ML120730270

Supplemental Information Needed for Acceptance of Requested Licensing Action Regarding License Amendment Request 11-04, Changes to Technical Specifications for New and Spent Fuel Storage

ML120730270
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	03/30/2012
From:	John Lamb Plant Licensing Branch 1
To:	Freeman P NextEra Energy Seabrook
Lamb J, NRR/DORL, 301-415-3100
References
TAC ME7946
Download: ML120730270 (6)

Text

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555*0001 March 30, 2012 Mr. Paul Freeman Site Vice President clo Michael O'Keefe Seabrook Station NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC P.O. Box 300 Seabrook, NH 03874

SUBJECT:

SEABROOK STATION, UNIT NO.1 - SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION NEEDED FOR ACCEPTANCE OF REQUESTED LICENSING ACTION REGARDING LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST 11-04, CHANGES TO TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR NEW AND SPENT FUEL STORAGE (TAC NO. ME7946)

Dear Mr. Freeman:

By letter dated January 30, 2012 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System Accession No. ML120380100), NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC (NextEra) submitted license amendment request (LAR) 11-04 for Seabrook Station, Unit 1. The proposed change revises the Technical Specifications (TSs) for new and spent fuel storage as the result of a new criticality analyses for the new fuel vault (NFV) and the spent fuel pool (SFP).

The proposed amendment would revise TSs to: (1) reflect elimination of the need to credit Boraflex neutron absorbing material for reactivity control in the SFP; (2) credit soluble boron, burnup, cooling time, peripheral leakage, and rod cluster control assemblies within the storage racks to maintain SFP reactivity within the effective neutron multiplication factor (keff) limits of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Section 50.68(b)(4); and (3) revise the requirements for fuel storage within the NFV.

The purpose of this letter is to provide the results of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(!\\IRC) staff's acceptance review of this amendment request. The acceptance review was performed to determine if there is sufficient technical information in scope and depth to allow the NRC staff to complete its detailed technical review. The acceptance review is also intended to identify whether the application has any readily apparent information insufficiencies in its characterization of the regulatory requirements or the licensing basis of the plant.

Consistent with 10 CFR 50.90, an amendment to the license (including the TSs) must fully describe the changes requested, and following as far as applicable, the form prescribed for original applications. Section 50.34 of 10 CFR addresses the content of technical information required. This section stipulates that the submittal address the design and operating characteristics, unusual or novel design features, and prinCipal safety considerations.

P. Freeman

- 2 The NRC staff has reviewed your application and concluded that the following information delineated in the enclosure to this letter is necessary to enable the NRC staff to make an independent assessment regarding the acceptability of the proposed amendment request in terms of regulatory requirements and the protection of public health and safety and the environment.

In order to make the application complete, the NRC staff requests that NextEra supplement the application to address the information requested in the enclosure 45 days after receipt of this letter. This will enable the NRC staff to complete its detailed technical review. If the response to the NRC staff's request is not received 45 days after receipt of this letter, the application will not be accepted for review pursuant to 10 CFR 2.101, and the NRC staff will cease its review activities associated with the application. If the application is subsequently accepted for review, you will be advised of any further information needed to support the NRC staff's detailed technical review by separate correspondence.

The information requested and associated time frame in this letter was discussed with Mr. Gary Kilby of your staff on March 28, 2012.

If you have any questions, please contact me at (301) 415-3100.

Docket No. 50-443 cc w/encl: Distribution via Listserv

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION ACCEPTANCE REVIEW - UNACCEPTABLE WITH OPPORTUNITY TO SUPPLEMENT LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST 11-04 CHANGES TO TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR NEW AND SPENT FUEL STORAGE NEXTERA ENERGY SEABROOK, LLC SEABROOK STATION, UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. 50-443 By letter dated January 30, 2012 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System Accession No. ML120380100), NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC (NextEra) submitted license amendment request (LAR) 11-04 for Seabrook Station, Unit 1. The proposed change revises the Technical Specifications (TSs) for new and spent fuel storage as the result of a new criticality analyses for the new fuel vault (NFV) and the spent fuel pool (SFP).

The proposed amendment would revise TSs to (1) reflect elimination of the need to credit Boraflex neutron absorbing material for reactivity control in the SFP; (2) credit soluble boron, burnup, cooling time, peripheral leakage, and rod cluster control assemblies within the storage racks to maintain SFP reactivity within the effective neutron multiplication factor (keff) limits of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Section 50.68(b)(4); and (3) revise the requirements for fuel storage within the NFV.

The acceptance review is performed to determine if there is sufficient technical information in scope and depth to allow the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff to complete its detailed technical review. The acceptance review is also intended to identify whether the application has any readily apparent information insufficiencies in its characterization of the regulatory requirements or the licensing basis of the unit. The acceptance review has a lesser scope as compared to the detailed technical review. The issues described below were identified during the lesser scope of the acceptance review. The NRC staff requests a supplement to the January 30, 2012, application, 45 days after receipt of this letter.

Address the following information:

1. The criticality code validation was not included. The validation is indicated as being in several references. Those references are required for the review to begin.

a. Reference 5, "Nuclear Group Computer Code Benchmark Calculations," Holtec Report HI-21 04790 Revision 0, January 2011.

b. Reference 6, "Sensitivity Studies to Support Criticality Analysis Methodology,"

Holtec Report H 1-2104598 Revision 1, October 201 O.

c. Reference 7, "Lumped Fission Product and Pm148m Cross Sections for MCNP,"

Holtec Report HI-2033031 Revision 2, January 2011.

Enclosure

- 2

2. In Section 3.2.2 of HI-21144996 it states, "... and the initial source was usually specified as uniform over the fueled regions (assemblies)." When wasn't the initial source specified as uniform over the fueled regions and why?

3. Demonstrate that the source term converged in all cases performed for the New Fuel Vault and Spent Fuel Pool.

4. HI-21144996 does not adequately justify its validation of fission products. A validation will typically have a bias and a bias uncertainty component.

5. With respect to the credit for cooling time, there is insufficient information regarding the Lumped Fission Products. Provide the following information:

a. What is the half-life of the Lumped Fission Products?

b. How was the half-life of the Lumped Fission Products determined?

c. With respect to how the half life of the Lumped Fission Products was determined, what has changed that may affect the Lumped Fission Products half life?

6. In Section 4.2.3.5.3.1 of HI-21144996 it states, "[t]he integrated fuel burnable absorber (IFBA) rods with a thin coating of ZrB2 on the U02pellet were used to replace certain fuel rods in certain assemblies... " IFBA rods do not replace fuel rods. Describe how the IFBA rods were modeled.

7. Justify the equation at the bottom of page 36 for any bU2 other than 0 GWd/MTU.

8. In Section 4.2.3.5.11 of HI-21144996 item number 8 lists the modeling of BORAL '

blisters. Provide the basis for the BORAL TM blister model.

a. Include the data that supports the blister formation and growth rate.

b. Estimate at what time the BORAL 'blister model used in HI-21144996 will become non-limiting.

c. Describe how the BORAL ' in the area of the blisters will respond during a seismic event; include the data that supports that discussion.

9. HI-21144996 sets the technical specification SFP loading requirements using 2x2 arrays. The HI-21144996 2x2 arrays are not stipulated as repeating arrays, which means adjacent 2x2 arrays could nominally be the same 'pattern' but in actuality be different. This could lead to the interface being an unanalyzed condition. Each storage cell is part of four 2x2 arrays. Each storage cell must simultaneously satisfy the loading requirements of all four 2x2 arrays of which it is a part. It is not clear that HI-21144996 and the proposed Technical Specification ensures that is accomplished.

10. HI-21144996 Section 4.6.8.3 treats the changes to the fuel assembly due to irradiation as an uncertainty. The changes are a bias as they affect all depleted fuel assemblies.

11. The staff would require the details of the Boral Monitoring Program in order to determine if the degradation/deformation of Boral will be properly monitored and mitigated. Please provide these details of the Boral Monitoring Program including the following:

- 3

a. Describe how the neutron-absorbing capacity will be monitored. Include a description of the parameters, calculations, frequency, and acceptance criteria.

b. If coupon testing will be used:

1. What is the location of coupons relative to the spent fuel racks?

2. How are the coupons mounted and are they fully exposed to the spent fuel pool water (both sides exposed or bolted to a wall)?

3. To demonstrate that the Boral integrity has been maintained, the staff requests the applicant to provide the test results for the coupons, including areal density measurements.

4. After removal from the pool for inspection, are the coupons inserted back at the same locations in the pool?

5. Discuss the schedule/frequency for coupon removal and testing to demonstrate continued Boral performance.

6. How does this acceptance criteria account for potential degradation between surveillance periods?

7. Please describe the corrective actions that would be implemented if coupon test results are not acceptable.

8. Please discuss the correlation between measurements of the physical properties of Boral coupons and the integrity of the Boral panels in the storage racks.

ML120730270

• via email LPL 1-2/PM LPL 1-2/LA ABaxterl

• JLamb w/comments E

03/20/12 I 03/22/12 ESGB/BC SRXB/BC AUlses*

GKulesa*

03/05/12 03/12/12