ML19208A842
| ML19208A842 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 08/24/1979 |
| From: | Ippolito T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Whitmer C GEORGIA POWER CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7909180001 | |
| Download: ML19208A842 (5) | |
Text
/
g
- pm anc u
'o, UNITED STATES E'
' 'n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5
E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
- k*[l o.,
%..'[,.
- August 24, 1979 Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366 Mr. Charles F. Whitmer Vice President - Engineering Georgia Power Company P. O. Box 4545 Atlanta, Georgia 30302
Dear Mr. Whitmer:
By your letter dated July 9,1979 you requested an amendment to Operating License No. DPR-57 and NPF-5 for the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant Unit Nos.
I and 2.
The proposed amendment related te an increase in spent fuel capacity.
During our review we identified certain items for which we require additional information. These are identified in the enclosure.
In order to naintain our review schedule of this item, we request that the additional infomation be submitted within 30 days of your receipt of this request.
Sincerely, Thomas olito, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #3 Division of Operating Reactors
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Infomation cc w/ enclosure:
See page 2
.0;iJ.213 7909180 0 0 / g
Mr. Charles F. Whitmer Georgia Power Company August 24, 1979 cc:
G. F. Trowbridge, Esquire Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C.
20036 Ruble A. Thomas Vice President P. O. Box 2625 Southern Services, Inc.
Birmingham, Alabama 35202 Mr. Harry Majors Southern Services, Inc.
300 Office Park Birmingham, Alabama 35202 Mr. William Widner Georgia Power Company Power Generation Department P. O. Box 4545 Atlanta, Georgia 30302 Mr. L. T. Gucwa Georgia Power Company Engineering Department P. O. Box 4545 Atlanta, Georgia 30302 Appling County Public Library Parker Street Baxley, Georgia 31413 Mr. R. F. Rogers V. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. O. Box 710 Baxley, Georgia 31513
...n*
A
'} [ kd.Y **
6 ENCLOSURE 1 QUESTIONS FOR THE E. I. HATCH 1/2 SPENT FUEL P0OL MODIFICATION
- 1) Provide an estimate of the nan-ren exposure that will be received during the renoval and disposal of the old racks from Unit I and installation of the new high density racks. The estimate should include the nunber of workers involved in each phase of the opera-tion including divers, if any; the duration of the operation; the exposure rate during each phase of the operation and the total man-ren received by all worke. s involved. Relevant experience nay be cited. Discuss how the estination of the man-ren exposure above would be effected if the Hatch 2 SFP should become contani-nated prior to its nodification.
- 2) Provide an estinate of the annual man-ren expected from all opera-tions in the SFP area, including refueling, based on the fission and corrosion product concentrations in the spent fuel pool water indicated in Table 10-1 of your July 9,1979 submittal.
Al though Section 10.1 states that "the increase in the SFP storage capacity is not expected to appreciably affect the annual man-ren dose,"
estinate the increase of this nan-ren dose as a result of the nodi-fication of Hatch 1 and 2 since the nodification should increase the radioactive source inventory in the SFP at sone tine in the future.
t u f het *e.Sh
. < >. ~ -
U
. 3) Provide the estinated volume of contaninated material (e.g., spent fuel racks, seismic restraints) expected to be shipped from the plant because of the pool modification to a licensed burial site.
- 4) Discuss in some detail the inpact of the proposed pool modification on radioactive liquid effluents from the plant.
Include a dis-cussion of the pool leak collection systen, pool leak detection systen and history of leakage fron the pool.
- 5) Provide the estinated failed fuel fraction for each fuel cyclc at Hatch Unit 1.
- 6) You stated in Section 8 of your submittal dated July 9,1979, that the design pool bulk water tenperature will be above the FSAR design value of 125 F during nornal refuelings after the eighth refueling.
If the actual. expected value of the bulk water temperature, not the design value, nay be above the 125 F under realistic conditions, discuss when this will occur during an;' refueling, for what period of tine it will occur, the maxinun value of the temp;rature and the effect of this on releases of radiciodine and tritiun from the pools.
- 7) Discuss the effect of the spent fuel novenents during the modifica-tions of the Hatch 1 pool on the ancunt of crud in the pool water and the radiation levels in the vicinity of the pool during the pool nodification.
3rn21G
. 8) Identify any heavy load or cask drop analyses performed to date for your facility. Provide a copy of all such analyses not previously subnitted to the NRC staff.
- 9) Provide a list of all objects that are required to be moved over or near the, spent fuel storage pool.
For each object listed, pro-vide its approxinate weight and size, a diagran or description of the transfer path utilized, and the frequency of movenent.
- 10) For our evaluation of the difference between the maximum calculated koo of 0.87 given in your submittal and the maximum actual keff that might occur in the spent fuel pool, the following information should be provided:
The q'uantity and distribution of the uranium-235 in the fuel a.
pool storage lattice calculation for this maximum koo.
b.
The quantity and distribution of gadolinium-155 and gadolinium-157 in the fuel pool storage lattice calculation for this maximum koo.
The quantity and distribution of the fission products and actinides c.
in the fuel pool storage lattice calculation for this maximum koo.
- 11) On page 7-3 of your submittal you state, "The results in Table 7-1 show that the nominal pitch (Case 2) has a higher koo result than the minimum pitch case (Case 6)."
Since the statistical error bounds given on Table 7-1 do not preclude the opposite conclusion, and since all other calculations for similar storage lattices show the opposite to be true, provide a justification for this conclusion.
SUM 17