ML20151T757
| ML20151T757 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/04/1998 |
| From: | Black S NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Powers C SIEMENS POWER CORP. (FORMERLY SIEMENS NUCLEAR POWER |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20151T760 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-QA-99900081 99900081-98-01, 99900081-98-1, NUDOCS 9809100142 | |
| Download: ML20151T757 (1) | |
Text
-
A ucu yw 4
UNITED STATES e
S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 g *.., +,o September 4, 1998 Mr. Chris M. Powers, Vice President Quality and Regulatory Affairs Siemens Power Corporation - Nuclear Division P.O. Box 130 1
2101 Horn Rapids Road Richland, WA 99352-0130 1
SUBJEC.-
NRC INSPECTION REPORT NO. 99900081/98-01
Dear Mr. Powers:
On August 3-6,1998, the staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) performed an inspection of activities conducted by the Siemens Power Corporation - Nuclear Division (SPC),
at the company's facilities in Richland, Washington. This letter transmits the report of that inspection.
During the inspection, the NRC inspection team identified a concern where SPC did not request i
NRC staff approval to extend peak pellet exposure limits for the 9x9-5 fuel design. SPC erred in using information from the 9x9-IX/9X Safety Evaluation Report (SER) to justify changes to the licensing basis for the 9x9-5 fuel. Prior to the NRC acceptance in 1995 of the SPC generic fuel design criteria, the staff wrote an SER approving each fuel type designed by SPC.
1 Because the SERs reference specific limits on peak burnup, staff review and approval would be necessary for SPC to exceed the peak burnup limits.
However, during the course of the inspection, SPC provided additional documentation to the team which provided a technical basis to extend the assembly average burnup from 40 GWd/t to 45 GWd/t and also considered extension of the peak pellet to 60 GWd/t. On the bases of that review, the team concluded that the issue was of low safety significance because the fuel rods in the 9x9-IX/9X and 9x9-5 fuel are very similar. As a result, the team's concern was adequately addressed and closed during the inspection.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790, of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter and its enclosure will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room. Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, we will be pleased to discuss them with you. Thank you for your cooperation during this process.
Sincerely, j
j
%%A Suzann
. Black, Chief Quality Assurance, Vendor Inspection, and g
91 g g 9909 Maintenance Branch 99900001 PDR Division of Reactor Controls and Human Factors Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
Inspection Report No. 99900081/98-01
/
Q%~'9 fWf NM f//)
4