ML20204H624
| ML20204H624 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | McGuire, Mcguire  |
| Issue date: | 08/04/1986 |
| From: | Tucker H DUKE POWER CO. |
| To: | Harold Denton, Youngblood B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20204H627 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-61512, TAC-61513, NUDOCS 8608080166 | |
| Download: ML20204H624 (4) | |
Text
DUKE POWER GOMPANY P.O. nox 03180 CIIARLOTMB, N.O. 28242 IIALltTUCKER WPHN
- m om M N" wara. man reoortvion August 4, 1986 Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 ATTENTION:
B.J. Youngblood, Director PWR Project Directorate #4
Subject:
McGuire Nuclear Station Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370 McGuire 1/ Cycle 4 0FA Reload License Amendments - Revision / Supplement
Dear Mr. Denton:
My letter of May 15, 1986 (as supplemented via letters dated May 23, June 6, June 30, and July 10, 1986) submitted (pursuant to 10CFR 50.90) proposed McGuire 1/ Cycle 4 0FA Reload license amendments to Facility Operating Licenses NPF-9 and NPF-17 for McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, respectively. The proposed cuendments ensure that plant operation is consistent with the design and safety cvaluation conclusion statements made in the McGuire Unit 1 Cycle 4 Reload Safety Evaluation (RSE) and ensure that these conclusions remain valid. These amendments included proposed technical specification changes en hcorporate RAOC and a Positive Moderator Temperature Coefficient (NIC) (note that the positive MTC change was also requested to be applicable for McGuire Unit 2).
The " Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License and Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination and Opportunity for Hearing" related to the submittal was published in the Federal Register on June 27, 1986.
However, as a result of fuel assembly problems discovered while performing McGuire Unit 1/ Cycle 4 core verification on June 26, 1986 the core has been redesigned and two assemblies modified.
Consequently, the McGuire Unit 1/ Cycle 4 RSE has been revised to reflect this situation, and additional reload related technical speci-fication changes are required. In addition, a revision to the previously sub-sitted peaking factor limit report will be necessary.
l Attached are the additional proposed license amendments to facility operating licenses NPF-9 and NPF-17 for McGuire Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2, respectively.
The additional proposed amendments revise the design features technical specifi-cation section to generally allow use of modified fuel assemblies in the Unit 1 i
g0 8608080166 860904 I I PDR ADOCK 05000369' P
i Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director August 4, 1986 Page 2 (and Unit 2) core. The revised McGuire Unit 1/ Cycle 4 RSE justifies operation with the core redesign and use of the specific Unit 1/ Cycle 4 modified assemblies (as well as the continued acceptability of the previously proposed technical specification changes), concluding that the previously acceptable safety limits are not exceeded. Note that the proposed application of the positive MTC technical specification change to McGuire Unit 2 is unaffected by this Unit 1/ Cycle 4 redesign and consequently remains valid as previously submitted. contains the additional proposed Technical Specification changes, and discusses the justification and safety analysis to support the (additional and previously) proposed changes.
Included in Attachment 2 is A)
Revision 1 of the cycle-specific reload safety evaluation for McGuire Unit 1/ Cycle 4.
This RSE has been updated to include all changes and additions (denoted by bars in the right margin) necessitated by the core redesign.
The revised peaking factor limit report for McGuire U it 1/ Cycle 4 which is required pursuant to l
n McGuire Technical Specification 6.9.1.9 will be submitted by August 12, 1986 (note that since McGuire Unit 1/ Cycle 4 initial criticality is currently scheduled for Augus t 26, 1986 an exemption (in accordance with the provisions of Technical Specification 6.9.1.9) from the 60 days prior to cycle initial criticality sub-mittal requirement will be necessary). Pursuant to 10CFR 50.91, Attachment 3 provides an analysis performed in accordance with the standards contained in 10CFR 50.92 which concludes that the proposed amendments do not involve a significant hazards consideration, and Duke is forwarding a copy of this amendment request application and no significant hazards consideration analysis to the North Caro-lina Department of Human Resources. The proposed amendments have been reviewed and determined to have no adverse safety or environmental impact.
It is requested that the proposed amendments receive timely review and approval under the exigent license amendment provision of 10CFR 50.91(a)(6). McGuire Unit 1 is currently in its end of Cycle 3 refueling outage (which began May 16, 1986).
Cycle 4 startup (criticality date) is scheduled for August 26, 1986, and therefore the normal 30 day Federal Register public comments notice period (10CFR 50.91(a)(2)) would not allow for approval by this date. Failure to grant the requested change by the above date would result in shutdown of the unit (i.e.
preclude plant startup) since current technical specifications only allow for operation with fuel assemblies containing 264 fuel rods (note: although there are no applicability / action requirements associated with the affected design features technical specification, it is the NRC's position (based on NRC/0NRR interpreta-tion of Technical Specification 5.3.1) that the 264 fuel rods provision ef this specification must be appropriately revised prior to achieving criticality / unit operation). In addition, while the RAOC and positive MTC portions of the proposed amendments are not required for unit operation, the implications (e.g. operating restrictions, delays in cycle startup process) of failure to have these amendments approved by Unit 1/ Cycle 4 criticality are described in the May 15, 1986 submit-tal).
Duke Power could not have avoided this situation and has not delayed this appli-cation to take advantage of the exigent license s.iendment provision of 10CFR 50.91. No changes in the number of fuel rods pc.r assembly were originally deter-
~.
Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director August 4, 1986 Page 3 eined necessary or anticipated for the Unic 1/ Cycle 4 reload design (as evidenced by the May 15, 1986 submittal). On June 26, 1986, while performing core verifi-cation using an underwater video camera following completion of core reload, several small cylindrical objects were observed lying on the upper core baffle and at the Reactor Building upender which were later confirmed to be spent fuel pellets from a damaged assembly. On June 27, 1986 a task force was established to resolve the fuel assembly / pellet problem, and on July 8, 1986 following multiple neetings and discussions between Duke Power and vendor personnel during which various options for resolution of the fuel assembly / pellet problem were proposed (some of which would not involve Tech. Spec. changes) it was decided to redesign the core without the damaged assembly and with two modified assemblies each having 8 fuel rods replaced by stainless steel rods in the appropriate locations.
Appropriate core redesign analysis work was begun, and on July 16, 1986 the core redesign loading pattern was received identifying the two assemblies to be modified. However, on July 25, 1986 during reconstitution of the second fuel assembly difficulties were encountered in loading replacement stainless steel rods in two locations resulting in a decision to leave these locations as open water channels (and consequently affecting core redesign analysis work and any potential Tech. Spec. 5.3.1 revision). Subsequent safety evaluations (which would justify the Tech. Spec. changes) performed by Westinghouse to determine the impact of the core redesign on the Cycle 4 core performance were nct completed until July 31, 1986. Consequently, Duke Power Company could not avoid this situation and has not created the situation to take advantage of the exigent provision.
Since this letter revises and supplements proposed license amendments provided in my May 15, 1986 submittal which is currently under review, no additional amendment fees are necessary. This revised / supplemented amendment has previously been discussed in numerous telecons between Messrs. P.B. Nardoci and R.L. Gill (DPC) s' and Mr. D.S. Hood, et. al. of your staff. The NRC has been kept apprised of the fuel assembly / pellet situation, and the problem was the subject of a meeting between the NRC, Duke Power Company, and Westinghouse on August 1, 1986. A Licensee Event Report addressing the issue will be filed by August 28, 1986.
Should there be any questions concerning this matter or if additional information is required, please advise.
Very truly yours, 46
/
<c
~
Hal B. Tucker f
PBN/21/j gm Attachments
Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director August 4, 1986 Page 4 l
xc:
(w/ attachments)
Dr. J. Nelson Grace, Regional Administrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission - Region II 101 Marietta Street, NW, Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Mr. Dayne Brown, Chief Radiation Protection Branch Division of Facility Services Department of Human Resources P.O. Box 12200 Raleigh, North Carolina 27605 l
Mr. Darl Hood Division of Licensing l
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Mr. W.T. Orders Senior Resident Inspector McGuire Nuclear Station l
1
___________________