ML20236A185

Forwards Proprietary DPC-NE-2001, Fuel Mechanical Reload Analysis Methodology for Mark-BW Fuel. Concurrence or Denial Requested by 880201.Fee Paid

ML20236A185
Person / Time
Site:	Mcguire, Catawba, McGuire, 05000000
Issue date:	10/14/1987
From:	Tucker H DUKE POWER CO.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM)
Shared Package
ML19304B608	List: ML20236A185
References
NUDOCS 8710220109
Download: ML20236A185 (13)

Text

J r

,i

+

i 1

DUKE POWER GOMPANY '

P.O. box 33189 -

CHARLOTTE, N.C. 28242

+HALH. TUCKER-Tas.nenown i

l vmm Panniioent..

(704) 070 4 %

. FUCt. SAG PRODt10 TION '

l i

- Ocitober 14, 1987

q

'i

+

~

U..S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission j

i

' Washington, D. C. 20555

'13 i

Attention:- Document Control Desk

.N

+

c, g.

' Subj ect : ' Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and'2 d.

Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414 pj,]

)'

McGuire' Nuclear. Station, Units 1 and 2

'L Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370

> hj Fuel Mechanical Reload Analysis q) i 3

Methodology For Mark-BW Fuel c,3

}

)

Dear Sir:

Attached is a Technical Report which describes Duke Power Company's Mechanical

~

Reload Analysis. Methodology for Mark-BW Fuel. For each reload cycle, mechanical analyses must be performed to ensure the fuel rod structural' integrity, and to establish acceptable thermal and mechanical operating ~1imits as specified by

?

Section 4.2 of the NRC Standard Review Plan.. This' report describes these L

' licensing analyses, and the methods utilized to ensure that the applicable NRC l

guidelines are met throughout the fuel's in-reactor lifetime.

I'

'1 L

The methodology employed is that which has been used for Duke's Oconee Nuclear 1

Station. The methodology and Duke Power's use thereof, has already been approved by the NRC Staff.

3 Duko Power has performed a 10 CFR 550.59 evaluation of the Duke Mechanical Reload Analysis Methodology for Mark-BW Fuel using Duke Power's procedure for 50.59 review of analytical methodologies.

It has been determined that utilizing the described methodology for the Mark-BW Fuel'does not create any concerns relative to'the safe operation of the McCuire or Catawba Nuclear Stations, does not l

require any changes to be made to the Technical Specifications and is not considered an unreviewed safety question.

Accordingly, it has been determined that this methodology can be used for McGuire and Catawba without prior NRC approval.

It is requested that NRC review the conclusions reached in the 50.59 review and provide concurrence or denial by February 1, 1988.

l.

Pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 170.21, enclosed is a check for $150.00.

sfI Ae en o220io, evioia 7

w 9

l U. S. Nuclear' Regulatory Commission October 14, 1987 Page 2 Attached is an affidavit seeking to withhold from public disclosure information that is considered proprietary to Duke Power.

I Very truly yours, t

^

Hal B. Tucker 1

RWO/133/sbn Attachment xc:

Dr. J. Nelson Grace, Regional Administrator U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II 101 Marietta Street, NW, Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Mr. P. K. Van Doorn NRC Resident Inspector Catawba Nuclear Station 1

Mr. W. T. Orders NRC Resident Inspector McGuire Nuclear Station l

1 l

l

__u

g i

i AFFIDAVIT OF RICHARD B. PRIORY 1.

I am Vice President, Design Engineering Department of Duke Power Company (" Duke") and as such have the responsibility of reviewing the proprietary information sought to be withheld from public disclosure in connection with nuclear power plant licensing or rule-making proceedings, and am authorized to apply for its withholding on behalf of Duke.

2.

I am making this affidavit in conformance with the provisions of 10 CFR 62.790 of the regulations of the Nuclear Regulatccy Commission

("NRC") and in conjunction with Duke's application iur withholding which accompanies this affidavit.

4 3.

I have knowledge of criteria used by Duke in designating information as proprietary or confidential.

4.

Pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (b) (4) of 10 CFR 62.790, the i

following is furnished for consideration by the NRC in determining whether the information sought to be withheld from public disclosure should be withheld, (i) The information sought to be withheld from public disclosure is l

owncd by Duke and has been held in confidence by Duke and its 4

consultants.

(ii) The information is of a type that would customarily be held in confidence by Duke.

The information consists of analysis methodology details and analysis results, relative to a method of analysis that provides a competitive advantage to Duke.

(a) The use of the information by a competitor would greatly reduce its expenditure in qualifying similar methodologies.

(b)

It reveals aspects of a methodology with potential commercial value to Duke Power.

(iii)The information was transmitted to the NRC in confidence and under the provisions of 10 CFR 62.790; it is to be received in confidence by the NRC.

(iv) The information sought to be protected is not available in public sources to the best of our knowledge and belief.

RichardB.Prhory (continued)

m.

[2 p

h

\\

' AFFIDAVIT OF RICHARD B.'PR'IORY'(Page 2)'

i (v) The proprietary information sought to be withheld in this submittal is that'which is. marked'in the proprietary version of the report'.

j DPC-NE-2001,~ Fuel Mechanica1' Reload Analysis Methodology for Mark o

- BW Fuel, September 1987, and omitted from the non-proprietary l

version.

This information enables Duke to:

I (a) Respond to NRC. requests for information regarding the. fuel mechanical behavior of all B&WsuppMed fuel contained within l

Westinghouse pressurized' water reactors.

k I

(b) Support license amendment and Technical Specification revision requests for Westinghouse pressurized water reactors.

(c) Perform safety reviews per 10 CFR 50.59.

(vi) The proprietary information' sought to be' withheld from public disclosure has substantial commercial value to Duke.

(a)

It allows' Duke to reduce vendor and consultant expenses associated j

with supporting the operation and licensing of nuclear power plants.

.i (b)- The subject information could only be duplicated by competitors at'similar expense to that incurred by Duke.

5.

Public disclosure of this information is likely to cause harm to the J

position of Duke because'it would allow competitors in the nuclear 1

industry to benefit from the results of a significant development program without requiring a commensurate expense or allowing Duke to recoup a po" tion of its expenditures or benefit from the sale of the information.

I Richard 8.Pr]ry

AFFIDAVIT OF RICHARD B. PRIORY (page 3)

Richard B. Priory, being duly sworn, on his oath deposes and says that he is the person who subscribed his name to the foregoing statement, and that the matters and facts set forth in the statement are true.

I h

Richard B. Pi\\iory Sworn to and subscribed before me this 13% day of Oc_hn he v 1987.

Witness my hand and official seal.

Notary Public L

l My commission expires:

Sot. 2o,19 ss 1

]

Attachment I DPC-1553.26-00-0024 Revision 1 t

10CFR50.59 Evaluation of Fuel Mechanical Reload Analysis Methodology for Mark-BW Fuel The Fuel Mechanical Reload Analysis Methodology for Mark-BW Fuel (see Attachment II) describes the fuel mechanical and thermal assessments required to be performed for each fuel cycle design utilizing Mark-BW fuel.

Mark-BW fuel is to be used in the McGuire and Catawba Nuclear Stations.

This methodology uses the same analytical methods and computer codes utilized in the Fuel Mechanical and Thermal Performance chapter of the NRC approved Oconee Nuclear Station Reload Design Methodology II (Reference 1).

(The Oconee Nuclear Station uses Mark-B fuel.)

Essentially, the methodologies associated with the two fuels are the same except the Mark-BW methodology does not include the ECCS analysis.

This is a vendor analysis which will be made available at a later date.

Both methodologies are based on analyses utilizing the B&W TACO 2 and CROV computer code programs.

Both the Mark-BW and Mark-B fuel are supplied by the vendor, Babcock &

Wlicox. The fuel and cladding suppliers are identical for both types of fuel.

N Due to the similarities in fuel rod properties, the TACO 2 models for fuel densification and swelling, fuel restructuring, gas release, cladding creep, gap closure, and the CROV creep equation would be applicable to the Mark-BW fuel as it is currently applicable to the Mark-B and Mark-C fuel. (The Mark-C fuel is also a B&W supplied fuel.) This applicability is explained in the B&W 1etter included as Attachment III (Reference 2).

i

Thus, it is concluded that 'the methods described in the Fuel Mechanical Reload Analysis Methodology for Mark-BW Fuel are applicable to the Mark-BW fuel and that utilizing this methodology does not create any concerns relative to the safe operation of the McGuire or Catawba Nuclear Stations and is not considered an unreviewed safety question.

l 1

J References 1.

Duke Power Company, Oconee Nuclear Station Reload Design Methodology II, DPC-NE-1002, March 1985.

2.

Letter, Ernie Coppola (B&W) to T. F. Wyke/R. M. Gribble (DPC),

Subject:

Applicability of TAC 02 and CROV to Mark BW Fuel, September 14, 1987.

l ATTACHMENT II l

l l

l DPC - 1553.26 0024 l

Revision 1 l

i SEE:

DUKE POWER COMPANY l

FUEL MECHANICAL RELOAD ANALYSIS i

METHODOLOGY FOR MARK - BW FUEL DPC-NE-2001 September 1987

a l

i

./

Form 01077(R I0 86)

FORM 101.1 l

REVlSION 10 l

1

(

CERTIFICATION OF ENGINEERING CALCULATION STATION AND UNIT NUMBER' nic cr uit f d cArnwAA Md(LErW syn ried 5 - ALL dd/73 l

. TITLE OF CALCULATION TD T4 E V A L. u A rio rl DF rH E ME w,qivi 41L

.egion b A Nitt su o s ME THe30Locr V foe mAu -13>d rus &

CALCULATION NUMBER a P e - /r f 3. 2 6 - o o - B0 2 4 y'f,ff[f[j,(([,_f,,p )

ORIGINALLY CONSISTING OF:

PAGES 1

THROUGH E

l

)

TOTAL ATTACHMENTS 2

TOTAL MICROFICHE ATTACHMENTS o

TOTAL VOLUMES THESE ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS COVER OA CONDITION I

ITEMS. IN ACCORDANCE WITH ESTABLISHED PROCEDURES, THE QUALITY HAS BEEN ASSURED AND I CERTIFY THAT THE ABOVE j

CALCULATION HAS BEEN ORIGINATED, CHECKED OR APPROVED AS NOTED BELOW:

ORIGINATED BY JOdE4VN d.

PE TT'/

DATE Ju ki 24, i 9 64 CHECKED BY

/!-

b M.

di e I987 DATE 36b APPROVED BY DATE i

• DATE

~6 E2 ISSUED TO GENER L SERVICES DIVISION RECEIVED BY GENERAL SERVICES DIVISION O

DATE MICROFICHE ATTACHMENT LIST:

l M110#

1. OF SHEETS M4 ID#

1. OF SHEETS j

M2 ID#

1. OF SHEETS M5 ID#

1. OF SHEETS M310#

1. OF SHEETS M6 ID#

1. OF SHEETS

^

^

AUA REV E

REV! SED DELETED ADDED REVISED DELETED ADDED DELETED ADDED DATE DATE DATE DA E

$0s g m.

W cY f{c. *,%~l l

'4 3

i. > n e' yy,, ejyprl

~

S Ir V

I 1

L_

ey lJ e pe t

• - 2 + - e -7 ct a j

'EJ WA 1/A9127 \\

g NUCLEAR ENGINEERING SECTION k

ENGINEERING CALCULATION PROCEDURE APPLICABILITY CHECKLIST Statement of Problem:

Thas

" c c, / c u fa l,' a, de cu r>, ev, 'Is

+h e.

fa. S *I e va I"

• h

• n *f o

4he far/ N?ee h a >, re a /

EeloaJ

/),,a ly $, a pre /bodolog PlarL - 8N Fae l 4.

de }e r,>, as e if a h />La 4h* s m e lho clo lop wo u ll

<n ya fue oa anrev,Naec/ yle f u es lo n,

kes a lls ;

&ll, h zu Jhe de 5 cv' I)#k

~ OoNo IQ) trisyk-13k fuel de der r:>ase<{ ne l 40 c <ed e was Sfe y e rd'o 'n r e lo d ' *' e 4"

Ihe a a, c o,, c e< s s Ca la w h a Alu c lea < J+a f, o',, s of Jhe

/Yle (rao re or An an y e v, ew ed sqle Qatd IS no l GosS*Nevecl

] u e s +,'o n Determination of QA Condition 1 applicability:

NO Does this analysis determine the presence or absence of an unreviewed safety question?

h Does this analysis justify a change in a Technical Specification limit YES or verify the acceptability of a current Technical Specification limit?

h Does this analysis justify a change in the performance or design of YES safety related structures, systems, or components?

h NO Does this analysis modify or justify the licensing basis safety analysis?

h NO Does this analysis provide the bases

for, or input to, other safety-related analyses?

If the answer to any of the above questions is yes, then this analysis is safety related and classified as a QA Condition 1 item.

As such it must satisfy the requirements of MPR-102.

Form MPR-102.1 Revision 0

02637 (R1-87)

N * # d' 2 ' f

'- oo 2 4 OUKE POWER "0MPANY 10CFR50.59 EVALUATION Page 1 (1) STATION: McGuire and Catawba UNIT (s)

All (2) EVALUATION FOR:

Fuel Mechanical Reload Analysis Methodology for Mark-BW Fuel (see attachments)

(3) SCREENING FOR 10CFR50.59 APPLICABILITY:

Does this evaluation item:

affect structures, systems, or components that are addressed _Yes_x_No in the FSAR in a significant manner?

appear significant enough as to require inclusion in the xYes No FSAR?

involve procedures as described in the FSAR?

xYes No involve tests or experiments not addressed in the FSAR?

Yes x No FSAR Sections Consulted:

Section 4 for both MNS and CNS (4) TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION REVIEW:

Will this item require a change to the station Technical Yes x No Specifications? Affected Tech. Specs. Section(s)

Consulted and Licensing personnel contacted:

Laura Parker Check appropriate Part 3 and Part 4 Go to

{

1 block answer is answer is Part Page a

No No 5

1 i

1 e

Yes No 6

2 a

Yes Yes 7

2 a

No Yes 7

2 (5) Parts 1-4 PREPARED BY/DATE: M J 6. f M

• -14-8Y REVIEWED BY/DATE:

8.

7h'//e 7 i

I

_______________A

02637 (R1-87)

OPd-'5r3 26-oo-oo21 Page 2 STATION:

McGuire and Catawba (All units)

EVALUATION FOR:

Fuel Mechanical Reload Analysis Methodology for Mark-BW Fuel (see attachments)

(6) UNREVIEWED SAFETY QUESTION (USQ) EVALUATION:

As a result of the item to which this evaluation is applicable:

May the probability of an accident previously evaluated in Yes xNo the FSAR be increased?

May the consequences of an accident previously evaluated in Yes xNo the FSAR be increased?

May the possibility of an accident which is different than Yes x No any already evaluated in the FSAR be created?

May the probability of a malfunction of equipment important Yes x Ne to safety previously evaluated in the FSAR be increased?

May the consequences of a malfunction of equipment important Yes xNo to safety previously evaluated in the FSAR be increased?

May the possibility of malfunctions of equipment important

_Yes2 o N

to safety different than any already evaluated in the FSAR be created?

Will the margin of safety as defined in the bases to any

_ Yes2 o 1

N Technical Specification be reduced?

Provide an attachment to substantiate all "Yes" or "No" answers.

If the answer is "Yes" for any of the questions in Part (6), an Unreviewed Safety Question is involved, proceed to Part (7).

If the answer is "No" for all the questions in Part (6), an Unreviewed Safety Question does not exist, proceed to part (8).

(7) LICENSING ACTION REQUIRED FOR:

Technical Specification Change a

Unreviewed Safety Question a

l l

Check appropriate block and contact Nuclear Production Department, l

General Office-Licensing, or Station Compliance.

(8) Parts 6 and/or 7 PREPARED BY/DATE: ddJ 0. f& 4 8-7

</

=4 7/M /e 7 REVIEWED BY/DATE:

I

I '.b

' Attachment III-JcP Fit (

DPC-1553.26-00-0024 Revision 1

... s

~~.......

Babcock & Wilcox "Q,

Nuclear Power Division a McDermott company

• 'j4 3315 Old Forest Road 5

< P.O. Box 10935 p

Lynchburg, VA 24506 0935 (804) 385 2000 September 14, 1987

.*::'? r;g,;~ ;

3 at

-.~...u na a Mr. T.

F. Wyke, Chief Engineer Mechanical & Nuclear Division Duke Power Company P. O.

Box 33189 1

Charlotte, NC 28242 i

Attention:

Mr. R. M. Gribble

Subject:

' Applicability of TACO 2 and CROV to Mark BW Fuel

Reference:

Letter, R. M. Gribble to E. J. Coppola, Same Subject, Dated August 31, 1987 i

Dear Ron:

The reference requested B&W to provide a referenceable letter explaining the applicability of the computer codes TACO 2 and CROV to the Mark BW Fuel Assembly.

I TACO 2 l

\\

TACO 2 was approved by the NRC for referencing in license I

. applications for pressurized ~ water reactors.

There are no l

restrictions as to fuel type, other than PWR fuel.

The NRC SER (March 1983), which is included with the TACO 2 Topical Report, BAW-10141PA Rev 1, is all that is necessary in the way of referenceable documentation.

CROV l

l The CROV code is applicable to Mark BW fuel rod analyses.

l This is supported by both the CROV Topical Report, BAW-10084P l

Rev 2, pages viii to Xi, and the NRC letter accepting CROV l

for Mark C (17X17) licensing analyses.

The letter accepts l

CROV for future case applications employing B&W fuel, provided that "the creep related material properties are similar to those characteristic of current B&W cladding."

i The Mark BW cladding is very similar to the Mark B and Mark C i

cladding, since it is made by the same vendor and meets the same material property specifications.

Test Results at the I.RC verified that the Mark BW clad material properties and creep characteristics are similar to the current Mark B clad.

i L

j. 24. ',

1 l.

/

Specific values requested by the reference are:

Activation Energy:

62,000 cal./molel j

Yield Strength:

45,000 psi 2 TACO 2 Creep Constants 3 Notes:

(1) From CROV User's Manual.

1

.(2)' Minimum unirradiated yield strength at 650 0F.

(3) TACO 2 Creep Constants, including R and P, are found in the TACO 2 User's Manual, NPGD-TM-469, pages 2-14 and 2-15.

If you desire any further information on this, subject, please feel 4

free to call.

4 Very truly yours, M

Ernie Coppo a Fuel Project Manager J

Nuclear Fuel Services l

l

\\

cc:

l K. S. Canady R.

G. Snipes R. J.

Tomonto T. A. Saville R. N. Edwards, Jr. - Charlotto Sales i

1 l

l 1

i

.