ML18087A652
| ML18087A652 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 01/26/1983 |
| From: | Liden E Public Service Enterprise Group |
| To: | Varga S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8302020258 | |
| Download: ML18087A652 (3) | |
Text
OPS~G Public Service Electric and Gas Company P.O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038 Nuclear Department January 26, 1983 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
- u. s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7920 Norfolk Avenue Bethesda, Maryland 20014 Attention:
Mr. Steven A. Varga, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #1 Division of Licensing
Dear Mr. Varga:
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION INCREASED FUEL ENRICHMENT SALEM GENERATING STATION UNITS NO. 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-272 AND 50-311 Public service Electric and Gas hereby submits, in the enclosure to this letter, its response to your letter of January 21, 1983 requesting additional information concerning our license change request to increase the allowable fuel enrichment in the Salem units.
We believe this information is responsive to your concerns and would appreciate a favorable reply by January 28, 1983.
Enclosure CC:
Mr. D. Fisher Sincerely, E. A. Liden Manager -
Nuclear Licensing and Regulation NRC Licensing Project Manager Mr. Leif Norrholm NRC Senior Resident Inspector 8302020258--830126 - -
PDR ADOCK 05000272 P
, The Energy People
/Joo/
95-2168 (80 M) 11-82
r-RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION -
MODIFICATION OF FUEL ENRICHMENT Ql.
The enrichment of the 17xl7 Westinghouse fuel assemblies in the new fuel storage rack is stated as 4.5 w/o U-235 in Section 2.a of Attachment 1 although the Technical Specifications limit the reload fuel enrichment to 4.05 w/o.
Please correct this discrepancy.
Al.
The analysis for storage of Westinghouse type 17xl7 fuel in the new fuel storage racks was performed with an U235 enrichment of 4.50 w/o.
The analysis for storage of Westinghouse type 17xl7 fuel in the spent fuel storage racks was performed with an U235 enrichment of 4.05 w/o.
Therefore the proposed Technical Specification changes for fuel enrichment was set at the bounding 4.05 w/o enrichment value.
Q2.
With respect to the optimum moderation event in the new fuel storage racks, what procedures and/or design features preclude lower densities (e.g., 1%-10% of full density) which may result in higher reactivities?
Provide any available calculational results or references which support your conclusion that physically achievable water densities are considerably too low to yield keff values higher than full density water.
A2.
A potential "optimum moderation" condition is precluded in the new fuel storage area by the following design features:
- 1.
The new fuel storage building does not have any fire fighting hose stations.
- 2.
The new fuel storage building does not have any installed suppression systems (i.e., aqueous fire-fighting equipment such as sprinklers, fog, or sprays).
- 3.
The new fuel is covered with a protective metal plate during storage which prohibits the introduc-tion of low density water into the fuel racks from above.
The only accessible fire fighting hoses available for use in the new fuel storage area are connected to hose stations in the auxiliary building and will be equipped with straight stream nozzles, thereby precluding intro-duction of spray or low density" aqueous fire fighting in the new fuel storage area.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION MODIFICATION OF FUEL ENRICHMENT PAGE 2 Q3.
Technical Specification 5.6.1 refers to a conservative allowance of 2.2% ~k/k for uncertainties in predicting keff.
However, an allowance of 1.5% ~k/k is used in the new fuel rack analysis.
Please correct this discrepancy.
A3.
Evaluation of the uncertainties of the spent fuel storage rack analysis shows calculational and mechanical uncer-tainties in keff to be 2.2% ~k/k.
However, the uncer-tainty evaluation in the prediction of kef f in the new fuel storage rack results in a 1.5% ~k/k uncertainty.
For conservatism, the upper bound uncertainty of 2.2%
has been applied to both analysis.
This results in a keff of.9442 for the spent fuel storage rack, and a*
keff of.9409 for the new fuel storage rack.