ML18347A677

Providing Additional Information for Miscellaneous Questions Regarding Cycle 2 Reload Fuel

ML18347A677
Person / Time
Site:	Palisades
Issue date:	04/08/1976
From:	Bixel D Consumers Power Co
To:	Purple R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
Download: ML18347A677 (3)

Text

consumers

• Power company General Offices: 212 West Michigan Avenue, Jackson, Michigan 49201 *Area Code 517 788-0550 April 8, 1976 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Att: Mr Robert A. Purple, Chief Operating Reactor Branch No 1 US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 DOCKET 50-255, LICENSE DPR~20 PALISADES PLANT - MISCELLANEOUS QUESTIONS CYCLE 2 RELOAD FUEL During telephone conversations between members of your staff, Consumers Power Company, and, on some occasions, Exxon Nuclear Company, formal responses were requested for a number of items. These items and our responses follow:

Item 1 A que*stion was raised concerning the single failure which was assumed in per-forming the evaluation of emergency core cooling system performance under loss of coolant accident conditions .

.~

~~~nc~~;i-;:~~:~ ~~b:!!!~~ i~h~-r~:::1:*~:~~r!h::.:n~~:~~r~:*:~.~:~=~~

..:;'.,'.-Tp"" the analysis performed by. Combustion Engineering and submitted to you on injec-with July 9, 1975 and with the single failure analysis performed in CENPD-132.

Documentation of this single failure assumption was inadvertently omitted from the text of XN-76-4.

Item 2 In our letter of March 20, 1976, a response to Question 1.6 was provided to describe Consumers Power Company's proposed fuel surveillance program following Cycle 2 of operation. To clarify that response, the visual examination of a fuel assembly includes a full-length examination of each fuel rod and guide bar on the fuel assembly periphery. It also includes an examination of the visible portion of the spacer gTids.

3573

• Item 3 A request was made to revise Table 5 .1 of XN-75-66, "Palisades Cycle 2 Reload

• Fuel Licensing Data Submittal." The revision was to address the D-E-F fueled core.

Attachment I to this letter provides information which updates that provided in the subject table. This table provides the Nominal Neutronics Characteristics of Cycle 2 (D-E-F core).

David A. Bixel Assistant Nuclear Licensing Administrator CC: JGKeppler, USNRC 2

datory Docket fil_q

.. * , l

• ATTACHMENT I Nominal Neutronics Characteristics of Cycle 2 (D-E-F Core) Versus Cycle 1 C;y:cle l(l) C;y:cle 2 Parameter BOC EOC BOC EOC

1. Moderator Temperat~e Coeffi-cient HFP, ARO, 10- ~p/°F ..,.0.08 -2.25 ..,.0.10 -1.42( 2 )

2. Doppler Coefficient 10-5 ~p/°F . ..,.L08 -l.O ..,.l.13 -1.1

3. ARO Power Peaking Factors:

a. Radial 1.52 l.42( 3 ) 1.77 1.59

b. Axial l.5 NA l.40 l.10

c. Total 2.28 NA 2.48 l. 75

4. Effectiv( Delayed Neutron

• 5.

6.

Fraction 4) 1 HFP ARO Critical Boron Concentration, Ppm 3nat Reciprocal *Boron Worth, 1070

.0060 0

.0052 1150

.0069 30

.0051 Ppm/%~P 84 NA 86 84 Notes:

(l) Except as otherwise noted, all Cycle 1 values are from the FSAR.

(2) The MTC at EOC2 is less negative than the FSAR value of -2.25 x 10- 4 for EOCl partiaJ.ly as a result of reduced operating temperature.(Tavg of 540°F instead of 568°F). The indicated value for EOC2 is supported by measurements taken late in Cycle 1.

(3) ENC calculated value.

(4) The BOCl value is that used in the FSAR ejected rod analysis and is thought to be conservatively somewhat lower than the nominal value; the nominal BOCl value is probably nearly equal to the value shown for BOC2. An EOC2 value of 0.0052 which was based upon an assumed effectiveness disadvantage factor of 0.975 has been previously reported for EOC2. The slightly reduced value tabulated is based upon a disad-vantage factor of 0.964 which has since been calculated for Cycle 2 .

• 1