ML072770531
| ML072770531 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 10/04/2007 |
| From: | Siva Lingam NRC/NRR/ADRO/DORL/LPLC |
| To: | Stringfellow N Southern Nuclear Operating Co |
| Lingam, Siva NRR/DORL 415-1564 | |
| References | |
| TAC MD6625, TAC MD6626 | |
| Download: ML072770531 (4) | |
Text
From:
Siva Lingam To:
njstring@southernco.com Date:
10/4/2007 10:45:03 AM
Subject:
Re: FW: FW: Vantage-5 (V5) versus Vantage+ Fuel Assemblies Thanks for the clarification.
>>> Diane Jackson 10/4/2007 10:16 AM >>>
Yes, it does. I have sufficient information to begin my review.
Diane Diane Jackson Reactor Systems Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission O-9 D19; MS/O-10 B3 301-415-8548; DTJ@nrc.gov
>>> Siva Lingam 10/03/2007 4:59 PM >>>
Please provide your concurrence/comments on the licensee's response to your concern.
>>> "Stringfellow, N. Jack" < NJSTRING@southernco.com > 10/3/2007 4:51 PM >>>
Siva:
In addition to Bob's discussion below, please note that at the end of the e-mail, Vantage 5 and Vantage + are equivalent from a safety analysis perspective.
Does this address the question?
- Thanks, Jack
Original Message-----
From: Florian, Robert J.
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 3:46 PM To: Stringfellow, N. Jack
Subject:
RE: FW: Vantage-5 (V5) versus Vantage+ Fuel Assemblies
- Jack, As described below, the NRC approved the use of V5 fuel by way of Amendments 43 & 44 for Unit 1 and Amendments 23 & 24 for Unit 2 on 9/19/91.
In our submittal, we documented the reanalysis or evaluation of Chapter 15 events. Events were either reanalyzed or evaluated depending on the impact of the change in fuel type. The NRC's review and concurrence is documented in their SER for the above-referenced amendments. The analyses documented in Chapter 15 are applicable to operating with a full core of Vantage 5 fuel.
Bob
Original Message-----
From: Stringfellow, N. Jack
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 10:50 AM To: Florian, Robert J.
Cc: George, Ben J.
Subject:
FW: FW: Vantage-5 (V5) versus Vantage+ Fuel Assemblies Bob:
Can you respond?
- Thanks, Jack
Original Message-----
From: Siva Lingam [1]
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 10:38 AM To: Stringfellow, N. Jack
Subject:
Re: FW: Vantage-5 (V5) versus Vantage+ Fuel Assemblies Please provide your response for Diane's concern regarding FSAR Chapter 15 analysis.
Siva P. Lingam Project Manager (NRR/DORL/LPL2-1)
Surry and Vogtle Nuclear Stations Location: O8-D5 Mail Stop: O8-G9 Telephone: 301-415-1564 Fax: 301-415-1222 E-mail address: spl@nrc.gov
>>> Diane Jackson 10/3/2007 11:34 AM >>>
Siva -
Thank you for your response. I accept the review. However, given that the fuel is different. I need them to confirm or update the accuracy of the FSAR Chapter 15 analysis.
Diane Diane Jackson Reactor Systems Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission O-9 D19; MS/O-10 B3 301-415-8548; DTJ@nrc.gov
>>> Siva Lingam 10/01/2007 11:57 AM >>>
- Diane, Here is the explanation. The licensee agreed with your observation that they have to revise Section 4.1 of FSAR in future. They don't use LOPAR fuel at all, and they mainly use Vantage+.
>>> "Stringfellow, N. Jack" < NJSTRING@southernco.com > 10/1/2007 11:27 AM >>>
FYI
> From: Florian, Robert J.
> Sent:Monday, October 01, 2007 10:26 AM
> To:Stringfellow, N. Jack
Subject:
Vantage-5 (V5) versus Vantage+ Fuel Assemblies
> Jack,
> As requested, here is a description of Vantage-5 (V5) versus Vantage+
Fuel Assemblies.
> We originally started with LOPAR (Low-parasitic) fuel. Then, by way Of Amendments 43 and 44/23 and 24 (Unit 1/2) in 1991, we introduced the Vantage-5 fuel design. One of the major design differences was that the Vantage-5 design had smaller diameter fuel rods. We continued to operate for several fuel cycles with a combination of both LOPAR and V5 fuel in the cores.
Both these fuel designs used Zircaloy-4 as the fuel rod cladding material. By way of Amendments 94/72 (Unit 1/2) in 1996, we introduced a variant of V5 called Vantage+ (V+). The key difference is the introduction of the zirconium-based alloy ZIRLO (tm) as the fuel rod cladding material. This amendment is based on the NRC-approved topical WCAP-12610, "VANTAGE+ Fuel Assembly Reference Core Report". This is Reference 2 in Vogtle UFSAR Section 4.1. In the discussions where the materials in the fuel assemblies are described, the distinction between Zircaloy and ZIRLO (tm) are noted. From the standpoint of nuclear design and thermal hydraulic design, the V5 and V+
assemblies are treated as being equivalent and the continued reference to V5 remains applicable.
> Bob Mail Envelope Properties (4704FC6F.1F3 : 13 : 35786)
Subject:
Re: FW: FW: Vantage-5 (V5) versus Vantage+ Fuel Assemblies Creation Date 10/4/2007 10:45:03 AM From:
Siva Lingam Created By:
SPL@nrc.gov Recipients Action Date & Time southernco.com Transferred 10/4/2007 10:45:26 AM njstring (njstring@southernco.com)
Post Office Delivered Route southernco.com Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 9017 10/4/2007 10:45:00 AM Options Auto Delete:
No Expiration Date:
None Notify Recipients:
Yes Priority:
Standard ReplyRequested:
No Return Notification:
None
Concealed
Subject:
No Security:
Standard To Be Delivered:
Immediate Status Tracking:
Delivered & Opened