ML18046B196
| ML18046B196 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 12/31/1981 |
| From: | Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Hoffman D CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| References | |
| TASK-09-01, TASK-9-1, TASK-RR LSO5-81-12-109, NUDOCS 8201060559 | |
| Download: ML18046B196 (7) | |
Text
'-
December 31, 1981 Docket No. 50-255 LS05 12-109 Mr. David P. Hoffman Nuclear Licensing Administrator Consumers Power Company 1945 W Parnall Road Jackson, Michigan 49201
Dear Mr. Hoffman:
SUBJECT:
SEP TOPIC IX-1, FUEL STORAGE PALISADES Enclosed is our draft evaluation of SEP Topic IX-1, "Fuel Storage" for the Palisades plant. This assessment compares your facility as described in Docket No. 50-255 with the criteria currently used for licensing new facilities.
Please inform us if your as-built facility differs from the licensing basis assumed in our assessment within 30 days of receipt of this letter. If no response is received in that time we will assume'the topic is complete.
The topic evaluation f,Jas; concluded that the Palisades spent fuel storage system meets current acceptance criteria.
This evaluation will be a basic input to the integrated safety assess-ment for your facility unless you identify changes needed to reflect the as-built conditions at your facility. This assessment may be revised in the future if your facility design is changed or if NRC criteria relating to this subject are modified before the integrated assessment is completed.
Sincerely, 560'1
- 1t
)
./)SIA. w~ ( o "I Dennis M. Crutchfield, Chief f\\~D~
Operating Reactors Branch Mo. 5 (. Hl:el..d.s Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/enclosure:
See next page
(~
I PDR ADOC~905S01123l""
p 00255' PDR' 0"1c**.... 2.if;~~-~******... gJ.:gL.... ~~~-*** *t.;::;--*J~.'-~~---
.~B_#_S_:.B.c.. _...
- }/ft:.'-~l...........................J sunNAME* **** CillWhi:ma...... WRu~.1.e.1.1........... 7.. '.~..... l'Il~P.rotm.Gh.... ~:Oir.~.t.~.b.fJ.~ ~... :i~?:rn?:~...........................;
DATE *
- * *. l 2/,~~ /.fll. * * *..
- J. 2/J.f)f8,1.. * * * * */-* * * * *********""I* * * * * * ~.2 /. ~~ /. 8J. *... *.12./ ~j.8. l......... J.2 /.}). j.8J......................... {
NRCFORM316(10-80)NRCM0240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY USGP0:1981-33!
I I.
Mr. David P& Hoffman cc M. I. Miller, Esquire Isham, Lincoln & Beale Suite 4200 One First National Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60670 Mr. Paul A._ P.erry, Secretary Consumers Power Company 212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, Michi~an 49201 Judd L. Bacon, Esquire Consumers Power, Company 212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, Michigan 49201 Myron M. Cherry, Esquire Suite 4501 One IBM Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60611
- Ms. Mary P. Sinclair Great Lakes Energy Alliance 5711 Summerset Drive
-Midland, Michigan 48640 Kalamazoo Public Library 315 South R-Ose Street.
Kalamazoo, Michigan 49006 Township Supervisor Covert Township Route 1, Box 10 Van*Buren County, Michigan 49043 Office of the Governor (2)
Room 1 - Capitol Building Lansing, Michigan 48913 William J. Scanlon, Esquire 2034 Pauline Boulevard Ann Arbor, Mfchigan 48103 Palisades Plant ATTN:
Mr. Robert Montross Plant Manager Covert, Michigan 49043
. PALISADES
.Docket No. 50-255
- u. S. *Environmental P.'m.m'tection *
. Agency federal Activities Bramch Region V Office ATTN:. EIS COORDINAT.Orl 230 South Dearborn Sbeet
- Ch'i ca go, Illinois 60timl4.
Charles Bechh-0efer, ~
- Chairman Atomic Safety and Licemsing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatmr-,y Commis:~don Washington, D. C.
20'Rti5 Dr. George C. Andersom
- Department of Oceanog~ag:>hy University of Washin~
-Seattle, Washington; BB 95
- Dr. M.* Stanley t:iving*n 1005 Calle Largo Santa Fe, New Mexico; ml/501 Resident Inspector c/o U. S. NRC Pali sades Pl ant*
Route 2, P. O. Box 155 Covert, Michigan 4904.ll
I I
I I
SYSTEMATIC EVALUATION PROGRAM -
- TOPIC IX-1 PALISADES TOPIC IX-1, FUEL STORAGE I..
INTRODUCTION
, The purpose of SEP Topic IX-1 is to review the* storage facility for new and irradiated fuel, including the cooling capability and sei'smic classification of the fuel pool coo_ling system of the. spent: fuel storage pool in order to assure that new and irradiated fuel are stored :safely with respect to criticality 9 cooling *capability shield...
ing, and structural capability.
II.
REVIEW CRITERIA The plant design was reviewed with regard to Section VI, mfuel and Radioactivity Control of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50, General Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants" which -requires tfiat the fuel storage-,~
systems shall be.designed to assure adequate safety under nor.mar and.--
postulated accident co*nditions.
III.
RELATED SAFETY TOPICS SEP Topic I I-3. B, 11 Fl coding Potential and Protection Require.ments" identifies the design basis flood for which the plant must be adequately designed for.
SEP Topic III-1, 11 Classification of Structures, CompQnen.ts and Systems (Seismic and Quality) 11.is intended to assure that structures, systems and components important to safety are of the quality level commensura.te with their safety function.
SEP Topic I II-4. A, 11Tornado Missiles 11 covers tornado missiile. protection of a number of structures and systems including fuel storage areas and support systems.
SEP.Topic III-*6, 11Seismic Desfgn.considerations 11 *will 'ensure the capability of th plant to withstand the effects of earthquakes.
SEP Topic IX.. 2, 110verhead Handling Systems-Cranes 11 *covers the potential for dropping heavy* objects. onto spent fuel.
This topic has been de 1 eted since the review criteria is identical. to that *of Unresolved Safety Issue A-36, Control of Heavy Loads Near Spent Fuel.
11 SEP Topic IX-5, 11Ventilation Systems".assures that the ventilation systems have the capability to provide a safe environment for plant personnel and engineered safety features equipment.
.i
e-v IV.
REVIEW GUIDELINES Current guidance for the review of spent fuel storage is provided in Standard Review Plan Section 9.1.l New Fuel Storage, Section 9.1.2 Spent Fuel Storage, Section 9.1.3 Spent Fuel Pool Cooling and Cleanup System, Section 9.1.4 Fuel Handling System and Regulatory Guides *1,29 Seismic Design Classification, 1.13 Fuel ~torage Facility Design Basis, 1.26 Quality Group Classification *and-Standards for Water-Steam and Radioactive Waste-Containing Components of Nuclear Power Plants as well as the guidance contained in the April 14, 1978 generic letter - OT Position for Review and Acceptance of Spent Fuel Storage and Handling Applications (i.e., DOR Technical Activities Category A item 27, Increase in Spent Fuel Storage *capacity).
Those portions of the topic which have been previously reviewed to current criteria have not been reevaluated.
. V.
EVALUATION At the Palisades,plant the spent fuel storage pool and two fuel tilt
- pits are housed within *the Auxiliary Building.
The fuel storage pit is 38 1
9" long 14t - 8" ~ide. and 38' - O" deep and contains 25,000 cubic feet of water.
The fuel pool cooling system consists of a single closed loop having a two series half capacity heat exchangers in series with two half capacity parallel pumps.* Provisions have been* made to
. permit the temporary tie-in of the shutdown cooling system to prov.:ide*
a backup for the spent fuel pool coo.ling system and to_ provide for addi-tional ~eat removal on those occasions when a full core discharge occurs.
The structural response of the Palisades.plant with respect to seismic capability has been reviewed and is documented in NUREG/CR-1833., "Seismic Review of the Palisades Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1 as P~rt of the Systematic Evaluation Program.
11 Although the seismic review did not specifically evaluate the spent fuel pool structure, it did evaluate the Auxiliary Building structure which houses the spent fuel pool.
The conclusion was that.the auxiliary building structure and structural ele-ments design is adequate to withstand the postulated earthquake.
There-fore, we conclude that the spent fuel pool structure is adequately designed against earthquakes.
In 1977 the staff reviewed and approved an expansion in the storage capacity of the storage pool from 276 to 798 fuel assemblies (Amendment_
- 29) without increasing the capacity of the spent fuel cooling system. -
The increase in storage capacity was accomplished by replacing the original storage racks with high density stainless steel storage racks and utilizing one unused fuel :tilt pit as additional storage volume (this facility has
- two fuel ti)t pits). The staff Safety Evaluation (SE) supporting Amend-ment 29 utilized the guidance provided in our.April 14, 1978 generic
... e letter. The following areas are evaluated in the. Amen~ent 29 Safety.
Evaluation and have not been reviewed as a part of this* evaluation:
(1) the nuclear and thermal-hydraulic aspects, (2) the potential for inadvertent criticality, (3) the consequences of credible accidents with respect to critic;ality, (4) the adequacy of the spent fuel pool.
cooling capacity, (5) the mechanical,- material* and structural a,spects of the fuel assemblies, storage racks and spent fuel pool to *withstan1f the effects of natural phenomena *such as earthquakes, tornadoes, flood,.
effects of external and internal missiles, (6) thermal loading, and (7) other servj ce" 1 o"ad-in~ con di t_ions*:***. -...... -:,_
-- -- ---~-* -: - -----**-------
Regulatory Guide l. 13 position C. 6 states that_ drains and other systems which by maloperation or failure could cause loss~of coolant that would:
uncover the fuel, should not be installed or _included in the design.
Section 9.4.3.l of the FSAR and the licensee**s response dated January 29, 1981, state that the failure of the spent fuel pool cooling system inlet piping would result in no significant loss of water from the pool.
A siphon breaker is provided to preven~ a significant loss of water.
The pool level would drop two feet leaving 18 feet of water* for shielding and cooling.
In the event the outlet* piping system were to fail-,. drain-ing could occur until the level reaches the bottom of the outlet pipe, leaving 16 f~et of water above the top of the fuel..This amount of water will provide adequate shielding.
Section 11 of the FSAR indicates that drains located in the spent fuel shipping cask area, spent fuel pool heat exchanger area, spent fuel pool drain, and spent resin -storage tank over.. _
flow are all collected and directed to the clean liquid waste system where it is monitored and processed by using holdup for natural decay,.
filtration, ion exchange and evaporation before being recycled to the primary coolant system.
Therefore, we* conclude that-the drains and other hydraul i"c systems meet* the gui*dance presented in Regulatory Guide l. 13*
position C,6 and is therefore adequate and acceptable.
Regulatory Guide 1. 13 position C.7 which states reliable and frequently tested monitoring equipment_ should be provided to alarm locally and in a
- conti'nuously manned locatfon if the pools water level falls below a predetermined level or if high local-radiation levels are experienced.
The high radiati*on level instrumentation should also ~ctuate the filtra-
- tion system.
The component cooling system accepts the heat.rejected by the spent fuel pool heat exchangers.
Section 9. 3. 2.3 of the FSAR indicates*
that a radiati"on monitor in the component cooling system detects radio-activi'ty tliat may have lea.ked into the system from associated equipment.
If the radiation level reaches a preset level.the monitor provides an alarm i'n tlie matn control room.
Section 9.11. 2. 2 of the FSAR states
- and FSAR.Figure*9... 3 shows that the spent fuel pool water* level is monitored and annunciated upon either a high or low level. Therefore, we conclude that the pool water level *and high local-radiation levels.
are adequate and therefore acceptable.
In reference to. Regulatory Guide posltion C.8 which states a: Seismic Category I makeup system and an appropriate backup system should be. -
provided.
The backup system need not be permanently-installed. *The*
licensee's November 1976 submittal pertaining to spent fuel pool modifi-cati.ons states,' and FSA.R. Figure 9-.3 shows, that fuel pool makeup _water is supplied from a Seismic Category I source of water namely t~e Safety,
Injection and Refueling Water (SIWR) tank.. Further the November 1976 submittal *states that the fire system-provides a. backup source of make-.
up water.
FSAR Section* 9.6.2 states that either rack or reel *mounted fire-for protection ho_se lines are located within 75 *feet of a.ll points in the auxiliary building (including the spent fuel pool). The fire system consists of three full capacity pumps, each*l,500 gpm, one electrically driven and the other two direct diesel driven. In the unlikely event that an cooling is lost when the pool contains the maximum heat load the boil-off rate would be less than 55 gpm.
We conclude that the measures taken to provide makeup water to the spent fuel pool are adequate and therefore acceptable,
. The original spent fuel pool storage capacity and cooling system was..
based on l 1/3 cores (276 fuel assemblies). Following a review of proposed.
re-racking, Atrend.ment 29,,dated January 28; 1977, Palisades was.permitted to increase their storage capacity to 3.9 cores (798 fuel assemblies) without making any modifications to the existing spent fuel pool coor-ing system.
In regard to the verifications of the B4C loading in the spent fue~
storage racks being consistent with that assumed in the analyses, Amend-ment 29.concluded that the described measures provide reasonable assurance that the proper loading.of B4C has been made.
With regard to seismic adequacy of the cooling system the licensee has stated that "the spent fuel pool cooling and cleanup system is a Class I system and has been designed accordingly.
The staff has not specifically_
.evaluated the seismic capability of the cooling system.
- However, provisions have been made to permit the temporary tie-in of the shutdown cooling system to provide a backup for the spent fuel pool cooling systein and to provide for additional heat removal on those occasions when a full cor~ discharge occurs.
Based on the above, we ~onclude that the spent fuel pool cooling and cleanup systems meets the seismic requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.13, Position C.l and Standard*Review Plan 9.1.3 and is therefore acceptable~
Regardtng new fuel storage, the new fuel storage area is also located in the auxili'ary buildtng. *The primary concern would be flooding of the storage area with the potential for.inadvertent criticality.*
\\
~,.___..,
FSAR Figures 1-6 and 1~7 shows the new fuel storage area located between elevations 634 ft. and 649 ft.
SEP Topic II-3.B identifies a maximum..
flood level of 597. l ft.
Since this level is well below the fuel storage level.we conclude that a criticality event due to external flooding is highly unlikely.
Section 9. 11. 2. 1 of the FSAR states the new fuel storage area-is designed-with an open grating floor to avoid flooding and to eliminate the possibility of criticality.
The open grating floor prec 1 udes the new fue 1 storage area from being flooded by internal pipe ruptures.
Based on the above, we conclude that the new fuel. sto.rage faci.liity meets the guidance in Standard Review Plan 9.1.l.
VI.
CONCLUSIONS Based on the above considerations, we conclude that the Palisa:Es fuel storage systems meet current acceptance criteria.
We further cmmclude that SEP Topic IX-1 is complete.