ML042670375
| ML042670375 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 03/26/2004 |
| From: | Michael Webb NRC/NRR/DLPM/LPD4 |
| To: | Entergy Operations |
| Webb M, NRR/DLPM, 415-1347 | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML043570180 | List: |
| References | |
| Download: ML042670375 (2) | |
Text
I Michael Webb - Re: Spent Fuel Storage at Indian Point 1
'Page i 1 TIQ&MtAJ A,OA17-I From:
Michael Webb Ma -
0Q3 To:
internet:kkingsltentergy.com Date:
3/26/04 11:36AM Pr aJec k
/
4d7fr Age el
Subject:
Re: Spent Fuel Storage at Indian Point 1 Vltt2L
- Kevin, For your consideration, I received the following additional comments regarding Unit 1 spent fuel storage.
- Regards, Mike Webb NRR Project Manager for Indian Point 1
>>> 03/25/04 3:17PM >>>
Without doing a lot of research, I would have the following issues with the proposal:
Indian Point 1 is a Part 50 licensee, and the General Design Criteria are written for wet storage. What design requirements would apply to dry storage other than Part 72? Part 72 requires confinement, shielding, cooling, and retrievability - all of which are satisfied at least in part by water for pool storage configurations.
Confinement - water captures potential radioactive releases from the fuel.
Shielding - Part 20 requirements to maintain occupational exposure ALARA; it's hard to argue that water shielding is not reasonably achievable in a pool.
Cooling - air cooling likely okay for 30 year old fuel, but water is more effective.
Retrievability - long-term exposure to oxidation in an air environment may threaten the integrity of the cladding; this is part of the reason dry casks are filled with inert gases.
In addition, Zirconium alloy cladding is flammable in air at high enough temperatures. This would be an NSIR issue if cooling under credible accident conditions remained acceptable, but it would be difficult to justify even the threat of low level releases from old fuel.
>>> 03/24/04 03:22PM>>>
With respect to the proposal to drain the IP-1 spent fuel pool and allow dry storage of the fuel assemblies in the spent fuel pool, we think that the current licensing basis for the facility would govem what the licensee plans to do. They would need to look to the FSAR which would describe the design and operation of the spent fuel pool and to the license. What they plan to do may require a license amendment if a license condition or tech spec is involved or an analysis under 50.59. I'm told that the regulations that govern fuel are 50.68 and GDC 61 and 62. If these are implicated, an exemption may be required.
TEC\\W INDWS\\TEMP\\GW}OO1.TMP Pg1 Page 1-I Mail Envelope Properties (4059A948.5ED: 5: 21368)
Subject:
Creation Date:
From:
Created By:
Re: Spent Fuel Storage at Indian Point 1 3/18/04 8:51AM Michael Webb MKW@nrc.gov Recipients entergy.com kkingsl (intemet:kkingsl @entervy.com)
Action Transferred Date & Time 03/18/04 08:51AM Post Office entergy.com Delivered Date & Time 03/18/04 08:5 1AM Route internet Files MESSAGE Options Auto Delete:
Expiration Date:
Notify Recipients:
Priority:
Reply Requested:
Return Notification:
Concealed
Subject:
Security:
To Be Delivered:
Status Tracking:
Size 3226 No None Yes Standard No None No Standard Immediate Delivered & Opened