ML19210C004
| ML19210C004 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 09/28/1979 |
| From: | Ippolito T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Whitmer C GEORGIA POWER CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19210B996 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7911130132 | |
| Download: ML19210C004 (4) | |
Text
s p e**c,
o
,{
,og UNITF D STATES e
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- ~
e wAssmotos. o. c. nosss
- 1 "L
E.
+$
September 28, 1979 Docket No. 50-321 and 50-35t,
.Mr. Charles F. Whitmer Vice President - Engineering Georgia Power Company P. O. Box 4545 Atlanta, Georgi.a 30302
Dear Mr. Whitmer:
We ari continuing our review of your application dated July 9,1979 as supple.nented by letter dated July 27, 1979 which proposed moc cation to the spent fuel pools for Hatch Unit Nos.1 and 2.
We have detemined that the additional information indicated in the enclosure is required.
This request is~ in addition to that transmitted by our letter dated August 24, 1979.
To provide for timely completion of our review, we request that thd additional infomation by submitted within 30 days of your receipt of this letter.
Should you have any questions, please contact us.
Sincerel e
v Thomas A. Ippo itv, Chief Operating Reactors Branch f 3 Division of Operating Reactors
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Infomation cc w/ enclosure:
See page 2 ge o g,n g y g-J_w w M o M,l AIL
)3]g
,^"
1 T l > Uo I 5 9-
Mr. Charles F. Whitmer Georgia Power Corgany 2.
cc:
G. F. Trowbridge, Esquire Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N. W.
Washington, O. C.
20036 Ruble A. Thomas Vice President P. O. Box 2625 Southern Services, Inc.
Dirmingham, 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. Gutwa Georgia Power Company Engineering Departnent P. O. Box 4545 Atlanta, Georgia 30302 App. ling County Pubite Library Parker Street Baxley, Georgia 31413 fir. R. F. Rogers O. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. O. Box 710 Baxley, Georgia 31513 9
J @W C
U Uk J
13i9.^^'
e..
s REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
~
HATCH NUCLEAR POWER PLANT SPENT FUEL' STORAGE POOL MODIFICATION 1.
Discuss the effects of the increased loads'due to the new rack structures on the fuel pool liner and structures.
'2.
Discuss the effects of the temperature gradient across the rack structure due to thermal differential between a full and an empty cell.
3.
Provide the allowable stresses for all loading combinations considered in the rack design.
Indicate whether these allowable stresses are in con-formance with those allowables stated in "0TP for Review and Acceptance of Spent Fuel Storage and Handling Applications", issued by NRC on April 14, 1978, and later amended on January 1979.
4 In deriving the hydrodynamic virtual mass it was assumed that the modules and the pool walls are rigid bodies.
Indicate the reason why the flexibility of these walls may be ignored.
5.
For the accident fuel assembly drop condition, describe in detail the assumptions, type of analysis, the ductility ratios and allowable stresses used in the analysis.
Provide, also, the basis-for concluding that the leak tightness of the fuel pool is maintained.
6.
Provide sufficient detail of the base plates, foot pads, the support pads, 11 gaps of the rack structure and all sliding surfaces of the racks.
7.
Discuss the provisions employed to prevent movement of heavy objects over the spent fuel assemblies.
Include a description of all items which may be moved over the spent fuel assemblies.
State whether the consequences of dropping any of these items into the rack are more severe than the fuel drop accident.
8.
During seismic events (horizontal and vertical), part of the fuel bundle intertial forces is transferred directly to the tube wall or the fuel support plate through the clearance gaps.
Indicate how these impactive motion have been considered in the analysis along'with the effects of fuel storage rack rocking and sliding on the pool floor.
Provide the numerical values for these impactive factors (dynamic amplification factors) and justifications.
9.
In the non-linear analysis to calculate the amount of sliding and tilting, a twa-node lumped mass model was chosen.
Provide more justification and details (sketches and descriptions) of this model.
D**D "D
i
.ow o
Ifd.,
1319 P
2 10.
Discuss the service surveillance plans, if any, that you have developed
'to assure long-tenn corrosion protection for the fuel rack system in the pool environment.
11.
Discuss the possibility of swelling (inward and outward) in the cell containing the boral composite due to off gasing generating pressure and discuss the provisions employed to prevent such swelling or the provision employed such that withdrawal of the fuel assembly is insured.
M J JUX/AL e
\\3\\9 1
e~
e e
O
j#" ""%['t UNITED STATES ex NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j. M.} }
WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 t
<q'.*.%/ 5 October 22, 1979 Docket Nos. 50-321 50-366 Gary Flack, Esq.
Georgians Against Nuclear Energy 1515 Healey Building 57 Forsyth Street, N.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Dear Mr. Flack:
Enclosed are copies of letters dated August 24, 1979 and September 28, 1979 from Mr. Thomas A. Ippolito, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #3, Division of Operating Reactors to Mr. Charles F. Whitmer, Vice President -
Engineering, Georgia Power Company.
In the letters the Staff requests additional information concerning the Licensee's application to modify the spent fuel pools for Hatch Unit Nos. 1 and 2.
The letters were sent prior to your name being placed on the NRC mailing list.
Sincerely, f
f'C(A) f/
{
Barry H. Smith Counsel for NRC Staff D"# D
]D
' % Q ddl b
lu b Ihl a O
= aceg[C, UNITED STATES
+
i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y
. E WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555
~
t iff g, w 4 j 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 amendnent to Operating License No DPR-57 and NPF-5 for the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant Unit Nos.
1 and 2.
The proposed eaendment related to 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 maintain 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.[Ippolito, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #3 Division of Operating Reactors
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Infomation cc w/ enclosure:
See page 2 1,19 3
Mr. Charles F. Whitmer Georgia Power Company August 24, 1979 cc:
G. F. Trowbridge, Esauire 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 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. O. Box 710 Baxley, Georgia 31513 D ""
- D D
- D
]
~~'
1319 ?'"
ENCLOSURE 1 OVEST10NS FOR THE E. I. HATCH 1/2 SPENT FUEL POOL MODIFICATION
- 1) Provide an estimate of the nan-ren exposure that will be received during the removal and disposal of the old racks from Unit 1 ar.d installation of the new high density racks. The estimate should include the number of workers involved in each phase of the opera-tion in'cluding divers, if any; the duration of the operation; the exposure rate during each phase of the operation and the total nan-rem received by all workers involved.
Relevant experience nay be cited. Discuss how the estination of the man-rem exposure above would be effected if the Hatch 2 SFP should become contami-nated prior to its nodification.
- 2) Provide an estimate 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 Se: tion 10.1 states that "the increase in the SFP storage capacity is not expected to appreciably affect the annual man-ren dose,"
es-ihate the increase of this nan-rer dose as a rescit of the nodi-ficaticn cf Hatch 1 and 2 sin e the nodification should increase the m
-a:icactive source inventcry in the SFF at sone tine in the future.
l3lh o
o
. 3) Provide the estimated volume of contaminated material (e.g., spent fue1 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 impact of the propcsed pool modification on radioactive liquid effluents from the plant.
Include a dis-cussion of the pool leak collection system, pool leak detection system and history of leakage from the pool.
~
- 5) Provide the estimated failed fuel fraction for each fuel cycle at Hatch Unit 1.
- 6) You stated in Section 8 of your submittal dated July 9,1979, that the design pool bulk water temperature will be above the FSAR design value of 125 F during normal refuelings after the eighth rr ~
ing.
If the actual expected value of the bulk water temperature, not the design value, may be above the 125 F under realistic conditions, discuss when this will occur during any refueling, for what period of time it will occur, the maximum value of the temperature and the effect of this on releases of radiciodine and tritiun from the pools.
- 7) Discuss the effect of the spent fuel movenents during the modifica-tiers c' the Hatch I scol on the antunt of crud in the pool water and the radiatio levels in the vicin,ity of the pool during the
- oci ncd#fication.
m 13i9 ?7' lmm WW W
a
. 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 approximate weight and size, a diagram 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 quantity 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 oppcsite conclusion, and since all other c 1culations for'si.nilar storage lattices show the. opposite to be true, provide a justification for this conclusion.
})}I o
w
g
/[4sh *tCy)o UNITED STATES g
- g e.
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i vy,g g j-P^5"'ucT ou. o. c. 2osss
'+
September 28, 1979 a....
Docket No. 50-321 and 50-366 9
.Mr. Charles F. Whitmer Vice President - Engineering.
~
Georgia Power Company P. O. Box 4545 Atlanta, Georgi.a 303^2
Dear Mr. Whitmer:
~
We are continuing our review of your application dated July 9,1979 as supplemented by letter dated July 27, 1979 which proposed modification to the spent fuel pools for Hatch Unit Nos.1 and 2.
We have datemined that the additional information indicated in the enclosure is required.
This request is' in addition to that transmitted by our letter dated August 24, 1979.
To provide for timely completion of our review, we request that thd additional infomation by submitted within 30 days of your receipt of this letter.
Should you have any questions, please contact us.
Sincerel m
Thomas A. Ippo it, Chief Operating Reactors Branch f 3 Division of Operating Reactors
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Infomation cc w/ enclosure:
See page 2 Q7' a
- O
s Mr. Charles F. Whitmer Georgia Power Conpany 2-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 Generat :::n Department P. O. Box 454.1 Atlanta, Georgis 30302 Mr. L. T. Gutwa Georgia Power Company Engineering Department P. O. Box 4545 Atlanta, Georgia 30302 App. ling County Pubite Library Parker Street Baxley, Georgia 31413
~
14r. R. F. Rogers U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. O. Box 710 Baxley, Georgia 31513 t
1319
?
o..
~
~
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION HATCH NUCLEAR POWER PLANT SPENT CUEL'5TORAGE POOL MODIFICATION l.
Discuss the effects of the increased loads ~due to the new rack structures on the fuel pool liner and structures.
2.
Discuss the effects of the temperature gradient across the rack structure due to thermal differential between a full and ar. empty cell.
3.
Pro' vide the allowable stresses for all loading combinations considered in the rack design.
Indicate whether these allowable stresses are in con-formance with those allowables stated in "0TP for Review and Acceptance of Spent Fuel Storage and Handling Applications", issued by NRC on April 14, 1978, and later amended on January 1979.
4.
In deriving the hydrodynamic virtual mass it was assumed that the modules and the pool walls are rigid bodies.
Indicate the reason why the flexibility of these walls may be ignored.
5.
For the accident fuel assembly drop condition, describe in detail the assumptions, type of analysis, the ductility ratios erd allowable stress 3s used in the analysis.
Provide, also, the basis-for concluding that the leak tightness of the fuel pool is maintained.
6.
Provide sufficient detail of the base plates, foot pads, the support pads, all gaps of the rack structure and all sliding Turfaces of the racks.
7.
Discuss the provisions employed to prevent movement of heavy objects over the spent fuel assemblies.
Include a description of all items which may be moved over the spent fuel assemblies.
State whether the consequences of dropping any of these items into the rack are more severe than the fuel drop accident.
8.
During seismic events (horizontal and vertical), part of the fuel bundle intertial forces is transferred directly to the tube wall or the fuel support plate through the clearance gi?s.
Indicate how thesa impactive motion have been considered in the analysis along'with the affects of fuel storage rack rocking and sliding on the pool floor. Provide the numerical values for these impactive factors (dynamic amplification factors) and justifications.
9.
Ir the non-linear analysis to calculate the amount of sliding and tilting, a two-node lumped mass model was chosen.
Provide more justification and details (sketches and discriptions) of this model.
1319
- 2-10.
Discuss the service surveillance plans, if any, that you have developed to assure long-term corrosion protection for the fuel rack system in the pooi environment.
11.
Discuss the possibility of swelling (inward and outward) in the cell containine the boral composite due to off gasing generating pressure and discuss t e provisions employed to prevent such swelling or the provision employed such that withdrawal of the fuel assembly is insured.
O J
e
.