ML080030225
| ML080030225 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Calvert Cliffs  |
| Issue date: | 01/07/2008 |
| From: | Pickett D NRC/NRR/ADRO/DORL/LPLI-1 |
| To: | Spina J Calvert Cliffs |
| Pickett D | |
| References | |
| TAC MD4646, TAC MD4647, TAC MD4649, TAC MD4648 | |
| Download: ML080030225 (7) | |
Text
January 7, 2008 Mr. James A. Spina, Vice President Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Inc.
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 1650 Calvert Cliffs Parkway Lusby, MD 20657-4702
SUBJECT:
CORRECTIONS TO CALVERT CLIFFS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 - AMENDMENT RE: USE OF LEAD FUEL ASSEMBLIES AND CHANGE TO CORE OPERATING LIMITS REPORT ANALYTICAL METHODS (TAC NOS. MD4646, MD4647, MD4648, AND MD4649)
Dear Mr. Spina:
By letter dated December 20, 2007, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued Amendment No. 283 to Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-53 and Amendment No. 260 to Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-69 for the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2. The amendments provided NRC staff approval for extending burnup limits for lead fuel assemblies and referencing Westinghouse Report WCAP-15604-NP, Limited Scope High Burnup Lead Test Assemblies, as an approved analytical method to determine core operating limits.
Your staff recently informed us of errors in the NRCs safety evaluation supporting the above license amendments. Specifically, the staff referenced Revision 1 to Westinghouse Report WCAP-15604-NP as opposed to the most recent Revision 2-A, dated September 2003. In addition, the staffs summary inadvertently stated that the lead fuel assemblies would remain within current peak rod burnup limits. Clearly, the staffs approval extends the burnup limits.
Enclosed are corrected pages to the staffs safety evaluation.
We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused. Please contact me at 301-415-1364 if you have any questions on this matter.
Sincerely,
/RA/
Douglas V. Pickett, Senior Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch I-1 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/encl: See next page
ML080030225 OFFICE LPL1-1/PM LPL1-1/LA LPL1-1/BC NAME DPickett SLittle MKowal DATE 01 /07/ 08 01 /07/ 08 01 /07/ 08
DATED: January 7, 2008 CORRECTIONS TO AMENDMENT NO. 283 TO RENEWED FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-53 CALVERT CLIFFS UNIT 1 CORRECTIONS TO AMENDMENT NO. 260 TO RENEWED FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-69 CALVERT CLIFFS UNIT 2 PUBLIC LPLI-1 R/F M. Kowal RidsNrrDorlLpi-1 S. Little RidsNrrLASLittle D. Pickett RidsNrrPMDPickett OGC RidsOgcMailCenter ACRS RidsAcrsAcnwMailCenter G. Dentel, RI cc: Plant Service list
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 cc:
Mr. Michael J. Wallace, President Constellation Energy Nuclear Group, LLC 750 East Pratt Street, 18th Floor Baltimore, MD 21202 Mr. John M. Heffley, Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer Constellation Energy Nuclear Generation Group 111 Market Place Baltimore, MD 21202 President Calvert County Board of Commissioners 175 Main Street Prince Frederick, MD 20678 Mr. Carey Fleming, Esquire Sr. Counsel - Nuclear Generation Constellation Energy Nuclear Group, LLC 750 East Pratt Street, 17th floor Baltimore, MD 21202 Mr. Jay S. Gaines Director, Licensing Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 1650 Calvert Cliffs Parkway Lusby, MD 20657-4702 Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 287 St. Leonard, MD 20685 Mr. R. I. McLean, Manager Nuclear Programs Power Plant Research Program Maryland Department of Natural Resources 580 Taylor Avenue (B wing, 3rd floor)
Tawes State Office Building Annapolis, MD 21401 Regional Administrator, Region I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 Ms. Kristen A. Burger, Esquire Maryland People's Counsel 6 St. Paul Centre Suite 2102 Baltimore, MD 21202-1631 Ms. Patricia T. Birnie, Esquire Co-Director Maryland Safe Energy Coalition P.O. Box 33111 Baltimore, MD 21218 Mr. Roy Hickok NRC Technical Training Center 5700 Brainerd Road Chattanooga, TN 37411-4017 Mr. Louis S. Larragoite Manager - Nuclear Licensing Constellation Energy Nuclear Generation Group 111 Market Place, 2nd Floor Baltimore, MD 21202 higher burnups in order to evaluate fuel rod and fuel assembly performance beyond the current limit of 60 GWD/MTU up to a projected peak pin burnup of 70 GWD/MTU.
3.2 Proposed Change to TSs Traditionally, the NRC staff uses two criteria for LFA programs, i.e., the number of LFAs should be limited and the core locations of LFAs should be non-limiting (not in the highest power regions). Recently, the staff endorsed the concept of locating LFAs next to the highest power or high-duty regions for simulating typical reactor operations. By letters dated January 8 (ADAMS No. ML030070476) and August 29, 2003 (ADAMS No. ML032410054), the staff approved Westinghouses Topical Report WCAP-15604-NP, Rev. 1, Limited Scope High Burnup Lead Test Assemblies, which provides the basis and guidelines for the operation of a limited number of LFAs for the high burnup irradiation program. By letter dated September 24, 2003, the Westinghouse Owners Group documented final staff comments by submitting Rev 2-A to WCAP-15604-NP (ADAMS No. ML070740225).
While the Westinghouse Owners Group submitted the WCAP referenced above, it was developed by representatives of the entire U.S. commercial reactor power industry and was intended to apply to all pressurized-water reactors and boiling-water reactors facilities. By letter dated November 21, 2000 (ADAMS No. ML003772968), the Nuclear Energy Institute requested that the WCAP be reviewed generically for the entire industry. The NRC staff reviewed this request and, in the above referenced letter dated January 8, 2003 (ADAMS ML030070476),
agreed that all conclusions apply to the entire commercial nuclear power industry. Therefore, the results of this topical report are applicable to both the Westinghouse and AREVA LFAs.
Thus, the licensees request to extend the burnup limits of the LFAs is consistent with the approved report.
Based on the approved report and previous similar LFA irradiation performance, the staff concludes that the four LFAs are acceptable to extend the burnup limit to a peak rod average of up to 70 GWD/MTU for Calvert Cliffs Unit 1.
3.2.1 Section 4.2.1 Fuel Assemblies The licensee proposes to add two sentences describing how the Unit 1 core will contain the LFAs with Westinghouse and AREVA cladding materials after the exemption is approved. The new sentences are stated as follows:
For Unit 1 Cycle 19 only, advanced cladding material from AREVA may be used in up to two lead test assemblies as described in approved temporary exemption dated December 17, 2007. For Unit 1 Cycle 19 only, advanced cladding material from Westinghouse may be used in up to two lead test assemblies as described in approved temporary exemption dated December 17, 2007.
Since the sentences are consistent with the NRC staff position of the LFA application, the staff concludes that this revision is acceptable for Unit 1 Cycle 19.
3.2.2 Section 5.6.5 COLR The licensee proposes to add Westinghouse Report WCAP-15604-NP to the list of approved references in TS Section 5.6.5, Core Operating Limits Report (COLR). Since the NRC staff previously reviewed and approved this topical report, the staff concludes that this TS change is acceptable for Units 1 and 2.
3.3 Summary The regulatory aspects for the use of cladding material other than zircaloy and ZIRLOTM were addressed separately in the licensees request for exemption to 10 CFR 50.46 dated February 23, 2007. As noted above, the NRC granted this exemption on December 17, 2007.
Therefore, the NRC staff finds this proposed TS change to be administrative in nature.
On the basis that the current TS 4.2.1 allows for the installation of a limited number of LFAs, the LFAs will be limited to a peak rod average burnup of 70 GWD/MTU, and the standard reload analysis process will ensure that the predicted cladding performance will remain within that approved for Zircaloy-4 or ZIRLOTM, the NRC staff finds the proposed changes acceptable.
4.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Maryland State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendments. The State official had no comments.
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendments change a requirement with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. The NRC staff has determined that the amendments involve no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (72 FR 20377 and 72 FR 20378). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.21, 51.32, and 51.35, an environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact was published in the Federal Register on December 17, 2007 (72 FR 71449). Accordingly, based upon the environmental assessment, the Commission has determined that issuance of this amendment will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.
6.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above that (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor: Shih-Liang Wu, NRR Date: January 7, 2008