ML17275A933

Requests Addl Info Re Proposed Reactor Fuel Design in Order to Complete Review of Section 4.2 of Fsar.Comments & Info to Assist in Response Encl

ML17275A933
Person / Time
Site:	Columbia
Issue date:	03/24/1981
From:	Tedesco R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Ferguson R WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM
References
NUDOCS 8103310147
Download: ML17275A933 (14)

Text

Docket No! 5~D-397 Dist.

MAR 3 4 I

~.

Docke~tFile isenhut 8

/I//I// f oun 9bl ood 4 6'>

nch sbbrook

'8983AI

>ogF 8 edesco g

Vo11mer Washington Public Po~er Supply S

TNurley ATTN:

Hr. R.

Le Ferguson DRoss Managing Director RHartfield, NPA 3000 George Washington Way VNoonan P. 0.

Box 968 OELD

Richland, Washington 99352 OI E (3)

RMeyers bcc:

TERA NRC/PDR L/PDR NSIC TIC ACRS (16)

SUBJECT:

ADDITIONAL REQUESTS FOR IHFORMATIOI'J RELATED TO THE WHP-2 REACTOR FUEL DESIGH Several significant changes in the nature and the amount of technical information we need to complete our review of your proposed reactor fuel design, have recently occurred.

These changes affect our review of Section 4.2 of your FSAR and are related to:

(1) the format and content of this particular section; and (2) technical issues that have arisen recently.

However, those questions which we asked previously relating to your reactor fuel design for the WHP-2 facility are entirely compatible with the review guidance we are now establishing in the appropriate sections of the Standard Review Plan (SRP).

Accordingly, the responses which you have provided to our previous questions on this matter are still applicable.

Basically, those sections in the Standard Format (Rev. 3), the Standard Review Plan (Rev. 1, 1978) and your FSAR which address information we need to review your fuel design are--all the same; i.e., Section 4.2.1, Design Bases; Section 4.2.2, Description and Design Drawings; and Section 4.2.3, Design Evaluation.

Unfortunately, Section 4.2.1 of the Standard Format (and,

hence, of your FSAR) does not clearly state that you should provide a quantitative statement of all the design bases; the SRP clearly states this approach should be followed.

Similarly, the other sections of the Standard Format and your FSAR combine information related to design

bases, design descriptions, and. design evaluations.

In the

SRP, requests for this information are clearly kept separate.

Accordingly, we will complete our review of your fuel design and prepare the appropriate sections of the WHP-2 SER following the guidance in the 1978 version of the SRP to take advantage of the clarity and comp'leteness of this version.

We assure you that questions on this matter contained in the enclosure are not open-ended but simply ask for the residual information we need as indicated in the SRP but which is not present in your FSAR.

You should note that there are two options you may choose at this stage of our review; these options are discussed in the questions in the enclosure.

We recommend that you adopt 8 1 08 8 X II 2 g iI'FFICE/

SURNAME/

DATEP

~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~

NRC FORM 3IB IIO/8OI NRCM 0240 OFF IClAL R ECOR D COPY sk USGPO.'198~29.824

s r~ i 1

/

II U

Y$

'r.

R. L. Ferguson 2

If you have any questions on this matter, please contact the Project Manager, M. D. Lynch, at 301/492-8413.

Sincerely, QrlgInal Sign~

bY TQC}0800 Robert L. Tedesco, Assistant Director for Licensing Division of Licensing

Enclosure:

As stated cc:

See next page

• SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE SHEET FOR INITIALS DLF LB81" DL:LB)1*

DL:L OFF 1CEQ SURNAMEtl 3/24 0 ~ ~ ~

. P4osh/z>.....PAXoungh3.ond.

3/23j81

%23/81

..RLT.e co.

~ ~ ~

~ ~ i

~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~

~

~

~

~ ~ ~ t ~

~

~ 0 ~ \\ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~

, NRC FORM 318 (10/80> NRCM 0240 1

O USGPO: 1980-329 824 0 FICIAL RECORD COPY,.

Option 1 since Revision 1 of the SRP was issued more than two years ago and our original questions related to the reactor fuel design were written compatibly with this version of the SRP.

I<e do not believe that our suggestion that you adopt Option 1 is either precipitous or disruptive.

In this regard, you should note that you may have to identify and justify all deviations from the SRP under the provisions of a proposed rule (F.R.

46 67099, October 9, 1980) since the HNP-2 SER wi'Il be issued after January 1, 1982.

Accordingly, we urge you to promptly submit the information which will be needed so that you can demonstrate. compliance with the SRP in the event that the proposed rule does become effective.

To assist you in your response, we have provided a description of two applicable versions of the SRP in the attached appendix.

0=

0j~

r

<<*~ $~

~i cebu $

e e

~

1

'I 1I

C Nr.

R. L. Ferguson Managing Director Mashington Public Power Supply System P.

0; Box 968 3000 George Washington Way Rrichland, Wash>ngton 99352 ccrc:

Nicholas Reynolds, Esq.

Debevoise E Liberman 1200 Seventeenth

Street, N.

W.

Washington, D.

C.

20036 Richard Q. Quigley, Esq.

Washington Public Power 'Supply System P.

0.

Box 968

Richland, Washington 99352 Nicholas Lewis, Chairman Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council 820 East Fifth Avenue Olympia, Washington 98504 Nr. 0.

K. Earle Li,censing Engineer P.

0.

Box 968

Richland, Washington 99352 Nr. Albert D. Toth Res ident Inspector/MPPSS-2 NPS c/o U.

S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.

0.

Box 69

Richland, Washington 99352

~I

~.

230.0 CORE PERFORMANCE BRANCH 231.0 Reactor Fuels Section 231.04 Revise those sections of your FSAR which relate to the reactor fuel design of the WNP-2 facility using one of the two options discussed below.

Option 1

Revise Section 4.2 of the WNP-2 FSAR to follow the guidance provided in the appropriate sections of Revision 1 to the Standard Review Plan (SRP).

Our basis for this option is that this particular approach will provide assurance that all the information we need to complete

'our review will be submitted in the FSAR, thereby miminizing our need for further questions on the matter of your reactor fuel design.

Option 2

Change your FSAR to provide appropriate cross-references to those sections of your application which contain the basic information we need to follow'the guidance contained in the SRP.

You should note that this option will allow you to maintain Section 4.2 of your FSAR in its present basic format.

However, this approach may lead us to ask additional questions since Section 4.2 in its present form does not appear to contain all the information we need to complete our review.

231.05 In preparing recent SER's for applications involving boiling water

reactors, we have identified certain staff concerns which have been difficult to resolve in a timely manner.

Accordingly, revise the appropriate sections of your FSAR to provide more detailed and specific information on the following matters:

a.

supplemental calculations using the models in NUREG-0680 when evaluating your emergency core cooling systems; b.

periodic tests of channel box deflections; c.

the analysis of the combination of seismic loads with the dynamic loads resulting from a postulated loss-of-coolant accident; 231-3

,( t'I A'

1 t

G

e.

pel 1 et/cl adding interaction; f.

end-plug wear in the water rods of the Sx8 fuel assemblies; g.

clad corrosion on the outside of the fuel elements (i. e.,

waterside);

h.

control rod bowing; i.

cracking of the control rod blades due to stress-corrosion effects; j.

the effects of high fuel burnup; k.

fuel assembly design shoulder gap analysis; and 1.

the analysis of the fuel element internal pressure at end-of-core life.

231-.4

~

~

I

~

II

~P

)$ P I

tl It'

APPENDIX A TO SECTION 231.0 COMPARISON OF REVISION 1

AND REVISION 2 TO THE SRP AS IT AFFECTS THE EVALUATION OF THE REACTOR FUEL DESIGN A major revi sion to the Standard Review Plan (SRP) was made in October 1978 (Revision 1).

A second major revision is presently planned for April 1981 (Revision 2).

A brief discussion of how these two revisions may affect your response to Item 231.04, is provided below.

You should note that the main technical difference in Section 4.2 of the SRP between Revisions 1 and 2, is the acceptance criteria for evaluating certain dynamic mechanical loads on the components of your reactor fuel design.

These criteria were recently promulgated as part of our resolution of Task A-2, one of the previously unresolved generic safety issues and are contained in Appendix E to NUREG-0609.

Accordingly, if you choose Revision 1 to the SRP

- ~en you respond to Item 231.04, you can do so by also addressing the acceptance criteria in Appendix E to NUREG-0609. Alternatively, you can wait until Revision 2 is issued.

Revision 1

This particular revision discusses all the basic information we need to complete our review of your proposed reactor fuel design.

No significant change in the basic information sought will be made in Revision 2.

Revision 2

This particular revision discusses all the basic information we need to complete alluded to in our proposed rule changes affecting the implementation of ap-plicant compliance with the SRP (F.R. 45,67099, 10/09/80).

In this revision, Section 4.2 of the SRP will:

(a) aKd the acceptance criteria discussed above for evaluating the mechanical response of reactor fuel designs to seismic loads and to dynamic loads resulting from postulated loss-of-coolant ac-cidents; and (b) make editorial changes largely confined to adding and cor-recting citations to regulations and regulatory guides which are presently acknowledged in Revision 1 to the SRP.

231-5

4

(

~

0 I

'J t s'I

2 Option 1 since Revision 1 of the SRP was issued more than two years ago and our original questions, related to the reactor fuel design were written compatibly with this version of the SRP.

We do not believe that our suggestion that you adopt Option 1 is either precipitous or disruptive.

In this regard, you should note that you may have to identify and justify all deviations from the SRP under the provisions of a proposed rule (F. R. 45,67099, October 9, 1980) since the

)01P-2 SEA uill be issued after~anuary 1, 1982.

Acccrdin9ly, we urge you to promptly submit the information which will be needed so that you can demonstrate compliance with the SRP in the event that the proposed rule does become effective.

To assist you in your response, we have provided a description of two applicable versions of the SRP in the attached appendix.

If you have any questions on this matter, please contact the Project Manager, ht.

D. Lynch, at 301/492-8413.

Sincerely,

Enclosure:

As stated Robert L. Tedesco, Assistant Director for Licensing Division of Lcensing cc:

See next page OFFICEt)

SURNAME/

OATED DLynch/ys

'3'/hi """ BJY u

'3' ood

~

~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~

RLTe sco 3/6@81

~

A 0 ~ ~ ~ s NRC FORM 318110/80) NRCM 0240

~FF)C)AL RECORD COPY

• USGPO: 1980 329.824 s

I, p Jlf

~

P~" ~ < 1987 l