ML20238C681
| ML20238C681 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Callaway  |
| Issue date: | 08/31/1987 |
| From: | Schnell D UNION ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM) |
| References | |
| ULNRC-1590, NUDOCS 8709100296 | |
| Download: ML20238C681 (7) | |
Text
_
' UNION s
s - Etscraic l.
h 1961 Gra*>ot Street, St. Louis Donald F. SchneH -
Vice President -
-August 31, 1987 j
l
-U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTH:
Document Control Desk l
. Washington, D.C. 20555 i
Gentlemen:
ULNRC-159 0 DOCKET NUMBER 50-483 CALLAWAY PLANT RESPONSE TO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
'REOUEST REGARDING CYCLE 3 RELOAD APPLICATION
Reference:
ULNRC-1740 dated-March 31, 1987 The reference letter transmitted the license application for Callaway Cycle 3.
Attached to this letter are responses to the Staff's (C. R. Nichols) informal request for additional
.information.
If there are any further questions, please contact us.
J Very truly yours, f
<3 Dona Schnell NGS/DS/plh Attachment
\\
I u
8709100296 870831 ff PDR ADOCK.05000483.-
pa-p PDR J Maihng Address: P.O. Box 149, St. Louts, MO 63166
STATE OF MISSOURI )
)
J Robert J.
Schukai, of lawful age, being first duly sworn a
I upon oath says that he is General Manager-Engineering (Nuclear) for Union Electric Company; that he has read the foregoing document and knows the content thereof; that he has executed the same for and on l
behalf of said company with full power and authority to do so; and that the facts therein stated are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief.
l By w
Robe
'J. 54hukai 4 er-Engineering
)
Gene Me 9
Nuclear SUBSCRIBED and sworn to before me this 3/4 day of s/we4, 198 7
.4..LiIll c?$'dW~~Th. d 4,-
i
_g
./
BARbAR. PFAF[
hDi ARY PU6 tic, STATE Of MISSOURI NY COMMLSSION EXPIRES APRIL 22, ISSS ST. LOUIS COUf4TY.
l l
2 W
l' I
i
~-
cc:
Gerald'Charnoff, Esq.
j Shaw,:Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge.
j 2300 N.
Street, N.W.
]
Washington, D.C.
20037 1
Dr.'J. O. Cermak CFA, Inc.
I 4 Professional Drive (Suite'110)
Gaithersburg, MD 20879 W.
L. Forney
{
Chief, Reactor Project Branch 1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region III 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 Bruce Little Callaway Resident Office U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission RR#1 Steedman, Missouri 65077 Tom Alexion (2)
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop 316 7920 Norfolk Avenue Bethesda,-MD 20014 Ron Kucera, Deputy Director Department of Natural Resources P.O.
Box 176 Jefferson City, MO 65102 Manager, Electric Department Missouri Public Service Commission P.O. Box 360 Jefferson City, MO 65102 l
l l
l l
l l
l
"j 3
Attachment ULNRC-1590~
RESPONSE TO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUEST REGARDING CYCLE 3 RELOAD APPLICATION 1.
SRP 11.1 provides, among the specific criteria necessary to
. meet the relevant requirements of 10 CFR 20 & 50, that the source-terms result in meeting design objectives for doses in an unrestricted area as set forth in~ Appendix I of 10 CFR
- 50.. Provide;an estimate of the effect of extended burnup on concentrations of significant nuclides in.the Reactor Coolant System and, based on this, the effect on effluents from the plant and doses to persons'in unrestricted areas.
Response
Reactor Coolant System concentrations were previously calculated.using NRC's GALE code per the requirements of SRP 11.1.
The use of source terms in the GALE code is not-intended to explicitly model releases for any particular plant but to provide an estimate based on operating histories of current plants.
A specific plant may have releases higher or lower than the standard values depending
~on plant operation.
Operational flexibility was intended by the regulations.
If plant operating experience were to show an unacceptable increase in the effluent releases, corrective action would be taken to reduce the releases and to assure that releases were as low as reasonably achievable and below the guidelines given in.10 CFR 50,' Appendix I in.
accordance with Callaway Plant Technical Specifications.
Notwithstanding the above, a core inventory comparison was performed by Westinghouse for fission products with significant contributions to offsite dose.
This comparison
' indicates a net decrease in core inventory of.significant fission products which corresponds to a decrease in reactor coolant concentration and a decrease in offsite doses.
The effect on offsite dose was evaluated and showed a decrease in dose of at least 1% for all significant pathways.
There is, therefore, no reason to revise the GALE code. source terms previously reported since these values are bounding.
t
-Attachment i?
ULNRC-1590 2.
In your submittal it is indicated in Attachment 3, Table 1 that.the extended burnup has no significant effect on the
- totalL r.ctivity (C1) of solid waste to be disposed. of.
.Elsewhere in the Attachment, it is stated that a reduced number of shipments are required due to extended burnup.
From this statement, it can be concluded that the
-concentrations are higher.
How does'this affect classification and processing of solid waste under 10 CFR 61', 7,1, and the requirements of burial sites?
Responce.
The statement that a reduced number.of shipments were required due to. extended burnup was intended to specifically refer to shipments of irradiated spent fuel assemblies.
.Since spent fuel is. classified as a High Level Waste,it does not effect classification under 10 CFR 61.
With respect to Low-Level Waste generation, the' dominant contributor is from reactor operations.
Recent Low-Level Waste data show a large variability from plant to plant, and from year txi year.
These variations'are much greater than what would be expected from increased burnup.
In general, the quantity of radioactive material accumulated in a particular waste system or component over the period of its operating cycle or the process run time is proportional to the quantity of radioactive material in the reactor coolant during that period.
Based on our response to question 1, GALE code reactor coolant concentrations represent an upper limit to the activity levels which should be expected in these wastes.
It is therefore expected that the quantity, classification and processing of Low-Level Waste under 10 CFR 61, 71 and the requirements of burial sites will be unrelated to increased burnup.
Attachment ULNRC-1590 3.
Standard Review Plan section 9.4.2 provides, among the
-acceptance criteria for the spent fuel pool area ventilation system, that the design is in accordance with (a) GDC-60, as related to the systems' capability to suitably control releases of gaseous radioactive effluents to the environment (acceptance is based on the gu3nce of RG 1.52, position C.2, and RG 1.140,. positions C.A and C.2), and (b) GDC-61, related to the systems capability to provide. appropriate l
aa containmm.L, onfinement, and filtering to limit radioactive
. releases when normalfand accident conditions exist
' acceptance is based on the guidance of RG 1.13, position C.4).
Provide a basis to support a conclusion that these acceptance criteria are met with storage of V-5-fuel in the Spent Fuel Pool.
. Response Previous analysas of the effects of the uprating and VANTAGE.5 fuel have shown an increase in the' heat load to the fuel pool and the Auxiliary / Fuel Building HVAC systems.
Further analysis has shown that the HVAC systems are capable of maintaining the temperature in the Fuel Building below its design value.
Also, the HVAC systems are capable of maintaining the relative humidity of the air entering the filter adsorber units within its design value,.to ensure opcimum performance of the adsorber units.
The environmental radiation associated with the HVAC system was also analyzed.
It was found that the most limiting component is environmentally qualified to two orders of magnitude in integrated dose above the normal and DBA radiation environments.
Therefore, we conclude that the storage of V-5 fuel in the spent fuel pool will not impair the capability of the Auxiliary / Fuel Building HVAC systems to perform their design functions.
These bases support the conclusion that,with storage of V-5 fuel in the spent fuel pool,the aforementioned acceptance criteria are still met, and that the HVAC systems will remain capable of controlling releases of gaseous radioactive effluents to the environment when either normal or accident conditions exist.
I Attachmsnt ULNRC-i 4.
10 CFR 51.52(a) requires, in part, that the reactor fuel have a uranium - 235 enrichment not exceeding 4% by weight.
If this condition is not met, then 10 CFR 51.52(b) requires that a full description and detailed analysis of the environmental effects of transportation of fuel and wastes to and from the reactor be completed.
Response
tw u
The current criticality analyses, supporting Table S-4 ofi 10 CFR 51, which demonstrates that fresh fuel could not achieve l criticality with typical shipping containers is currently limited to 4 weight percent enriched fuel.
Westinghouse has2 performed criticality analyses for the shipping container.s used to ship Vantage 5 fuel to Callaway Plant.
The results show that the higher enrichment does not require a change in' the number of assemblies per container or the number ofix containers per shipment, nor does it require a change in the design of the shipping containers.
Therefore, the values given in Attachment 3, Table 2 of our submittal are not affected by the increase in enrichment.
1
(
i l
l
9 D
m
.::P d'*
v>Q 4 I
^
.z C.
V)U N
-E