ML20133L453
| ML20133L453 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 01/14/1997 |
| From: | Hernan R NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Kingsley O TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY |
| References | |
| TAC-M95144, TAC-M95145, NUDOCS 9701220029 | |
| Download: ML20133L453 (4) | |
Text
,. _ _ _... _ _.__ _ _ _._.. _ _ _
l i
Mr. Oliver D. Kingsley, Jr.
January-14, 1997 President, TVA Nuclear and
- ChieY Nuclear Officer Tennessee Valley Authority 6A Lookout Place j
1101 Market Street Chattanooga, TN 37402-2801
SUBJECT:
CORRECTION TO REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION - TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGE REQUEST 96-01 ON CONVERSION TO COGEMA FUEL -
SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2 (TAC NOS. M95144 AND M95145)
Dear Mr. Kingsley:
The staff issued the subject request for additional information on January 8, 1997. Because of a clerical error, parts of questions 32 and 33 were inadvertently omitted.
Please insert the enclosed replacement pages 4 and 5 in place of the pages issued in our January 8 letter.
I apologize for any inconunience.
Please contact me at (301) 415-2010 if you have any questions.
e
)
Sincerely, Original signed by 1
' Ronald W. Hernan, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate II-3 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-327 and 50-328
Enclosure:
' Request for Additional Information -
corrected pages 4 and 5.
cc w/ enclosure:
See next page' i
Distribution:
Docket Filer PUBLIC SQN Rdg. File S. Varga J. Zwolinski
/ /)
C. Jackson M. Shannon, RII DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\SQN\\95144.COR TO GET a copy et this sleeumont,inescate in the bez:
"C" = Copy without attechment/ enclosure l
E. C.,v..th.tt h.none.noi.e-w. u copy
,/
j /
5 0FFICE PDII-4/PMI/
_L PDII-4/LA PDX4/DW"
)
l liAME RHernan M '/3 BClayton W 4Hdtmpd
\\1
}
DATE 1/)%/97 1/ /t//97
!1/4 /97i i
0FFICIAL RECORD COPY ' '
170057 NRC F E CTSH E CSPY 9701220029 970114 PDR ADOCK 05000327 j.
P PDR l
Mr. Oliver D. Kingsley, Jr.
SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT Tennessee Valley Authority cc:
Mr. O. J. Zeringue, Sr. Vice President Mr. J. T. Herron, Plant Manager Nuclear Operations Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Tennessee Valley Authority Tennessee Valley Authority 6A Lookout Place P.O. Box 2000 1101 Market Street Soddy Daisy, TN 37379 Chattanooga, TN 37402-2801 Regional Administrator i
Mr. Mark 0. Medford, Vice President U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Engineering & Technical Services Region II Tennessee Valley Authority 101 Marietta Street, NW., Suite 2900 6A Lookout Place Atlanta, GA 30323 1101 Market Street Chattanooga, TN 37402-2801 Mr. Melvin C. Shannon Senior Resident Inspector Mr. R. J. Adney, Site Vice President Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Sequoyah Nuclear Plant U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Tennessee Valley Authority 2600 Igou Ferry Road P.O. Box 2000 Soddy Daisy, TN 37379 Soddy Daisy, TN 37379 Mr. Michael H. Mobley, Director General Counsel Division of Radiological Health Tennessee Valley Authority 3rd Floor, L and C Annex ET 10H 401 Church Street 400 West Summit Hill Drive Nashville, TN 37243-1532 Knoxville, TN 37902 County Executive 4
l Mr. Raul R. Baron, General Manager Hamilton County Courthouse Nuclear Assurance and Licensing Chattanooga, TN 37402-2801 Tennessee Valley Authority 4J Blue Ridge 1101 Market Street Chattanooga, TN 37402-2801 l
Mr. Pedro Salas, Manager Licensing and Industry Affairs Tennessee Valley Authority 4J Blue Ridge i
l 1101 Market Street l
Chattanooga, TN 37402-2801 Mr. Ralph H. Shell, Manager Licensing and Industry Affairs Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Tennessee Valley Authority P.O. Box 2000 Soddy Daisy, TN 37379 l
l l
4 not been approved for mixed core applications.
Provide an appropriate penalty to the limiting rod that will bound the misapplication of the critical heat flux correlation. Additionally, the analysis provided l
does not include the Westinghouse standard fuel in the mixed core l
penalty.
Provide a justification why this is not accounted for.
l l
27.
Describe background information and the bases for those studies related i
to the Trojan Plant which concluded that a 3% transition core DNBR penalty should be applied to the Mark-BW when it is being inserted into a Westinghouse standard core with respect to the hydraulic compatibility of the Mark-BW fuel design with the Westinghouse standard design.
Identify the similarity or difference in relation to the transition core DNBR penalty between the Sequoyah and Trojan reloads.
28.
Provide the final conservatively bounding mixed core configuration for i
l the SQN mixed core DNBR analysis and the transition penalty based on assuming that the center hot assembly is either a single Mark-BW fuel assembly in a core of the VANTAGE SH or a single VANTAGE SH in a Mark-BW core. Also, provide the result of the DNBR analysis using plant-and cycle-specific core loading configuration and the same limiting power distribution input in the above analyses. Show that the VANTAGE SH to i
j Mark-BW design peak difference will offset any transition core effects on the VANTAGE 5H and provide the description of the retained thermal l
margin in relation to the transition core penalty.
29.
Provide clarification of the limited use of Westinghouse standard reinserts in a SQN transition core application and provide justification that the transition penalty will bound the SQN application.
30.
Provide the bases for obtaining 2% of an increase in lift force for the limiting transition core configuration (one VANTAGE 5H in a Mark-BW l
core). Also, provide the data for lateral crossflow velocities for the l
mixed core configuration and an acceptable criterion for lateral l
crossflow.
31.
Form loss coefficients for the fuel subcomponents were determined using l
the measured pressure drops. A LYNXT hydraulic model using those form l
loss coefficients showed that the total pressure drop of the Westinghouse VANTAGE 5H design is approximately 4% higher than that of the Mark-BW and that the Westinghouse standard fuel assembly is approximately 5.5% lower in the pressure drop than the current Mark-BW.
Provide the detailed analysis with respect to the overall impact on the mixed core DNBR analysis based on these 4% and 5.5% pressure drops.
Also, describe how the Figure 3.2 is generated and its application to the mixed core DNBR calculation if flow is much greater than 383,000 gpm.
4 1
32.
The horizontal seismic and LOCA structural loads were calculated for the 4
mixed core for Mark-BW fuel and Westinghouse Standard fuel. Why was Westinghouse V-5H not used? Additionally, explain how the mixed core calculation was performed to assure conservative results.
5 33.
Is a full core analysis performed for the combined LOCA/ safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) loads for mixed core applications? Compare the critical loads (crushing loads) for the three types of fuel that will be in the reactor and describe how the results are affected by the differences.
l 34.
The methodology approved for the mixed core structural analysis is contained in BAW-10133. There is no reference to this methodology in the submittal.
Please verify that this methodology was used.
1 35.
On p. 8-7, the stated design criteria (with a reference to the Standard i
Review Plan [SRP]) for the LOCA combined with the SSE does not include control rod insertability; however, the SRP does require control rod insertability for this event. Correct the criteria and verify that control rod insertability is maintained for the combined loads.
36.
The submittal states that the target burnups for SQN are 62,000 MWD /mtU for the peak rod; however, the safety evaluation for Mark-BW fuel only approves the fuel up to burnups of 60,000 MWD /mtU for the peak rod.
Verify that the peak burnups will not exceed approved values and describe how each of the other limitations contained in the Safety Evaluation for BAW-10172 (Section 6.0 Conclusions) are met.
4
)
.