ML19269E368
| ML19269E368 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 05/23/1979 |
| From: | Reid R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Stewart W FLORIDA POWER CORP. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7906270274 | |
| Download: ML19269E368 (6) | |
Text
"
- 6 o
J
== aso,)o, UNITED $TATEs
/
e g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y
E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20$55 o
%,...../
May 23, 1979 Docket No. 50-302 Mr. W. P. Stewart Director. Power Production Florida Power Corporation P. O. Box 14042, Mail Stop C-4 St. Petersburg, Florida 33733
Dear Mr. Stewart:
We have reviewed your submittal of February 28, 1979 regarding the Crystal l
River Unit 3, Cycle 2 reload and have deter:nined that the additional infor: nation identified in the enclosures is necessary to continue our review.
i Please provide this information as soon as possible.
l
[
Sincerely, 4
b.
[ p )W. Reid, Chief
//
Robert i
Operating Reactors Branch #4 r
Division of Operating Reactors
Enclosures:
1.
Cycle 2 Questions 2.
Physics Startup Test Questions for Cycle 2 cc w/ enclosures:
See next page 7 9 0 6 27 0 '17 y
_ _2 L31 026
7 l
Florida Power Corcoration cc: itr. S. A. Scandimore Vice Pr?sicent and General Counsel P. O. Box 14042 St. Petersburg,. Florida 33733 Mr. Robert S. Borsum Babcock & Wilco::
Nuclear Power Generation Division Suite 420, 7735 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda, Maryland 20014 Crystal River Public Library Crystal River, Florida 32629 Mr. Jack Shreve Office of the Public Counsel Rocm 4, Holland Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 e
O 2131 027
CRYSTAL RIVER 3 - CYCLE 2 CUESTIONS 1.
In table (5-1) of Reference 1, design cycle 1 length should be corrected to 450 EFPD.
2.
In tables (5-1) and (7-1) of Reference 1, the following information is presented:
Table 5-1 I
Boron Worth - HFP, ppm /5ak/
100 (cycle 1)k 106 (cycle 2)
II BOC III EOC 103 (cycle 1) 94 (cycle 2)
IV Critical Boron - HFP, ppm V
BOC 1210 (cycle 1) 991 (cycle 2)
Table 7-1 I
Baron Worth - HFP, ppn/%ak/
101 (cycle 1)k 105 (cycle 2)
II III Initial Boron - HFP, ppm IV 795 (cycle 1) 1084 (cycle 2)
A.
Please explain the difference between line II in both tables (5-1) and (7-1) above.
B.
Explain the increased worth of the boron poison at EOC2 in if ne III of table (5-1).
C.
Explain t::e difference between. line V in table (5-1) and line IV in table (7-1).
3.
In March,1978 after SpRA and ORA removal, four partially burned Mark B2 fuel assemblies were loaded in the core to replace one damaged fuel assembly and three quarterly symmetric fuel assemblies (Reference 2). Those four fuel assemblies were not mentioned in the reload report.
A.
Will the four fuel assemblies be unloaded from the core as part of batch 1, at ECL!?
S.
If the answer to ? above :s no, has their exposure history been appropriately considered for cycle 2 operation?
i? i Ji l 0 2! 8
2 C.
If the four fuel assemblies will stay through cycle 2, do the Mark 32 fuel assemblies have a higher flow resistance than Mark 33 and Mark B47 And if they do, has that been considered in the CNBR analyses?
4.
For the pellet resinter test please confirm the use of the model accepted by the NRC.
References 1.
Crystal River 3. Cycle 2 Reload Report, BAW-1521, February 1979.
2.
Letter, W. P. Stewart to Director. ONRR, UC.NRC, July 21, 1978.
_ _ 2.1 3 L O L 9 ---
PHYSICS STARTUP TEST QUESTIONS FCl1 CRYSTAL RIVER 3 CYCLE 2 Our current thinking as to startup tests, criteria and remedial actions is contained in the enclosed November 28, 1978 internal memorandum. The following questions on your proposed startup program are asked in light of that guidance.
- 1) Critical Baron Concentration The criteria of 1100 ppm is an acceptable value for an acceptance criteria with remedial action involving total solution of the problem before going above 5% power. A review criteria of more like 10 ppm corresponds to your stated remedial actions. Please 5
supply a review criteria, the basis for it and associated repedial action. Also please supply the remedial actions associated with the 1100 ppm criteria.
- 2) Temperature Reactivity Coefficient Please supply the basis for the 14x10-4ak/k/% value.
- 3) Control Rod Grouc Reactivity Worth Criteria 1 with proposed remedial actions is acceptable.
Criter'a 2 with proposed remedial actions is acceptable for P-M <-10%
M For P-M
>10% the remedial actions must be measurement of additional M
bank (s) in order to verify shutdown margin. Please state that this will be the remedial action for p-M
>10%
M
- 4) Ejected Control Rod Reactivity Worth Either a'l symmetric rods must be measured and compared for indication of tilt or there must be a quadrant symmetry test below 5% power.
Please describe how this will be accomplished, che criteria and remedial actions.
- 5) Core Power Distribution Verification Please supply the acceptance and/or rev'tw criteria for the comoarison of measured and predicted power distribution on an assembly by assembly basis. Also please state the appropriate remedial actions.
2131 030
2-
- 6) Procedure for Use When Acceptance Criteria Are Not Met Please state that the resolution of not meeting an acceptsoce or review criteria will be made by the on-site Safety Review Committee and that why failure to meet review or acceptance criteria does not pose a safety question will be in the Safety Committee meeting minutes which are reviewable by ISE.
e 0
e 2131 031
--