2CAN019108, Responds to 900830 Request for Addl Info Re 891019 Proposed Tech Spec Change for Insp Frequency of Spent Fuel Pool.Insp Procedure Encl

Responds to 900830 Request for Addl Info Re 891019 Proposed Tech Spec Change for Insp Frequency of Spent Fuel Pool.Insp Procedure Encl

ML20066F409
Person / Time
Site:	Arkansas Nuclear
Issue date:	01/15/1991
From:	James Fisicaro ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
Shared Package
ML20066F410	List: 2CAN019108, Responds to 900830 Request for Addl Info Re 891019 Proposed Tech Spec Change for Insp Frequency of Spent Fuel Pool.Insp Procedure Encl ML20066F419
References
2CAN019108, 2CAN19108, NUDOCS 9101230313
Download: ML20066F409 (4)

Text

,

, v , ,

c

!Enterg

-. cai:ru os:rciira.,ine.

. va ur>< ma i perat OnS- amway der 450s wa too -

1

<l January 15, 1991 l '

I 2CAN019108 j o

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission  !

Document- Control: Desk - -;

Hall Station P1-137' l Washington, DC 20555

Subject:

Arkansas Nucionr ono - Unit 2 Docket 1Nos.50-]

License Nos. NPF- --

Rospo.. a:co Roquest for Additional Informat!lon1  ;

on Spont ~ Fuel-Pool Technical Specification Change Gentiomen:

In our letter of October = 19, 1989 (2CAN108903).. Proposed Technlent Specification Chango - Spent Fuel Pool Survo111ance Interval, Entergy Operations requestod an' amendmont to. the Arkansas yNucinar Ono.: Unit 2 Technical Specif1 cations for: inspection Irequency 'of tho' SpontL Ftial Pool.-

In your letter of August 30, 1990 I'~ a089004),-tho~. Staff; requested:

additional information_Jn ordoruto c rplete its;ovaluation.c Provided as an attachment to this. letter 18: our_responso-to-your request.-_ Also-wo-have-provided a. copy of.our current procedure for InspectionLof the;' Spent Fuol Pool to further assist you in- your ovaluntion.

Should you or your staf f havn questions regarding- this- responso, please do -

not hesitato to en11.

Very truly yours, I

James w .)SH

~

. Fislcnto

-Hanager, Licensing JJF/ CWT

' Attachments 9101230313 910115

. PDR ADOCK 05000368 I -Ul A

1 P. PDR 3 (MJsua ~

~

f l.

d. S. NRC

. , ' Uonuary 15, 1991

. Pago 2 cc: Mr. Robert Martin U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region IV 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000' l Arlington, TX 76011

{ NRC Sonfor Resident Inspector Arkansas Nuclear One - ANO-1 & 2 Number 1, Nuclear Plant Road Russellville, AR 72801 Mr. Tom Alexion NRR Project Manager, Region IV/ANO-1 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NRR Mall Stop-13-D One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Piko Rockville, Maryland 20852 Ms. Sheri Peterson NRR Project Manager, Region IV/ANO-2 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission-NRR Mail Stop 13-D-18 One Whito Flint North 11555 Rockvillo Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852 i

i 7

1 l

. .: , m a

.-l.

' ATTACHMENT TO-20AN019108f

1. Relative-to your inspection of the fuel pool,; define what is considered to be a significant crack.

The inspection.and mapping ~ of deterioration in the spent fuel pool; concrete surface-is accomplished in-accordance with ANO Procedure 2306.010 (attached). The significance associated-with-a crack.is' dependent upon its size and an evaluation of-it's impact upon the-integrity of the spent fuel pool. This is discussed further in.

response to question 2.,

2. What factions are to be- takenL when- a -significant. crack is identified?c Procedure 2306.01 provides the _ following ' guidance with: respect' toithe inspection of,the-spent. fuel.poo F concrete-surface.-

A. All cracks greater-in widthithan 0.01" are measured and mapped.-

B. All crack- changes _o'r deficiencies: are evaluated - to determine -

it's impact upon spent fuel pool integrity'(Section 8.3;3 and 8.3.4 of procedure.2306.010).

C.. Any cracks which impact the fuel pool-integrity based upon the-Engineer's evaluation will require.that appropriate reportingL requirements'and corrective action be= initiated.-

3. . What are the acceptance values for all~ recorded measurements? -

procedure 2306.010 requires that' changes'in crack patterns =be .

evaluated'by-the engineering section.~. Cracks will have ~ to be .01'? 'or greater in width before changes will be~ recorded.-.

4. What are the criteriaiusedito determine the structural ~' integrity of:

the spent fuel pool?-

Procedure 2306.010 provides 11mits which. represents critoria:to; determine -appropriate-response based upon the! size of the crack. Any-significant crack- discovered would be evaluated on.a case by case

-basis considering the specific-location of the-crack-and-the load-

-bearingLcharacteristic of.the poolistructure at that.-location. : Other

~

factors which may be considered . include the. calculated within the reinforcing steel and concrete; associated astresses llowable-stresses, and the amount of-reinforcing steel concrete cover. .Any detailed evaluation would probably referen'ce the original . evaluation and the documentation of=the initial-test results.-

j 1

2

. .- 4  ;

5 .' Does your---inspection procedure include all of the'above information?

Our inspection procedure requires different responses lfor different-  ;

size cracks but does not specify-criteria to be used~when evaluating  !

11arger cracks.  ;

s

6. Ilow will-the five year frequency of inspection interval ensure the. d structural integrity of the spent fuel pool? - Additional _.

j justification is necesscry _ to extend the surveillance inspection - j frequency to once per five years.- According to the_ inspection  !

records,. some new cracks or- spallings have been found every three i

-years. 1

~

The Proposed Technical Specification Change will require an _ .

inspection of spent fuel pool concrete surface at five year intervals t

=instead of 18 month' intervals if no_ abnormal ~ degradation or: '

indications of structural' distress are 4 detected. - ,

Thirteen inspections of the spent fuel pool concrete have been. j conducted over.the'last eleven years without observance of abnormal  ;

' degradation or. structural-distress.: This record provides-assurance-that the structural integrity of the' spent fuel pool is maintained.

The lack of any.nhnormal degradation or' indication of' structural-distress during-the past eleven years leads one to conclude that very little_ change is to be expected.-

With the exception of five-cracks observed during:the inspections i

. conducted on March 20, 1985, all-cracks observed were smaller than

.01" wide (.01". width is the-limit provided by Procedure 2306.010)-

and most were.not structural related (such.as the_spalling reported in surface material-placed:over an expansion joint and cracks in: j grout topping placed upon the: structural element.) All cracks ,2 evaluated'have been found not to impact the structural integrity of.

the spent. fuel. pool._The five cracks found in 1985 which exceeded the screening limit width have not grown.

?

b e

h M

A 4

4