ML20209C265
| ML20209C265 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Maine Yankee |
| Issue date: | 01/29/1987 |
| From: | Sears P Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Randazza J Maine Yankee |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8702040231 | |
| Download: ML20209C265 (3) | |
Text
.DhBok JAN 2 91987 Docket No. 50-309 Mr. J. B. Randazza Executive Vice President Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company 83 Edison Drive Augusta, Maine 04336
Dear Mr. Randazza:
SUBJECT:
MAINE YANKEE CYCLE 10 CORE PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS - REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION We have reviewed your Cycle 10 core performance analysis and have determined
.that we need responses to the enclosed questions in order to complete the evaluation of the Cycle 10 reload application.
To expedite the evaluation of your Cycle 10 core performance submittals, a telecon will be arranged by your Project Manager, Mr. P. Sears (301-492-8006).
Information transmitted during that telecon will, of necessity, be confirmed in writing by you not more than 10 working days after the telecon.
This request for information affects fewer than 10 respondents; therefore, OMB clearance is not required under P.L.96-511.
Sincerely,
. Original signed by Patrick M. Sears, Project Manager PWR Project Directorate #8 Division of PWR Licensing-B
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Information cc w/ enclosure:
See next page DISTRIBUI 1N ACRS-10
@ockV BGrimes NRC PDR JPartlow L PDR PSears PBD-8 Rdg PKreutzer FMiraglia Gray File OGC-Bethesda NThompson EJordan CThomas T10
[/
PBD#8 PBD#8 RJB:P yW -
PBD#8'I P6 utzer PSears;cf f.136 mas AThadani lh 87 1h4 /e7 1/g/87 1/7/87 i
8702040231 870129 p PDR ADOCK 05000309 PDR
o Mr. J. B. Randazza
., Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station cc:
Charles E. Monty, President Mr. P. L. Anderson, Project Manager Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company Yankee Atomic Electric Company 83 Edison Drive 1671 Worchester Road Augusta, Maine 04336 Framingham, Massachusetts 07101 Mr. Charles B. Brinkman Mr. G. D. Whittier Manager - Washington Nuclear Licensing Section Head Operations Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company Combustion Engineering, Inc.
83 Edison Drive 7910 Woodmont Avenue Augusta, Maine 04336 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 John A. Ritsher, Esquire Ropes & Gray 225 Franklin Street Boston, Massachusetts 02110 State Planning Officer Executive Department 189 State Street Augusta, Maine 04330 Mr. John H. Garrity, Plant Manager Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company P. O. Box 408 Wiscasset, Maine 04578 Regional Administrator, Region I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 First Selectman of Wiscasset Municipal Building U.S. Route 1 Wiscasset, Maine 04578 Mr. Cornelius F. Holden Resident Inspector c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. O. Box E Wiscasset, Maine 04578
MAINE YANKEE CYCLE 10 RELOAD J
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 1.
The statement is made on page 76 that the FSAR design power distribution, evaluated at the full power heat flux, results in a lower DNBR than any of the Cycle 10 predicted power distributions within the symmetric offset pre-trip alarm band, evaluated at their respective maximum power level limit as defined in the PDIL for Cycle 10.
This appears to contradict the results shown in Table 5.9 (erroneously referred to as Table 5.11 in the text).
Please comment on this discrepancy.
2.
The fresh fuel SAFDL is assumed to be bounding for all fuel batches.
The justification given is that the fresh fuel contains the core-wide maximum power pin throughout the cycle and the SAFDL for any previously exposed fuel batch is greater than or equal to the ratio of the peak power of that batch divided by the peak power of the fresh fuel batch multiplied by the SAFDL for the fresh fuel batch.
How was this verified for transient conditions? Describe, for example, how verification is made that the maximum post-drop LHGR does not violate the limiting centerline melt SAFDL for any fuel batch in the event of a CEA drop.
3.
The allowable negative limit for the MTC has been extended to -2.96 for Cycle 10 as compared to -2.81 for the previous cycle.
Explain how this was accounted for in the Cycle 10 steam line rupture accident.
__