ML20132C301
Text
.-
s.
f.
i Distribution:
JUL 161984 DOCKET FILE: 50-412 CPB:r/f L. Rubenstein L. Phillips R Lobel MB40RANDUM FOR:
T. H. Novak, Assistant Director D. Fieno for Licensing, DL H. Richings A'.
Gill FROM:
L. S. Rubenstein Assistant Director g Dunenfeld for Core and Plant Systens, DSI SLA3 JECT:
BEAVER VALLEY UtilT 2 SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT Plant Name:
Beaver Valley Unit 2 Docket Number:
50-412 Licensing Stage:
Operating License Responsible Branch:
Licensing Branch No. 3 Project Manager:
L. Lazo DSI Review Branch:
Core Perfomance Branch Review Status:
Seven confimatory and two open issues in Section 4.2, four open issues in Section 4.4, and one confimatory issue in Section 15.4.3.
The Core Perfomance Branch has previously submitted DSER sections for the Beaver Valley Unit 2 FSAR.
Sections 4.3, 4.4, 15.4.1, 15.4.2, 15.4.3, 15.4.7 and 15.4.8 were sent February 10, 1984 and section 4.2 was sent April 12, 1984. These sections contained several open and confimatory issues. No information has been received to alter the status of any of these issues.
Therefore the SER remains the same as our DSER. Since there are no changes, no copy of these sections is enclosed.
A listing of the open and confimatory issues, unchanged fran those accoapanying the DSER sections, follows.
Confimatory Issues:
1.
Confimation that the peak pellet design b6 sis bumup of 53,000 mwd /MTU is consistent with the region discharge burnup of 33,000 Ed/HTU (see Section 4.2.1).
2.
Specification of the correct values for several parameters (e.g.,
fuel rod diameter and Zircaloy weight) in the description of and design drawings for Beaver Valley Unit 2 fuel (see Section 4.2.2).
Contacts:
H. Richings, CPB:DSI A. Gill, CPB:DSI M. Dunenfeld, CPB:DSI X-29418 X-27091 X-28097 4hM%1 pi V....... '
- C8k.................................................................................
marr)
==c rwu mnoi oiuncu o24o OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
- u.s. m m >-4*24 7
..,,.m-
..m.
}.
JUL 161954 4-W 3.
Confituation that the rod bowing analysis has been performed (see Section4.2.3.1(6)).
4.
Confimation that the fuel rod internal pressure is consistent witn WCAP-8963 (see Section 4.2.3.1(8)).
5.
Confirmation that the predicted cladding collapse time exceeds the expected residence time of the fuel (see Section 4.2.3.2(2)).
6.
Confimation that canbined seismic and LOCA loads, using the SRSS method and a worst-case LOCA, are applied in calculating grid i
stresses (see Section 4.2.3.3(4)).
7.
Confirmation of the ability of the reactor coolant letdown radiation monitors to detect fuel rod failures (see Section 4.2.4.2).
i 8.
Confirmation that the analysis of the dropped control rod event meets DNB limits (see Section 15.4.3, second paragraph).
)
l Open Issues:
1.
Fuel assembly non-grid canponent forces from combined seismic and LOCA loads have not been shom to meet SRP Section 4.2 guicelines (see Section4.2.3.3(4)).
2.
Cocuitment to use the on-line detection method to monitor fuel rod failures (see Section 4.2.4.2).
3.
Provide a casaitment to supply a report describing the loose parts detection program and implenentation of the systen (see Section 4.4.5).
4.
Supply the infomation for Item II.F.2 of MUREG-0737 (see Section 4.4.8).
5.
Provide a description of flow measuranent capability and procedure (see i
Section 4.4.4.2).
6.
Address concerns regarding the effect of rod bow on DHB (see Section 4.4.4.1).
Original s L. S. Rubensteinnod by L. S. Rubenstein, Assistant Director for Core and Plant Systens, DSI cc: D/DSI D. Eisenhut E. Knighton L. Lazo M. Licitra H. Ley n
()L N[
i K
am=>....C,P,hp,y,I[
,,C,P,
,gPE,
L CP.B;,pS,I,;S(,,<
n
""^"*>..R.ICJj,I,N;S,d,s,,,,$ R L,,,,,,,,M.W.
E D.....E.0REL....
EERLINCER.......LR dS TM.....................l 0
- * * >...U. !.?..IM..... 11...#. I.8.4...
....?Ll3.t.e. 4..... 71.!.k.I.e.A.....71...!.3.1.a4...... 7.1..R. e24.. '................
wac ronu n no,somacu o24o OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
- u.s. apo m>-4eow i
SALP EVALUATION FROM THE CORE PERFORMANCE BRANCH FOR BEAVER VALLEY UNIT 2 We had no direct interaction with the licensee on this review. The written material, however, is of acceptable quality.
Rating: Category 2
,