ML20071M606

Forwards Response to NRC Requesting Addl Info Re Preliminary Draft Ser,Section 4.2, Fuel Sys Design. Cladding Collapse Not Predicted Until EFPH Exceeds Anticipated Lifetime of Fuel

ML20071M606
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	09/20/1982
From:	Tucker H DUKE POWER CO.
To:	Adensam E, Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8209270184
Download: ML20071M606 (4)

Text

. _ _ . _ . _ _ - . _ _ . - _ _ - _ . _ _ _ _ __ .. m_ _ _ _ _ - _ - - _ . .

l Ii DuxE POWElt Goxnow I*.O. HOX i.KlillO i CllAMIMTTE, N.C. Ell 242 IIAL II. Tl;GKEH TEl EPitONE eur enraen,w, (70-4) 373-8531 i mm . "= =" September 20, 1982 Mr. Ilarold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Attention: Ms. E. G. Adensam, Chief Licensing Branch No. 4 1

Re: Catawba Nuclear Station 4

Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414

Dear Mr. Denton:

Mr. R. L. Tedesco's letter of May 12, 1982 transmitted the preliminary draft Safety Evaluation Report for Section 4.2, Fuel System Design. This section identified five items requiring additional plant-specific information. Duke Power Company's response to each of these items is attached.

Very truly yours, l

8.

Hal B. Tucker ROS/php Attachment l cc: Mr. James P. O'Reilly, Regional Administrator

' U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II

) 101 Marietta Street, Suite 3100 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Mr. P. K. Van Doorn NRC Resident Inspector i

Catawba Nuclear Station l

Mr. Robert Guild, Esq.

i Attorney-at-Law 314 Pall Mall )

Columbia, South Carolina 29201 '

i Palmetto Alliance  ;

2135 Devine Street

Columbia, South Carolina 29205 l

l 8209270184 820920

{DRADOCK 05000413 PDR

A Mr. liarold R. Denton, Director September 20, 1982 Page 2 cc: Mr. Jesse L. Riley Carolina Environmental Study Group 854 llenley Place Charlotte, North Carolina 28207 Mr. llenry A. Presler, Cheirman Charlotte-Mecklenburg Environmental Coalition 943 llenley Place Charlotte, North Carolina 28207

m. .

Catawba Nuclear Station Preliminary Draft Safety Evaluation Report Response to Request for Additional Information Section 4.2

1. Confirmation that the predicted cladding collapse time exceeds the expected lifetime of the fuel.

Response

l The NRC approved Westinghouse clad flattening model was used to calculate the expected residence time to cladding collapse. Cladding collapse is not predicted until greater than 40,000 effective full power hours (EFPil) which is in excess of the anticipated lifetime of the fuel.

2. Supplemental ECCS calculations using NRC-supplied LOCA cladding models.

Response

Please refer to Table 15.6.5-12 of the Catawba FSAR for the requested calculations.

3. A determination that the appropriate seismic-and-LOCA forces are bounded by the cases considered in WCAP-9401.

Response

WCAP-9401 analysis covers the Catawba Nuclear Station core.

4. A description of plans for on-line fuel system monitoring.

Response

As discussed in FSAR Section 4.2, performance of the fuel is nonitored by measurement of the activity of the primary coolant for complianc.e with the Technical Specifications. The reactor coolant monitor is described in FSAR Section 11.5.1.2.1.7.

Routine radiochemical analysis of the reactor coolant will be performed as required by the Technical Specifications.

5. A description of plans for post-irradiation poolside surveillance of fuel.

Response

Visual observation of fuel during refueling activities are an integral part of all normally scheduled reactor refuelings.

I George, R. A., et al., " Revised Clad Flattening Model", WCAP-8377 f. Proprietary) and WCAP-8381, July 1974.

-q .

Other than the site surveillance normally performed during refueling, no special surveillance requirements are planned for Catawba. Refueling surveillance consists basically of visual examinations of selected fuel assemblics. Additional inspections would be dependent on the results of these visual examinations, or abnormalities observed during operational monitoring.

More extensive surveillance is being conducted in a Westinghouse 17 x 17 Optimized Fuel Assembly demonstration program at the Farley Unit 1, Salem Unit 1, and Beaver Valley Unit 1. Two demonstration fuel assemblies have been put into each of these cores for three cycles of operation. Examina-tions include TV visuals, fuel assembly dimensional checks, and individual fuel rod visual examinations.

Both Duke and Westinghouse believe that refueling visual examinations and the Westinghouse OFA demonstration program meet the intent and objectives of SRP 4.2.