ML20203G277
| ML20203G277 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 07/25/1986 |
| From: | Jaffe D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Opeka J NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8608010054 | |
| Download: ML20203G277 (3) | |
Text
_ - _ _ _
July 25, 1986 Distribution Docket No. 50-336
PD#8 Reading BGrimes Mr. John F. Opeka, Senior Vice President FMiraglia OELD Nuclear Engineering and Operations EJordan Northeast Nuclear Energy Company JPartlow P. O. Box 270 NThompson Hartford, Connecticut 06141-0270 Gray File 3.5a
Dear Mr. Opeka:
We are in the process of reviewing your May 21, 1986 application regarding the storage of consolidated spent fuel at Millstone Unit 2.
In order that we may continue our review, we request that you respond to the enclosed questions, concerning nuclear and thermal-hydraulic considerations (and associated Technical Specifications) within 60 days following receipt of this letter.
This request for information affects fewer than 10 respondents; therefore, OMB clearance is not required under P.L.96-511.
Sincerely,
/S/
D. H. Jaffe, Project Manager PWR Project Directorate #8 Division of PWR Licensing-B
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Information cc: w/ enclosure See next page PD#8 PD PD#8 PKvpvitzer J ft:jch AThada y/g/86 86
/g 6 8608010054 860725 PDR ADOCK 05000336 P
Mr. John F. Opeka Millstone Nuclear Power Station Northeast Nuclear Energy Company Unit No. 2 cc:
Gerald Garfield, Esq.
Mr. Wayne D. Romberg Day, Berry & Howard Superintendent Counselors at Law Millstone Nuclear Power Station City Place P. O. Box 128 Hartford, Connecticut 06103-3499 Waterford, Connecticut 06385 Regional Administrator, Region I Mr. Edward J. Mroczka U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Vice President, Nuclear Operations Office of Executive Director for Northeast Nuclear Energy Company Operations P. O. Box 270 631 Park Avenue Hartford, Connecticut 06141-0270 King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 Mr. Charles Brinkman, Manager Washington Nuclear Operations C-E Power Systems Combustion Engineering, Inc.
7910 Woodmont Avenue Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Mr. Lawrence Bettencourt, First Selectman Town of Waterford Hall of Records - 200 Boston Post Road Waterford, Connecticut 06385 Northeast Utilities Service Company ATTN: Mr. Richard R. Laudenat, Manager Generation Facilities Licensing Post Office Box 270 Hartford, Connecticut 06141-0270 Kevin McCarthy, Director Radiation Control Unit Department of Environmental Protection State Office Building Hartford, Connecticut 06106 Mr. Theodore Rebelowski U.S. NRC P. O. Box 615 Waterford, Connecticut 06385-0615 Office of Policy & Management ATTN: Under Secretary Energy Division 80 Washington Street Hartford, Connecticut 06106
5 REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Millstone Unit 2 Spent Fuel Consolidation 1.
Fig. 3.9-3 shows the minimum required fuel assembly exposure as a function of initial enrichment for storage in Region 2 as consol-idated fuel.
If fuel rods from different assemblies and of different enrichments can be consolidated in one cannister, what value of initial enrichment is assumed in complying with Figure 3.9-3?
2.
How is the reactivity effect of less than a full consolidated storage box (less than 352 rods) accounted for?
3.
What are the values of the biases and calculational uncertainties referred to for Regions 1 and 2 and how were they derived?
4.
Explain in more detail how the Region 2 allowable burnup for each initial enrichment accounts for the underestimation of k-effective due to the assumption of uniform axial burnup.
5.
If Figure 3-4 is based on an infinite array of consolidated fuel, justify why Figures 3-4 and 3-5 need not be derived based on the higher reactivity configuration of one storage pattern of consolidated fuel boxes surrounded by an infinite array of regular fuel assemblies.
6.
Tech Spec 5.6.1.d should include additional wording to clarify that con-solidated fuel can be stored in the 4th location of the storage rack only if the surrounding locations are occupied by consolidated fuel storage boxes.
7.
The staff recommends that a Technical Specification Surveillance Require-ment be incorporated for consolidated fuel to verify the integrity of the fuel and structural elements before movement or placement in the spent fuel pool.
__