ML21294A121
Text
SSES-FSAR QUESTION 232.1 General Electric Co. has performed a generic analysis of the consequences of continuous withdrawal of an out-of-sequence control rod during reactor startup.
This analysis has been documented on the Hatch-2 docket (50-366).
Please provide a reference or repeat the analysis on the Susquehanna docket.
RESPONSE
FSAR Subsection 15.4.1.2.1 has been updated to provide this information.
Rev. 46, 06/93 232.1-1
SSES-FSAR QUESTION 232.2 In view of the fact that the dry fresh fuel storage racks are undermoderated and the flooded racks are overmoderated, has the case of optimum moderation been analyzed? Provide analysis to show that this configuration is safe or provide bases for concluding that low density moderation in the racks is precluded.
RESPONSE
Refer to revised FSAR subsections 9.1.1.2 and 9.1.1.3.1.
Rev. 46, 06/93 232.2-1
SSES-FSAR QUESTION 232.3 Comment on the effect of a misoriented bundle on the CPR in view of the change in R-factor induced by the bundle tilt.
RESPONSE
FSAR Subsection 15.4.7.3.3 has been updated to provide this information.
Rev. 46, 06/93 232.3-1
SSES-FSAR QUESTION 232.4 The information in Section 9.1.2 (including Revision 15} is not sufficient to permit the review of the criticality of the spent fuel storage racks.
The following information will be required.
{1}_
A description of the racks including, in particular those features affecting their reactivity.
(2)
A description of the assumptions made in the analysis, including those regarding the reactivity of the fuel to be stored, credit taken for absorbers in the fuel and racks, temperature of water in the pool, and placements of assemblies in racks.
{3)
A description of the analytical methods used, including the results of code verifications and calculational biases and uncertainties.
(4)
A discussion of the effect on the reactivity of uncertainties in material properties and geometry of the racks and fuel placement in the racks.
(5}
A discussion of the effect of abnormal fuel distributions on the reactivity of the racks; for example, a dropped assembly lying across the racks, an assembly lowered into a non-designed location (if possible), and other abnormal configurations.
The results of the criticality analysis presented for the nominal rack design placement; the various calculational and uncertainties should be given along with uncertainty.
RESPONSE
See revised FSAR Subsection 9.1.2.
Rev. 46, 06/93 232.4-1 should be and fuel mechanical the total