ML20040A361
| ML20040A361 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000452, 05000453 |
| Issue date: | 11/26/1973 |
| From: | Stello V US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Deyoung R US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML111090060 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-80-515, FOIA-80-555 NUDOCS 8201200809 | |
| Download: ML20040A361 (2) | |
Text
i e
i 7 =.
O O
I;0V 2n 1973 Daci.ct ios. 50-452 cnd 50-453 P.. C. D: Young, Assistcnt Director for Pressurized 1.'ater Rccctors L I
FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS 0:( C0:!STRUCTIOi; PERI'IT FOR GREEin.'30D 2 & 3 l
Plcnt I:ena:
Greentraod Encrgy Ccatcr Units 2 & 3 Liccasing Stage:
CP Dochet I:os.:
50-452 & 50-453 Responsible Branch PL'R-4 and Project l'an::ger:
L. Engle Tcchnical Revicu Cranch Involved: Core Perforcance Branch Requested Completion Date:
fovc-ber 23, 1973 Description of Revicw:
First Round Questions Enclosed are first round questions relcting to nuclear design of the Grcem cod Energy Center, Units 2 & 3.
Due to the extremely tight tita schedule (less than 3 ticeks bett/cen the crrival of Am:nd::nt 4 and thercqucstedcompletiondate),thereviewhasnotbeendoneingreat depth. There 1:111 be core questions as the review continues.
bsenaist;ndT l
ello m
Victor Stello, Jr., Assistant Director for Reactor Safety Directorate of Licensing. 3 cc: 1:/o encl.
W. I'cDonald
. g:,
~~'
cc: u/cacl.
S. H:ncuer J. Hendrie A. Giambusso A. Schttencer L. Engle D. Ross E. Bailey II. Chatterton Docket Files CPB Reading L Reading RS Administrative Assistant CPB CPB CPB AD/RS l'Chatterton;bj ECailey DFRoss VStello 11/ /73 11/ /73 11/ /73 11/ /73 1
09 810403
~
NADDEN80-515 PDR
- s _ a, JA, _._ _ _
~t
_.m
O O
.s GREE!!!!0OD, U!!ITS 2 & 3
\\
1.
Provide the burnable poison concentrations of the initial loading.
I g
2.
Provide details of t.he axial power distribution for a period of about one week with daily load swings of 100% to 50% and return i
to 100% power.
3.
The values given in Tables 4.3-3 and 4.3-4 for power peaks and i
Doppler coefficients are exactly the same values given for the l
15 x 15 core.
Here these values recalculated?
If so, how?
If j
r.at, why not?
i 4.
Since the other coefficients,particularly the moderator coefficient, did not change when the change from the 15 x 15 to the 17 x 17 design was made, explain why the uniform void coefficient (Table 4.3-8) changed so much (a factor of nearly 10 in one case), ',
5.
Table 4.3 the BOL boron levels given for 70*F K 99 all
=
CRA in and 70*F, Keff=.99onestuckCRAarenotco8Nstent.
Provide the correct values 6.
Table 4.3-12 lists the exact values of moderator coefficient as were given for the 15 x 15 design.
Nowever, the values given for the stability index are quite different.
Describe, in detail, the methods used to calculate the stability index.
I 7.
Figure 4.3 This figure is given in terms of percent of total Pu.
Explain what is meant by total Pu.
8.
Figure 4.3 The text gives a value of s;ff =.00691 at BOL.
If Figure 4.3-4 is to show 8 versus care burnup, it should show ff Seff as a function of bur 8up early in life.
9.
Figure 4.3 The value on this curve for 100% power does not agree with the value given in Table 4.3-5.
Explain the difference.
10.
Values in 4.3-27 do not agree with values given in Table 4.3-11.
Explain the difference.
11.
Does Figure 4.3-29 give rod worth versus rod index for Greenwood?
Why is there no difference between it ar.d corresponding curve for j
the 15 x 15 design which had a different rod bank. structure?
I wN-j.
, -.n:,- m
't.
'[u A
A =' '
eu