ML20147E301
| ML20147E301 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07002932 |
| Issue date: | 02/26/1988 |
| From: | Counsil W TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| To: | Rouse L NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| References | |
| 29076, TXX-88245, NUDOCS 8803070033 | |
| Download: ML20147E301 (4) | |
Text
fy 76 - if32)
RETURN TO 396-SS
,N%
's xf,
p Log i TXX-88245 o,y cg>dp r
==
File # 232 kg)4
{]
Ref # 10CFR70.5 0
=
=
7UELECTRIC February 26, 1988 g
3, wum c.co.mu-Execurun ike PressJmo Director, Office of Nuclear Material
~
~ ~,
Safety and Safeguards p
t$,
g
' Attention:
Leland C. Rouse, Branch Chief n
Fuel Cycle Safety Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission VA 9
Washington, D.C.
20555
SUBJECT:
COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION (CPSES)
DOCKET NO. 70-2932 SPECIAL NULLEAR MATERIAL LICENSE NO. SNM-1912 Ref:
TV Electric lette.r TXX-88139 from W. G. Counsil to the NRC dated January 25, 1988
Dear Mr. Rouse:
On January 25, 1988, TV Electric infonned the Office of Nuclear Material l
Safety and Safeguards of the receipt of two shipments of new fuel that were inconsistent with the per shipment quantity provision of the subject I kense.
This letter serves as a follow-up to our referenced letter.
The results of our review are discussed in the attachment to this letter.
Very truly yours, W. G. Counsil h-A 8803070033 880226 By:
c@2A f
PDR ADOCK 0700 2
R. D.VWalker T
r C
Manager, Nuclear Licensing RSB/clk o
A Attachment 8
b%
0 c - lis, llelinda llallov, 05P-IlRC p-lir. C. Grimes, OSP-flRC
- ' 660 Mr. Jerry R. Swif t, Section leader, FCSB-HRC g
(p#
10 Mr. R. D. Martin, Region IV E
Q.
Resident Inspectors, CPSES (3)
M
/j t
f8 400 hrth Olbs Street LB81 skilas, Texas 73.'01 L
)...
[ k -'
r
,. x i
iTXX 88245 February 26, 1988 E
Page 1 of 2 FOLLOW-UP REPORT ON PER SHIPMENT INCONSISTENCIES WITH SNM LICENSE N0. SNM-1912 DESCRIPTION
^
Condition 9 of the subject license states:
Authorized Use:
For receipt, possession, inspection, storage.and:
l packaging of fuel:for delivery to a carrier in accordance with the statements, representations and conditions specified in the-license application dated July 10,-1980, and.its supplements dated April 3 and~ July 16, 1981, and August 11,~1982.
~
- Specifically, Section 2.2 Nuclear Criticality Safety of the referenced July 16, 1981, supplement deals with the criticality safety aspects of storing new fuellin the spent fuel pool and states:
A "shipment" of new fuel will consist of no more than twelve (12) fuel assemblies.
A review of Unit I fuel receipt documents has indicated that Shipment 15, received January 11, 1984, consisted of 14 fuel assemblies (7 shipping containers), and Shipment 16, received January 17, 1984, consisted of 13 fuel assemblies (7 shipping containers).
CONCLUSION TU Electric's review of the issue indicates that there is no nuclear safety significance and that there were no inconsistencies between the intent underlying the per shipment quantity provision and the actual number of assemblies received per shipment. Arrays of up to forty (40) loaded shipping containers are safe from criticality. All fuel assemblies to be received under the subject license are onsite and in storage; therefore, no amendment to the subject license is required.
DISCUSSION Discussions with the fuel vendor (Westinghouse) indicate that the new fuel shipments to CPSES Unit I were initially restricted to a maximum of twelve (12) fuel assemblies per truckload. Typically, one truckload of fuel assemblies represents one shipment. However, in late 1983, Westinghouse changed this policy to allow shipments of fourteen (14) assemblies per truckload unless otherwise requested by the utility. Currently, Westinghouse's policy is to ship twelve (12) fuel assemblies per truckload unless the utility requests an increase of up to fourteen (14) fuel assemblies per truckload.
TU Electric's fuel receipt engineers were required by procedures to acknowledge that CPSES was licensed to receive new fuel onsite. At the time of Shipments 15 and 16 for Unit l's initial core, it was considered that the intent of the applicable provisions was being met. The intent of the per shipment quantity provision was to limit the maximum number of fuel assemblies that could be loaded into the spent fuel pool prior to performing an independent loading pattern verification check. As per the subject license, L
I i
TXX-88245 February 26, 1988 Page 2 of 2 TU Electric's engineering organization is required to conduct this independent loading check after each shipment of new fuel is loaded into the spent fuel pool to assure that an "expanded checkerboard" loading pattern is maintained.
A review of the fuel receipt records indicates that Shipments 15 and 16 were loaded into the new fuel storage vault and not the spent fuel pool.
To prevent future recurrences, the application for the CPSES Unit 2 Special Nuclear Material License (TXX-88089), dated January 29, 1988, specifies that the shipment of new fuel will not exceed fourteen (14) fuel assemblies per shipment.
In addition, we have reminded the engineering personnel involved in these activities of the importance of strict adherence to the license provisions.
/
f a
i
/
/
/
I j
1 a
,_y
~
~
M 4
i a
?
=
v',
a O9, $h,, G{p
%e q #q, t
9 m
- y. s N
y N'Y % @t Ne t
v e co, +
c l
W^$o,q 1
s,.
0 #
4 G 1
T' N
V E
?
2 J
-