ML070660199

Draft Request for Additional Information Hope Creek EPU Grp 4

ML070660199
Person / Time
Site:	Hope Creek
Issue date:	02/20/2007
From:	Hoch J NRC/NRR/ADRO/DORL/LPLA
To:	Duke P Public Service Enterprise Group
Shea JJ, NRR/DORL, 415-1388
References
TAC MD3002
Download: ML070660199 (4)

Text

Paul, Attached is the fourth group of Draft RAI's for the Hope Creek EPU. The RAI's are from the Health Physics Branch (IHPB). Please let me know when would be a good time for a conference call with this group.

Joseph A. Hoch Physical Scientist U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NRR/DORL/LPLA 301-415-3635 jah6@nrc.gov

Mail Envelope Properties (45DB00E4.F0E : 2 : 9798)

Subject:

Fourth Group of Draft Hope Creek RAI's Creation Date 02/20/2007 9:08:36 AM From: Joseph Hoch Created By:

JAH6@nrc.gov Recipients nrc.gov OWGWPO01.HQGWDO01 TWA CC (Thomas Alexion) nrc.gov OWGWPO03.HQGWDO01 HKC CC (Harold Chernoff) nrc.gov TWGWPO02.HQGWDO01 JJS CC (James Shea) pseg.com Paul.Duke (Paul.Duke@pseg.com)

Post Office Route OWGWPO01.HQGWDO01 nrc.gov OWGWPO03.HQGWDO01 nrc.gov TWGWPO02.HQGWDO01 nrc.gov pseg.com Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 847 02/20/2007 9:08:36 AM DRAFT RAI4.wpd 19206 02/20/2007 8:44:32 AM Options Expiration Date:

None Priority:

Standard ReplyRequested:

No Return Notification:

None Concealed

Subject:

No Security:

Standard Junk Mail Handling Evaluation Results Message is not eligible for Junk Mail handling Message is from an internal sender Junk Mail settings when this message was delivered Junk Mail handling disabled by User Junk Mail handling disabled by Administrator Junk List is not enabled Junk Mail using personal address books is not enabled Block List is not enabled

"DRAFT RAI's" REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THE HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION, EXTENDED POWER UPRATE TAC NO. MD3002 This e-mail aims solely to prepare you and others for the requested conference call. It does not formally request for information, nor does it convey a formal NRC staff position.

11) Health Physics Branch (IHPB) 11.1.

Section 8.4.1 (page 8-5) of your submittal states that N-16 in the turbine components is expected to increase approximately 16% for a 20% increase in steam flow. On the basis of previous EPU calculations, the activity of N-16 in steam leaving the reactor pressure vessel is expected to increase in proportion to the power level increase (15%

for Hope Creek). Since the steam flow also increases in proportion to the power level increase (i.e., by 15%), the transit time for the N-16 to reach the major source components that contribute significantly to the skyshine dose in the turbine building is reduced. Therefore, the N-16 activity in the steam in those areas of the turbine building which contribute to skyshine should increase both in proportion to the power level increase and due to the reduced decay time between the reactor pressure vessel and the turbine building components.

a)

Justify your reasoning for stating that the N-16 activity in turbine components will increase by 16% instead of a higher percentage.

b)

Justify your reasoning for stating that the steam flow will increase by 20% for a 15% power uprate.

11.2.

Section 8.4.1 (page 8-5) of your submittal states that the N-16 levels are expected to increase in the turbine components due to EPU. Verify that the expected increase in dose rates from N-16 does not create new radiation, or high radiation areas around condensate bearing systems/components in the turbine building.

11.3.

Section 8.4.2 (page 8-6) of your submittal states that, although activated corrosion products and fission products are expected to increase as a result of EPU, their post-EPU concentrations will not exceed the design basis concentrations. Provide the expected percentage increases in the concentrations of activated corrosion products and fission products in both the steam and in the water and compare this with the design basis concentration levels.

11.4.

Section 8.5 (page 8-7) of your submittal states that the post-EPU occupational radiation levels in most of the affected plant areas are expected to increase by less than 20%.

a)

Justify your statement that radiation levels would increase by approximately 20%

when the proposed power uprate is for 15%.

b)

List any plant areas where you would expect the dose rates to increase by greater than the percentage of the proposed power uprate.

c)

Describe what measures you plan to take (e.g., changes to permanent/temporary shielding, changes to access controls, change to work packages) in areas where dose rates are expected to increase following EPU to maintain worker doses ALARA and within the occupational dose limits of 10 CFR Part 20.

11.5.

Describe what impact you expect the proposed power uprate will have on the annual collective doses at Hope Creek and provide an estimate of the occupational dose that will result from the plant modifications that will be needed to support the implementation of the proposed power uprate.

11.6.

Section 8.5 (page 8-6) of your submittal states that you conducted a post-EPU radiation assessment in the turbine building complex to evaluate the effects of the proposed EPU on area dose rates. Discuss how you plan to verify post-EPU dose rates throughout the plant by conducting radiation surveys of selected areas as part of the EPU startup and test plan to identify areas that may require changes in radiation shielding or zone designation and provide a listing of these selected areas where you will conduct radiation surveys following the proposed EPU implementation and describe your criteria for selecting these areas.

11.7.

Modify Table 8-1 to include the following information:

a)

Include the mission dose to complete vital area work in each of the vital areas listed (include the transit dose accrued to access and leave each vital area).

b)

Indicate at what time following the accident each vital area must be accessed and list the appropriate dose rate in the area at this time.

c)

Provide mark-ups of plant layout maps showing the access routes to all vital areas listed in Table 8-1.

11.8.

Section 6.3.3 (pages 6-4,5) of your submittal states that the post-CPPU radiation exposures in accessible areas adjacent to the sides or bottom of the spent fuel pool (SFP) are expected to be within the allowable dose rate limit of the existing radiation zone designation. Discuss any plans that you may have (such as shuffling of spent fuel assemblies in the SFP so that the older assemblies are located at the perimeter of the SFP) to minimize the effects of the storage of the higher irradiated spent fuel assemblies in the SFP on dose rates in areas surrounding the SFP.

11.9.

Discuss what affects the proposed EPU will have on the whole body dose to the public with respect to the 25 mrem per year dose limits of 40 CFR 190.