ML19256A052
| ML19256A052 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 10/18/1978 |
| From: | Ippolito T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Dise D NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORP. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7811030006 | |
| Download: ML19256A052 (5) | |
Text
.-
.6 7s g
&.1- / '/M 1
['.....,b UNITED STATES o
9
.:'
- s f ' '.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
\\
3 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
'%.'.' "... /
Octobar 18, 1978 Docket No. 50-?20 v
Mr. Donald P. Dise Vice President - Engineering Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation 300 Erie Boulevard West Syracuse, New York 13202
Dear Mr. Dise:
Your submittal of March 22, 1978, relating to expansion of the spent fuel and storage capacity at Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station.
Unit No. 1, is being reviewed by our staff.
In order to complete our review, you are requested to provide within 60 days of receipt o;.this letter, the additional information identified in the enclosure.
Sincerely, s
\\
.&&, h-ai1ww
[rv Th as A. Ip olito, Chief Operating actors Branch #3 Division of' Operating Reactors
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Information cc w/ enclosure:
See page 2 Ob ggigp3CC
Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation ctober 18, 1978 Eugere B. Thomas, Jr., Esquire cc:
LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae 1757 N Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C.
20036 Anthony Z. Roisman Natural Resources Defense Council 91715th Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C.
20005 Oswego County Office Building 46 E. Bridge Street Oswego, New York 13126
y_
~.
ENCLO.cijRE 1 REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 1.
Provide a description of the modifications tnat have been made to i
the Nine Mile Point Unit 1 (NMP-1) spent fuel pool (SFP) after the pool was licensed to contain up to 1984 fuel assemblies. Discuss the effects of these modifications on operating the SFP. This should include the measured man-rem exposure to do the work, the change in radiation levels in the vicinity of the pool, the change in the amount of crud in the pool, and changes to the operation of the SFP purification system.
2.
You stated in your letter to NRC dated September 29, 1977, in your response to Question 5, that the dose rates around the spent fuel pool are kept between 5 and 10 mrem / hour by controlling the fre-quency of changing the pool filter. Justify why the radiation fields will be as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) during each phase of the proposed pool modification. Relevant experience at nuclear power plants show typical values, in the vicinity of spent fuel pools, of 1 to 2 mrem / hour. Your response should consider increased purifica-tion systen operation or increased filter change out frequency.
3.
You stated in your March 22, 1978 submittal that the additional spent fuel storage capacity you are reque: ting will be installed in steps as your storage needs dictate. Compare the\\ man-rem exposure for the proposed stepwise pool modification with the exposure for
)
2-completing the modification in a single step. Show that your proposed course of action is consistent with the ALARA philosophy of 10 CFR Part 20.1(c).
+
4 4.
Discuss the occupational exposure expected during each separate ma-trix listed in Table 1 of your March 22, 1978, submittal of this pro-posed SFP modification. Address the expected dose rates (from spent fuel pool water, spent fuel and the equipment to be disposed of),
numbers of workers (including divers, if necessary) and occupancy times for each phase of the operation.
Include removal and disposal of the present spent fuel racks and installation of the new higher density racks. Provide the estimated man-rem exposure. Compare the measured and estimated man-rem exposure for your 1978 SFP modification.
5.
Provide the additional occupational expcsure (in man-rem) from normal operation in the spent fuel pool area, including refueling, over the time period for the complete SFP modification proposed in your March 22, 1978, submittal.
Include the expected exposure f more frequent chang-ing of SFP filters and demineralizers, from spent fuel pool water and from spent fuel.
6.
Describe the method that will be used to dispose of the present racks (i.e., crating intact racks or cutting and packaging).
If the racks are to be cut al.j packaged, show that the exposure received by this disposal method, as compared to crating the intact racks for disposal, will pro-vide as low as is reasonably achievable ( ALARA) exposure to personnel.
I l
. Your response should include a description of the method that was used to dispose of the racks and resultant exposures from the 1978 SFP modification.
7.
Discuss the leakage of water from the spent fuel pool and the pool leak collection system. Where would the pool leakage be transferred to?
8.
Discuss the effect of the fuel assembly movements during your 1978 SFP modificatic, on the amount of crud in the pool water and the radiation levels in the vicinity af the pool. Your response should include measured radioactivity concentrations of SFP water and general radiation levels in the vicinity of the pool before, during and after the 1978 SFP modification.
9.
'Your March 22, 1978 submittal did not completely address the impact of the proposed SFP modification on the environment. Discuss in some detail the impact of the proposed SFP modification on the following:
a) radioactive liquid effluents from the plant, including leakage of water from the pool and b) radioactive solid wastes from the plant, including the change in the frequency of replacing the SFP filter demineralizer resin.
I i
. 10. Provide the estimated volume of contaminated material (e.g., spent fuel racks, seismic restraints) expected to be removed from the spent fuel pools during each step of the entire modification and t
shipped from the plant to a licensed burial site.
- 11. Provide a list of typical loads that might be carried near or over the spent fuel pool. Provide the weight and dimensions of each load. Discuss the load transfer path, including whether the load must be carried over the pool, t>e maximum height at which it could be carried and the expected height during transfer. Provide a de-scription of any written procedures instructing crane operators about loads to be carried near the pool. Provide the number of spent fuel assemblies that could be damaged by dropping and/or tip-
' ping each typical load into the pool.
- 12. Discuss the instrumentation to indicate the spent fuel pool water level and water temperature.
Include the capability of the instru-mentation to alarm and the location of the alarms.
- 13. Propose a technical specification which prohibits carrying loads greater than the weight of a fuel assembly over spent fuel in the storage pool; or justify why this specification is not needed to limit the potential consequences of accidents involving dropping heavy loads, other than casks, onto spent fuel to those of the de-sign basis fuel handling accident.