ML17258B118
| ML17258B118 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Ginna  |
| Issue date: | 06/09/1981 |
| From: | Maier J ROCHESTER GAS & ELECTRIC CORP. |
| To: | Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8106150310 | |
| Download: ML17258B118 (26) | |
Text
REGULATORY INFNATION DISTRIBUTION SYSTEI(RIBS) r ACCESSION NBR:8106150310, DOC ~ DATE: 81/06/09 NOTARIZED:,NO DOCKET FACIL'.50 244 Robert Emmet Ginna Nucle'ar PlantP Unit 1P Rochester G
05000244 AUTH'.NAME-AUTHOR AFFILIATION MAIERP J ~ E ~
Rochester Gas 8 Electr ic Cor p ~
RECIP ~ NAMEl RECIPIENT AFFILIATION CRUTCHF IELD P D ~
Operating Reactors Branch 5
SUBJECT:
Responds to 810331 request'or addi info re SEP Topic IX-.1 8
util 800213 cooling sys mod requests Requests approval for~
mods which would also satisfactorily resolve SEP Topic IX-1 ~
Detailed response'ncl.
DISTRIBUTION CODE" A0350 COPIES RECEIVED:LTR
/ENCL SIZEW TITLE: SEP Topics=
NOTES: 1 copy:SEP Sect's Ldr.
05000244 RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME<
CTION:'RUTCHFIELD 04 NTERNAL ~
A/D,MATLKQUAL'13 HYD/GEO BR 10 P
02 EG FI 01 COPIES LTTR ENCL 7
7 1
1 2
2 1
1 1
1 RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME CONT: SYS A
07
'8E 06 OR ASSESS BR 11 SEP BR 12 COPIES LTTR ENCL 1
1 ~
2 2
1 1
3 3-XTERNAL: ACRS NSIC 10 05r 16 1
1 LPDR 03 1
1 JUN 16 F98 gE'g TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED:
LTTR ~
ENCL
II
I(/
pw rxnz III/Vj7gE/ I/mtà I IIII/t8'I/I//I/II ROCHESTER GAS AND ELECTRIC CORPORATION o
89 EAST AVENUE, ROCHESTER, N.Y. l4649 JOHN E.
MAIER VICE PRESIDENT TCI KPHONK ARCA CODE 7ld 546.2700 June 9,
1981 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attention:
Mr. Dennis M. Crutchfield, Chief Operating Reactors Branch No.
5 U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 JUN l 2 ]98f (
. "" NDEIEA(
EOA~(SENATOR((
~0
Subject:
Spent.
Fuel Pool Cooling System; SEP Topic IX-1 R.
E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Docket No. 50-244
Dear Mr. Crutch'field:
Your letter of March 31, 1981 requested additional informa-tion regarding both SEP Topic IX-1 and the cooling system modi-fication request dated February 13, 1980.
The letter suggested that the SEP review and the request for system modification would be handled as two separate topics.
Because the outcome of SEP Topic IX-1 could affect the spent fuel pool cooling requirements, it is our position that the proposed modifications to the spent fuel pool cooling system should satisfy any concerns you may have concerning SEP Topic IX-1.
Therefore, we have enclosed the information you requested in Enclosures 1 and 2 and request approval for the proposed Spent Fuel Pool Cooling System modifi-cations which would also satisfactorily resolve SEP Topic IX-1.
The spent fuel pool cooling system modifications will not commence until SEP Topic IX-1 is complete.
Very truly yours, Enclosure
1 h
h
, o'~+
il f
Enclosure 1
Request for Additional Information R. E. Ginna SEP Review Of Fuel Storage, Topic IX-1 Question 1:
In regard to the spent fuel pool makeup water supply system provide the following information:
a ~
Identify and describe the available sources of makeup water.
The description of each source should include the total quantity of water available, the makeup rate and the length of time and operations that must be carried out before it can be made available.
Response
The normal makeup water source to the Spent Fuel Pool (SFP) is from the Refueling Water Storage Tank (RWST).
The minimum required RWST water volume is 230,000 gallons with at least 2000 ppm boron (Tech-nical Specification 3.3.1.1.a).
The RWST capacity is 330,000 gallons.
Utilizing Plant Operating Procedure S-7C, the maximum makeup rate is 60 gpm.
Water is supplied from the RWST by the Reactor Water Purifi-cation Pump to the SFP purification system to the SFP.
This operation will normally take less than 15 minutes to initiate.
An alternative source of makeup water is from the Primary Water Treatment Plant directly to the SFP through a normally locked closed valve (788A).
This flowpath would provide approximately 120 gpm of 5-bed DI water at normal water treatment plant pressure.
This operation will normally take less than 15 minutes to initiate.
The water supplied to the SFP is unborated.
Since the source of water to the treatment plant is city water, the quantity of water available is unlimited.
Another alternate source of makeup water is from either the Reactor Makeup Water Tank (75000 gallons) or the Monitor Tanks (2 tanks at 7500 gallons each) through the Monitor Tank Pump through a
1@ inch discharge temporary hose hookup.
Plant Operating Procedures S-9K and S-9M will accomplish these operations.
The flow path would provide a maximum of approximately 40 gpm of unborated water and would normally take 30 to 45 minutes to initiate.
Another alternate source of water would be from the fire system.
A fire. hose could be run from-a local fire hose station or from yard hydrants located outside the building.
The total quantity of water is unlimited because it is pumped from the lake via a fire pump or the city water system.
This method of water addition should take less than an hour to initiate.
Question b:
Response
Describe and discuss the measures which will be taken to ensure the proper pool water boron concentration should the above makeup water sources be required.
The SFP storage racks are designed to maintain k ff 0.90 with the most reactive fuel assemblies an8 unborated water in the pool.
This was presented in Reference 1.
Therefore, unborated water may be added to the SFP.
Question c:
Describe and discuss the spent fuel pool water leak detection and collection systems.
Relate the sensitivity and frequency of the periodic checks on the status of the system to the maximum anticipated rate at, which water could be lost.
Response
The SFP water leak collection system was discussed in Reference 2.
The system consists of channels in the concrete pool floor which are designed to collect any water that may leak through the stainless steel SFP liner.
Also included in the system is a clear vinyl level indicator, 1/2 hp pump, mixed-bed demineralizer, and associated rubber hoses.
The purpose of the system is to take water that. collects between the spent fuel pool liner and concrete pool structure, demineralize it. and return it to the SFP.
The water level in the vinyl level indicator is checked twice per shift; a manual pump down operation is initiated if necessary.
Since the installation of the high density storage racks in 1977 SFP leakage is almost nonexistent.
Pump downs are required very very infrequently i.e.
one to three times per year.
There is no SFP leak detection system at Ginna.
SFP level alarms are provided on the main control board.
Low level alarm is activated at 20 inches below the top of the SFP and the Hi level alarm is activated at 12 inches below the top of the SFP.
Therefore, there is 8 inches between the Hi and Low level alarm.
This corresponds to approximately 4222 gallons.
Based on previous experience the leak rate is very small to nonexistent; therefore, a maximum anticipated rate is not known.
Question d:
Response
In regard to the storage and handl'ing of new and spent fuel assemblies identify and discuss how the current Standard Technical Specifications differ from the R. E. Ginna Technical Specifications.
For each difference, describe and discuss the procedures or plant features that, when taken into consideration, provides an equivalent level of protection against unacceptable consequences.
Standard Technical Specification 5.6.1 dated 10-5-78 requires the spent fuel storage racks (SFSR) to be designed to insure a K f < 0.95 when flooded with unborated water and ha84 a nominal 21 inch center-to-center distance between fuel assemblies.
The Ginna Technical Specification 5.4.2 requires new and spent fuel storage racks be designed wl.th sufficient center-to-center distance between assemblies to assure K f
< 0.90 assuming the pool is filled with unborate8 hater.
The Ginna Technical Specification is clearly more conservative than the Standard Technical Specification and the SFSR design was approved by,Reference 3.
Standard Technical Specification 5.6.2 dated.10-15-78 states "The SFSP is designed and shall be maintained to prevent inadvertent draining of the pool below elevation This requirement does not appear in the Ginna Technical Specifications (Reference
- 4) however, the Ginna FSAR states on page 9.3-8 that the spent fuel pit pump suction line penetrates the spent fuel pit wall above the stored fuel assemblies.
The penetration location prevents loss of water which would uncover stored fuel as a result of a possible suction line rupture.
The discharge line incorporates an anti-siphon device.
Therefore, plant features provide an equivalent level of protection.
Standard Technical Specification 5.6.3 dated 10-15-78 states "The SFSP is designed and shall be maintained with a storage capacity limited to no more than-fuel assemblies".
This requirement, does not appear in the Ginna Technical Specifications;
- however, the SFSR design which was approved by Reference 3 approved the design based on 595 storage locations.
Standard Technical Specification 3.9.7 dated 10-1-75
- states, "Loads in excess of pounds shall be prohibited from travel over Zuel assemblies in the storage pool".
I
Question 2:
Response
The Ginna Technical Specifications (Reference 4) have a similar requirement in Section 3.11.3.
This requirement states, "The trolley of the auxiliary building crane shall never be stationed or permitted to pass over storage racks containing spent fuel."
This requirement provides an equivalent level of protection against unacceptable consequences.
It is noted in the February 13, 1980 submittal describing the proposed spent fuel pool cooling system modifications that some portions of the system following the modifications will not be in compliance with Regulatory Guides 1.13, 1.26, and 1.29.
Identify and discuss these differences as well as the particular plant design features or procedures at R. E. Ginna that would enable the staff to conclude that the cooling system meets the intent of the Regulatory Guides and is, therefore, acceptable.
The existing cooling system at Ginna is not designed to be a seismic system.
It i,s designed such that any pipe failures will not result in decreasing the SFSP level below the top of stored fuel assemblies.
The spent fuel pool cooling system (SFPCS) modifi-cation proposed in the Reference 5 submittal would install a complete new 100% capacity system.
The new system will be seismic class I.
The seismic class I classification will be based on the Quality Assurance program requirements which is in general agreement with the Regulatory Guides except for some differences of an administrative nature.
These differences deal with stamping and Third Party Inspection provisions of the ASME Code.
The new system will utilize portions of the existing system piping as illustrated in Reference 5.
Those portions of existing piping will be evaluated and resupported if necessary to upgrade them to seismic class I.
Those portions of the existing system used in the new system will then meet all the requirements for seismic class I except that certification of materials and fabrication is not, available for the existing system.
The new SFPCS would be a one train system, i.e.,
one pump and one heat exchanger.
The new system would be seismic class I as described above.
The existing (non-seismic) system would then serve as an installed backup.
In addition to the existing system there is a skid mounted heat exchanger capable of removing the decay heat associated with a normal refueling discharge and a portable pump capable of replacing the existing SFPCS pump.
The portable system is connected with flexible hoses.
Therefore, the SFPCS after the modification proposed in the Reference 5
a h
)I 1
Question 3:
Response
submittal would consist of a 100% capacity seismic class I system (as noted above),
the existing non-seismic system as an installed backup, and a portable pump and skid mounted heat exchanger capable of replacing the pump and heat exchanger in the existing system.
Even though the proposed SFPCS does not incorporate two redundant trains the installed backup and portable equipment provide sufficient redundancy to meet. the intent of the stated Regulatory Guides.
It is noted that the handling of fuel assemblies above the storage rack is accomplished by utilizing a manually operated tool suspended by the overhead hoist,.
In this regard, providing the following:
a.
Identify and provide the weights of all tools handled above stored fuel and their associated loads.
b.
Indicate the maximum kinetic energy that can be attained by the tool, load or combined tool and load should they be dropped while they are being handled at their maximum height above stored fuel.
The following is a list. of all tools handled above fuel stored in the SFP.
Short Spent. Fuel Handling Tool (SSFHT)
Long Spent Fuel Handling Tool (LSFHT)
Thimble Plug Handling Tool (TPHT)
Burnable Poison Rod Assembly Handling Tool (BPRAHT)
The following provides technical data on the above tools Tool Weight
(>>)
Load Weight of load (lb)
Combined Weight Max. Height above Fuel Max. Kinetic Energy (lb)
Tool Tool + Load Tool Tool + Load (ft)
(ft)
(ft-lb)
(ft-lb)
SSFHT 310 fuel assb.
~1250
~1560 20 6
6200 9360 LSFHT 350 fuel assb.
~1250
~1600 16 2
5600 3200 TPHT 235 thimble plug
~15
~250
~20
~20 4700 5000 BPRHT 800 BP assb.
32-40
~840
~20
~20 16000 16800 Question c:
Demonstrate that the resulting kinetic energy does not exceed that of a dropped fuel assembly
- and, therefore, the consequences are within acceptable limits.
Response
Question d:
Response
The Ginna FSAR states on page 14.2.1-4A that a fuel assembly can be dropped 14 ft. onto a flat surface and that the resulting stresses in the fuel rod cladding is acceptably low.
The kinetic energy associated with dropping a fuel assembly 14 ft. can be conservatively calculated assuming all potential energy is converted to kinetic energy.
This assumes no energy is lost due to water drag.
Based on this assumption the kinetic energy of a fuel assembly dropped 14 ft. is 17SOO ft-lb.
The values in the above table were calculated on the same bases.
As can be seen the kinetic energy associated with the tools or tool load combination is less than that of a dropped fuel assembly.
Describe the design features and/or procedures which precludes dropping from heights exceeding that used in the above analyses.
Technical Specifications and installed interlocks prevent the above tools from being used on the overhead crane.
Therefore, the tools can only be used on the overhead hoist which is attached to the spent fuel pool bridge.
The physical position of the overhead hoist and an up stop limit switch prevents the tools from being raised above the maximum height listed.
Enclosure 2
Request for Additional Information R. E. Ginna Spent Fuel Pool Cooling System
Response
Question 1:
Describe and discuss the purpose of providing a Spent Fuel Pool Cooling System (SFPCS) that will pe capable of removing the decay heat from all normally discharged fuel assemblies through the year 1999 while the presently licensed storage capacity only extends to the year 1988.
The proposed,SFPCS is designed to remove 16 NBTU per hour.
This is sufficient to remove the decay heat associated with discharged fuel assemblies through 1998 with a full'core discharge occurring in 1999 with a reasonable cooldown time.
16 NBTU per hr. is also sufficient to remove the decay heat. associated with storing discharged fuel assemblies for the life of the plant (40 years or 2009) with a full core discharge occurring in 2010 with a 14 day cooldown time.
Question 2:
The presently licensed capacity will allow storage through the late 1980's.
The precise year will depend on our refueling plans and schedules.
It is impractical from an economic or manpower standpoint to install a
SFPCS which is capable of supplying needs through the late 1980's with no margin for future cooling requirements.
If in the future the licensed storage capacity were to be increased, a
system with no margin would require removal and replacement with a larger system.
Therefore, it is our desire to install a system with sufficient margin for future cooling requirements even though the licensed SFP storage capacity may not be in' creased to the design capacity of the SFPCS.
The additional cooling capacity required by future storage requirements is minimal.
As seen on the table for the response to Question 5, doubling the storage capacity increases the stored heat load by less than 2 NBTU/hr.
Since the SFP heat load is determined by the full core discharge the number of fuel assemblies stored in the SFP has a small effect on maximum SFP heat load.
In regard to the heat removal capability of the existing SFPCS there appears to be a discrepancy in items 1.1.2 and 1.3.6 of the February 13, 1980 submittal.
Provide clarification.
1
Response
The heat removal capability of the existing SFPCS is 9.3 NBTU/hr. as stated in item 1.1.2.
If the outlet temperature of the existing SFPCS is limited to 100'F with an 80'nlet temperature the heat removal capacity of the existing SFPCS is reduced to 7.93 NBTU/hr. as stated in item 1.3.6.
Environmental guidelines require that the bT between the intake water from the lake and the discharge water to the lake be less than 20'F.
This is not an NRC requirement nor a nuclear safety requirement.
Therefore, as an engineering guideline the system capability with a 20'emperature rise is specified.
If the full system capability (9.3 MBTU/hr.) is needed the SFPCS heat exchanger outlet temperature will not. be limited to the 20'emperature rise.
However, it should be noted that the water discharge from other equipment in the plant will mix with the water discharge from the SFPCS heat exchanger to insure the 20'T plant discharge is not exceeded.
To provide clarification, item 1.3.6 could be rewritten as follows:
Question 3:
Response
1.3.6 Both of the backup cooling loops were designed to remove 7.93 x 10 BTU/hr. with a pool temperature of 150'F and service water at 80'F, with service water discharge temperature limited to 100'F.
In regard to the combined heat removal capability of the existing SFPCS and the skid mounted unit there appears to be discrepancies in items 1.2.2.2, 1.2.3.2 and 1.3.6.
Provide clarification.
The response to question 2 describes the cause of the discrepancy.
The existing SFPCS is capable of removing 9.3 MBTU/
hr. with a pool temperature of 150'F and a service water temperature of 80', with no limit on service water discharge temperature.
Items 1.2.2.2 and 1.2.3.2 state that the backup pump and existing pump are similar in capacity; the backup heat exchanger and the existing heat exchanger are similar in capacity.
Therefore, the backup pump and heat exchanger should be capable of removing approximately 9.3 NBTU/hr. with a pool temperature of 150'F and a
service water temperature of 80', with no limit on service water discharge temperature.
If both the existing SFPCS and the backup SFPCS are operated in parallel the combined heat removal capacity is 16 NBTU/hr., as stated in item 1.3.5, with a pool temperature of 150'F and a service water temperature of 80'F with no limit on service water discharge
3 temperature.
Item 1.3.6 presents the heat removal capacity of the existing SFPCS and the backup SFPCS when the service water discharge temperature is limited to 100'F.
Question 4:
In regard to the SFP heat up rates shown in Table 1
of the February 13, 1980 submittal, the R. E. Ginna Technical Specifications indicates that the structural integrity of the pool has been analyzed and found acceptable when the pool temperature is allowed to reach 180'F.
Using the 7.7'F/hr.
shown in Table 1
of the February 13, 1980 submittal, it appears that the time available to activate the backup cooling system has decreased from approximately 7 hours8.101852e-5 days <br />0.00194 hours <br />1.157407e-5 weeks <br />2.6635e-6 months <br /> to 3.9 hours1.041667e-4 days <br />0.0025 hours <br />1.488095e-5 weeks <br />3.4245e-6 months <br />.
Describe and discuss the operations that must be carried out in order to activate both the existing and skid mounted cooling systems and demon-strate that the total elapsed time is conservatively less than 3.9 hours1.041667e-4 days <br />0.0025 hours <br />1.488095e-5 weeks <br />3.4245e-6 months <br />.
Response
The existing cooling system will function as an installed spare.
The skid mounted system will function as a backup and will not be connected unless additional cooling capacity is necessary.
The following operations are necessary to activate the existing system:
1.
Open one manual 6" valve to admit service water to the heat exchanger.
2.
Open one manual 6" valve to allow service water to be discharged from the heat exchanger.
3.
Open one manual 6" suction valve upstream of
, the pump.
4.
Open one manual 4" valve to allow SFP water to be discharged from the heat, exchanger back to the SFP.
5.
Start the SFP pump from a local on/off switch.
The operations described above should not take more than 30 to 45 minutes to perform.
This is con-siderably less that the 3.9 hours1.041667e-4 days <br />0.0025 hours <br />1.488095e-5 weeks <br />3.4245e-6 months <br /> available.
The following operations are necessary to activate the skid mounted system.
1.
Slide skid mounted heat exchanger into position on the operating floor of the Auxiliary Building.
2.
Remove blind flange adjacent to valve on service water discharge and connect 6" hose to flange and to outlet side of heat exchanger.
3.
Remove blind flange adjacent. to valve on service water inlet and connect 6" hose to flange'and to inlet side of heat exchanger.
4.
Open one manual 6" valve to admit service water to the heat, exchanger.
5.
Open one manual 6" valve to allow service water to be discharged from the heat exchanger.
6.
Position skid mounted pump on the basement floor of the Auxiliary Building.
7.
8.
Remove blind flange adjacent, to valve on SFP suction line and connect, 6" hose to flange and to suction side of skid mounted pump.
Connect 4" hose between discharge of skid mounted pump and inlet to heat exchanger.
9.
Connect 4" hose to outlet of heat, exchanger and place other end of hose in SFP.
10.
Start the skid mounted pump using the local on/off switch.
It is estimated that approximately 45 minutes would be required to position the skid mounted heat ex-changer and approximately 45 minutes to make the hose connections and valve repositions associated with the heat exchanger.
Another 45 minutes may be required to position the skid mounted pump and approximately 45 minutes to make the remaining hose connections and valve reposition.
The total time is estimated to be approximately 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br />.
The skid mounted system is intended to be used as a
backup system; therefore, the system will be. used after the existing system is placed in operation.
Should SFP cooling be lost the following scenario can be postulated:
SFP cooling is lost with the SFP at 150'F and a heat addition of 16 MBTU/Hr.
The SFP is heating up at approximately 4.2'F/hr.
Assuming the existing cooling system is operational in approximately 45 minutes the SFP temperature is approximately 153'.
At this point the existing system is removing approximately 9.3 MBTU/hr.
this results in a new SFP heatup rate of approximately 3.0'F/hr.
Therefore there is now approximately 9.0 hr left before the SFP temperature would increase
Question 5:
from 153 to 180'F.
Since the backup system takes less than 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> to make operational there is sufficient time to provide the required cooling.
In order to evaluate the adequacy of the proposed cooling system after the modifications have beeh made, provide the following additional information:
a ~
b.
c d.
the minimum elapsed time between shutdown and when the removal of spent. fuel can commence the minimum elapsed time required to complete a
normal core discharge of 1/3 of a core the minimum elapsed time required to complete a
full core discharge Depending on the elapsed time between shutdown and when the spent fuel has been discharged to the pool, it is possible for the accumulated decay heat load in the pool to exceed the SFPCS's capacity.
In this regard and assuming the above minimum times provide the following information in tabular form:
(ii)
(iii) the incremental and total decay heat load from previous refueling cycles plus one freshly off loaded full core discharge for each refueling cycle up to the point where storage capacity of the pool has been reached, i.e. 1,100 fuel assemblies In each case where these heat loads exceed the SFPCS capacity, i.e.
16 x 10 BTU/hr., indicate the additional time that the fuel will be held in the reactor vessel in order that the total spent fuel pool heat load will not exceed the rating of the SFPCS.
using the responses to item (a) and (b)
- above, and assuming a normal discharge of 1/3 core and the pool temperature limit of 120'F,6i.e.
SFPCS capacity equals 7.6 x 10 BTU/hr., indicate as in items (d-i) and (d-ii) those refueling cycles where the decay heat load exceeds the capacity of the SFPCS and indicate the additional time that the fuel will be held in the reactor vessel in order
. that the total spent fuel pool heat load will not exceed the rating of the SFPCS.
C III
Response
a
~
b.
C.
d.
The analysis for the heat load associated with a normal refueling assumes 36 fuel assemblies are placed instantaneously in the SFP at, 100 hrs. after shutdown.
Therefore, fuel movement can commence after 100 hrs. for either the normal discharge or for a full core discharge.
The assumed reload size of 36 assemblies conservatively bounds Ginna reloads.
Typicaly reload sizes have been 28 or 32 assemblies.
As seen in the attached table,
- however, substan-tially larger reload sizes could be accommodated by the SFPCS since there is substantial margin to 16 MBTU/hr.
There is no limit on completion time.
See
Response
a.
,The analysis for the heat load associated with a full core discharge assumes the full core is placed instantaneously in the SFP at the cool-down time (t
) listed.
As described in Response a.
- above, 36 assemblies could be placed in the spent fuel pool at 100 hours0.00116 days <br />0.0278 hours <br />1.653439e-4 weeks <br />3.805e-5 months <br /> after shutdown.
Completion of the full core discharge should not occur prior to cooldown time t The requested information is in the attached table for a SFPCS capacity of 16 MBTU/hr.
The 120'F 7.6 MBTU/hr condition does not represent, an NRC requirement; or a safety limit.
The heat removal capacity at 120'F will not be used to limit the full core discharge or normal refueling; therefore, no data is presented in the attached table-for this condition.
Projected Spent Fuel Storage Combined Heat Load 16 MBTU/hr. limit Year 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 4 F/A Stored 231 267 303 339 375 411 447 483 519 555 591 627 663 699 735 771 807 843 879 915 951 987 1023 1059 1095 1131 1167 1203 1239 1275 Heat load of Stored F/A MBTU/hr.
1.28 1.45 1.65 1.73 1.85 1.97 2.09 2.19 2.32 2.44 2.54 2.64 2.76 2.86 2.96 3.04 3.14 3.23 3.34 3.40 3.49 3.58 3.65 3.72 3.81 3.89 3.97 4.04 4.11 4.17 Stored 8
Reload; 100 hr Cooldown MBTU/hr.
7.07 7.24 7.44 7.52 7.64 7.76 7.88 7.98 8.11 8.23 8.33 8.43 8.55 8.65 8.75 8.83 8.93 9.02 9.13 9.19 9.28 9.37 9.44 9.51 9.60 9.68 9.76 9.83 9.90 9.96 Stored 8
MBTU/hr.
15.65 15.82 15.36 15.44 15.56 15.68 15.80 15.90 15.47 15.55 15.69 15.79 15.91 15.54 15.64 15.72 15.82 15.91 15.60 15.66 15.75 15.84 15.91 15.98 15.70 15.78 15.86 15.93 16.00 15.72 FCD 8
8 9
9 9
9 9
9 10 10 10 10 10 11 11ll 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 13 13 13 13 13 14 t
= cooldown time in days s
References 1.0 Application for Technical Specification Change Spent Fuel Pool Storage Racks Modification, dated January 26, 1976.
2.0 RGE letter to A. Schwencer, NRC, from L. D. White, Jr.,
dated August 5, 1976.
3.0 NRC letter to L. D. White, Jr.
from A. Schwencer,
- NRC, dated 11-15-76.
4.0 Appendix A to Provisional Operating License No. DPR-18, R.
E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Unit No. 1, Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation Docket No. 50-244.
5.0 RGE letter to D. L. Ziemann, NRC, from L. D. White, Jr.,
dated February 13, 1980.