ML15023A079
| ML15023A079 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee, Mcguire, Catawba, McGuire  |
| Issue date: | 01/22/2015 |
| From: | Ed Miller Plant Licensing Branch II |
| To: | Ed Miller Plant Licensing Branch II |
| References | |
| Download: ML15023A079 (13) | |
Text
1 NRR-PMDAPEm Resource From:
Miller, Ed Sent:
Thursday, January 22, 2015 4:16 PM To:
Miller, Ed
Subject:
Presentation Slides From January 14, 2015, Public Meeting Attachments:
PRESENTATION 1 - NRC Mtg 01-14-15.pptx The attached slides were presented by Duke at the January 14, 2015, pre-application public meeting.
Hearing Identifier:
NRR_PMDA Email Number:
1826 Mail Envelope Properties (9C2386A0C0BC584684916F7A0482B6CA015DCF39FD9B)
Subject:
Presentation Slides From January 14, 2015, Public Meeting Sent Date:
1/22/2015 4:15:53 PM Received Date:
1/22/2015 4:16:10 PM From:
Miller, Ed Created By:
Ed.Miller@nrc.gov Recipients:
"Miller, Ed" <Ed.Miller@nrc.gov>
Tracking Status: None Post Office:
HQCLSTR02.nrc.gov Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 108 1/22/2015 4:16:10 PM PRESENTATION 1 - NRC Mtg 01-14-15.pptx 5961651 Options Priority:
Standard Return Notification:
No Reply Requested:
No Sensitivity:
Normal Expiration Date:
Recipients Received:
Catawba / McGuire / Oconee Alternative Non-LOCA Fission Product Gap Fractions January 14, 2015
Duke Energy Attendees Julie Olivier (Manager, Nuclear Fleet Licensing)
Jordan Vaughan (Fleet Regulatory Affairs)
Jordan Vaughan (Fleet Regulatory Affairs)
Larry Rudy (CNS Regulatory Affairs, by phone)
P. T. Vu (MNS Regulatory Affairs, by phone)
Geoff Pihl (Manager, Radiological Engineering)
Joe Coletta (Radiological Engineering)
Brian Timm (Radiological Engineering)
Brian Timm (Radiological Engineering) 2 2
Outline Background for LAR LAR Precedent LAR Precedent LAR Technical Content LAR R l t C
t t
LAR Regulatory Content Schedule 3
=
Background===
Duke Energy performs the Design Basis Accident Dose Consequences analyses of record for Catawba, McGuire, and Oconee The computer codes and methods used are SCALE and LOCADOSE The computer codes and methods used are SCALE and LOCADOSE The analysis methods (computer codes and analysis approach) are similar for Catawba, McGuire, and Oconee C t b
M G i d O f ll AST d l t
Catawba, McGuire, and Oconee are full-scope AST approved plants Recent reload designs have challenged the linear heat generation rate (LHGR) limit contained in Regulatory Guide 1.183, Table 3 (Non-LOCA Fraction of Fission Product Inventory in Gap), Footnote 11, namely <6.3 kW/ft for burnup above 54 GWD/MTU.
As stipulated in Footnote 11, the NRC will consider alternatives to the Table 3 gap fractions on a case-by-case basis.
y 4
License Amendment Request (LAR) - Precedent Precedent Duke Energy reviewed the LARs and NRC approvals of other licensees (listed below), and the Duke Energy reviewed the LARs and NRC approvals of other licensees (listed below), and the approach Duke intends to take is similar to other licensees.
Prairie Island Nuclear Power Plant: Application dated January 20 2004 (ADAMS Accession Prairie Island Nuclear Power Plant: Application dated January 20, 2004 (ADAMS Accession No. ML040270067); NRC Safety Evaluation dated September 10, 2004 (ADAMS Accession No. ML042430504).
Three Mile Island, Unit 1: Application dated January 23, 2001 (ADAMS Accession No. ML010300215); Supplement dated August 22, 2001 (ADAMS Accession No. ML012400035);
NRC Safety Evaluation dated April 30, 2002 (ADAMS Accession No. ML021080289).
5
License Amendment Request (LAR) - Precedent Comparison of Key Elements Three Mile Island, Unit 1 Prairie Island Duke Energy
- Doubled RG 1.183 Table 3 gap
- Performed an evaluation using ANS
- Demonstrated doubling was conservative compared to the results g
5.4 [1982] low and high temperature release models
- Conservatively selected release model yielding the higher gap p
g p for Cs-134, Cs-137, Kr-85, and Xe-133
- Double RG 1.183 Table 3 gap fractions for all other isotopes
fraction result
- Demonstrated RG 1.183 Table 3 was conservative as compared to these results 5.4 [1982] and ANS 5.4 [2011]
- Conservatively selected higher gap fraction determined from these standards
- Demonstrates doubling / tripling is conservative compared to the results of these standards 6
License Amendment Request - Technical Content Evaluations performed by Duke, to be described in the LAR, include:
Gap release analyses using both ANS 5.4 [1982] and ANS 5.4 [2011].
Gap release analyses using both ANS 5.4 [1982] and ANS 5.4 [2011].
Group specific alternative gap fractions conservatively based on higher result Fuel temperature data, used as input to the ANS 5.4 methods, determined with fuel rod performance codes that account for thermal conductivity degradation (TCD) of UO2 at high p
y g
(
)
g burnup, namely:
Copernic for Areva fuel types PAD 4.0 with TCD adjustments for Westinghouse fuel types Based on the gap release analysis, new LHGR limits will be proposed Dose analyses used to determine a maximum number of fuel pins per assembly allowed to exceed the Table 3, Footnote 11 limits, but bounded by the new LHGR limits Dose results meet 10CFR50.67 limits 7
License Amendment Request - Technical Content Duke is only proposing alternatives to the Table 3 gap fractions for fuel handling type accidents (i.e. fuel damage accidents resulting from drop or impact forces).
CNS: Fuel Handling, Weir Gate Drop, Spent Fuel Cask Drop MNS: Fuel Handling, Weir Gate Drop, Spent Fuel Cask Drop, Tornado Missile ONS: Fuel Handling Spent Fuel Cask Drop ONS: Fuel Handling, Spent Fuel Cask Drop Duke is excluding non-LOCA accidents that result in fuel damage due to departure from nucleate boiling (DNB) NRC approved reload design methods are used to predict which fuel pins boiling (DNB). NRC approved reload design methods are used to predict which fuel pins experience DNB. Fuel pin power histories will be reviewed to ensure that no pins predicted to experience DNB will exceed the Table 3, Footnote 11 limit of 6.3 kW/ft above 54 GWD/MTU.
8
License Amendment Request - Regulatory Content No Tech Spec changes UFSAR changes UFSAR changes Add description of the alternative gap fractions New limiting dose results for affected accidents Implemented following LAR approval Implemented following LAR approval Proposed anticipated UFSAR changes to be included with LAR 9
Schedule Current reload designs are challenging the AST limit. Reload designers have been able to meet the limit by adjusting the design, with a loss of optimization which increases fuel cost. Approval is desired to support the reload designs outlined below. Based on a 12 pp pp g
month review, these represent the reloads with the first opportunity to use new limits.
Reload Start of Reload Analysis Cycle Startup Reload Start of Reload Analysis Cycle Startup CNS 1 Cycle 24 1st Qtr 2016 2nd Qtr 2017 MNS 1 Cycle 26 2nd Qtr 2016 4th Qtr 2017 ONS 2 Cycle 29 3rd Qtr 2016 4th Qtr 2017 10
11