w
that in all but one case, the CPM k s are outside the 3F band on the Monte Carlo results (assuming that tne quoted uncertainties are 19).
While it is true that the agreement is better than -1.5%, comment on the value of these comparisons as a demonstration of the performance of CPM.
Explain why this agreement is poorer than the k effective comparisons of Tables 3.4 and 3.5 which are from EPRI benchmarking of CPM.
5.
The agr'eement between some of the gamma scans for Hatch-1 and Oyster Creek bundles and CPM is quite poor. Describe any evidence to support the claims made in the report that this is due to core flux tilts and cont ol rod effects. For example, discuss whether or not the spatial distribution of the errors is consistent with these arguments.
6.
Describe any final evaluated uncertainties relating to the performance of CPM for the situations where it is used, e.g., pin-wise power distribution accurate to x%.
7.
Describe any changes which have been made by GPU to the CPM code and/or CPMLIB3 implied in the EPRI-ARMP benchmarking described in Part 1, Chapter 5 of the ARMP documentation, and discuss the effect of these changes on the benchmarking.
8.
Discuss mechanisms, if any, by which GPU is notified of errors, problems, etc., associated with CPM and its use.
sr