ML18005A941
| ML18005A941 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 06/07/1989 |
| From: | Becker R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Eury L CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| References | |
| TAC-72946, NUDOCS 8906140268 | |
| Download: ML18005A941 (5) | |
Text
1 ~
June 7,
1989 Docket No. 50-400 Mr. Lynn W. Eury Executive Vice President Power Supply Carolina Power 5 Light Company P. 0.
Box 1551
- Raliegh, N. C.
27602
Dear Mr. Eury:
SUBJECT:
FUEL ENRICHMENT INCREASE AMENDMENT RE(VEST - RE(VEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNIT 1 (TAC NO. 72946)
By letter dated April 11, 1989, you submitted an application to revise Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Technical Specification 5.3. 1 and 5.6.1.
This proposed amendment will revise the limit for maximum fuel enrichment from 4.20 to 5.00 weight percent U-235.
9 In our review of this amendment application, we find that we need the information requested in the enclosure to complete our review.
Please respond to this request within 30 days of receipt of this letter.
In order to expedite your response, the enclosed questions were telecopied to Mr. Oates of your organization on June 5, 1989.
The reporting and/or recordkeeping requirments contained in this letter affect fewer than ten respondents, therefore, OMB clearance is not required under P. L.96-511.
- Sincerely, Original Signed By:
Enclosure:
As stated
,Richard A. Becker, Project Manager Project Directorate II-1 Division Of Reactor Projects -I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation oOV
~<A'Gtl i
40 I OO o bl
'$0
,eR
, WC3
','Na
~jDA WCC
'OK QA
{90 0-,
cc w/encl:
See next page DISTRIBUTION PDI I-1 Reading E.
LA'. P PA d 6/
/89 14-E-4 14-8-20 MNBB-3302 PM:
I -1 6 P/89 D '-1 EAd nsam 6/7 89 NRC PDR S.
Varga
'. Anderson 15-B-18 E. Jordan P-315 HARRRIS FILE Local PDR G. Lainas R. Becker B. Grimes 14-H-3 14-B-20 9-A-2
4 11 d
n 4))
I u
I C
<<4 I
lii
), >>.$
d'.. '>>>>
Lw,.<<i.
4 jl >>
II ~ h.)
I'I III\\
4 EI e i
)I. 4',
E ~
I Ii i v
I
~
)
I II 4 V
'I f
'Ck, r,3 yd 4
~ l [
4 t <<,4 I
J, 1Jyf 4
<<Eit
~
fl E
~
~
f
~
F0
<<4,
)4 "f"E If )4 ii
~
I 4 ll',P.,4 E>>E VIE i,
i yll
~ r.
)
')ilk <<)4$ >>
- I E
>>C h
)CM y
~
4 VI Q
I
>> I
,41 C
),)4, f
~
4 11'i,
~
'I
~ I C
Ii
~
~
4<<
'C hh J
h'4
)5 <<y I
hh 1h )
'4 4
I
C" Mr. L.
W. fury Carolina Power
& Light Company f
CC:
Mr. R.
E. Jones, General Counsel Carolina Power
& Light Company P. 0.
Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Mr. D.
E. Hollar Associate General Counsel Carolina Power
& Light Company P. 0.
Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Resident Inspector/Harris NPS c/o U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Route 1, Box 315B New Hill, North Carolina 27562 Mr. R. A. Watson Vice President Harris Nuclear Plant P. 0.
Box 165 New Hill, North Carolina 27562 Mr. H. A. Cole Special Deputy Attorney General State of North Carolina P. 0.
Box 629
- Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Shearon Harris Nuclear Energy Public Information Committee c/o Triangle J Council of Governments P. 0.
Box 12276 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 Regional Administrator, Region II U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 101 Marietta Street Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Mr. C. S. Hinnant Plant General Manager Harris Nuclear Plant P. 0.
Box 165 New Hill, North Carolina 27562 Mr. Dayne H. Brown, Chief Radiation Protection Section Division of Facility Services N.
C. Department of Human Resources 701 Barbour Drive
- Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-2008
RE(VEST FOR AODITIONAL INFORMATION SHEARON HARRIS UNIT 1 FUEL ENRICHMENT INCREASE ENCLOSURE l.
Your depletion calculations have shown that for the number of IFBA rods per assembly considered in the analysis (e'.g.,
48 IFBAs per initially enriched 5.0 weight percent assembly),
the maximum reactivity occurs at zero burnup.
Explain how this has been verified for a larger number of IFBAs per assembly considering such effects as neutron spectrum hardening.
2.
Since TS 5.3.1 refers to fuel assemblies containing a sufficient number of IFBAs, why is not Figure 2 or Table 2 which gives the minimum number of IFBA rods versus initial U-235 enrichment for acceptable fuel storage included in the Technical Specifications?
3.
Can the distribution of IFBA rods vary between assemblies as compared to the distribution assumed in the analysis?
If so, what effect does this have on the rack reactivity results?
4.
In view of the recent Licensee Event Report filed by McGuire Unit I concerning shrinkage of Boraflex which could cause a resultant increase in reactivity not previously considered, justify that the Shearon Harris spent fuel pool maximum anticipated Boraflex shrinkage will not violate the 0.95 k ff acceptance criterion.
eff 5.
If new fuel assemblies of 5 weight percent U-235 enrichment can also be stored dry in new (unirradiated) fuel storage
- racks, provide the appropriate reactivity analysis for these showing that the keff acceptance criteria of 0.98 for optimum moderation and 0.95 for fully flooded conditions are met.
6.
The presence of approximate'ly 2000 ppm boron in the pool water is assumed for postulated accidents.
Is this a minimum Technical Specification requirement and is there a corresponding surveillance requirement for periodic samplingl 7.
It appears that revised TS 5.6.l.b referring to new fuel for the first core loading stored dry in the spent fuel racks is no longer applicable and should be deleted.