ML17037B751

Letter Forwarding the Latest Correspondence with the NRC Concerning the Spent Fuel Storage Situation

ML17037B751
Person / Time
Site:	Nine Mile Point
Issue date:	06/13/1975
From:	Resnikoff M New York Public Interest Research Group
To:	Buckley J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, US SEN (Senate)
References
Download: ML17037B751 (4)

Text

f \\

~

~

1,

.)

4a~4.~g4.<<,.9 K I

~~~ S~

4.a 8 Q~.

~

~LJ~ ~as.

p k~~

~'k H ~ 14'

~>~.~

+c ~pe. BW) ~4~~'4 4~

~4 4.~MA~<e P i~Md u~~

Q n~~~

44..kg (ow 4+a%~4~a 4

<64iM~~'4.L

Donald F. Knuth, Director Off).ce of Inspection and. Enforcement; Nuclear Regulatory Commissi.on Mashington, D.C.

20555 Re: Docket No. 50-220 Nine Nile Point 1

Spent Fuel Storage 1

Dear MI. Knuth:

Than'ou so much for taking the time Co respond to our ques-CLons of March 2'7.

The answers will aicL us in making an in-dependent

)udgment of the safety of t;he spent fuel situation at; Nine Mile Point l.

However, we will need. further informa-tion before we share your vie~r that the spent fuel situation at NMP 1 is not a safety problem.

e I have enclosed.

a letter from Sue Reinert of Ecology Action of Os~rego vrhich may have come t;o your at;tention by this time.

(To correct one error, the numbers 6,000 and.

ZO,OOO BTU/hr in her letter should. read.

6 x 106 and. 20 x 10~ BTU/hr, resp-ectively.}

Her questions concern the cobling capacity of the storage

pool, ancL Che inter-relationship of the storage pool with other safet;y matters.

In addressing Ms. Reinert's ques-

tions, we woulcL hope that you could not only answer the spe-cific questions, but Che general thrust of her questions as well.

I have drawn out her questions a bit; further below, to make the intent clear.

CRITERIA FOR SHUTDOMN You imply, on page 1 of your letter, Chat vrhen the reactor and. spent; fuel pool are full, the reactor would. close

down, "If the licensee reaches a point where he has used. all on-site spent fuel storage space and. has consumed.

Che fuel in the reactor, and. has'nowhere t;o ship spent fuel to make sCorage room for defueling Che reactor, then he would. have no choice but Co recLuce and. eventually cease power product-ion."

Thus, your criteria for shutdown seems Co be when the reactor and. spent; st;orage pool are full.

However, as you can see from the questions

below, we are asking for a full stat;ement of your assumptions Co this conclusion, and. quan-titative criteria for a shutdown of NMP 1 reactor.

COOLING CAPACITY'F STORAGE POOL In your letter of April 30,

1975, you mention that Che cool-ing canacity of the storage pool is 20 x 106 BTU/hr.

Does this assume one or both of the cooling systems are operatingV (Reinert question jr2)

Is the cooling system capacity of. each equal Co one-half of the total or i0 x i0~ BTU/hrV

Knuth Pa@6 2

Me would. like to know what assumptions go into this deter-mination of the cooling capacity.

(Reinert question gl)

Me know, for example, that each spent fuel cooling syst;em has a

pump and. heat exchanger with the coolant wat;er.

Are t;here credible circumstances in which the coolant would. heat up, thereby lowering the cooling capacity of the spent 'fuel.

cooling system?

Is this situation further,.jeopardized by the storage of a large amount of fuel in the spent fuel sto-rage pool?

Please explicitly state your assumptions.

How much fuel, of what reactor

exposure, for what cooling period.

, must-be in the spent fuel pool before both cooling systems are required to operate simultaneously'r.(Reiner~

question g3)

Me are assuming that one cooling system serves as a back-up for the other, in case one system should break

down, and. that the use of bot;h pumps simultaneously would.

be an undesirable operating cond.ition.

Xs there e conceiv-able set of circumstances which would. lead you to this und.e-sirable condition?

NEED FOR SAFETY'EARXNO Xf there are cred.ible circumstances. which would. lower. the cooling capacity'of the spent fuel cooling system, and. if the spent fuel load. furt;her cont;ributed. to this problem, then your quantitative criteria for a reactor shutdown must '

include this information..

If there are credible."circumstances which would. require you to examine the mecahnisms within the reactor pressure

vessel, then a reactor shutdown would be required if the full core could not be empt;ied. into the spent fuel storage

pool, Your quantitative criteria should. take these circumstances into account.

It is my..personal belief that a full safety hearing is re-

'uired."'on-this spent fuel situation, that this is an oper at;ing.condition that was not anticipated. in the original safety-hearing.

However, if you feel that this situation was fully and adequately covered in the original safety hear-

ing, and. that the answers to our quest;ions are known and straight-forward,

.then please provide us the information..

Me thank you for looking further into this matter.

cc:

S. Reinert A.Z. Roisman G. Speth Sen. J. Buckley Sincerely,

/

r.- Yiarvin Resnikoff

.Box 123 Market Stat;ion

Buffalo, New X'ork 14203

~

I

~

Nuclear Regulatoxy Commission 7Eashington>>

D.C. 20555 Box 94 Oswego>>

Ncw York 13126 V~y 22>> 1975 Gcntlcmen>>

We would like further information on the cooling system for Chc spent fuel pool at Nine Mile Unit l. According to the Final Safety Ana3gsis Rcport for thc plant>> the normal load for tho fue1 pool is B

50 per cent of Cho core>>

and a cooling "loop" which can handl 6 000 TU per hour provides enough cooling for Che normal load.

A second>>

backup system is provided to handle the unusual situation of a full fuel pool>> or 150 per cent of thc core.

The FSAR says the tyro systems together can handle the rcquircd 20>>000 BTU pcr hour.

Since Nine Mile Unit 1 alrea+

has more than 50 pcr cent of a core in its fuel pool>> vie would like answers to thc following:

1.

17hat is thc maximum cooling capacity of each system?

Please state the assumptions that werc made>>

such as maximum tcmpcrature of coolant+

2. 17hat is the basis for the statement that both systems together can handle 20,000 BTU pcr hour?

3. Arc both systems currently being used at Nine Efilc Unit 1? Xf so>> for hovr long have they been used? If not>> when do you anticipate that both willbc required to operate?

4i What is the schcdulc of Ccsting for the backup system? If it is not in uso>>

when was it last tcstcd7 5o Uhat provisions arc made for situations when both systems are needed but one of them is out of service?

6.What effect will a risc in tcmpcraturc of Che reactor coolant havo on thc capabiU.ty of thc fuel pool cooling systems?

As you can probably gather>>

wc are concerned about the continuous operation of this system at above normal loads, Thc spent fuel pool now has about 56 pcr cent of a core of 532 asscmblicsi If Niagara Mohawk unloads about one third of thc core at its next rcfucling this fall, Chc pool willcontain roughly 470 asscmblics, or about 70 per cent of the cores'n view of Chc fact Chat thc designers of thc plant apparcnt3g-thought that a load of more Chan 50 per cent of thc core would be unusual>>

vre don't understand hear you can state that 'the spent fuel pool situation is not a safety matter>>

as you said in your most rcccnt letter to us~

Suc Reinert Ecology Action of Oswego ccrc Dr. Harvin Resn&off