ML20086P463
| ML20086P463 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | McGuire, Mcguire  |
| Issue date: | 02/20/1984 |
| From: | Tucker H DUKE POWER CO. |
| To: | Adensam E, Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20086P467 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-53319, TAC-53320, NUDOCS 8402270185 | |
| Download: ML20086P463 (2) | |
Text
-
Duxe POWEn GOMPANY P.O.Ito x 3 318 0 CHAltLOTTE. N.C. 28242 HALH. TUCKER reternose vous rum.eoen (704) 373-45lM February 20, 1984
.mu..
J Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555
.vAttention:
Ms. E. G. Adensam, Chief Licensing Branch No. 4 Subj ect:
McGuire Nuclear Station Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370 McGuire 1/ Cycle 2 0FA F41oad
Dear Mr. Denton:
My letter of December 12, 1983 transmitted proposed license amendments to facility operating licenses NPF-9 and NPF-17 for McGuire Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2, re-spectively. The proposed amendments basically change plant operating limitations given in the Technical Specifications affected by use of the optimized fuel assem-bly (OFA) design for McGuire Unit 1/ Cycle 2 to ensure plant operation consistent with the design and safety evaluations. Attached are revised pages to the Decem-ber 12, 1983 submittal. is a revision to proposeO Technical Specification Page 2-9 which re-flects the fact that the time constants-utilized in the lead-lag controller for At, T1 and T2, are identical for both units. The December 12, 1983 submittal incorrect-ly indicated that Ti and T2 = 0 seconds for Unit 2 instead of being 8 and 3 seconds respectively 3 as on Unit 1. is a revision to proposed Technical S, ecification Bases Page B 2-4.
The Bases given for the power range negative rate trip in the December 12, 1983 submittal indicated that the negative. rate trfp will prevent an unconservative local DNBR from occurring by tripping the reactor for all single or multiple drop-ped rods. However, for some single dropped rod events a reactor trip may not oc-cur. The negative rate trip bares has been revised accordingly.
A:tachment 3 is a revision to Page 12 of.the cycle-specific rebad safety evalua-tion for McGuire Unit 1/ Cycle 2 which was provided as part of the justification and safety analysis to sup' port the proposed changes. A demonstration program to confirm the function of one of the significant features of an improved Westinghouse fuel assembly design, known as VArfAGE 5, has been prepared for the McGuire Unit 1 plant to obtain early performance d formation under operating conditions. The de-monstration assembly is shnilar to the 17x17 optimized fuel assemblies except for three intermediate flow mixer (lFM) grids located in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th grid spans from the assembly top.
Duke Power originally had planned to hclude two in-termediate flow.nixer grid demonstratioti assemblies in the McGuire 1/ Cycle 2 re-lod. However, due to fabrication problems one of the demonstration assemblies could not be delivered as scheduled and it was decided to replace it with an OFA in order to meet the delivery schedule. Therefore, one 1FM demonstration assembly will 340227018S 840220 PDR ADOCK 05000369 PDR p
1
Mr. Harold R. Denton Attention:
Ms. E. G. Adensam February 20, 1984 Page 2 be loaded for at least three cycles of irradiation. This assembly will be loaded into the core in a manner that prevents it from leading to more limiting conditions than analyzed for other fuel assemblies. The fact that one IFM demonstration assem-bly will be included in the reload instead of two as originally planned is reflected in the revision. Westinghouse's Safety Evaluation for the IFM demonstration assem-bly in McGuire Unit 1 concluded that (1) the introduction of the one demonstration assembly into the McGuire Unit 1/ Cycle 2 core requires no Technical Specification changes, and (2) involves no unreviewed safety questions. Compliance with these two provisions qualifie that the demonstration program can be implemented per the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59 which requires no NRC review, and exempts Duke Power from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.92 since there is no significant hazards considera-
, tion.
Since the attached revisions are corrections / clarifications to the previous submit-tal which is currently under review and are bounded by the analyses of that submit-tal, no additional justification and safety analysis, significant hazards considera-tion, or amendment fee is required.
These r..isions have been previously discussed with Mr. R. A. Birkel of your staff.
Should there be any questions concerning this matter, please advise.
Very truly yours, fB. Y
///fr/
Hal B. Tucker PBN:dyh Attachments cc Mr. J. P. O'Reilly, Regional Administrator U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II 101 Marietta Street, NW, Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Mr. Dayne Brown, Chief Radiation Protection Branch Division of Facility Services Department of Human Resources P. O. Box 12200 Raleigh, North Carolina 27605 Mr. W. T. Orders Senior Resident Inspec.or McGuire Nuclear Station