ML16342C842
| ML16342C842 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 02/23/1995 |
| From: | Mark Miller Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Rueger G PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
| References | |
| TAC-M91508, TAC-M91509, NUDOCS 9502270096 | |
| Download: ML16342C842 (8) | |
Text
February 23, 1995 Hr. Gregory M. Rueger Nuclear Power Generation, B14A Pacific Gas and Electric Company 77 Beale Street, Room 1451 P. 0.
Box 770000 San Francisco, California 94106
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON FUEL ENRICHMENT INCREASE AMENDMENT DATED FEBRUARY 6, 1995 DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT (TAC NOS.
H91508 AND H91509)
Dear Hr. Rueger:
The Nuclear ReguTatory Commission staff has reviewed the criticality aspects of a Pacific Gas and Electric Company Technical Specification amendment request dated February 6,
1995, to increase to 5 percent the allowable U-235 enrichment of fuel to be stored in the new and spent fuel storage facilities of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos.
1 and 2.
Before approving this request, the staff needs answers to the enclosed questions.
We request a response as early as possible but no later than March 24, 1995.
If you have questions about the enclosure or believe that a telephone conference would be useful, please contact me at (301) 415-1323.
This request for information affects fewer than 10 respondents; therefore, Office of Management and Budget clearance is not required under Public Law 96-511.
Sincerely, Docket Nos.
50-275 and 50-323
Enclosure:
Request for additional information DLSXRIBU ION ORIGINAL SIGNED BY:
Melanic A. Hiller, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate IV-2 Division of Reactor Projects III/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket File
'M oe MMiller PUBLIC PDIV-2 Reading ACRS (4),
TWFN DFoster-Curseen
- KPerkins, WCFO TQuay
- OGC, 015B18 Region IV LKopp DOCUMENT NAME:
DC91508.RAI OFC LA DRPW NAME DFoster-Curseen DATE 9
95 PH PDIV-2 ACA k OFFICIAL RECORD COPY 9502270096 950223 PDR ADQCK 05000275 P
'l A
1 A'
'7, g
4
February 23, 1995 Mr. Gregory M. Rueger Nuclear Power Generation, B14A Pacific Gas and Electric Company 77 Beale Street, Room 1451 P. 0.
Box 770000 San Francisco, California 94106
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON FUEL ENRICHMENT INCREASE AMENDMENT DATED FEBRUARY 6, 1995 - DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT (TAC NOS.
M91508 AND M91509)
Dear Hr. Rueger:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has reviewed the criticality aspects of a Pacific Gas and Electric Company Technical Specification amendment request dated February 6, 1995, to increase to 5 percent the allowable U-235 enrichment of fuel to be stored in the new and spent fuel storage facilities of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos.
1 and 2.
Before approving this request, the staff needs answers to the enclosed questions.
We request a response as early as possible but no later than March 24, 1995.
If you have questions about the enclosure or believe that a telephone conference would be useful, please contact me at (301) 415-1323.
This request for information affects fewer than 10 respondents; therefore, Office of Management and Budget clearance is not required under Public Law 96-511.
Sincerely, Docket Nos.
50-275 and 50-323
Enclosure:
Request for additional information DISTRIBUTION ORIGINAL SIGNED BY:
Melanic A. Miller, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate IV-2 Division of Reactor Projects III/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket File JRoe HHiller PUBLIC PDIV-2 Reading ACRS (4),
TWFN DFoster-Curseen
- KPerkins, WCFO TQuay
- OGC, 015B18 Region IV LKopp DOCUMENT NAME:
DC91508.RAI OFC LA DRPW PM PDIV-2 95 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY NAME DFoster-Curseen DATE
/2 95
J t
t
Mr. Gregory M. Rueger Pacific Gas and Electric Company Diablo Canyon CC:
NRC Resident Inspector Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. 0. Box 369 Avila Beach, California 93424 Dr. Richard Ferguson, Energy Chair Sierra Club California 6715 Rocky Canyon Creston, California 93432 Ms. Nancy Culver San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace P. 0. Box 164 Pismo Beach, California 93448 Ms. Jacquelyn C. Wheeler P. 0. Box 164 Pismo Beach, California 93448 Managing Editor The Count Tele ram Tribune 1321 Johnson Avenue P. 0.
Box 112 San Luis Obispo, California 93406 Chairman San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors Room 370 County Government Center San Luis Obispo, California 93408 Mr. Truman Burns Mr. Robert Kinosian California Public Utilities Commission 505 Van Ness, Room 4102 San Francisco, California 94102 Mr. Steve Hsu Radiologic Health Branch State Department of Health Services Post Office Box 942732 Sacramento, California 94234 Regional Administrator, Region IV U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Harris Tower 5 Pavillion 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400 Arlington, Texas 76011-8064 Mr. Peter H. Kaufman Deputy Attorney General State of California 110 West A Street, Suite 700 San Diego, California 92101 Christopher J. Warner, Esq.
Pacific Gas 5 Electric Company Post Office Box 7442 San Francisco, California 94120 Mr. Warren H. Fujimoto Vice President and Plant Manager Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant P. 0.
Box 56 Avila Beach, California 93424 Diablo Canyon Independent Safety Committee ATTN:
Robert R. Wellington, Esq.
Legal Counsel 857 Cass Street, Suite D
Monterey, California 93940
~ p
~
'1
Enclosure RE(UEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNIT NOS.
1 AND 2 ENRICHMENT INCREASE Please note that the proposed technical specification (TS) on page 3/4 9-20 of Attachment C, "Spent Fuel Pool Region 1," should be LCO 3.9.14.3, not 3.9.14.2.
Describe the gap assumptions made for the Boraflex panels in Region 1 of the spent fuel pool (e.g.,
Boraflex shrinkage, gap size, and distribution).
From the references, it appears that these Boraflex gap assumptions were made in 1988.
Therefore, please discuss the present applicability of these assumptions with respect to any additional cumulative gamma dose and the more recent Boraflex degradation problems involving both gamma dose and pool water environment.
How was the uncertainty in the depletion calculations accounted for in the Region 1 criticality analysis?
There appears to be a discrepancy in the total reactivity value shown in Table 1 of the Region 1 (HI-931076) criticality safety evaluation report.
The total reactivity for 5.0 weight percent fuel in the Region 1 racks should be 0.9442, not 0.9386.
Also, please explain the difference between the total and maximum reactivities shown in Table 1
for both Region 1 (HI-931076) and Region 2 (HI-931077).
Since calculations have shown that a checkerboard arrangement of fresh 5.0 weight percent enriched fuel alternating with empty cells containing water or nonfissile material is acceptable for storage in Region 2, why has this configuration not been included in TS 3.9. 14. 1?
/
//
'I r~