ML17249A726
| ML17249A726 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Ginna  |
| Issue date: | 02/13/1980 |
| From: | Ziemann D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | White L ROCHESTER GAS & ELECTRIC CORP. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8003050156 | |
| Download: ML17249A726 (5) | |
Text
Docket No. 50-244
Dear Hr. Mhite:
Sincerely, NRC PDR Local PDR ORB ¹2 Reading NRR Reading DEisenhut f
RHVo1 lmer OELD k
OI8IE (3)
I~
DLZiemann t/tr. Leon D. klhite, Jr.
.JJShea Yice President Electric and Steam Production PCheck
< ~ L~pg Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation 89 East Avenue
~
. ~ NSIG Rochester, New York 14649 ACRS (16)
DCrutchfield Me are continuing our review of your December 14, 1979 application (transmitted by letter dated December 20. 1979) requesting approval to use mixed oxide fuel assemblies at the Ginna plant, and'ave found that the additional information described in the enclosure to this letter is needed.
Me request your response within 20 days after your receipt of this letter.
N
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Information cc w/enclosure:
See next page CI'I.'
>'Il /,l/
Dennis L. Ziemann, Chief Operating Reactors Branch ¹2 Division of Operating Reactors OFFICE P SURNAME OaTE P'O:0 B ¹2 H:ah 2/
/80 R.
JJShea 2/tg /
DO
'ORB ¹ DOR:ORB ¹2 DLZiemann 2/g /8" 5G NRC FORM 318 (9.76) NRCM 0240 AU.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFF ICF: 1979.289 309
T I
l
~(
l I f II
Nr. Leon D. White, Jr.
February 13, 1980 cc w/enclosure:.
Harry H. Yoigt, Esquire
- LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby
& MacRae 1757 N Street, N.
W.
Mashington, D. C.
20036 Nr. Michael Slade 12 Trai lwood Ci rcl e Rochester, New York 14618 Rochester Committee for Scientific Information Robert E. Lee, Ph.D.
P.
O.
Box 5236 River Campus Station Rochester, New York 14627 Jeffrey Cohen New York State Energy Office Swan Street Building Core 1, Second Floor Empire State Plaza
- Albany, New York 12223 Director, Technical Development Programs.
State of New York Energy Office Agency Building 2 Empire State Plaza
- Albany, New York 12223 Rochester Public Library 115 South Avenue Rochester, New York 14604 Supervisor of the Town of Ontario 107 Ridge Road Mest
- Ontario, New York 14519 Director, Technical Assessment Division Office of Radiation Programs (AW-459)
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Crystal Hall t2 Arlington, Virginia 20460 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region II Office ATTN:
E IS COORDINATOR 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York
- 10007, Herbert Grossman, Esq.,
Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mashington, D. C.
20555 Dr. Richard F. Cole Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Dr.
Emmeth A. Luebke Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mashington, D. C.
20555
RE(UEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (GINNA MOX)
DOCKET NO. 50-244 2.
3.
MOX has a lower melting point than U02.
Was this included in the over-power-aT trip equation?
If not, please explain.
Provide a curve of Pu isotopic content and U isotopic content as a function of burnup for the MOX and U02 fuel.
Also, if available.
the relative energy produced by each isotope for both cases.
In Table 1.1 of XN-NF-77-40, Rev.
1, explain why the minimum Departure from Nucleate Boiling Ratio (DNBR) does not change even though the maximum power level and maximum core heat flux have changed for the Steam Line Break.
Provide some veri, ication of the ability of the Exxon physics methods to accurately predict core behavior in cores containing MOX fuel enrichment in the range of those to be used in Ginna for Cycle 10.
The proposed change to the Technical Specifications for Ginna says that the enrichment of reload fuel is limited to 3.5; of U235 or its equivalent in terms of reactivity.
The equivalence should be specified exactly (a brief discussion in the Basis would be acceptable).
Under what condi tions is the equivalence to
'e achieved?
6.
7.
9.
The staff SER on Mixed Oxide Fuel states that use of U02 densification models for MOX should be'verified.(1)
Since it appears that this assumption was used for the MOX fuel for Ginna, please verify this assumption.
Does the predicted amount of densi ication satisfy Reg.
Guide 1.126?
It is the position of the staff that credit may not be taken for decay heat values different than those specified in Appendix K when calculating the results of a Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA).
Therefore, please provide different justification that the MOX fuel will be less limiting than the U02 fuel. for Cycle 10.
Are the fuel assemblies "rods-off-bottom" or "rods-on-bottom" ? If "on-bottom," discuss how fuel rod bowing is considered.
The mixed oxide fuel assemblies are stated to be similar in mechahical design to Region 7 assemblies.
Discuss the performance of these fuel assemblies.
Was there any aspect of the performance of those assemblies which was outside of expectations?
Table 5.2 of XN-NF-79-103 shows that the control rod worth is less for Cycle'10 than for the previous cycle.
Is this effect due to the presence of the mixed oxide fuel?
How was this effect included in the accident analyses for Cycle 10 operation?
ll. It is known that the uncertainties associated with power distributions in MOX fuel assemblies are in general greater than those in U02 fuel assemblies.
Has this effect considered for the four MOX fuel assemblies
, to be irradiated in Ginna for Cycle 107 12.
Oiscuss the difference in calculating the effect of F
, peak heat flux factor, of fuel rod bowing since the calculations wer3 done for U02 fuel,
Reference:
1.
Final GESMO NUREG-0002 V.3 Section 3.4.2.7.