ML20082N555
| ML20082N555 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | McGuire, Mcguire  |
| Issue date: | 04/18/1995 |
| From: | Tuckman M DUKE POWER CO. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9504250293 | |
| Download: ML20082N555 (3) | |
Text
,
f i
. DukekneerCompany y 5 7taua s.
P O Box 1006
. Senior Vicehesident Omrkme,hC282011006 NuclearGenemtion 00m82-2200once UOQ8240 Fat M
d April 18,1995.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document Control Desk Washington, D.C. 20555
Subject:
McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1& 2 Docket Nos. 50-369 and 370, respectively Revised Response to Request for AdditionalInformation Proposed Fuel Enrichment Increase Gentlemen:
On March 23, Duke Power Company forwarded a response to your Request for Additional Information (RAI) dated January 4,1995. The RAI concerned proposed amendments to technical specifications, dated June 13,1994 for McGuire and Sept.19, 1994 for Catawba. The proposed amendments increase the allowable enrichment limit for fuel stored in our spent fuel pools. Upon subsequent review of our responses it was discovered that we erroneously included a draft response to Question #4 which does not match the corresponsing changes made to technical specifications.
A revised r.esponse to Question #4 is enclosed for your information and review. Please replace this enclosed revision to Attachment 1, with the original response as appropriate.
No additional changes were necessary to the accompanying specifications, technical justification, No Significant Hazards Analysis or Environmental Impact Statement as a result of this correction.
We apologize for any inconvienence this may have caused you. If you have any questions concerning this revision, or need additional information, please contact Ms Judy Twiggs at 704-382-8897.
,s gDR5042502939504Se p
ADOCK 05000369 4
PDR ae w.,
k a
e i
Sincerely,'
a b.
/
M.S. Tuckman Senior Vice President Nuclear Generation jgt/ attachments U.S. NRC xc:
S.D. Ebeneter, Regional Administrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission - Region II 101 Marietta Street, NW - Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Victor Nerses, Project Manager Oflice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop 14H25, OWFN Washington, D C. 20555 R.E. Martin, Project Manager Oflice of Nuclear Reactor Regulatu U S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop 141125, OWFN Washington, D.C. 20555 G.F. Maxwell Senior Resident Inspector McGuire Nuclear Station Dayne Brown, Chief State of North Carolina Division of Radiation Protection P.O. Box 27687 Raleigh, N C. 27611-7687 f
a
i l
NTTACHMENT 1 RFSPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION MCGUIRE PROPOSED FUEL ENRICHMENT INCREASE Q4) The NRC staff believes that the 31 day frequency for verifying spent fuel pool baron concentration stated in proposed SR 4.9.12 is too long, especially during fuel storage operations. We note that a comparable SR for ensuring suberiticality in the reactor during MODE 6 in the improved Westinghouse Standard TS is 7 days and that this is discussed in the BASES for those TS. We request that DPC provide further justification for the proposed SFP surveillance frequency. Any associated changes to the BASES should also be proposed including a discussion of the limiting SFP accident analysis A4) We concur that the surveillance requirement for verifying the Spent Fuel Pool (SFP) boron concentration in the Westinghouse STS is 7 days. The current surveillance requirement (SR 4.9.12a)is 31 days. Since McGuire is the only Duke Power facility currently requiring a spent fuel storage related TS, the current SR was used as the basis for the proposed SR 4.9.12.
The purpose of soluble boron in the SFP is to provide adequate criticality safety margin in the unlikely event of an accident which increases the reactivity of the pool.
4 Since the only postulated accidents of this outcome involve the movement of fuel assemblies, the SFP boron surveillance is linked with fuel movement in the SFP.
Given that the minimum SFP boron concentration limits are currently 2175 ppm, and expected to increase even further, and that only about 500 ppm is needed to maintain k-eff below 0.95 in the event of an accident of this nature, it seems unlikely that a boron dilution of more than 1500 ppm in 31 days over such a large volume of water could go undetected. However, section 16.9-7 of the McGuire FSAR requires that the SFP baron concentration be verified every 7 days. Therefore, although the applicability for section 16.9-7 of the FSAR and SR 4.9.12 differ, the surveillance interval in TS 4.9.12 will be changed from 31 days to 7 days to be consistent with the commitment in section 16.9-7 of the FSAR.
Included in this package are the necessary revisions to TS 3/4.9.12 in Attachment I and page 8-7 in Attachment IV of our original submittal.
Q7) We do not agree with proposed TS 3.9.13.(a.3 and 3.9.13b.4), which would allow