ML092590751

E-mail, Clarifications on Request for Additional Information; License Amendment Request to Modify Technical Specification Section 5.6, Fuel Storage, and Add New TS 3/4 9.12, Spent Fuel Pool (SFP) Boron Concentration

ML092590751
Person / Time
Site:	Waterford
Issue date:	09/16/2009
From:	Markley M Plant Licensing Branch IV
To:	Murill R Entergy Operations
Markley M, NRR/DORL/LPL4, 301-415-5723
References
TAC MD9685
Download: ML092590751 (2)

Text

From:

Markley, Michael Sent:

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 4:34 PM To:

rmurill@entergy.com Cc:

Kalyanam, Kaly; Lent, Susan; Burkhardt, Janet

Subject:

Clarifications on RAIs

Bob, Below are the clarifications from the technical reviewer regarding the NRC's RAIs. I am asking the Waterford PM to set up a telecon to ensure you have a mutual understanding of what the NRC is asking.

1) Regarding boron credit argument (1000 ppm/10%Dk/k margin) - Regulations in 50.68 require two conditions when crediting boron: 1) keff is less than 1 unborated and 2) keff less than or equal to 0.95 borated. 50.68 requires both conditions, not one or the other. Therefore, the boron argument does help meet the unborated requirements.

2) Regarding 0.5% Dk/k margin argument - The staff did not identify issues with the revised Holtec analysis that will reduce the 0.5% Dk/k margin, except for potentially, the issue at hand regarding the lack of consideration for the fission products and actinides in the criticality code validation. However, the staff views that treatment of specific power and operating history in accordance with NUREG-6665,

" Review and Prioritization of Technical Issues Related to Burnup Credit for LWR Fuel," reduces the available margin by 0.2% Dk/k to 0.3% Dk/k.

3) Regarding the other conservatisms discussed (i.e., structural components, tolerances, depletion parameters) - If the licensee seeks to credit these conservatisms, they should be quantified and justified, and then show their effect on the overall reactivity determination. The licensee should be cautioned however, that while the assumed parameter values may be conservative relative to the "average" assembly or most of the assemblies in the pool, the assumption may not necessarily be significantly more conservative relative to the limiting assembly.

This email is being put in ADAMS.

Mike Markley, Chief Plant Licensing Branch IV DORL/NRR 301-415-5723 E-mail Properties Mail Envelope Properties (3DF2506A7257014AAC5857E5E852DEAC0762F19206)

Subject:

Clarifications on RAIs Sent Date: 9/16/2009 4:34:09 PM Received Date: 9/16/2009 4:34:09 PM From: Markley, Michael

Created By: Michael.Markley@nrc.gov Recipients:

rmurill@entergy.com (rmurill@entergy.com)

Tracking Status: None Kaly.Kalyanam@nrc.gov (Kalyanam, Kaly)

Tracking Status: None Susan.Lent@nrc.gov (Lent, Susan)

Tracking Status: None Janet.Burkhardt@nrc.gov (Burkhardt, Janet)

Tracking Status: None Post Office:

HQCLSTR02.nrc.gov Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 6660 9/16/2009 Options Expiration Date:

Priority: olImportanceNormal ReplyRequested: False Return Notification: False Sensitivity: olNormal Recipients received: