ML17348A243

Submits Results of Comparisons of Heat Rate Measurements in Reg Guide 3.54 W/Measurements Predicted by ORIGEN-S/SAS2. Cover Pages from Technical Repts Encl

ML17348A243
Person / Time
Site:	Turkey Point
Issue date:	04/05/1990
From:	Hermann O OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY
To:	Nilsen C NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES)
Shared Package
ML17348A242	List: ML17348A243
References
RTR-REGGD-03.054, RTR-REGGD-3.054 NUDOCS 9005170019
Download: ML17348A243 (11)

Text

EHCLOSURE 1 OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY POST OFFICE BOX 2008 OAK AIOGE, TENNESSEE 37831 OPERATEO BY MARTIII MARIETTA ENERGY SYSTEMS, INC, April 5, 1990 C. W. Nilsen Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop NLIS-217C Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Chuck,

Part of the project to revise the decay heat rates in Regulatory Guide 3.54 is the comparisons of results from heat rate measurements with those predicted by ORIGEN-S/SAS2.

The comparisons are to be used in both the validations of the calculated data and the determination of safety factors.

One set of decay heat rate measurements involved spent-fuel assemblies near 2.5 years cooling time from the Turkey Point Reactor Unit 3. At cooling times less than about 7 years, possible variations in the operating power history can cause significant changes in the decay heat.

In the past, it was assumed that the fuel had a constant power and 3 equal irradiation cycle times (see attachment). It appears that the uncertainty in this history could diminish the value of comparisons of results.

Thus, with regards to the above problems, I am asking you to request the utility to obtain or provide satisfactory operating power histories for the following fuel assemblies: D-15, D-22, D-34 and B-~

Y3't is possible that the NRC Office of Reactor Regulation might also have this information.

We have the total burnups of the assemblies and their measured decay heats at various cooling times. The assemblies resided in the reactor during part of the first 4 cycles. The histories could be provided in the most easily available form. They could be average powers (or relative average powers) per assembly vs time. Or, if preferred, the data could be relative power for the entire reactor vs time. In the latter case accumulative burnups per assembly for each cycle would be needed. In order to save time, the data does not need to be given in an extensively formal form (e.g. use of photo copies is adequate).

9005170019 900510 PDR ADOCK 05000250

'F' PDC

Your assistance in obtaining this requested data is deeply appreciated. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Cecil Parks (FTS- 624-5280) or me (FTS-624-5256).

Sincerely, O. W. Hermann Reactor and Fuel Cycle Analysis Section 0WHrwm cc: C. V. Parks R. M. Westfall

ENCLOSURE 2 TC-1759 A COMPARISON OF MEASURED AND CALCULATED DECAY HEAT FOR SPENT FUEL NEAR 2.5 YEARS COOLING TIME Hanford Engineering Development Laboratory F. Schmittroth G.J, Neely J.C. Krogness August 1980 HANFORD ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT QBORATORY Operated by Westinghouse Hanford Company P.O. Sox 1970 Richland, WA 99352 A Subsidiary of Westinghouse Electric Corporation Prepared fnr the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE AC14-76FF02170

~a

\

0 qSPENT: FUEL '

WIT'H GA'LiO IMH'ER'EATh.

DECA'Y'OIIIIPARED i

4(+

yegg

~

p ~g'<d )g)<5q+~.

~

~i (>Q(ppe(j>pg g+

~

4 i a i<>gl $g gpl+A, >4 yis, qw 0 <h) j I% >4 (>s; ti( j$ I> )ye~~ j f> ~pg)>j Hanford Engirieering Development:Laboratory' HANFORD ENGINEERING DEIIELOPMENT LABORATORy Operated by Westinghouse Hanford Company P.O. Box 1970 Richland, WA 99352 A Subsidiary of Westinghouse Electric Corporation Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy Office of Breeder Technology Projects under Contract No. OE.AC06.76FF02170

QR[Q: 'ALQ' $ Q p~ii;.9l SPENT'FUEL BE CAY kA NITTH BALD. IINETER' HEATOllllPARED I

h a

l' JP P

I 4

~ .

II

~ .i rt

'li

~ ~

t, Hanford'. Engineering Development': Laboratory

~

'o ri

/,

~

~ ~

'lg)c I; "/

y F

HANFORD ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT LABORATORy Operated by Westinghouse Hanford Company P.O. Box 1970 Richhnd, WA 99352 A Subsidiary of Westinghouse Electric Corporation Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy'ssistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy Office of Breeder Technology Projects under Contract No. DE.AC06.76FF02170

The'esults are given in Table 2 and, again, show a remarkable degree of consistency. The calculations are biased low by 3.7X with a scatter (1 a) of <lX about this bias. As before, the recirculation data for one assembly (C-64) is inconsistent with the static data and the ORIGEN2 calculation. For assembly C-52, five static tests and two recirculation tests were conducted to demonstrate system repeatability. In this case, the values reported in Table 2 are averages, and the static and recirculation results are consistent. The calculation was in much better agreement with the static measurement and was used in the consistency checks noted above.

TABLE 2 COMPARISON OF WEPCO DECAY HEAT CALCULATIONS ANO MEASUREMENTS Burnup Cooling Time Decay Heat (W)

Assembly (HWd/HTU) tc (d) Heas Calc C/E C-52 31,914 1635 724* 694.5 0.959 C-52 31,914 1635 723'k* 694.5 0.961 C-56 38,917 1634 921 893.1 0.961 C-64 39,384 1633 931* 907.8 0.975 C-64 39,384 1633 825** 907.8 1.100 C-66 35,433 1630 846 809.2 0.957 C-67 38,946 1629 934 896.1 0.959 C-68 37,057 1630 874 851.4 0.974

• Static test.

• • Recirculation test.

3.5 TURKEY POINT RESULTS Calculations for the Turkey Point assemblies were completed earlier and reporzed in Reference 1. Since that time, three new calorimeter measure-ments:n tnese assemblies have been made. For completeness, four earlier results are also included. The ORIGEN2 input data are again includea in the Appencix. The calculations were made with an early release of the ORIGEN?

code. In order to ensure that the results are the same when using the most recent release of ORIGEN2, selected calculations, were repeated. The dif-ferences were negligible and were not considered further.

The results are presented in Table 3. Except for 0-04 and the second meas-urement on 0-15, the results are excellent. It is known that thermal equi-librium had not been established in the calorimeter for the 0-04 measurement, thus biasing the measured value low. There is reason to believe the same is true for the low D-15 measurement, especially since this measurement is at a cooling time between two neighboring times where the agreement is good. For the remaining five measurements, the calculations are biased high by 3.8X with a scatter ( o) of 2.4X,. This agreement is well within the uncer-1 tainties associated with the measurement and calculations including uncertainties on the reactor operating history.

TABLE 3 COMPARISON OF TURKEY POINT DECAY HEAT CALCULATIONS AND MEASUREMENTS Burnup Cooling Time Decay Heat (W)

Assembly (MWd/MTU) c (d) Meas Cal c C/E 0-04 28,430 913 1385 1555 1.123 0-15 28,430 962 1423 1491 1.048 0-15 28,430 1144 1126 1217 1. 081 0-15 28,430 2077 625 642 1.027 0-22 26,485 963 1284 1357 1.057 D-34 27,863 864 1550 1640 1.058 25,595 1782 637 638 1.002 10

T elemental oxygen were included. Finally, rounded values of 200 lb of Ziracloy, 28 lb of Inconel, and 2 lb of stainless steel were input, scaled to the elemental inventories given in Table A.4.

A.3 TURKEY POINT ASSEHBLIES A.3.1 POWER HISTORY

,The assemblies studied include one Unit 3, Region 2 assembly (B-43) irra-diated in Cycles 1 and 2, and four Unit 3, Region 4 assemblies (D-04, 0-15, 0-22, 0-34) irradiated in Cycles 2-4.

The 0 assemblies were all irradiated for 851 EFPO during a residence time of 1073 days. This history was modeled by three full-power periods of 284 days, 284 days, and 283 days separated by two shutdown periods of ill days each. The B-assemblies were irradiated to 827 EFPO during a residence time of 1382 days. The early part of Cycle 1 included an extended period at low power, so that the entire residence time was not modeled. Instead, the power history was assumed to consist of three full-power periods of 259 days, 284 days, and 284 days separated by two ill-day shutdown periods to be consistent with the 0 assembly irradiations.

Burnups were also available and are given in Table A.7. The assembly powers (given in Table A.7) were computed from the reported burnups and the number of EFPO.

ASSEHBLY HATERIAL INYENTORIES Taole A.7 also gives the uranium mass and its enrichment for each assembly.

Oxygen in the fuel was again taken to be 8406 g-at./HTU. Each Turkey Point asser bly included 18.84 kg of 304 SS, 4.65 kg of Inconel-718, and 110.0 kg of Kircaloy-4, as given in Table A.4

TABLE A.7 TURKEY POINT ASSEMBLY OATA Oi scharge Burnup Assembly Ur anium Enrichment Ident i fi er Oate EFPD ~(MWd/MTU Power MW wtX 0-04 11-19-77 851 28,430 15. 27 457 2. 556 11-19-77 851 28,430 15.27 457 2. 556 0-22 11-19-77 851 26,485 14. 22 457 2. 556 11-19-77 851 27,863 14. 96 457 2. 556 B-43 10-25-75 827 25,595 13. 87 448 2. 559 A-12