ML20134B526
| ML20134B526 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/07/1994 |
| From: | Holahan G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Thadani A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20134B530 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-96-441 NUDOCS 9411040040 | |
| Download: ML20134B526 (16) | |
Text
(
^
- r.:r;-;.T' We
/@ M%,g*
Mt w NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Q
e UNITED STATES
,~;-
4 j
f,
.W j%.g.L['iE,!
7 WASHINGTON. o.C. 20555 4001,
\\,g
/
0; tc.m r /. 15 4-
.E
! "U
- p 7
MEMORANDUN TO:
Ashok C. Thadanic Associate Director sh v.
1 for Inspection and Technical Assessment jy Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation ec.;d i
, J-p-
9.n c
'n Division of Systems Safety and Analys,/JP T'f n.
Gary M. Holahan, Director fe.
FROM:
is W6 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation v'
'I k
~
i 4 Division of Reactor Inspection
.;1 R. Lee Spessard, Director i
v.&
and Licensee Performance j
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
ACTIONJLAN TO MONITOR, REVIEW, AND IMPROVE FUEL AND CORE i
.i
-E0MPONENTS OPERATING PERFORMANCE hl j g,4
'hl hj J
c 7.'
The attachment, " Action Plan To Improve Core Performance," addresses the S
hf 4
y.' -
review of fuel fabrication core design, and reload analysis issues that were i
M discussed during the March i29, 1994, briefing given to James M. Taylor,
.i Executive Director for Operations. The briefing presented by the Reactor Dl l
%pf Systems Branch (SRX8), Division of Systems Safety and Analysis (DSSA) covered
}g J l
ed generic fuel and core performance issues and related evaluations of fuel We failures. Representatives of the Vendor Inspection Branch (VIB), Division of h.?
Reactor Inspection and Licensee Performance (DRIL) participated in the W
briefing. As a result of this briefing, the Office of Nuclear Reactor h'
Regulation (NRR) was requested to prepare an action plan for a proactive
] Q approach to improve core performance in operating reactors.
pp 9:)
Preliminary root cause evaluation of core performance problems points to N<
b inadequate analysis and testing of new core designs, nuclear fuel vendor o
manufacturing problems, less-than-adequate licensee oversight, and weaknesses
.c in the ve dor-licensee interface execution.
The proposed action plan contains a description of core performance issues, t
causal factors, current activities, and a description of the proposed actions b:
to improve core performance. The detailed schedule milestones and resource 1
estimates, based on conducting inspections of four manufacturers and four F
l V
licensees / plants by the end of FY-95, are also given in the proposed action i
plan. The plan is categorized into the following four task actions:
j!
d a
)
J I
f i (
CONTACTS:
Edward D. Kendrick, SRTB/DSSA g
N 504-2891 i
t-p i
h y.
f w
...iL.m.',ALLlLL{
i 004021 4
hk OW 040b YD y
n w 5. /)kr. a >, 7 k v >1 yp fs...%&n&v:ur;6, n n.u W.
,a &gr, ]nc. M f & p%%%
~..
w GN M.
.e
~$
[
g
~
(
A. Thadant W
'9te
.j j
P Task 1 - Inspections of tiuclear Fuel Vendors e
i Task 2 - Inspections of Licensee's Reload Analysis
.;11 lt Task 3 - Core Performance Data Gathering and Evaluation M
/
Task 4 - Regional Participation in the Action Plan To Improve Core X
e Performance
.f. W.g,
7, y
E.
the adequacy of safety analyses for mixed core reloads and support thefak (9
J. :
resolution of high burnup and extended cycle length issues. For example, the f l-i results of Task 1, " Inspect' ions of tiuclear Fuel Vendors," will provide i'
W, 3.'s l.{.
background information, developed by conducting performance-based inspections t
of the vendors, for use during the vendor-licensee interface reviews addressed 1
E in Task 2, " Inspections of 'ticensee's Reload Analysis."
p
.?
4 The inspection goals are to' conduct an inspection of each fuel vendor once y((RP every 12 to 18 months ar.d conduct, on an anrual basis, an inspc: tion of one licensee reload analysis per.egion.
The nurlear fuel vendor and U$
licensee /plu ' performance-based inspections will be initially conducted on i
D the basis ^!
, aft inspection Manual Chapters (IMCs) for each inspection type, lessons leo..ed from the inspections will be used to finalize t e IMCs at the h[.
completion of the planned activities for FY 95. The initial FY 15 actions ti form the basis of a pliot program that will be evaluated for foM implementation as IMCs.
p&
~
M.
Table 5, " Preliminary Schedule for the Inspections of 11uclear Fuel Vendors and Licensee's Reload Analysis," describes the proposed FY 95 schedule for Task 1 l
q4, inspections of fuel vendors and core component manufacturers and the Task 2 inspections of licensee's reload analysis.
To determine the initial a
licensee / plant inspection priorities for the first' inspection in each region,
.D SRXB will select the licensee / plant from a fully developed Table 6,
) k
" Licensee / Plant Core Design and Reload Analysis Responsibilities and Status."
p The attached sample table is currently under development with input from the e
xt regions. When completed with Tasks 3 and 4 input, it will summarize by region g.
and licensee, the licensee-vendor core reload design analysis responsibilities 6
and interfaces and highlight recent core performance issues.
h i
37 Task 3 " Core Performance Data Gathering and Evaluation," consists of the identification, documentation, and categorization of core performance problems Qlp[.
and root cause evaluations that will be further evaluated during the inspections conducted in Tasks 1 and 2.
It also provides for generic documentation and inputs for the final IMCs.
e
-[
Task 4, " Regional Participation in the Action Plan To Improve Core k
Performance," consists of training and coordinating the regional support staff participating in both the Tasks 2 and 3 activities.
p
,e 4
[C.
.o
,,-4 k
h 8*
I
- N t
W Nf, i. %.'
's 6
a' yp
' i
%9' yi A. Thadani 4-l b
For the Task 2 inspections of the licensee / plant reload analysis, SRXB plans to lead the first inspection in each region and subsequently assist region-led inspections, as requested. Each SRXB-led inspection team will consist of a y.b L
member from SRXB, a memb;er from VIB, members fr,om the region, and one TA. TA 1lj costs are estimated at 5'10,000 to $20,000 for each ifcensee/ plant inspection.
a Successful achievement of the planned inspection goals shown in the attached action plan is dependent lon NRC management commitments in the following areas:
(1) available and dedicated resources from VIB,'SRXB, and the regions to,
l support the teams described above and the task activities described in the l
action plan and (2) available and funded TA support. The current VIB and SRXB i
advanced procurement plans (APPs) for FY 95 included $400,000 (VIB - $250,000; 1,
SRXB - $150,000) for fuel vendor and core performanc.e-related activities contracted TA support. VIB's TA funding for FY 95 appears adequate to fully implement the action plan. However, to fully implement its portion of the i
four tasks in the proposed action plan, SRXB requests an additional 5342,000 j
in TA funding over the currently budgeted APP amount.
l On the basis of your approval, SRXB will budget additional funds accordingly; VIB and SRXB will commence development of inspection plans based en the tasks described in the attachment, and VIB and SRXB will coordinate, as appropriate, Development, & Analysis Staff (NRR/PMAS); Inspe, ram Managem the implementation of the action plan with Prog
{
ction & Licensing Policy Branch i
l (NRR/ILPB); Associate Director for Projects, Divisions of Reactor Projects j
(NRR/DRPE & DRPW); and the regions.
j DISTRIBUTION:
MVirgilio Centralf Files RGallo GCwalina SRXB R/F DRIL R/F VIB R/F KDempsey
~
I DOCUMENT NAME:
P:FUELACTN.PLN
- Concurred in draft / Tech Editor's comments have been incorporated i
i
- See previous concurrence'C*-<npy without attachmers/ enclosure *c* -Copy with attachment /sactosure;'N*
To receive a cory of this docunwnt,indiceis in the bos:
0FFICE Tech Editor N
VIB/DRIL E
VIB/DRIL E
VIB/DRIL E
D/DRIL/NRR C
SMMatthews*/** UPotapovs*/** LJNorrholm*/**
RLSpessard*/**
l NAME
[
DATE 08/12/94 08/15/94 08/19/94 a 08/21/94 10/07/94 1
l E
OFFICE SRXB/DSSA E
SRXB/DSSA E
SRXB/DSSA E
DD/DSSA/NRR E
D/DSSA/NRR C
NAME EDKendrick*/** LPhillips */** TCollins **
RJones*
GMHolahan
)
DATE 05/26/94 05/26/94 06/02/94 09/22/94 10/06/94 i
b 0FFICIAL RECORD C0 Y
)
l.
- f) o.M,gd M
7
? ::
c.
- l5, ',
~;
y F
ACTION PLAN TO IMPROVE CORE PERFORMANCE F
l
- s. l
===1.
Background===
Dl
.P l j'
Economic pressures on' licensees have led to increased competition among f;/
4.k vendors providing fuel and reload analysis, resulting in reactor cores with-
&p
$T mixed reload Ssigns from multiple vendors of both core components and fuel
'i services. /- auction in NRC direct review and oversight of core reload
.pI activities i.:
also occurred, without a corresponding increase in NRC g,,
inspection activities.
The applicable regulatory requirements are primarily
..p;.
y 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A. " General Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants," and Appendix B, " Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants 4
,C and Fuel Reprocessing Plants." Table 7. " Regulatory Basis for Fuel / Core
'z ijl Design Criteria," gives a summary listing of licensee requirements and Ml j
guidelines that are used by licensees and provide the inspection basis.
y 1
j At the present time, the following vendors supply nuclear fuel, core reload
!g n
j analyses, and other fuel-services to NRC licensees:
ABB Combustion E'gd.eering (ABB/CE):
l (a) p
,[,
{'
Hematite, Mis curi - uranium hexafluoride (UF,) conversion
(;
.h facility w
r Windsor, Connecticut - neutronics engineering, PWR fuel 3
- ,..j,f i
i Ws manufactur1ng 4
Vasteras, Sweden - BWR fuel manufacturing i
I 7
(b)
Babcock and Wilcox Company (B&W):
i 3
Lynchburg, Virginia - neutronics engineering PWR fuel e
=
manufacturing A;
d (c)
General Electric Company (GE):
j
?
e San Jose, Cal ~ 'rnia - neutronics engineering a
[g Wilmington, North Carolina - UF conversion facility, tube and a
6 BWR fuel manufacturing (d)
Siemens Power Corporation - Nuclear Div'iston (SPC-ND):
I s
Richland, Washington-UF conversion facility, neutronics 5
=
M engineering, BWR and P R fuel manufacturing Lingen, Germany - component ;.:nufacturing i
j (e)
Westf oghouse Elstric Corporation W):
a Moncoeville, Pennsylvania - neutronics engineering i
Blairsville, Pennsylvania - tube manufacturing Columbia, South Carolina - UF, conversion facility, PWR fuel l
manufacturing W
g y4 w
k I
a dd$$5&.
L k.
N.
s.
,&. u., ~
j
..n
- ~
- y
)
f i
c
(
2.
Core Performance Issues A primary issue is the increased complexity of core reloads because of mixed core designs, resulting from licensee / vendor optimization activities to enhance performance and to take advantage of available operating margins, while reducing fuel and operating costs. An economic incentive exists for both vendors and licensees to develop methods and reload designs that reduce 1
3 thermal margin to gain operating flexibility. The staff's primary concern is 3.
that these activities be conducted with a sound technical approach that maintains an acceptable level of safety. Core performance problems also 2 '
include control rod material failures, degraded scram timing, stuck control di,
.t h,
rods, extended fuel cycle effects, including moderator temperature coefficient NI (MTC), and high burnup fuel issues.
Increased fuel failures are now being observed and several recent fuel and control rod design and fabrication h,
. e
$g problems at vendor facilities have not been caught by existing quality
.Q ;
q assurance procedures.
Core design is a fundamental component of plant safety because maintain'.ng fuel integrity is the first principal safety barrier (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor coolant system boundary, or the containment) against serious radioactive releases. Likewise, the safety analyses must be properiy performed in order to verify, in conjunction with startup tests and normal plant parameter monitoring, that the core reload design is adequate. Quality assurance activities are important to ensure that proper interfaces are 4
y j
[
established and that shortcuts are not taken that could degrade safety or 1
a quality.
t g
l 3.
Causal Factors Y-Preliminary evaluation of the root causes of core performance problems points l
[
to inadequate analysis and testing of new core designs, as well as vendor i
manufacturing problems. Less-than-adequate li.censee oversight and weaknesses l
in the vendor-licensee interface execution are" additional contributing L'
factors. The operating service experience of core components is also
/
approaching the materials and fuel burnup limits which are supported by available operational and experimental data. Recently available foreign data, currently under evaluation, indicate that the capability of high burnup fuel' to withstand moderate power transients may be less than previously assumed.
j 4.
Current Staff and Inspection Activities SRXB and V!B staffs participate in augmented inspection teams (AITs) and vendor inspections (primarily reactive responses), and SRXB staff evaluates licensee topical reports concerning reload design methods and application.
The staff issues generic communications regarding fuel and core operating problems. Scheduled meetings with vendors are used as a forum to discuss core component operating performance and surveillance activities. VIB also represents the NRC at and regularly attends semi-annual meetings of the The current fuel performance annuar reports, based Nuclear Fuel User's Forum.
i on available licensee event reports (LERs) and annual vendor reports, provide descriptions and evaluations of specific fuel., operating experience and generic I
trends.
L h.
5 4
i
' G h.Gkj' N
/
j,.
h.
i
p n
f V!B has led periodic reactive inspections of nuclear fuel vendors, an VIB and SRXB have participated in the A!T activitie
[
- his inspection is g
facility in Richland, Washington, was recently completed.
SPC-ND.
i p
the first of the planned Task I inspections of nuclea i
l SRXB,withcontractedtecknicalassistant(TA)suhport,performedatec ih J
audit of the GE-Il fuel design licensing qualification and compliance w
- i Amendment 22 of the approved GESTAR-!! topical report at GE 4
for inspecting vendor complianc( within the limitations of their appr g:g facility in San Jose, California.
SRXB the project manager, and a representative from the region thods
- ,7 performed a technical audi't of licensee application of approved ve methods.
of
- g at Arizona Public Service (the Palo Verde license y
W This audit provides a basis for future licensee / plant
{
Verde plants.
performance-based inspections.
Proposed Action Plan 5.
The proposed action plan consists of a planned, coordinated, and program to improve core performance by implementing the following fS interrelated task actions:
IE Task 1 - Inspections of fluclear Fuel Vendo[ Analysis s
on Task 2 - Inspectioq's of Licensee's Reload 5
Task 3 - Core Performance Data Gathering and Evaluation L
Task 4 - Regional Participation in the Action Plan To improve Core y.
f Performanc'e The proposed action plan requires close interaction and coordinat g
VlB and SRXB to effectively implement the planned integration of the n
f Inspections of vendors ano licensees / plants, gathering of c Jh lt concerns described in Section 2 above and form the basis of the F data, and regional training.
for f*
program which will be formalized in Inspection Manual Ch
((
based inspections will be conducted on the basis of draft IMCs for e future application.
Lessons learned g
inspection type (nuclear fuel vendors and licensee / pl W
{y the planned FY 95 activities.
As an example of the planned integration of the task actions, th
{}
Task I will provide background information, developed by conducting g[< -
performance-based inspections of the vendors, for use during the Tasks 1 and 2 licensee / plant reload analysis reviews addressed
- 4 A
responsibility interface.
'i i
F 3
4 4
,,y1
.G
^ i t t+r*N$t&
l e
r a
V*
y:
l!k y
y n
u The results of these inspections will be provided'to licensees and vendors by d:J iR way of issued inspection gports.
Licensee performance will also be reflected
,i in the systematic assessment of licensee performance (SALP) process and ig regional enforcement actions. Generic communications have proven to be an 3.+d effective method of provid/, ng feedback to licensees and vendors and will be.;
l issued, as necessary.
j j'[;
Total Resource Estimates To Implement the Action Plan To 7,1 "Y
Improve Core Performance for the Planned FY 95 Activities:
j k
l
'$h TA Support $
Staff Hrs.
Ygj l ;-
V!B SRXB VIB SRXB
- 3
- Task 1 - Inspections of Nuclear Fuel f
,3$
I
[T Vendors 220K 28K 2120 630 v
}f Task 2 - Inspections of L;icensee's r
c 88K 600 1440 e
/-
Reload Analysis f 4
Task 3 - Core Performance; Data s
Gathering and Evaluation SK 361K 334 506 E
Task 4 - Regional Participation in the r
Action Plan To improve Core Performance ISK 280 440 Totals 225K 492K 3334 3016 (a)
Task 1 - Inspections of Nuclear Fuel Vendors This task consists of evaluating the performance of vendors of nuclear U
fuel and core components by, in part, including in the inspection scope ji neutronics engineering, fuel fabrication, fuel bundle assembly, and W
related fuel-service activities. The detailed schedule milestones and 4/
resource estimates for this task are shown in Table 1, " Task 1 -
d Inspec.tions of Nuclear Fuel Vendors: Schedule Milestones and Resource Estimates for FY 95 Activities." The results of this task will provide
{
input for the inspection of licensee / plant reload analysis, addressed in Task 2 below, and additional input data on core performance for the g@..
Task 3 evaluation.
j for the Task 1 inspections listed in Table 5, " Preliminary Schedule for s
the Inspections of Nuclear Fuel Vendors and Licensee's Reload Analysis,"
e VIB plans to lead an inspection team consisting of two members from VIB, l
l, one member from SRXB, and up to three contracted TAs per facility 2
inspected.
Table 5, shows the proposed FY 95 schedule for tKe Task 1 t
4_
- l '
,t.
.i i
S a
,t.$$$..$
5
'l r
1 y
o l
y inspections of fuel vendors and core component manufacturers and the Task 2 inspections of licensee reload analysis. The inspection goals are to conduct an inspection of each fuel vendor once every 12 to 18 y
months and conduct, on an annual basis, an inspection of one licensee's reload analysis per region.
w.W Each inspection will require 2-3 days of inspection preparation at the g,
vendor's facility by the team leader and a VIB member, 2-3 days of p
inspection preparation at headquarters by the full team, and one full Q
week of inspection effort per vendor's fac;11ty by the full team.
x
{.;,
(b)
Task 2 - Inspections of Licensee's Reload Analysis This task consists of evaluating the performance of licensees that perform core reload analysis functions., The detailed schedule milestones and resource estimates for this task are shown in Table 2, MilestonesandRelsourceEstimatesforFY95 Activities."
" Task 2 - Inspections of Licensee's Reload Analysis:
Schedule The results of
- y this task provide input for the inspection of nuclear fuel vendors, e
9,'
addressed in Task 1 above, and additional input data on core performance for the Task 3 evaluation.
f G
As part of this task. SRXB will leao the first inspection in each region and subsequently assist region-led inspections, selected from Taole 6,
" Licensee / Plant Core Design and Reload Analysis Responsibilities and Status," as requested.
To determine the initial licensee / plant inspection priorities for the first inspection in each region, SRXB will select the licensee / plant from Table 6, which will describe, with input p
from the regions, the licensee-vendor core design and reload analysis responsibilities and interfaces.
i.t i
f SRXB will evaluate the licensees identified in Table 6 for priority ranking on the basis of previous reload review experience, with input provided by the regions and project managers. Documentation of core reload analysis / licensing procedures for' individual licensees will identify candidates for inspection and help prioritize the inspection schedule. Table 6 will describe, with input from the regions, the licensee-vendor core design and reload analysis responsibilities and interfaces. Theilicensee rankings are based on preliminary criteria, which will be further developed and refined on the basis of the results from Task 2.
The criteria for the preliminary rankings include such factors as mixed' core reload designs, mixed vendor core components, licensee reload design responsibility, core component reliability history, and plant operational problems.
The inspection schedule and resources requirements for these inspections will be coordinated with the regions for effective implementation.
Each SRXB-led inspection will consist of a member from SRXB, a member from VIB, members from the region, and one TA.
Each inspection will require y
v e
' J s
o>
f K6 i
s M.V'k, e
Ir /, 9,.
,e q
~,.
a' ,q -e: o 5.2, O.) ,j 2-3 days of preparation at the licensee's facility by SRXB and a regional member, 2-3 days of preparation at headquarters by the full team, and one full week of inspection effort at the licensee facilities ' ...,3 . b , :L7 Ap(, W 3S g by the full team. f@r, (c) Task 3 - Core Performance Data Gatharing and Evaluation 9.9 JCn v ,) Task 3 consists of the identification, documentation,.and categorizationT.i of core performance; problems and root caush evaluations that will be Wi.; d, %y further evaluated during the inspections conducted in Tasks I and 2, and e.g i ,.M l 'Y the provision of input to SALP evaluations, regional enforcement R actions, and generip communications, as appropriate. The detailed
- ,.... VM
. ; ?'N ! schedule milestonesiand resource estimates for this task are shown in. l $ cq[R Table 3, " Task 3 - Core Performance Data Gathering and Evaluation: J E@.' Schedule Milestonesi and Resource Estimates for FY 95 Activities." The information gathered will be correlated with periodic analysis of ~.$ l I' {'#.. generic fuel performance problems and evaluated regarding the -need for t information notice' updates. An enhanced core performance annual report J f g (i.e., the data gathered during this task action will support the j j pu development of NUREG/CR-3950, " Fuel Performance Annual Report") will { further evaluate core performance data and identify emerging trends y Q based on the independent data acquisition and analysis resulting from
- g this action plan.
.) ~- This task is also intended to enhance staff analyses of extended burnup
- *y j !
cycle issues by supporting planned research activities in analyzing available experimental data. The regional staff will be consulted in the development of plans and procedures for better tracking and documentation of core performance experience. Task 3 also will provide pp input for the final ;IMCs. ',e J n (d) Task 4 - Regional Participation in the Action Plan To Improve Core Performance L v 3 't* Task 4 consists of training and coordinating the regional support staff participating in both Tasks 2 and 3 activities. The detailed schedule milestones and resource estimates for this task are shown in Table 4 7 l- "Tash 4 - Regional Participation in the Action Plant To Improve Core N Performance: Schedule Milestones and Resource Estimates for FY 95 1 E6 Activities." This task provides for the necessary training of regional "l j Lj staff to properly identify and provide feedback on fuel performance ~ issues. a
- r
%k This task also includes solicitation of regional support for the Task 2 licensee / plant inspections and for the Task 3 data gathering and ) 14 evaluation activity and evaluation of the results of these activities as input for the final IMCs. (, )b; ' J / k ,s g., j e [ o a b )* 4w.w. ..gMs5fi 6
p:. i e .i. f i' - Table 1 <M
- y..
? {ii Task 1 - Inspections of Nuclear Fuel Vendors: .g ~s Schedule Milestones and Resource Estimates for FY 95 Activities t ,d. .{ f., d 1 h TA Support $ Staff Hrs. Comple-(% l Milestones tion N _fg% i VIB SRXB VIB SRXB Date H. kNN5 ? 8/94 .a 80 ?
- 1. Develop generic inspection plan e@q,
.-j M ?"1 TO
- 2. Review and provide input to 30 8/94
" n.d! ' a-inspection plan
- ),fj l
- 3. Define vendor-specific issues, conduct pre-inspection visits to 9.Q a
4 vendor, and finalize vendor-spect fic inspection plan
- .e Ijv l
....\\ Y A /CE 2K 60 20 9/94 H 2K 60 20 11/94 2K 60 20 3/95 'c:, B&W a 2K 60 20 7/95 4: l GE
- 4. Conduct vendor inspect' ions at each applicable vendor facility, document inspection findings,
- y W
and issue enforcement actions 'D. f' ; N 400 80 11/94
- ri ABB/CE - 2 facilities 40K I
W - 3 facilities 60K 480 80 3/95 320 80 7/95 3 B&W - 1 facility 30K
- )$y -
gij GE - 1 facility 30K 320 80 11/95 l' 4 r
- 5. VIB/SRXB evaluate vendor's
~ '1 responses to cited viciations, s.f, nonconformances, and open items, and conduct followup activities g. as necessary 3 [dN ABB/CE' 15K 5K 60 40 M'? H ISK SK 60 40 d B&W ISK 5K 60 40 {E GE 15K SK 60 40 W & 6.DraftIMCfortheinsdectionsof i 4 120 40 11/95 l [. nuclear fuel vendors J l b Totals 220K 28K 2120 630. j h 4 ., m 4' J igW 7 hk& ,gsg,gh $N r . a.n
- . ^
,_ c . d.) $l' ', O$ -{. d Table 2 'd . p$ 7 Task 2 - Inspections of Licensee's Reload.4nalysis: ' 7p 6 e i 1 Schedule Milestones and Resource Estimates for FY 95 Activities 1/,p e., , s. M A p: ' 44
- 'f TA Support $
6taff Hrs. Comple-A, f: tion .Wp2 Milestones .n VIB-SRXB VIB SRXB Date__ LSW i, %m..:,t 0-t / s. A e*.
- 1. Develop generic: inspection plan, 5
' 120 10/94 ) ?: criteria, and draft IMC iS I.k
- 2. Review and provide input to 11/94
.dEh. 20 inspection plan. }ye. >>;ej .T' 4 5
- 3. Define plant-specific, issues, 4
conduct pre-inspection visits to .' " f ' !.1 t plant, and finalize pl@nt- '/;;l;,9 : E spectfic inspection plan 'h. r 47 2K 20 120 11/94 f f RIIILiceniee/ Planta 2K 20 120 12/94 c ~P i RIl Licensee / Plant B 2K 20 120 2/95 jU 'fJ., RI Licen'see/ Plant C 2K 20 120 4/95 3,9 RIV Licensee / Plant D .f.1 t
- 4. Conduct plant inspections.
l$ 1 ,a i document inspection findings, 3l 2 and draft proposed enforcement
- 1 actions cy.
15K Bu 60 12/94 "Nif I RI!! Licensee / Plant A ]i Ril Licensee / Plant B 15K 80 60 3/95 15K 80 60 6/95 RI Licensee / Plant C h,.6 15K 80 60 9/95 4 J RIV Licensee / Plant D
- ~
m ' ?J i (k
- 5. SRXB/VIB evaluate licensee's W:
l M^ responses to cited violations. d nonconformances, and open items. ~: 1); 4 and conduct followup ' activities j. as necessary g SK 40 120 3* a x.. R111 Licerdee/ Plant A 4 + SK 40 120 .9 RIl Licensee / Plant B SK 40 120 .D RI Licensee / Plant C SK 40 120 RIV Licensee / Plant 0
- h..
i i
- 4
- 6. Finalize IMC for the inspections 20 120 11/95 T
of licensees / plants. 88K 600 1440-q{ 1 f Totals
- q
~? 4 5 3 ,p
- i, k
- I
.,.. I4 $gf fd,;g 'zA 1 -s l hY[ h :, Ij .h) ) w, 1.. a. : n u...: .1 .,,,,.,:xy wet. i
p - -- - _ - __ q q ~ g: M 3 . y Table 3 G Fk ! NI.
- l$;.
l q u.f Task 3 - Core Performance Data Gathering and Evaluation: L Schedule Milestones and Resource Estimates for FY 95 l A 'i/ u TA Support $ Staff Hrs. Comple- ' l p/ .f tion j j i L', Milestones VIB SRXB VIB SRXB Date fg a.e$ 7 1 ~d!
- }
i.
- f..g.
- 1. Develop core performance data 20 100 8/94 g
i i l l' gathering plan
- o n..
.W3 .' 3 .7 4
- 2. Conduct meetings with; nuclear 7
g. 4 ] j(q,{ fuci vendors and international i-3 l f ) ?' dialogue on fuel performance ,y,7,.-. issues 2K 18 18 10/94 l'. f h, 2K 18 18 12/94 V. av ABB/CE $$-[.- if 2K 18 18 2/95 . 4. ' '.% i 2K 18 18 4/95 0 T {$? B&W T.s $j; GE 2K 18 18 6/95 y,
- W SPC-ND 10K 40 40 9/95 a
12/94 & l"!L l T International Contacts 64 Ih f /i;. Nuclear Fuel User's Forum r l J1B f
- 3. Support Department of Energy Lab de g
,;'y s. l p research work f$ i V 'dkVI
- BNL - Extended RIA ' cycle /
ZiEi i i 12 10/95 positive moderator ~. temperature 120K i 12 4/95 ',M f coefficient i RES 12 7/95
- ,;;,P!
- PNL - High burnup fuel, UNL RES
}
- INEL - High burnupifuel, UNL
~O! 4 ',f. J
- 4. Evaluate the results.from Tasks 6K 40 120 9/95 _
1 . c: k. 2 a 3 for generic implications l 5
- 5. Review, revise, and enhance the
-4 + core performance reports i R c% 140K 20 60 3/95, y. ?
- 1992 & 1993 Core Performance' i
L Reports 75K 20 40 9/95 9 n
- 1994 Core Performance Report
[ 5 40 20 9/95
- 6. Finalize IMC for the inspections SK 4
of nuclear fuel vendors. a' [Y SK 361K 334 506 ,,.ra Totals: . ) i T t [4 p.,
- f
?> (I } ,e ^ 4 4 ,sj **1) c f 1 4,.
7:- . T. - 9 ,Ii;'\\ F Table 4 -i f y; c:e z h ' Task 4 - Regional Participation in the Action Plan To Improve Core Performance: ij C Schedule Milestones and Resource Estimates for FY 95 Activities $$$6 R i .jg.L ..y cv P g.i TA Support $ Staff Hrs. Comple- .4M Milestones tion a '- m,.M.; VI8 SRX8 V!8 SRX8 Dde ) ~' ' 7 -I,, p
- 1. Conduct meetings with 4!3 p'
participants from each region 4rl on proposed inspection plans $5I 80 80 -MS) for inspections of D, licensee / plants 9' p,.. ..e 4 e
- 2. Review inspection results from i;
Tasks 1 and 2 with participants h,4{ from each region 20 20 l NI "
- 3. With input from the regions, j
k;' define plant-specific issues, $1 conduct pre-inspection visits to Q'?: plant, and finalize plant-2 j $7 specificinspection; plan: h U RI!! Lice'nsee/ Plant A 2K 20 50 9/94
- 'y&
RII Licensee / Plant 8 2K 20 50 10/94 1 2K 20 50 11/94 ${ RI Licensee / Plant C 2K 20 EJ 12/94 RIV Licensee / Plant 0 7 e-7
- 4. Conduct training of regional 2K 80 80 12/94
) participants i y
- 5. Perform licensees / Plants inspections (see Table 2)
,;w e .s' at
- 6. With input from the regions,
/ 4 l finalize IMCs SK 20 60 9/95 ~' i Totals: ISK 280 440 + f, p. +. j ' 'J V i 4m w &n a a m;.: - ~ .s +:ur. m wm m;wsgewwam 9 ,s i
abl 6 t k';
- ~
R _ y; i Licensee / Plant Core Design and Reload Analysis Responsibilities and Status ^ l q y ,t -c ~ . k. men -... Medeetwedet. ."^ Licensee guesisyg pesss Ot. Fuel Releed c-j! N.h.. Plent Vender Done V*ader Ane%is Seeedy siete Transiene car. Performance sien,e ,7 Seucheen Nucleer Opeesting Co. SSNOCh {[
- g.
h e.kneph M. Forfey 1 ,E 06/25/77 E W/SNOC EPRI EPRI: E 17:17 gy e LOCA - W LOPAft OFA a VANTAGE-5 -] ,.$s,g wAFBA yk.- i 5 i T, -. :
- Joseph M. Fedey 2 03/31181 E
E!/SNOC w 17ely = * - k [- - Arirene PubEc Service Co. IAPSh
- Palo Veede 1 CE-06mitsS CE
' APS EVI2 l e Pato Verde 2 04/24/s6 CE APS 3[ 1 ve,d. 2 i i,25,.7 CE APS g ( T Clevolen4 Doctric IBuminating Co. ICDh W ~ fF e re,,y 1 GE 6 11/13/55 GE GEKD Erfu EPRt GE Ss3 Barnw gif LOCA-GE l y, , t w , =....\\ = 0, y P O N" hL j
- j:,
f, 5 ( .@v. m" =
- fe=
w .,v. m l '
- u %; (;1,, ' e.., s ',.% '%'.;i..
~ fe &f? ^q* =.. 2 '.v,r}; ~l,:: n- .g> }, Q e* ~.,..
- q. M,w..T e
>9, p .? y, <-. y ,.wyE. a .,.f.. s. $ -s - ? ". s 1 -(b ( 9 (~ ,,.g,h- -a f ['"_ w '.[ - 'i. f P? ,[ x '< / ?. G ';. -e .... ef w .w;:. ~z - 7 4: L ~ G : -. ~
- h;. <..
'.'"" ^ " :,,cLL n? ' ?: .,. ?s.. ? c.g.., _. ~ ;-3;.2 5 ;~r W.. %
- e r?..,, -*
'A t, ',, y'. 4:. ?..'- q,. - ,,~' .c W t
- g. W. *
- t- %
- , - p~ h#
- 5:',.,.,
. p ; Y.W^ 2.b a 92 s =- .,.T. - 4'.. -~.C* ^* { ? ? i '- \\ ?: l* a w&cQ sy** m} a, se ng ^ [ n .y a me,
y,&Uj - i if I '[. .,,ml .'. l ';~ . (- d_ w 'Q i ,P Table 7 p [ M d;id} ; 1 4 4..
- n. c q l
Regulatory Basis for Fuel / Core Design Criteria 'N ~ i k 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, " General Design Criteria for Nuclear Poiter: Plants," General Desihn Criterion (GOC) 10. " Reactor Desig i y-
- 12. " Suppression of Reactor Power Oscillations" m&
7: L W%3 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, " Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear o l y. Power Plants And Fuel: Reprocessing Plants" .;:,qM[h;. w
- f. g.';j l'
- t l
Licensee / Plant Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR), .p r W Chapter 4.2, " Fuel System Design Requirements".:. > g,.; ;., ,u.g ~4 g.pe Licensee / Plant Technical Specifications, Chapter 3.12. " Core Thermal t i.gM. -pg ..[F i Limits" i y l ~;. Nuclear Fuel Vendor's Quality Assurance and Technical Topicals approved j by the NRC gq NUREG-0800, " Standard Review Plan," Section 4.2, " Fuel System Design," h l T I' i Externally Applied For,ces ,%[?.h and Appendix A. " Evaluation of Fuel Assembly Structural Response to ,. px NUREG/8R-0058, "Regulgtory Analysis ouldelines of the U.S. Nuclear ie p: l f, c
- ,+
Regulatory Commission" ' 40 l . by h1 Generic Letter (GL) 83, Licensing Actions"-11. " Licensee Qualification for i 4 y yy j gy Analysis in Support ofi ,jp , (.dpi j GL 88-16. " Removal of Cycls-Specific Parameter f iri's From Technf ral Specifications (COLR)" -:Qh I 4 GL 90-02, Supplement 1. " Alternative Requirements fw Fuel Assemblies in<.w 4'? l q: the Design Features Section of Technical Specifications" jM t A i p.7 SECY-92-263 " Staff Plans for Eliminatten af Require'ments Marginal to V p, i 4!.. Safety" r ( 4 i
- e
, y.; y ' ~ - u l<. /,. l 1 ( l M g.m % h Y! ' h . a' i = i
- I*
j gf, f,$ 'Y. - 5 ,. ? 46 4 hf$ f't b .,5 33 7 i } (t 4 ,j; 1 o 4,,,
- 1...' n
./..i c, s. .d,?3 l 1 n !}}