ML040350005
| ML040350005 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 02/04/2004 |
| From: | Martin R NRC/NRR/DLPM/LPD2 |
| To: | Barron H Duke Energy Corp |
| Martin RE, NRR/DLPM, 415-1493 | |
| References | |
| TAC MB7863, TAC MB7864 | |
| Download: ML040350005 (7) | |
Text
February 4, 2004 Mr. H. B. Barron Executive Vice President Nuclear Generation Duke Energy Corporation 526 South Church Street Charlotte, NC 28202
SUBJECT:
CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 - REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RE: MIXED OXIDE LEAD FUEL ASSEMBLIES (TAC NOS. MB7863 AND MB7864)
Dear Mr. Barron:
By letter dated February 27, 2003, Duke Energy Corporation submitted an application for amendments to the renewed facility operating licenses for Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2. The proposed amendments would revise the Technical Specifications to allow the use of four mixed oxide fuel assemblies at the Catawba station. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has reviewed the information provided and has determined that additional information is required as identified in the Enclosure.
We have discussed these questions with your staff. Please provide a response at the earliest practical date to support our continued review of the application. Please contact me at (301) 415-1493, if you have any other questions on these issues.
Sincerely,
/RA/
Robert E. Martin, Senior Project Manager, Section 1 Project Directorate II Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Information cc w/encl: See next page
ML040350005 NRR-088 OFFICE PDII-1/PM PDII-1/LA SPSB/SC PDII-1/SC NAME RMartin CHawes RDennig JNakoski DATE 02/02/04 02/02/04 02/02/04 02/03/04
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON APPLICATION FOR MIXED OXIDE LEAD TEST ASSEMBLIES DUKE POWER COMPANY CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-413 AND 50-414 Radiological Consequences 1.
The licensees submittal (Reference 1) established an increase of 9 percent in the iodine-131 (I-131) inventory of a mixed oxide (MOX) lead test assembly (LTA) over that in an equivalent low enrichment uranium (LEU) assembly. This factor is then applied to previously calculated results for the various design basis accidents to estimate what the dose could be with the MOX LTAs in place. This approach is accurate only if the I-131 concentration used in establishing the percentage increase is the same as that used to determine the previously calculated doses. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is concerned that the licensees use of data for an equivalent LEU assembly in lieu of the current licensing basis data may have underestimated the impact on previously analyzed doses. The following examples are illustrative of the NRC staffs concerns. They are based upon information that the NRC staff has available. The licensee may be aware of other information, not provided to the NRC staff in the submittal or its supplements, that may be relevant to the NRC staffs concerns.
In Table Q3(f)-1, provided in the licensees letter of November 3, 2003, the I-131 concentration of a 5 percent MOX assembly with fuel handling accident (FHA) peaking factors was identified as 8.81E+05 curies. In Attachment 6 of the licensees letter dated December 20, 2001, (Reference 4), an I-131 concentration of 7.46E+05 curies for an LEU assembly, including the radial peaking factor, was identified. The NRC staff questions whether the values in are part of the current licensing basis for a FHA since that amendment request was approved based in part on those results. The increase in the I-131 concentration associated with the MOX LTA is 18.1 percent, double the value apparently assumed in the licensees present comparative analysis.
Table 15.12 of the Catawba Updated Final Safety Analysis Report provides a core inventory I-131 value of 8.9E+07 curies for a power level of 3636 megawatts thermal (MWt). This power level is 6.5 percent greater than the power level of 3411 MWt identified in Table 1 of the licensees letter dated December 10, 2003. Since the core inventory is directly proportional to power level, the adjusted I-131 inventory would be 8.9E+07 / 1.065 = 8.36E+07 curies for the core or 8.36E+07 / 193 = 4.33E+05 curies for an average LEU assembly.
Removing the peaking factor from the Table Q3(f)-1 I-131 value yields 8.81E+05
/ 1.65 = 5.34E+05 curies. The resulting increase from a current LEU assembly to the MOX LTA (4.33E+5 to 5.34E+05) is 23 percent rather than 9 percent.
For the accidents identified in Tables Q3(b)-1 through Q3(b)-4, please provide the following information:
(1)
The quantity of I-131, in curies, that was utilized in the current analysis of record that provided the tabulated LEU dose.
(2)
The quantity of I-131, in curies, in the MOX LTA used for comparison.
(3)
The rated power plus uncertainty that the LEU and MOX LTA radionuclide inventories were based upon.
(4)
The percent increase in the I-131 concentrations identified in (1) and (2),
adjusted for differences identified in (3).
If the resulting percent increases differ from those used in the licensees analyses reported in Tables Q3(b)-1 through Q3(b)-4, please revise the submittal, or provide a justification of why the licensees approach should be found acceptable.
2.
In a recent teleconference, the licensee explained the basis for the Table Q3(a)-2 release fraction value of 1.96E-4. The NRC staff has determined that it will be relying on this information in preparing its Safety Evaluation. As such, this information is requested to be submitted by letter. Please explain the derivation of the release fraction value in the forthcoming submittal, as discussed in the teleconference.
The NRC staff reviewed Section 3.3.4.8 of the NUREG/CR-6410, "Nuclear Fuel Cycle Facility Accident Analysis Handbook," method cited by the licensee in a teleconference.
This section discusses the crushing of small right cylinders of brittle materials by forces applied over the entire upper surface of the specimen by a component with an area greater in size than that of the impacted surface. It appears that the experimental data were obtained for individual pellets. Please provide a justification of the applicability of these data to fuel pellets contained within fuel pins that are part of a larger fuel assembly. For example, how is the momentum of the fuel assembly structural components reflected in the energy density calculated from the pellet density? Does friction between the pellet surface and the cladding reduce the compressive force represented by the energy density?
References:
1.
Letter, H. B. Barron, Duke Power, to NRC, "Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding the Use of Mixed Oxide Lead Fuel Assemblies," dated November 3, 2003, (Proprietary).
2.
Letter, H. B. Barron, Duke Power, to NRC, "Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding the Use of Mixed Oxide Lead Fuel Assemblies," dated November 4, 2003, (Non-Proprietary).
3.
Letter, K. S. Canady, Duke Power, to NRC, "Response to Request for Additionl Information dated November 21, 2003 Regarding Mixed Oxide Fuel Lead Assemblies,"
dated December 10, 2003.
4.
Letter, G. R. Peterson, Duke Power, to NRC, transmitting proposed license amendment, dated December 20, 2001.
Catawba Nuclear Station cc without enclosure:
Lee Keller Regulatory Compliance Manager Duke Energy Corporation 4800 Concord Road York, South Carolina 29745 Ms. Lisa F. Vaughn Duke Energy Corporation Mail Code - PB05E 422 South Church Street P.O. Box 1244 Charlotte, North Carolina 28201-1244 Anne Cottingham, Esquire Winston and Strawn 1400 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 North Carolina Municipal Power Agency Number 1 1427 Meadowwood Boulevard P. O. Box 29513 Raleigh, North Carolina 27626 County Manager of York County York County Courthouse York, South Carolina 29745 Piedmont Municipal Power Agency 121 Village Drive Greer, South Carolina 29651 Ms. Karen E. Long Assistant Attorney General North Carolina Department of Justice P. O. Box 629 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 NCEM REP Program Manager 4713 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-4713 North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation P. O. Box 27306 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 Senior Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4830 Concord Road York, South Carolina 29745 Henry Porter, Assistant Director Division of Waste Management Bureau of Land and Waste Management Department of Health and Environmental Control 2600 Bull Street Columbia, South Carolina 29201-1708 Mr. R. L. Gill, Jr.
Manager - Nuclear Regulatory Issues and Industry Affairs Duke Energy Corporation 526 South Church Street Mail Stop EC05P Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 Saluda River Electric P. O. Box 929 Laurens, South Carolina 29360 Mr. Peter R. Harden, IV VP-Customer Relations and Sales Westinghouse Electric Company 6000 Fairview Road 12th Floor Charlotte, North Carolina 28210 Mary Olson Director of the Southeast Office Nuclear Information and Resource Service 729 Haywood Road, 1-A P. O. Box 7586 Asheville, N. C. 28802
Catawba Nuclear Station cc:
Mr. T. Richard Puryear Owners Group (NCEMC)
Duke Energy Corporation 4800 Concord Road York, South Carolina 29745 Richard M. Fry, Director Division of Radiation Protection North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources 3825 Barrett Drive Raleigh, North Carolina 27609-7721