ML17332A939

Forwards RAI Re 941116 Submittal,Requesting Change in Refueling Operations Decay Time

ML17332A939
Person / Time
Site:	Cook
Issue date:	09/25/1995
From:	John Hickman NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:	Fitzpatrick E INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER CO. (FORMERLY INDIANA & MICHIG
References
TAC-M91023, TAC-M91024, NUDOCS 9509280108
Download: ML17332A939 (3)

Text

September 1995 Hr.

E.

E. Fitzpatrick, ice President

~tt iana Michigan Power Company c/o American Electric Power Service Corporation 1 Riverside Plaza

Columbus, OH 43215

SUBJECT:

DONALD C.

COOK NUCLEAR PLANT, REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONCERNING REFUELING OPERATIONS DECAY TIME (TAC NO. H91023 AND M91024)

Dear Hr. Fitzpatrick:

We have reviewed your submittal of November 16,

1994, which requested a change in the minimum time delay required after shutdown for movement of spent fuel from the core to storage in the spent fuel pool from the present delay of 168 hours0.00194 days <br />0.0467 hours <br />2.777778e-4 weeks <br />6.3924e-5 months <br /> to one of 100 hours0.00116 days <br />0.0278 hours <br />1.653439e-4 weeks <br />3.805e-5 months <br />.

Some areas of the submittal require clarification.

Please provide your responses to the enclosed questions within 30 days of receipt of this letter.

If you have any questions on this issue please contact me at (301) 415-3017.

This requirement affects nine or fewer respondents and, therefore, is not subject to the Office of Management and Budget review under P.L.96-511.

Sincerely, Original signed by John B. Hickman, Project Manager Project Directorate III-1 Division of Reactor Projects III/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos.

50-315 and 50-316

Enclosure:

Request for additional information cc w/encl:

See next page DISTRIBUTION:

<Do.cket File PUBLIC PD03-I Reading JRoe OGC ACRS (4)

WKropp, RIII NWagner DOCUMENT NAME:

G:iWPDOCSii,DCCOOKItC091023.RAI To reoetve ~ copy of tMe doctenent. Incicate In the boat 'C' Copy without attachmentlendoetve E

a Copy with attachment/endoeure N

tto copy OFFICE LA:PD31 E

PH:PD3 E

D: PD31 NAME CJamerson JHick n:db JHannon DATE 9/2I /95 9/<5/95 9/

/95 0

CIA R

CORD COP 9509280108

'yt50925 PDR ADOCK 05000315 P

PDR

,", )',.

',~ 'I,I,',.I',i'!jism

')

I) r g)Ql

Mr. E.

E. Fitzpatrick I'hdiana Michigan Power Company CC:

Regional Administrator, Region III U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 801 Warrenville Road Lisle, Illinois 60532-4351 Attorney General Department of Attorney General 525 West Ottawa Street

Lansing, Michigan 48913 Township Supervisor Lake Township Hall P.O.

Box 818 Bridgman, Michigan 49106 Al Blind, Plant Manager Donald C.

Cook Nuclear Plant 1 Cook Place Bridgman, Michigan 49106 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Resident Inspector's Office 7700 Red Arrow Highway Stevensville, Michigan 49127 Gerald Charnoff, Esquire

Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge 2300 N Street, N.

W.

Washington, DC 20037 Mayor, City of Bridgman Post Office Box 366

Bridgman, Michigan 49106 Special Assistant to the Governor Room 1

State Capitol

Lansing, Michigan 48909 Nuclear Facilities and Environmental Monitoring Section Office Division of Radiological Health Department of Public Health 3423 N. Logan Street P. 0.

Box 30195

Lansing, Michigan 48909 Donald C.

Cook Nuclear Plant Mr. S.

Brewer American Electric Power Service Corporation 1 Riverside Plaza

Columbus, Ohio 43215 April 199$

V j

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION DONALD C.

COOK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT l.

It is assumed that the combined SFP Hx heat load and evaporative heat losses (as shown in Table 2.2 of Holtec Report HI-941183) are equivalent to the decay heat generation in each

case, e.g.,

Case 1A, SFP Hx load 30.84 E6 BTU/Hr. + evaporative losses

3. 14 E6 BTU/Hr., for a total of 33.98 E6 BTU/Hr. If this is incorrect, explain what the correct decay heat load is in each case and justify any differences.

2.

3.

5.

A preliminary comparison was made of the decay heat generated by the 80 fuel elements deposited in the spent fuel pool in cases IA, 1B and 2 for the decay times shown in Table 2.2 with similar cases in Table 5.5. 1 of your previous submittal dated July 26, 1991 wherein the fuel was permitted to decay for 168 in lieu of the decay period of 100 hours0.00116 days <br />0.0278 hours <br />1.653439e-4 weeks <br />3.805e-5 months <br /> presently requested.

That comparison shows differences of 2.6 to 2.7 E6 BTU/Hr. in lieu of the differences you show of 0.71 to 0.86 E6 BTU/Hr.

Justify your calculations, Explain whether you have deviated from Table 2. 1 of Holtec report HI-941183 in using the number of those discharged assemblies and dates of discharges in calculating the heat generation for the spent fuel assemblies stored in the spent fuel pool.

For example, you stated that you calculated the heat generation for 80 fuel assemblies in a normal discharge batch in lieu of 76 shown in Table 2. 1.

Provide the decay heat generation rate for the assemblies deposited in the pool for each discharge cycle used in your calculations for Cases 3

and 4.

If you do not use the discharges and cycle EFPD shown in Table

2. 1 explain the method used and justify its application.

Discuss briefly, your operation of the spent fuel pool trains in a normal reload.

ENCLOSURE