ML20138J847

Application for Amend to License DPR-45,changing Tech Specs 4.2.4.2.5 & 5.2.17.5,to Increase Max Average Fuel Assembly Exposure Limit from 16,800 to 18,000 Mwd/Mtu in Operational Condition 1.Fee Paid

ML20138J847
Person / Time
Site:	La Crosse File:Dairyland Power Cooperative icon.png
Issue date:	12/12/1985
From:	Taylor J DAIRYLAND POWER COOPERATIVE
To:	Zwolinski J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20138J850	List: ML20138J847 ML20138J898
References
LAC-11318, NUDOCS 8512180080
Download: ML20138J847 (4)

Text

e w.- .h D A/R LAND 8 [k COOPERAT/VE

• P.O. BOX 817 a 2615 EAST AV SOUTH . LA CROSSE. WISCONSIN 54601 (608) 788 4 000 December 12, 1985 In reply, please refer to LAC-11318 DOCKET NO. 50-409 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attn: Mr. John Zwolinski, Chief Operating Reactor Branch #5 Division of Licensing U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

SUBJECT:

DAIRYLAND POWER COOPERATIVE LA CROSSE BOILING WATER REACTOR (LACBWR)

PROVISIONAL OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-45 APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO LICENSE

REFERENCE:

(1) '10 CFR 50, Section 50.90 (2) 10 CFR 170.12 (3) LACBWR Technical Specifications (4) DPC Letter, Linder to Ziemann, LAC-6274 dated May 9, 1979.

(5) DPC Letter, Linder to Crutchfield, LAC-7572 dated June 1, 1981.

(6) NRC Letter, Crutchfield to Linder, dated November 6, 1981.

(7) DPC Letter, Linder to Crutchfield, LAC-8109 dated February 23, 1982.

(8) NRC Letter, Crutchfield to Linder, dated March 11, 1982.

Gentlemen:

Dairyland Power Cooperative (DPC) hereby requests the following change to the LACBWR Technical Specifications. In accordance with the provisions of Reference 1, this application to amend Provisional Operating License No.

DPR-45 for the La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor is being filed with three (3) signed original applications, together with thirty-seven (37) copies.

Technical Specification 4.2.4.2.5 currently states:

4.2.4.2.6 The maximwn average exposure of any fuel assembly not on the periphery of the core shall be limited to 16,800 FfdD/FffU.

Y\

APPLICABILITY: Operational Condition 1.

DPC requests that this Technical Specification be changed to read:

$l

$l 218 h 9 ,jd6 P g

.,- 'S

e Mr. Jchn Zrolinski, Chief .

Daceabar 12, 1985

.Oparcting Raccter Branch #5 LAC-11318

( 4.2.4.2.5 The maximum average exposure of any fuel aasombly not on the pariphery of the core ahati be timited to 18,000 NWD/MTU.

APPLICABILITY: Opertional Condition 1.

i' Suggested, revised pages for the LACBWR Technical Specifications showing this change along with the appropriate corresponding changes to the s surveillance requirement (Specification 5.2.17.5) and the Specifications Bases 3 are' attached to this letter.

The justification for this change is the continued exceptionally good

[ performance of the Type III (Exxon) fuel in the LACBWR. The first reload of Type III fuel was used.in LACBWR Fuel Cycle 5 which began on March 9, 1978.

As of the end'of Cycle 9, eighty-two (82) Type III fuel assemblies had been discharged from the LACBWR core. The core for the current fuel cycle (Cycle

10) contains only Type III fuel. No indication of fuel clad degradation has been observed in any of this fuel nor has there been any indication of Type III fuel degradation in the continuously monitored off-gas or in the routinely

, monitored. reactor coolant activities. The fuel performance during Fuel Cycles 5 and 6 and most of Cycle 7 is discussed in detail in References 4, 5 and 7.

l This data base of Type III fuel perforamnce is updated to the present by the Table of_" Fuel Performance in the LACBWR", the tables listing fuel assemblies discharged..the figures showing BOC and EOC core configurations and the figures showing LACBWR power history and reactor coolant and off-gas

radioactivity attached to this letter.

l Near the end of Fuel Cycle 7, a temporary change to Technical

!- Specification 4.2.4.2.5 was granted which allowed nonperipheral fuel assemblies to be exposed to 17,200 MWD /MTU. Four Type III fuel assemblies i completed this cycle in nonperipheral core positions with exposures above

, 16,800 MWD /MTU. The highest exposure in a nonperipheral position was 17,196 MWD /MTU. At the end of Cycle 7, all of the fuel in the core was given a

-detailed visual examination using high resolution underwater television equipment. One failed' fuel rod was observed in a Type I (A-C) fuel assembly

, and this single ruptured fuel rod was the cause of the small increase which j had been observed in the off-gas and reactor coolant activities near the end 5 .of Cycle 7. The remaining 71 fuel assemblies were subjected to a dry sipping test, which is a very sensitive method of detecting very small clad defects, with no indications of leaking fuel rods observed.

.During the refueling for Cycle 8, ten (10) Type III fuel assemblies 4

discharged at the end of Cycle 6 were returned to the LACBWR core in n peripheral positions. During Cycles 8 and 9 considerably higher burnups were

. achieved in Type III assemblies in the peripheral locations. Three fuel assemblies have been discharged with~ exposures greater than 20,000 MWD /MTU (EOC-9) and a total of 18 Type III assemblies have achieved greater than i 18,000 MWD /MTU (including those presently in the core). These fuel exposures have been accomplished with no significant indications of any fuel cladding

! failure. The infrequent high values in the alpha activity in the reactor coolant (see attached figures) and the relatively low and relatively constant

~ levels of fission product activity in the off-gas and reactor coolant are due to tramp fissionable material remaining in the system from the earlier i- failures-in the Type I and II (A-C) fuel. We believe that this impeccable j

performance of'the Type III fuel to greater than 20,000 MWD /MTU on the i

, WP3.7 ,

l

= ,

g g.

Mr. Jahn' Zw311nski, Chief - Drestber 12, 1985 Operating Reactor Branch.f5 LAC-11318 periphery of the LACBWR core and to 17,200 MWD /MTU in nonperipheral locations in Cycle 7 indicates that it can achieve at least 18,000 MWD /MTU without failure in nonperipheral locations in the core. Continued restrictions on rate of power escalation and rate of control rod withdrawal and judicious reload planning to limit power density increases in fuel will contribute to the expected good fuel performance.

~

Finding of no significant hazards We have reviewed'the hazards consideration referenced in 10 CFR 50 Sections 91 and 92 and have determined that with these criteria no significant hazards result from this proposed amendment. 10 CFR 50.92 (c)(1-3) provide the questions for review of significant hazards considerations. They are repeated here for reference.

10 CFR 50.92 (c)

(1) ~ Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an' accident previously evaluatad; or

.(2) Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from

'any accident previously evaluated; or (3) Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

The proposed small increase in allowed fuel exposure in -fuel assemblies not on the periphery of the core will not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The greater fuel exposure will not cause a precipitous deterioration of the fuel clad. Any deterioration that might occur is expected to develop slowly and would be apparent at an early stage from increases in the reactor coolant and off-gas radioactivity. The current Technical Specification limits for these activities provide assurance that LACBWR fuel assemblies will not exhibit unacceptable degradation during future operation. All other fuel related Technical Specifications such as MAPLHCR (Spec. 4.2.4.2.1), MCPR (Spec.

4.2.4.2.3) and MLHCR (Spec. 4.2.4.2.4) will be conservatively met during-operation with the higher fuel exposure.

The increase in exposure limit for fuel assemblies not on the periphery of the core can not by itself create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. No systems or

' method of operation are being changed by this revision. It also will not involve a significant reduction in a margin of' safety since the Technical

. Specification limits for off-gas and' reactor coolant activities and for fuel power densities have not been changed and these specifications control the margin of safety for consequences of anticipated accidents.

The information submitted in this application for license amendment has been reviewed by the LACBWR Committees as prescribed in LACBWR Technical Specifications.

A copy of the proposed revised pages of LACBWR Technical Specification is attached. A check for $150 accompanies this letter to cover the required application fee per Reference 2.

WP3.7 t

i Mr. J hn Zwolinski, Chisf Dectabsr 12, 1985 Op2rsting Racetor.Brench f5 LAC-11318 DPC requests approval of this request as soon as possible. The present Technical Specification limit of 16,800 MWD /MTU assembly average exposure for fuel assemblies not on the periphery of the core would require an unnecessarily early termination of the present fuel cycle about the middle of February, 1986.

If there are any questions concerning this submittal, please contact us.

Sincerely, D RYLAND POWER COOPERATIV James W. Taylor General Manager JWT:SJR:sks Enclosure cc: Mr. John Stang' NRC Resident Inspector Mr. James Keppler, Region III Mr. Clarence Riederer, Chief Engineer Wisconsin Public Service Commission P. O. Box 87854 Madison, WI 53707 STATE OF WISCONSIN )

)

COUNTY OF LA CROSSE )

Personally came before me this [d day of , 1985, the above named, James W. Taylor, to me known to be the person who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged the same.

I M& '

Notary Publi La Crosse' County Wisconsin My commission expires February 21, 1988 WP3.7 . _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ - - _ _ _ -