ML17321A900: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 18: Line 18:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:EQON NUCLEAR COMPANY, INC.2101 HORN RAPIDS ROAD.PO BOX 130.RICHLAND WA 88352 I50gi 375-8100 TEL%,-15.2878 September 30, 1985 Mr.John B.Martin Regional Administrator, Region V United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1450 Maria Lane, Suite 210 Walnut Creek, CA 94596  
{{#Wiki_filter:EQON           NUCLEAR COMPANY, INC.
2101 HORN RAPIDS ROAD. PO BOX 130. RICHLAND WA 88352 I50gi 375-8100 TEL%,-15.2878 September 30, 1985 Mr. John B. Martin Regional Administrator, Region                 V United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1450 Maria Lane, Suite 210 Walnut Creek, CA 94596


==SUBJECT:==
==SUBJECT:==
Notification of Error in LOCA Analyses Oear Mr.Martin: As reported in a telephone conversation on September 30, 1985 between Mr.Yuhas of Region V and me, an error was discovered in the 10 CFR 50.46 loss of coolant accident (LOCA)analyses performed by Exxon Nuclear for the H.B.Robinson Unit 2 and D.C.Cook Unit 1 reactors.The error was an input error in the TOODEE2 code which is used to calculate fuel rod heatup.The error resulted in the rod decay heat power being too low which caused the calculated peak cladding temperature to be underpredicted.
Notification of Error in           LOCA Analyses Oear Mr. Martin:
Attached is a detailed description of the effect of error for each unit and the resulting under-prediction in the peak cladding temperatures.
As reported in a telephone conversation on September 30, 1985 between Mr.
All of the pressurized water reactors for which Exxon Nuclear provides LOCA analyses have been reviewed.The error was verified to have occurred in the analyses for only these two plants.For D.C.Cook Unit 1, the calculation was rerun with the error corrected and using more realistic values of the pellet density and internal pressure.This analysis was in compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.46.For H.B.Robinson Unit 2, the calculated PCTs with the error corrected were above 2200 F.A reduction in Fq which corresponds to the underestimate of the rod power was necessary to maintain compliance with the 10 CFR 50.46 requirements.
Yuhas   of Region V and me, an error was discovered in the 10 CFR 50.46 loss of coolant accident (LOCA) analyses performed by Exxon Nuclear for the H.B.
As required by the Exxon Nuclear procedures, a Hazards Review Board was convened on September 28, 1985 when the effect of the errors had been determined.
Robinson Unit 2 and D.C. Cook Unit 1 reactors. The error was an input error in the TOODEE2 code which is used to calculate fuel rod heatup. The error resulted in the rod decay heat power being too low which caused the calculated peak cladding temperature to be underpredicted.                     Attached is a detailed description of the effect of error for each unit and the resulting under-prediction in the peak cladding temperatures.
The Board concluded that the affected uti lities should be notified, that they should in turn notify the NRC, and that H;B.Robinson Unit 2 should immediately reduce the allowed Fq as indicated in the attachment.
All of the pressurized water reactors for which Exxon Nuclear provides LOCA     analyses have been reviewed. The error was verified to have occurred in the analyses for only these two plants. For D.C. Cook Unit 1, the calculation was rerun with the error corrected and using more realistic values of the pellet density and internal pressure . This analysis was in compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.46.
Based on subsequent conversations with the affected utilities, these recom-mendations have been followed.851008030i 8Si002'.pDR'" AoaCX OS00>>iS" p,-.-"-PDR.
For H.B. Robinson Unit 2, the calculated PCTs with the error corrected were above 2200 F. A reduction in Fq which corresponds to the underestimate of the rod power was necessary to maintain compliance with the 10 CFR 50.46 requirements.
Mr.J.Hartin (USNRC)September 30, 1985 This letter provides the written notification using the procedures given in 10 CFR 21.21(b).If there are questions, or if further information is needed, please contact me.Sincerely, C.Malody, Manager Corporate Licensin naa cc: Mr.R.DeYoung (3 copies)(D/OIE USNRC)Mr.J.Bell (AEPSC)Mr.T.Dresser (CPKL)
As required by the Exxon Nuclear procedures,           a Hazards Review Board was convened     on             September 28, 1985 when the effect of the errors had been determined.                   The Board concluded that the affected uti lities should be notified, that they should in turn notify the NRC, and that H;B. Robinson Unit 2 should immediately reduce the allowed Fq as indicated in the attachment.
Attachment Error in LOCA-ECCS Analysis for H.B.Robinson Unit 2 and D.C.Cook Unit 1 Ref.: (1)XN-NF-84-72,"H.B.Robinson Unit 2 Large Break LOCA-ECCS Analysis with Increased Enthalpy Rise Factor," Exxon Nuclear Company, July 1984 (2)XN-NF-84-72, Supp.1,"H.B.Robinson Unit 2 Large Break LOCA-ECCS Analysis with Increased Enthalpy Rise Factor: Break Spectrum Analysis," Exxon Nuclear Company, August 1984.(3)XN-NF-84-72, Supp.2,"H.B.Robinson Unit 2 Large Break LOCA-ECCS Analysis with Increased Enthalpy Rise Factor: K(Z)Curve," Exxon Nuclear Company, August 1984 (4)XN-NF-83-61,"D.C.Cook Unit 1 LOCA-ECCS Analysis for Extended Exposure," Exxon Nuclear Company, August 1983 (5)Letter, G.F.Owsley, Manager, Reload Licensing Liaison (ENC)to Richard DeYoung, Director of Inspection and Enforcement (USNRC), dated March 22, 1985 (GFO:85:010)
Based on subsequent conversations with the affected utilities, these recom-mendations have been followed.
The LOCA-ECCS analyses for the reactors H.B.Robinson Uni,t 2 and D.C.Cook Unit 1 reported in the above references have been found to contain an error.The error was in the input to the code TOODEE2.The code TOODEE2 calculates the thermal response (heatup)of the hot fuel rod following the end of the blowdown transient until the core temperature transient is terminated.
" 851008030i p,-
The fuel rods in the analyses were modeled with eight radial rings in the fuel pellet.The error consisted of the assignment of a relative decay heat power density of 0.0 in the outer ring of the fuel pellet and resulted in calculated peak clad temperatures which were too low.H.B.Robinson Unit 2 A summary of the peak clad temperatures for the H.B.Robinson Unit 2 analysis, reported in References 1, 2 and 3, and of the calculated peak clad temperatures'ith the error corrected is presented in the attached Table 1.The first three cases in Table 1 were originally performed as part of an exposure sensitivity study, and the final two cases were performed to define the axial power peaking factor dependence (K(2)curve).As can be seen from the table, three of these cases result in peak clad temperatures greater than 2200oF and thus exceed the 10 CFR 50.46 criteria.An analysis was performed to determine an Fq which would result in peak clad temperatures less than 2200oF.This required a reduction in Fq of 8X which was achieved by a reduction of the hot rod power in the TOODEE2 code of 8X.This is a conservative calculation because the Fq in the blowdown portion of the transient has not been reduced.The initial temperatures at the start of the TOODEE2 (heatup)calculation are therefore conservative with respect to the Fq in the TOODEE2 calculation.
pDR'" AoaCX         .
A reduction of the Fq in the blowdown portion of the transient would result in the calculation of even lower temperatures.
OS00>>iS 8Si002'.
The results of these calculations are summarized in Table 2.
                                  -"-PDR.
The Fq limits for H.S.Robinson Unit 2 which will result in LOCA-ECCS calculational results in conformance with the 10 CFR 50.46 criteria are shown in Table 3.The limits are divided into two exposure ranges consistent with the analysis, 0 to 9 MWD/kg and 9 MWD/kg to 49 MWD/kg.D.C.Cook Uni t 1 The error in the D.C.Cook Unit 1 analysis (References 4 and 5)occurred only in the calculation for the case at 48 MWD/kg.The cases at lower exposures do not contain the error.The calculation in error was rerun with the error corrected and more realistic values for the pellet density and internal rod pressure.The reanalysis resulted in a peak clad temperature change from 1827 F to 2189oF, which is still in compliance with 10 CFR 50.46.This revised calculation is very conservative in that the stored energy used in the calculation is the peak stored energy over the range 0 to 48 MWD/kg rather than a lower value of stored energy that would be appropriate for the 48 MWD/kg exposure for this case.Additionally, it is our understanding that the ENC-designed fuel in D.C.Cook Unit 1 is not in the exposure range for which this calculation is applicable.
Table 1 H.B.Robinson Unit 2 Error in TOODEE2 Input;Rod Radial Power Distribution Case Description (Exposure/Power Shape)Previous Peak Clad Temperature (oF)Corrected Peak Clad Temperature (oF)BOL/Cosine 9 MWD/kg/Cosine EOL/Cosine BOL/Top Peaked 9 MWD/kg/Top Peaked 2042 1815 1785 2197 2183>2200 1923 1888>2200>2200 Table 2 H.B.Robinson Unit 2 Reanalysis with Fq*.92 in TOODEE2 Calculation Case Description (Exposure/Power Shape)Peak Clad Temperature
(<<)BOL/Cosine BOL/Top Peaked 9 MWD/kg/Top Peaked 2064 2195 2187 Table 3 H.B.Robinson Unit 2 LOCA-ECCS Limits 0 to 9 MWD/kg Hot Rod Avera e Exposure 9 to 49 MWD/kg Hot Rod Avera e Exposure X/L 0.000 0.500 0.916 1.000~F(Z)2.130 2.130 1.690 0.835 1.000 1.000 0.793 0.392 X/L 0.000 0.500 0,916 1.000~F(Z)2.320 2.320 1.726 0.835 1.000 1.000 0.744 0.360 Attachment 2 to AEP:NRC:0940B OCTO f m85 Hj(O NUCLEAR COMPANY, INC.210t HORN R D8 ROAO.PO BOX I30, RCHLANO,WA 88352 10O81 318.81 TLEX: tb2878 Mr.J Propre Indi a c/o One R Colu SUBJE Ref.: September 30, 1985 JSH:044:85 I I I lt I seph L.8ell t Manager, D.C.Cook Unit 1 a 5 Nichigan Electric Company erican Electric Power Service Corp.', verside Plaza us, OH 43216-6631 T: Error in LOCA/ECCS Analysis for D.C.Cook Unit 1 (1)XN-NF-83-61,"D.C.Cook Unit 1 LOCA-KCCS Analysis for Extended Exposure," Exxon Nuclear Company, August 1983 (2)Letter, G,F.Owsley, Manager, Reload Licensing Liaison (ENC)to Richard OeYoung, Director of Inspection and Enforcement (USNRC), dated March 22, 1985 (GFO:85:010)


==Dear r.8ell:==
Mr. J. Hartin (USNRC)                                        September 30, 1985 This letter provides the written notification using the procedures given in  10 CFR  21.21(b). If there are questions, or if further information is needed, please contact me.
ECCS error)calcu)of thh The fh pellet densi calcu in th value~tempe sunna the s 0 to;.4 approp s discussed with Mr.George John (AEP)on September 28, 1985, the LOCA-nalysis for D.C.Cook Unit 1 reportedtin References 1 and 2 contains an The error was in the input to the code TOOOEE2.The code TOODEE2 ates the thermal response (heatup)ofithe hot fuel rod following the end blowdown tr ansient until the core temperature transient is terminated.
Sincerely, C. Malody, Manager Corporate Licensin naa cc:  Mr. R. DeYoung (3 copies) (D/OIE  USNRC)
el rod in the analysis was modeled with eight radial rings in the fuel The error consisted of the assignment of a relative decay heat power y of 0.0 in the outer ring of the fuel pellet.This resulted in a ated peak clad temperature which was'oo low.The error occurred only calculation for the case at 48 MWD/kg.t he calculation in error was rerun with the error corrected and with the od pellet density increased and the internal rod pressure decreased to appropriate for 48 MWD/kg.This calculation resulted in a peak clad ature of 2189oF in compliance with 10'CFR 50.46.These calculations are ized in Table 1.This calculation is still very conservative in that ored energy in the ca'Iculation is th)peak stored energy over the range 8 MWD/kg rather than a lower value of stored energy that would be riate for the 48 MWD/kg exposure for this case.Additionally, it is our AN ASS<ATC OS EXXON COIISaORATON I
Mr. J. Bell (AEPSC)
I~'Sa I IS&&la I~I al Mr.J.Bell (AEP)JSH:044:85 September 30, 1985 gf AttactIaa cc: 4.J.M.Cleveland (AEP)Nr.M.P.Alexich (AEP)Hr.G.John (AEP)Mr.H.G.Shaw (ENC)Mr.R.A.Copeland (KNC)r.R.L.Heiks (ENC)understanding that the ENC fuel in O.C.Cook Unit 1 is not in the exposure range for which this calculation is applicable.
Mr. T. Dresser (CPKL)
Sincerely, J.S.Holm, Manager PN Safety Analysis RAPID<go..<<~7 PAGE~,Oag Table 1 O.C.Cook Unit 1 Error in TOOOEE2 Input;Rod Radial Power Distribution se Oescri tion evious Result*Peak Clad Temperature OF 1827 C rrected Result with increased pellet density and reduced fuel rhd pressure l 2189 I I I*The previous result was for a cosine power distribution at 48,0 NMD/kg exposure, Fq*l.82, reported in References 1 and 2.}}
 
Attachment Error in  LOCA-ECCS  Analysis for H.B. Robinson Unit    2 and D.C. Cook  Unit  1 Ref.:      (1)    XN-NF-84-72,      "H.B. Robinson Unit 2 Large Break LOCA-ECCS Analysis with Increased Enthalpy Rise Factor," Exxon Nuclear Company,    July 1984 (2)    XN-NF-84-72, Supp. 1, "H.B. Robinson Unit      2 Large Break LOCA-ECCS  Analysis with Increased      Enthalpy  Rise  Factor: Break Spectrum Analysis," Exxon Nuclear Company, August 1984 .
(3)    XN-NF-84-72, Supp. 2, "H.B. Robinson Unit      2  Large Break LOCA-ECCS    Analysis with Increased Enthalpy Rise Factor:            K(Z)
Curve," Exxon Nuclear Company, August 1984 (4)  XN-NF-83-61, "D.C. Cook Unit      1 LOCA-ECCS Analysis for Extended Exposure," Exxon Nuclear Company, August 1983 (5)  Letter, G.F. Owsley,      Manager, Reload Licensing Liaison (ENC) to Richard      DeYoung, Director of Inspection and Enforcement (USNRC), dated March 22, 1985 (GFO:85:010)
The LOCA-ECCS analyses      for the reactors H.B. Robinson Uni,t 2 and D.C.
Cook  Unit 1  reported in the above references have been found to contain an error. The error was in the input to the code TOODEE2. The code TOODEE2 calculates the thermal response (heatup) of the hot fuel rod following the end of the blowdown transient until the core temperature transient is terminated.
The fuel rods in the analyses were modeled with eight radial rings in the fuel pellet. The error consisted of the assignment of a relative decay heat power density of 0.0 in the outer ring of the fuel pellet and resulted in calculated peak clad temperatures which were too low.
H. B. Robinson    Unit  2 A summary of the peak clad temperatures          for the H.B. Robinson Unit 2 analysis, reported in References 1, 2 and 3, and of the calculated peak clad temperatures'ith the error corrected is presented in the attached Table 1.
The first three cases in Table 1 were originally performed as part of an exposure sensitivity study, and the final two cases were performed to define the axial power peaking factor dependence (K(2) curve). As can be seen from the table, three of these cases result in peak clad temperatures greater than 2200oF and    thus exceed the 10      CFR 50.46  criteria.
An analysis  was  performed to determine an Fq which would result in peak clad temperatures    less than 2200oF. This required a reduction in Fq of 8X which was achieved by a reduction of the hot rod power in the TOODEE2 code of 8X. This is a conservative calculation because the Fq in the blowdown portion of the transient has not been reduced. The initial temperatures at the start of the TOODEE2 (heatup) calculation are therefore conservative with respect to the Fq in the TOODEE2 calculation. A reduction of the Fq in the blowdown portion of the transient would result in the calculation of even lower temperatures. The results of these calculations are summarized in Table 2.
 
The Fq  limits for H.S. Robinson Unit 2 which will result in LOCA-ECCS calculational results in conformance with the 10 CFR 50.46 criteria are shown in Table 3. The limits are divided into two exposure ranges consistent with the analysis, 0 to 9 MWD/kg and 9 MWD/kg to 49 MWD/kg.
D. C. Cook Uni  t 1 The error in the D.C. Cook Unit 1 analysis (References 4 and 5) occurred only in the calculation for the case at 48 MWD/kg. The cases at lower exposures do not contain the error. The calculation in error was rerun with the error corrected and more realistic values for the pellet density and internal rod pressure. The reanalysis resulted in a peak clad temperature change from 1827 F to 2189oF, which is still in compliance with 10 CFR 50.46.
This revised calculation is very conservative in that the stored energy used in the calculation is the peak stored energy over the range 0 to 48 MWD/kg rather than a lower value of stored energy that would be appropriate for the 48 MWD/kg exposure for this case. Additionally, it is our understanding that the ENC-designed fuel in D.C. Cook Unit 1 is not in the exposure range for which this calculation is applicable.
 
Table  1  H.B. Robinson Unit 2 Error in TOODEE2 Input; Rod Radial Power Distribution Previous Peak Clad    Corrected Peak Clad Case  Description                  Temperature            Temperature (Exposure/Power  Shape)                  (oF)                    (oF)
BOL/Cosine                                2042                  >  2200 9 MWD/kg/Cosine                            1815                      1923 EOL/Cosine                                1785                      1888 BOL/Top Peaked                            2197                  >  2200 9 MWD/kg/Top  Peaked                      2183                  >  2200
 
Table  2    H.B. Robinson Unit 2 Reanalysis with Fq*.92 in TOODEE2 Calculation Case Description                                    Peak Clad Temperature (Exposure/Power  Shape)                                    (<<)
BOL/Cosine                                                  2064 BOL/Top Peaked                                              2195 9 MWD/kg/Top Peaked                                          2187
 
Table 3    H.B. Robinson Unit 2 LOCA-ECCS  Limits 0 to  9 MWD/kg                                  9 to  49 MWD/kg Hot Rod Avera e Exposure                        Hot Rod Avera e Exposure X/L        ~F(Z)                                X/L      ~F(Z) 0.000      2.130      1.000                    0.000      2.320    1.000 0.500      2. 130    1.000                    0.500      2.320    1.000 0.916      1.690      0.793                    0,916      1. 726    0.744 1.000      0.835      0.392                    1.000      0.835    0.360 to AEP:NRC:0940B OCTO      f m85 Hj(O          NUCLEAR COMPANY, INC.
210t HORN R  D8 ROAO. PO BOX I30, RCHLANO,WA88352 10O81 318.81  TLEX: tb2878 September 30, 1985 JSH:044:85 I
I I
lt I
Mr. J seph L. 8ell Propre  t  Manager, D.C. Cook Unit 1 Indi a a 5 Nichigan Electric Company c/o    erican Electric Power Service Corp.                        ',
One R  verside Plaza Colu    us,  OH      43216-6631 SUBJE  T:    Error in        LOCA/ECCS    Analysis for D.C.                Cook Unit 1 Ref.:          (1)    XN-NF-83-61, "D.C. Cook Unit 1 LOCA-KCCS Analysis for Extended Exposure," Exxon Nuclear Company, August 1983 (2)    Letter, G,F.      Owsley, Manager, Reload Licensing Liaison (ENC) to Richard      OeYoung, Director of Inspection                  and Enforcement (USNRC),      dated    March 22, 1985 (GFO:85:010)
 
==Dear    r. 8ell:==
 
s discussed with Mr . George John (AEP) on September 28, 1985, the LOCA-ECCS    nalysis for D.C. Cook Unit 1 reportedtin References 1 and 2 contains an error) The error was in the input to the code TOOOEE2. The code TOODEE2 calcu) ates the thermal response (heatup) ofithe hot fuel rod following the end of thh blowdown tr ansient until the core temperature transient is terminated.
The fh el rod in the analysis was modeled with eight radial rings in the fuel pellet The error consisted of the assignment of a relative decay heat power densi y of 0.0 in the outer ring of the fuel pellet. This resulted in a calcu ated peak clad temperature which was'oo low. The error occurred only in th calculation for the case at 48 MWD/kg.
t he   calculation in error was rerun with the error corrected and with the od   pellet density increased and the internal rod pressure decreased to value~ appropriate for 48 MWD/kg. This calculation resulted in a peak clad tempe ature of 2189oF in compliance with 10'CFR 50.46. These calculations are sunna ized in Table 1. This calculation is still very conservative in that the s ored energy in the ca'Iculation is th) peak stored energy over the range 0 to;.4 8 MWD/kg rather than a lower value of stored energy that would be approp riate for the 48 MWD/kg exposure for this case. Additionally, it is our AN ASS <ATC OS EXXON COIISaORATON I
 
I ~ 'Sa I IS& & la I ~         I al JSH:044:85 Mr. J. Bell (AEP)                                           September 30, 1985 understanding that the ENC fuel in O.C. Cook Unit  1 is not in the      exposure range for which this calculation is applicable.
Sincerely, J. S. Holm, Manager PN Safety Analysis gf AttactIaa cc:   4 . J. M. Cleveland (AEP)
Nr. M. P. Alexich (AEP)
Hr. G. John (AEP)
Mr. H. G. Shaw (ENC)
Mr. R. A. Copeland (KNC)
: r. R. L. Heiks (ENC)
RAPID<         go.. <<~7 PAGE     ~ ,Oag
 
Table 1   O.C. Cook Unit 1   Error in TOOOEE2 Input; Rod Radial Power Distribution Peak Clad Temperature se Oescri tion                                           OF evious Result*                                           1827 C   rrected Result with increased                           2189 pellet density and reduced fuel rhd pressure l
I I
I
*The previous   result was for a cosine power   distribution at 48,0 NMD/kg exposure,   Fq*l.82, reported in References     1 and 2.}}

Latest revision as of 07:13, 29 October 2019

Notifies of Error in 10CFR50.46 LOCA Analyses Performed for Facilities.Input Error in TOODEE2 Code Used to Calculate Fuel Rod Heatup Resulted in Rod Decay Heat Power Too Low & Subsequent Underpredicted Cladding Temp.Part 21 Related
ML17321A900
Person / Time
Site: Robinson, Cook, 05000000
Issue date: 09/30/1985
From: Malody C
SIEMENS POWER CORP. (FORMERLY SIEMENS NUCLEAR POWER
To: Martin J
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V)
Shared Package
ML17321A899 List:
References
REF-PT21-85-431-000 PT21-85-431, PT21-85-431-000, NUDOCS 8510080301
Download: ML17321A900 (11)
v • d • e


Text

EQON NUCLEAR COMPANY, INC.

2101 HORN RAPIDS ROAD. PO BOX 130. RICHLAND WA 88352 I50gi 375-8100 TEL%,-15.2878 September 30, 1985 Mr. John B. Martin Regional Administrator, Region V United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1450 Maria Lane, Suite 210 Walnut Creek, CA 94596

SUBJECT:

Notification of Error in LOCA Analyses Oear Mr. Martin:

As reported in a telephone conversation on September 30, 1985 between Mr.

Yuhas of Region V and me, an error was discovered in the 10 CFR 50.46 loss of coolant accident (LOCA) analyses performed by Exxon Nuclear for the H.B.

Robinson Unit 2 and D.C. Cook Unit 1 reactors. The error was an input error in the TOODEE2 code which is used to calculate fuel rod heatup. The error resulted in the rod decay heat power being too low which caused the calculated peak cladding temperature to be underpredicted. Attached is a detailed description of the effect of error for each unit and the resulting under-prediction in the peak cladding temperatures.

All of the pressurized water reactors for which Exxon Nuclear provides LOCA analyses have been reviewed. The error was verified to have occurred in the analyses for only these two plants. For D.C. Cook Unit 1, the calculation was rerun with the error corrected and using more realistic values of the pellet density and internal pressure . This analysis was in compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.46.

For H.B. Robinson Unit 2, the calculated PCTs with the error corrected were above 2200 F. A reduction in Fq which corresponds to the underestimate of the rod power was necessary to maintain compliance with the 10 CFR 50.46 requirements.

As required by the Exxon Nuclear procedures, a Hazards Review Board was convened on September 28, 1985 when the effect of the errors had been determined. The Board concluded that the affected uti lities should be notified, that they should in turn notify the NRC, and that H;B. Robinson Unit 2 should immediately reduce the allowed Fq as indicated in the attachment.

Based on subsequent conversations with the affected utilities, these recom-mendations have been followed.

" 851008030i p,-

pDR'" AoaCX .

OS00>>iS 8Si002'.

-"-PDR.

Mr. J. Hartin (USNRC) September 30, 1985 This letter provides the written notification using the procedures given in 10 CFR 21.21(b). If there are questions, or if further information is needed, please contact me.

Sincerely, C. Malody, Manager Corporate Licensin naa cc: Mr. R. DeYoung (3 copies) (D/OIE USNRC)

Mr. J. Bell (AEPSC)

Mr. T. Dresser (CPKL)

Attachment Error in LOCA-ECCS Analysis for H.B. Robinson Unit 2 and D.C. Cook Unit 1 Ref.: (1) XN-NF-84-72, "H.B. Robinson Unit 2 Large Break LOCA-ECCS Analysis with Increased Enthalpy Rise Factor," Exxon Nuclear Company, July 1984 (2) XN-NF-84-72, Supp. 1, "H.B. Robinson Unit 2 Large Break LOCA-ECCS Analysis with Increased Enthalpy Rise Factor: Break Spectrum Analysis," Exxon Nuclear Company, August 1984 .

(3) XN-NF-84-72, Supp. 2, "H.B. Robinson Unit 2 Large Break LOCA-ECCS Analysis with Increased Enthalpy Rise Factor: K(Z)

Curve," Exxon Nuclear Company, August 1984 (4) XN-NF-83-61, "D.C. Cook Unit 1 LOCA-ECCS Analysis for Extended Exposure," Exxon Nuclear Company, August 1983 (5) Letter, G.F. Owsley, Manager, Reload Licensing Liaison (ENC) to Richard DeYoung, Director of Inspection and Enforcement (USNRC), dated March 22, 1985 (GFO:85:010)

The LOCA-ECCS analyses for the reactors H.B. Robinson Uni,t 2 and D.C.

Cook Unit 1 reported in the above references have been found to contain an error. The error was in the input to the code TOODEE2. The code TOODEE2 calculates the thermal response (heatup) of the hot fuel rod following the end of the blowdown transient until the core temperature transient is terminated.

The fuel rods in the analyses were modeled with eight radial rings in the fuel pellet. The error consisted of the assignment of a relative decay heat power density of 0.0 in the outer ring of the fuel pellet and resulted in calculated peak clad temperatures which were too low.

H. B. Robinson Unit 2 A summary of the peak clad temperatures for the H.B. Robinson Unit 2 analysis, reported in References 1, 2 and 3, and of the calculated peak clad temperatures'ith the error corrected is presented in the attached Table 1.

The first three cases in Table 1 were originally performed as part of an exposure sensitivity study, and the final two cases were performed to define the axial power peaking factor dependence (K(2) curve). As can be seen from the table, three of these cases result in peak clad temperatures greater than 2200oF and thus exceed the 10 CFR 50.46 criteria.

An analysis was performed to determine an Fq which would result in peak clad temperatures less than 2200oF. This required a reduction in Fq of 8X which was achieved by a reduction of the hot rod power in the TOODEE2 code of 8X. This is a conservative calculation because the Fq in the blowdown portion of the transient has not been reduced. The initial temperatures at the start of the TOODEE2 (heatup) calculation are therefore conservative with respect to the Fq in the TOODEE2 calculation. A reduction of the Fq in the blowdown portion of the transient would result in the calculation of even lower temperatures. The results of these calculations are summarized in Table 2.

The Fq limits for H.S. Robinson Unit 2 which will result in LOCA-ECCS calculational results in conformance with the 10 CFR 50.46 criteria are shown in Table 3. The limits are divided into two exposure ranges consistent with the analysis, 0 to 9 MWD/kg and 9 MWD/kg to 49 MWD/kg.

D. C. Cook Uni t 1 The error in the D.C. Cook Unit 1 analysis (References 4 and 5) occurred only in the calculation for the case at 48 MWD/kg. The cases at lower exposures do not contain the error. The calculation in error was rerun with the error corrected and more realistic values for the pellet density and internal rod pressure. The reanalysis resulted in a peak clad temperature change from 1827 F to 2189oF, which is still in compliance with 10 CFR 50.46.

This revised calculation is very conservative in that the stored energy used in the calculation is the peak stored energy over the range 0 to 48 MWD/kg rather than a lower value of stored energy that would be appropriate for the 48 MWD/kg exposure for this case. Additionally, it is our understanding that the ENC-designed fuel in D.C. Cook Unit 1 is not in the exposure range for which this calculation is applicable.

Table 1 H.B. Robinson Unit 2 Error in TOODEE2 Input; Rod Radial Power Distribution Previous Peak Clad Corrected Peak Clad Case Description Temperature Temperature (Exposure/Power Shape) (oF) (oF)

BOL/Cosine 2042 > 2200 9 MWD/kg/Cosine 1815 1923 EOL/Cosine 1785 1888 BOL/Top Peaked 2197 > 2200 9 MWD/kg/Top Peaked 2183 > 2200

Table 2 H.B. Robinson Unit 2 Reanalysis with Fq*.92 in TOODEE2 Calculation Case Description Peak Clad Temperature (Exposure/Power Shape) (<<)

BOL/Cosine 2064 BOL/Top Peaked 2195 9 MWD/kg/Top Peaked 2187

Table 3 H.B. Robinson Unit 2 LOCA-ECCS Limits 0 to 9 MWD/kg 9 to 49 MWD/kg Hot Rod Avera e Exposure Hot Rod Avera e Exposure X/L ~F(Z) X/L ~F(Z) 0.000 2.130 1.000 0.000 2.320 1.000 0.500 2. 130 1.000 0.500 2.320 1.000 0.916 1.690 0.793 0,916 1. 726 0.744 1.000 0.835 0.392 1.000 0.835 0.360 to AEP:NRC:0940B OCTO f m85 Hj(O NUCLEAR COMPANY, INC.

210t HORN R D8 ROAO. PO BOX I30, RCHLANO,WA88352 10O81 318.81 TLEX: tb2878 September 30, 1985 JSH:044:85 I

I I

lt I

Mr. J seph L. 8ell Propre t Manager, D.C. Cook Unit 1 Indi a a 5 Nichigan Electric Company c/o erican Electric Power Service Corp. ',

One R verside Plaza Colu us, OH 43216-6631 SUBJE T: Error in LOCA/ECCS Analysis for D.C. Cook Unit 1 Ref.: (1) XN-NF-83-61, "D.C. Cook Unit 1 LOCA-KCCS Analysis for Extended Exposure," Exxon Nuclear Company, August 1983 (2) Letter, G,F. Owsley, Manager, Reload Licensing Liaison (ENC) to Richard OeYoung, Director of Inspection and Enforcement (USNRC), dated March 22, 1985 (GFO:85:010)

Dear r. 8ell:

s discussed with Mr . George John (AEP) on September 28, 1985, the LOCA-ECCS nalysis for D.C. Cook Unit 1 reportedtin References 1 and 2 contains an error) The error was in the input to the code TOOOEE2. The code TOODEE2 calcu) ates the thermal response (heatup) ofithe hot fuel rod following the end of thh blowdown tr ansient until the core temperature transient is terminated.

The fh el rod in the analysis was modeled with eight radial rings in the fuel pellet The error consisted of the assignment of a relative decay heat power densi y of 0.0 in the outer ring of the fuel pellet. This resulted in a calcu ated peak clad temperature which was'oo low. The error occurred only in th calculation for the case at 48 MWD/kg.

t he calculation in error was rerun with the error corrected and with the od pellet density increased and the internal rod pressure decreased to value~ appropriate for 48 MWD/kg. This calculation resulted in a peak clad tempe ature of 2189oF in compliance with 10'CFR 50.46. These calculations are sunna ized in Table 1. This calculation is still very conservative in that the s ored energy in the ca'Iculation is th) peak stored energy over the range 0 to;.4 8 MWD/kg rather than a lower value of stored energy that would be approp riate for the 48 MWD/kg exposure for this case. Additionally, it is our AN ASS <ATC OS EXXON COIISaORATON I

I ~ 'Sa I IS& & la I ~ I al JSH:044:85 Mr. J. Bell (AEP) September 30, 1985 understanding that the ENC fuel in O.C. Cook Unit 1 is not in the exposure range for which this calculation is applicable.

Sincerely, J. S. Holm, Manager PN Safety Analysis gf AttactIaa cc: 4 . J. M. Cleveland (AEP)

Nr. M. P. Alexich (AEP)

Hr. G. John (AEP)

Mr. H. G. Shaw (ENC)

Mr. R. A. Copeland (KNC)

r. R. L. Heiks (ENC)

RAPID< go.. <<~7 PAGE ~ ,Oag

Table 1 O.C. Cook Unit 1 Error in TOOOEE2 Input; Rod Radial Power Distribution Peak Clad Temperature se Oescri tion OF evious Result* 1827 C rrected Result with increased 2189 pellet density and reduced fuel rhd pressure l

I I

I

  • The previous result was for a cosine power distribution at 48,0 NMD/kg exposure, Fq*l.82, reported in References 1 and 2.
Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML17321A900&oldid=1985675"