ML18227B311

Response to Request for Additional Information Cycle 3 Reload Fuel Submittal

ML18227B311
Person / Time
Site:	Turkey Point
Issue date:	11/26/1975
From:	Robert E. Uhrig Florida Power & Light Co
To:	Boyd R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
Download: ML18227B311 (10)

Text

4 NRC DISTRIBUTION FOR PART 50 DOCKET MATERIAL (TEMPORARY FORM)

FILE:

FROM. Florida Power 6 Light Co Mimi, Fla, R E Uhri 11-26-75 12-2-75 XXX DATE OF DOC DATE REC'D LTR TWX RPT OTHER TO:

DL ORIG

. one signed CC OTHER SENTNRC PDR SENT LOCALPDR CLASS UNCLASS PROPINFO XXXXXX DESCRIPTION INPUT NO CYS REC'D 1

ENCLOSURES:

DOCKET NO:

50-250 Ltr re their 11-21-75.ltr....... furnishing addi info concerning Cycle P reload fuel subm

......with regard to 'effect'of fuel rod 'bow o the calculated ECCS performance during lOCA.

~ ~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

ttal IJ>>, "I PLANT NAME: Turkey Point P3 FOR ACTION/INFCRMATION 12-4-75 ehf BUTLER (L)

W/ Copies CLARK (L)

W/ Copies PARR (L)

W/ Copies KNIEL (L)

W/ Copies SCHWENCER (L)

W/ Copies STOLZ. (L)

W/ Copies VASSALLO (L)

W/

Copies'URPLE (L)

W/ Copies ZIEMANN(L)

W/ Copies DICKER (E)

W/ Copies KNIGHTON (E)

W/ Copies

~

YOUNGBLOOD W/ Copies REGAN (E)

W/ Copies LEAR (L)

~ WQCopies SPIES W/ Copies (E)

LPM W/

opuses RE ID (L)

W/

COPIES

~G Fl gNR gOGC, ROOM P-506A OSS I C K/STAF F CASE GIAM8USSO BOYD MOO~~ (L)

DEYOUNG (L)

SKOVHOLT (L)

GOLLE R (L) (Ltr)

P. COLLINS DENISE REG OPR I

/FILE 5 REGION (2)

MIPC TECH REVIEW SCHROEDER MACCARY KNIGHT PAWLICKI SHAO

/TELLO HOUSTON

~NOVAK

~ ROSS')

IPPOLITO

~ TEDESCO Z,COLLINS LAINAS BENAROYA VOLLMER INTERNAL DISTR IBUTION DENTON LIC ASST GR IMES R. DIGGS (L)

GAMMILL H. GEARIN (L)

KASTNER E'. GOULBOURNE (L)

BALLARD P. KREUTZER (E)

SPANGLER J. LEE (L)

M. RU3HBROOK{L)

ENVIRO S

REED(E)

MULLER M. SERVICE (L)

DICKER S. SHEPPARD (L)

KNIGHTON M. SLATER (E)

YOUNGBLOOD H. SMITH (L)

R EGAN S. TE ETS (L)

PROJECT LDR iG. WILLIAMS(E)

V. WILSON (L)

N A@..ESS p.

[ NG R 'll ( L) 11, DUNCc&

EXTLicNALDISTR I BUTION A/T IND.

BRAITMAN SALTZMAN MELTZ PLANS MCDONALD CHAPMAN DUBE (Ltr)

E. COUPE PETERSON HARTI-IE LD (2)

KLECKER EISENHUT WIGGINTON r1

/1 1

1 Qb-LOCALPD R~+~~

TIC (ABERNATHY)

(1)(2)(10) NATIONALLABS NSIC (BUCHANAN) 1 W. PENNINGTON, Rm E-201 GT ASLB

'I CONSULTANTS Newton Ancierson NEWMARK/BLUME/AGBABIAN.

ACRS

/SENT

~0 4 e,e.BS 1 P DR-SAN/LA/NY 1 BROOKHAVEN NAT LAB 1 G. ULRIKSON ORNL C

~ ~

.:.-:~~a-~

r

~

~

~

~

~

~

~ u ~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

p

~

~

05+8, gg75~

g~C

~~V'<r; Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attention:,

Mr. Roger S.

Boyd., Acting director Division of Reactor Licensing U.. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.

20555 P.O. BOX 3100 MIAMI,FLORIOA 33101

@llljg Se FLORIDA POWER Cs LIGHT COMPANY November 26, 1975 t~f5g~ s r ~j

~a,

+r

+

I Er.t',E.VEb

0. IIh 19Ai ~

4 C.S, I,IOIIC 9IECIY CCsI'J I SS 10N

Dear Mr. Boyd:

Re:

Turkey Point Unit 3 Docket No. 50-250 Cycle 3 Reload Fuel, Submittal-Additional Information

'Lj j/lj

'j-Cosy Our letter of November 21,

1975, was submitted to you in response to rod bow questions received during discussions with your staff.

The following information supersedes Appendix A of that letter.

An. analysis has been performed to evaluate the effect of fuel rod bow on the calculated ECCS performance during LOCA for the Turkey Point Unit 3 power,plant operating at 2300 Mwt with a peaking factor of 2.32.

The analysis was performed for Region 3

fuel, which is the fuel with the highest stored energy in Cycle 3 for a given power density.

Actually the highest power density in Region 3 fuel is only about 87% of the peak power density in the core.

This study considered the hot rod power spike due to rod bow as shown in Figure l.

Specifically, this power spike distribution at design EOL burnup of 33,000 MWD/MTU was applied to. the hot rod as a function of elevation.

The results of this analysis are presented in Table 1, and show compliance with the 10 CFR 50.46 2,200'F clad temperature limit.

In evaluation of this result-, several factors must be considered.

As shown in Figure 1, the maximum predicted power spike due to rod bow is 4.7% in the second span (2-4 ft.)..

Since the peak clad temperature is calculated to occur at the 6.5 ft. elevation, the predicted power spike at this location of interest is reduced to 3.. 8%.

Although this power spike would then have a greater impact on power shapes skewed to the.bottom of the core (since the peak clad temperature for these cases would be expected to occur at locations below the core mid-plane),

the calculated peak clad temperatures for bottom skewed axial power profiles were shown to be less limiting than cosine shapes (Ref:

WCAP-8340, "Westinghouse 9.38@,~

HEL'PING BUILD FLORIDA

i+i J

Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attention:

Mr,. Roger S.

Boyd, Acting Director Page Two November 26, 1975 Emergency Core Cooling System Plant Sensitivity Studies" ).

Therefore, the net effect for a bottom skewed shape would be less limiting than for a cosine power shape.

This power spike.,

due to fuel rod bow, i.'s applied only to the hot rod in ECCS calculations, since the net power spike over an assembly is zero.

Hence, there is no effect on the enthalpy rise in the hot channel.

In addition, the maximum power spike due to rod bow is predicted to occur at the end of life for a given fuel cycle.

However, ECCS calculations are performed utilizing the highest fuel average

-temperature which may occur during any portion of the cycle. If the analysis would be per-formed at the end of fuel life when the maximum power spike due to rod bow is predicted to occur, the reduced fuel average temperatures due to clad creepdown on. the pellet through core burnup would tend to offset the increase in calculated peak clad temperature due to the rod bow power spike.

In the analysis presented

here, no credit has been taken for this burnup effect.

In summary, it has been shown that for Turkey Point Unit 3, the effect of the fuel rod bow power spike is within the margin of the present ECCS calculation.

This analysis demonstrates that consideration of the fuel rod bow power spike results in calculated ECCS performance in full compliance with the criteria of 10 CFR 50.46.

Very truly yours, Robert E.:Uhrig Vice President REU/MAS/cpc Attachments cc:

Mr. Norman C. Moseley Jack R.

Newman, Esquire

4!

0 P

~ '%

FIGURE -

1 6;0.;

15.'x 15 LOPAR Q

5000 ISvD/MTU Q

15000 MND/MTU 33000 Mci~D/MTU a~

Pl ~

Q Pl 8 U M fzj M CO ON RO C4

à Cc cN

~ LA CQ CFl 40 2.0 Qi

~

Q, Qi

'I~

0

~

~

SPAN

~

~

E d

TABLE 1

Large Break Results Peak Clad Temp.

(OF)

Peak Clad Location (ft)

Local Zr/HZO Rxn (max)(%)

Local Zr/H20 Location (ft)

Total Zr/H20 Rxn (8)

Hot Rod Burst Time (sec)

Hot Rod Burst Location (ft) 0.4 DECL (with fuel rod bow ower s ike considered) 2l88 6.50

8. 2'6

5. 75

<0.3 28.0 5.75 Unit 3, Cycle 3', Region 3.

Core Design Power, 102% of 2297 Mwt Peaking Factor (at design power) 2,.32.

0

~=g fP P

~ wS4

~m.;~

pass +gA,i@,e<