ML041410479
| ML041410479 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  (NPF-035, NPF-052) |
| Issue date: | 05/13/2004 |
| From: | Barron H Duke Power Co |
| To: | Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| Download: ML041410479 (7) | |
Text
MDuke EWPower.
A We. E-Gpe7 Duke Power 526 South Church Street P.O. Box 1006 Charlotte, NC 28201-1006 May 13, 2004 Document Control Desk U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001
Subject:
Duke Energy Corporation Catawba Nuclear Station Units 1 & 2, Docket Nos. 50-413, 50-414 Proposed Amendments to the Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications to Allow Insertion of Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Lead Assemblies (Correspondence Review)
References:
(1)
Letter, April 16, 2004, H. B. Barron (Duke) to U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Proposed Amendments to the Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications to Allow Insertion of Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Lead Assemblies (MOX in Catawba 1 Cycle 16)
(2)
Letter, February 27, 2003, M. S. Tuckman (Duke) to U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Proposed Amendments to the Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications to Allow Insertion of Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Lead Assemblies and Request for Exemption from Certain Regulations in 10 CFR Part 50 In Reference 1, Duke supplied additional information to the NRC in support of the license amendment application for receipt and use of four MOX fuel lead assemblies (Reference 2). The material in reference one identified Catawba I Cycle 16 (CIC16) as the first fuel cycle in which Duke intends to load the four MOX lead assemblies. The planned cycle design includes 181 Westinghouse Robust Fuel assemblies (RFAs) and also includes eight Westinghouse Next Generation Fuel (NGF) assemblies. The eight NGF assemblies were previously loaded in CIC15; hence those assemblies will be in their second cycle of operation in CIC16. The NGF LTA design is very similar to the Westinghouse Robust Fuel Assembly (RFA) design.
1 oc7I
I Duke provided some basic design characteristics of the Next Generation Fuel in Reference 1 and subsequently met with the NRC staff to further describe the core design for Catawba 1 Cycle 16.
In addition, Reference 1 indicated that Duke was undertaking a review of the license amendment application material and would provide the NRC staff with a written summary of that review.
The review is documented in the Duke corrective action program as PIP G-04-157. Attachment 1 to this letter contains specific items that Duke has determined should be clarified. None of these clarifications is expected to have an impact on prior staff review. Please contact Mike Cash at (704) 382-5826 regarding this or any other matters related to the MOX fuel lead assemblies.
Sincerely, H. B. Barron Executive Vice President - Nuclear Generation Duke Energy Corporation - Summary of Items from Correspondence Review
Oath and Affirmation I affirm that I, H.B. Barron, am the person who subscribed my name to the foregoing, and that all the matters and facts set forth herein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
H.B. Barron Subscribed and sworn to before me on this (3tiiay of Notary Public My Commission expires:
MICHAEL T. CASH Notary Public Lincoln County, North Carolina Commission Expires January 22, 2008 J~n~s~y 22 2e'D2S Date
cc: w/attachments L. A. Reyes U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regional Administrator, Region II Atlanta Federal Center 61 Forsyth St., SW, Suite 23T85 Atlanta, GA 30303 R. E. Martin (addressee only)
NRC Project Manager U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop O-8G9 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E. F. Guthrie Senior Resident Inspector U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Catawba Nuclear Station J. B. Brady Senior Resident Inspector U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission McGuire Nuclear Station Diane Curran Harmon, Curran, Spielberg & Eisenberg, LLP 1726 M Street, N.W.
Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 Mary Olson Director, Southeast Office Nuclear Information and Resource Service P.O. Box 7586 Asheville, NC 28802 H. J. Porter, Director Division of Radioactive Waste Management Bureau of Land and Waste Management Department of Health and Environmental Control Columbia, SC 29201
bcc: w/attachments Richard Clark-DCS Martin Neudorf-DOE Guy Lunsford - DOE David Alberstein-DOE Don Spellman-ORNL NCMPA-1 NCEMC PMPA SRE bcc: w/attachment (via email)
S. P. Nesbit M. T. Cash F. J. Verbos J. L. Eller S. P. Schultz L. F Vaughn M. W. Scott L. J. Rudy J. Hoerner - Framatome ANP G. A. Meyer-Framatome ANP bcc: w/attachments (paper copy)
NRIA File/ELL - ECO50 MOX File 1607.2304 Catawba Document Control File 801.01-CN04DM Catawba RGC Date File (J. M. Ferguson - CNOISA)
Summary of Items from Correspondence Review Item Document/Section Item Description Clarification No Description 1
2/27/03 License Paragraph 2 identifies the These values are representative Amendment "nominal average total plutonium and are not final design values.
Request (LAR), Att.
concentration" of the MOX fuel This should be clear from the 3, Section 3.2 lead assemblies and the nominal totality of the application (e.g.,
plutonium concentrations of each Section 3.5.1, "maximum expected zone. These are nominal values plutonium concentration is 4.94 and are subject to change during weight percent") and the MOX the core design process. In fact, Fuel Design Report (BAW-10238 the currently-planned values are (P), Rev. 1).
slightly different (4.35% vs.
4.37%).
2 2/27/03 License Reference values of MOX fuel These values are representative Amendment assembly plutonium concentration and are not final design values.
Request (LAR), Att.
and isotopics are provided.
See Item 1.
3, Appendix 3-1, A3.3 3
2/27/03 License Reference values of isotopics are These values are representative Amendment provided.
and are not final design values.
Request (LAR), Att.
See Item 1.
3, Appendix 3-1, A3.6, p. A3-12 4
2/27/03 License The cited failure rate (less than This value was meant to be Amendment one per 100,000 rods, from all representative and subject to Request (LAR), Att.
manufacturing related causes) is change with time. There are 4, Section 4.2.1.1 subject to change.
additional Mk-BW failures under review.
5 12/10/03 Request The response to #2 does not There was telephonic discussion for Additional clearly state that the MOX fuel with the NRC that made this point Information (RAI) lead assembly burnup and peaking clear.
Response Letter, factor projections for three cycles are representative, not final values.
6 2/2/04 RAI Paragraph 2 refers to a failure rate Same as Item 4.
Response Letter, (less than one per 100,000 rods, Att. 1, Introductory from all manufacturing related
Response
causes) that is subject to change.
1
Item DocumentlSection Item Description Clarification No Description 7
2/27/03 License This section does not specifically COPERNIC is also used for fuel Amendment mention COPERNIC.
rod analyses, and was the subject Request (LAR),
of a stand alone topical report for Attach. 3, Technical this purpose and was subject to Justification, Sec.
review at the time of the 3.6.3 application.
8 11/03/03 RAI Discusses RFA & Mark-The Next Generation Fuel will Response Letter, BW/MOX1, but not NGF (the have specific MAP limits Question 31 (pg. 70) question asks about maximum developed or determined to be allowable peaking (MAP) limits, bounding for DNBR analyses.
not what CHF correlations are The WRB-2M DNB correlation is used) applied to the NGF assemblies.
This application has been confirmed by Westinghouse as the appropriate correlation.
9 11/03/03 RAI Analysis of mixed core addresses Duke has determined an exclusion Response Letter, RFA/MOX core but does not zone of separation between MOX Question 29 (pg. 58) discuss mixed core effects of NGF and NGF fuel assemblies to Duke Response to assemblies.
prevent hydraulic interactions RAIs between the two fuel assembly types.
10 2/27/03 License The peak cladding temperature Table 3-6 presents the results from Amendment (PCT) identified in Table 3-6 an early MOX-low enriched Request (LAR),
(LAR) for the MOX analysis is uranium (LEU) analysis. There Table 3-6 (page 3-2018 F. A similar case presented were minor adjustments made to
- 44) in the response to question 14 the model inputs between the time and 11/3/03 RAI (RAI response, Table Q14-1) of the Table 3-6 analysis and the response Table shows a somewhat different PCT performance of the analyses that Q14-1 of 1919.2 F. The difference in provided the detailed MOX fuel PCTs is somewhat attributable to lead assembly LOCA limits shown a different assumed location for in Table Q14-1. The minor the axial peak, but this does not adjustments do not affect the explain all of the difference.
conclusions about relative differences between MOX and LEU based on Table 3-6 (Table 3-6 study remains valid for that purpose). The actual MOX lead assembly LOCA limits (Table Q14-1) are based on the most up-to-date model inputs.
2