ML19256D753
| ML19256D753 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 11/16/1976 |
| From: | Zwetzig G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910220681 | |
| Download: ML19256D753 (23) | |
Text
-
A 7
i.IkTING
SUMMARY
DISTRIBUTION ORB #4
~
cc: Petropolitan Edison Company ATTN: Mr. R. C. Arnold Vice Presiden.t
' Generation P. O. Box 542 Reading, Pennsylvania 19603 Mr. Ed Goodwin NUS Corporation 4 Research Place Rockville, Maryland 20850 M ket File)
LShao JZudans NRC PDR RBaer RLaGrange L PDR WButler MWohl ORB #4 Rdg BGrimes RJClark NRR Rdg Project Manager BRusche Attorney, OELD ECase OI&E (5)
VStello RIngram KGoller RFraley, ACRS (16)
DEisenhut TBAbernathy TCarter JRBuchanan ASchwencer DThompson, E/W 359 '
DZiemann NRC Participant (s)
Glear ELantz RReid KJabbour JSiegel 1453 226
~
o Ja "84 UNITED STATES 9
,,g h
NUCLEAR REGULATC, AY COMMISSION y
)e(
g WASHINGTON, D. C. 20655 a
k 8
November 16, 1976
%, *..../
DOCKET NO.: 50-289 LICENSEE:
METROPOLITAN EDIS0N COMPANY (MET ED)
FACILITY :
THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT N0. 1 (TMI-1)
SUMMARY
OF MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 5,1976, TO DISCUSS INSTALLATION OF COMPACT SPENT FUEL STORAGE RACKS AT TMI-l On November 5,1976, representatives of Meted, GPU Service Corporation, and NUS Corporation met with the staff to discuss their planned sub-mission of documents in support of installation of compact spent fuel storage racks at TMI-1. A list of attendees and a copy of the set of vu-graphs presented at the meeting are attached (Attachment 1 and 2).
Introduction The basic plan is to replace the present storage racks in spent fuel pool B at TMI-1, which have a capacity of 174 assemblies, with compact racks to provide a storage capacity of 496 assemblies. The center-to-center pitch would be reduced from 21 1/8 inches in the present racks to 13 5/8 inches in the compact racks. The compact racks would be fabriciated from stainless steel and would not incorporate supplementary neutron poison material. The changeover to the new racks would be per-formed under clean, dry conditions (present spent fuel is stored in Pool A). The change is only intended to increase the storage capacity for TMI-l spent fuel and does not contemplate storage of spent fuel from offsite facilities.
The licensee plans to submit a formal application for this modification in December 1976, and hopes to have NRC approval by March 1977.
Technical Discussion A.
Structural The licensee opened the discussion by describing the structural aspects of the modification.
In addition to describing the design of the new racks, the licensee identified his design criteria.
the loads and load combinations and acceptance criteria used in his analysis and described his seismic analysis methods. The principal staff connents on this subj'ct were:
1453 227 G
sg
n Meeting Summary - TMI-1 1) To facilitate review of the planned modification, the licensee should provide more detailed sketches of the racks and their vertical and horizontal restraints and interfaces with the pool walls and floor.
- 2) Also to facilitate review, the licensee should submit a more detailed description of the non-linear seismic analysis, in-cluding data on the natural frequencies of the fuel elements, the storage cans, the floor response spectra and time histories utilized in the analysis.
- 3) Any new pumps or other components added as part of this modification should be qualified per currently applicable codes and regulations.
- 4) The analysis should address any stresses arising as a result of liner buckling.
- 5) The analysis should demonstrate the adequacy of the pool floor design to accommodate the added load imposed by the new storage rack design.
B.
Criticality and Cooling The licenst. next described his methods of criticality analysis.
These appeared to confonn to present staff requirements.
In-addition, however, the staff stated the licensee should supply:
- 1) Proposed technical specifications specifying the maximum mass of U235 permitted per centimeter length of any fuel assembly to be stored in the lattice.
- 2) The fuel enrichment and stainless steel thickness reactivity coefficients for the storage cell lattice.
3)
Information showing that there is adequate water flow between assemblies to preclude void formation by boiling.
- 4) A calculation of the time required to achieve boiling if all cooling of the spent fuel pool were lost.
1453 228
n Meeting. Surrmary - TMI-1.
- 5) Confirmation that the outlet water temperature from pool under worst conditions with cooling system in normal operation will not exceed 140 F or the current FSAR values 0
whichever is greater.
C.
Environmental Assessment The licensee stated he would submit the information required by The staff supplied the licensee with hand-present regulations.
outs specifying the detailed information needed for environmental evaluation of this type of modification (Attachment 3).
D.
0utstanding Issues The licensee requested information on any outstanding issues which could impact approval of the planned modification. The project manager stated that the cask drop issue might impact the modification.
He added that an effort was being made to expedite resolution of this issue.
{7 G. Z ti roject Manager Operating Reactors Branch #4 Division of Openating Reactors Attachments:
1.
List of Attendees 2.
Vu-graphs 3.
Environmental and Cost / Benefit Assessment 1453 229
ATTACHMENT 1 MEETING WITH METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY COMPACT FUEL STORAGE RACKS LIST OF ATTENDEES NOVEMBER 5,1976 NRC G. Zwetzig R. J. Clark E. Lantz K. Jabbour J. Siegel J. Zudans R. LaGrange M. Wohl Met Ed J. Moran NUS Corporation D. Hill E. Goodwin E. Wiot B. Reckman GPU Service Corporation C. Montgomery 1453 230 R. McGoey D. Reppert
m ATTACHMENT 2 THREE MILE ISLAND FUEL POOL MODIFICATIONS AGENDA 1.
OPENING REMARKS a.
NEED
- b. SCHEDULE 2.
DESCRIPTION OF MODIFICATION a.
RACKS
- b. SEISMIC RESTRAINTS AND ANALYSIS c.
INSTALLATION 3.
OPEN LICENSING ITEMS a.
CASK DROP
- b. OTHERS (IF ANY) 4.
DESCRIPTION OF SUBMITTAL SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS -SAR & El a.
- b. DEPTH OF COVERAGE 1453 231
r THREE MILE ISLAND SPENT FUEL STORAGE MODIFICATION SCHEDULE
')
MODIFICATION PLAN SUBMITTED TO NRC OCTOBER,1976 Ik e
REVIEW MODIFICATION PLAN WITH NRC NOVEMBER 5,1976 e
FORMAL APPLICATION TO NRC FOR SPENT FUEL STORAGE MODIFICATION APPROVAL DECEMBER,1976 e
NRC APPROVAL RECEIVED MARCH,1977 8
e FABRICATION AND DELIVERY OF NEW RACKS M ARCH-JU LY,1977 Ln U
Nu
)
PORT CHANNEL FUEL BOX (9.125 INSIDE SQUARE) 13.625 PITCH
+
t
~l i
i l
A i
4 1
t g
_t
_ ~k I
~
J y
r 4
' (
i I
9-
-o=
+
l I
I j
i I
ll
]
[
I 1_-..i
- l...-
U--g
-~
1 i
l, l
l e
l 1
y u
w w
u b
W U
RACK PLAN VIEW 1453 233
r
-h A
'd R ESTR AIN ER -
'\\
G E
G u
f tN SUPPORT CHANNEL FUEL BOX r
160.00 169.50 t
i 1453 234 q
.=
v VI (N
l i
Y LEVELING 90 5
LEG Y Y RACK ELEVATibN
i' O
l 8
N L
O 1
L I
A DT A
~
W EA
~
TL L
S L
~
O U A
~
J O
D T P
S
~
A N PI
~
AT GA
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
R
~
E P
N k
~
9 I
AR TSE 9
R
>\\
3 3
A C
I M
S I
ES L
X A
O C
.m pj I
B P
Y L
T L
E s\\
E U
N F
N
~
A af n_%
y t
iC k
/
k O
PP
/
/
k U
S
/
k
/
/
mh
/
/
/
1
/
/
/
/
s 1
n LW NuL
-T
/
==-
/
/
3 c
n..
- r.,-
n..
n..
r..-
n..
o D
C A
A
'A A
B E
3 c-3
- s O
l 3
O
~.
O
.. )
c.
C C..
O
- -- - -- 54.50 -
-3 D
A A
A A
B B
3 4
g D
C O
a c-c;-
O O
w D
.~
n..
A..
A J..'
... '(-
G..
- L._
D
, _, n A
A A
' A g
D C:
O C
- 3 - C TAtSLE I
^
RACM TYPE fg, NLAseeR To
,)
lL A
25 86 407 6'8.125 4 -
D a
2o 4
so C
.n C
16 i
s6 A
A
_A A
9
- 49c, O
68.125
]
w3 C
-l.:
U C::I O
y u
nnnn OnnO OnOn OOOO as POOL ARRANGEMENT b 0
FUEL RACK STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS CRITERIA FOR ANALYSIS LOADS LOAD COMBINATIONS AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA SEISMIC ANALYSIS FETHODS 1453 237 e
e CRITERI A FOR ANALYSIS USNRC STANDARD REVIEW PLAN SECTION 3.8.4 AISC SPECIFICATION FOR THE DESIGN, FABRICATION, AND ERECTION OF STEEL FOR BUILDINGS ASME BOILER AND PRESSURE VESSEL CODE, SECTION III 1453 238 O
LOADS
.~
NORMAL LOADS - DEAD LOADS LIVE LOADS THERMAL LOADS SEVERE ENVIRONMENTAL LOAD - 03E EXTREFE ENVIRON > ENTAL LOAD - SSE ABNORMAL LOADS - ACCIDENTAL DROP OF A FUEL ASSEMBLY
- POSTULATED STUCK FUEL ASSEMBLY 1453 239
~
4 9
LOAD COMBINATIONS AND ACCEPTANCE CRifERIA e
1.
D + L ----------------------- S 2.
D + OBE --------------------- S 3.
D + T + OBE ----------------- 1.55 4.
D + SSE, T ----------------- 1.6S 5,
D + STUCK FUEL ASSEMBLY ----- 1.6S 6.
D + FUEL ASSEMBLY DROP ------ NO LOSS OF FUNCTION e
e 1453 240 O
Ob
e SEISMIC ANALYSIS MET:10DS RESPONSE SPECTRUM MODAL DYNAMIC ANALYSIS RESPONSE SPECTRA FINITE ELEMENT MODEL COMPUTER PROGRAM COMBINATION OF MODES AND SPATIAL COMPONENTS STRESS CALCULATIONS SLOSHING IMPACT 1453 241 O
e
x r
^ GAP ELEME!JT
<H Hi 4HHP CAN qgp tHHe 0--{ }--O FUEL
/
4H He qH l--e 4HHD 4HHD O--I H D tH HD O--l l--O
..tHHb tHHD 4HHD FRICTION q)-__[ }___g ELEMENT 1453 242
'3 g
x
,,/
n a
n
////////// ////////// / ///
NONLINEAR F/N/TE ELEMENT MODEL
f)n i
a
\\
rg D
alN 4 N
e om o
o o
_3
.g;A g
_ _... s.
1
..V, a
l o
,s, y
s'%.
D
~_
..H_.
\\
J M _q.
.... ~ _..
D, n
.. j NJ
...._........p
.__..(
_.__(
4' W
.s.
._ g..(
.,3 1
C l
N
'I AL N..~
i y
/s
]
s n._
.. (
g g
- s. u g
,.g y
N,
. v> e ___
,r __ _
_%w
~~
~ --
w N
8 N
s wo e
N
.. a R, y!
Q
/
r c
d C
s
\\
9
_l.
-N
(
f.
g..
.(
.l
.... r
._s
. g..
i_
...p__
.e
,.m, g
e
_.e.
he__
_.e p.
q
,g g
_._g 6
_. g a
2 _ _*o.
g -..e ___4, _ _4
.3,._
e y
3 MCtNl'C[" Qb~'CQ'~"~B69N 9~~Mb'.9 )Yb'Q: ' ^^' --
1453 243
/
l LICENSING DOCUMENTS 1.
LETTER OF INTENT 2.
SAFETY EVALUATION T
e INTRODUCTION e
GENERAL DESCRIPTION g
e MECHANICAL DESIGN e
CRITICALITY CONSIDER ATIONS e
STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS COOLING CONSIDERATIONS R ADIOLOGICAL CONSIDER ATIONS e
3.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT e
INTRODUCTION e
DESCRIPTION OF MODIFICATION o
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS - NORMAL OPERATION g
e ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS - ACCIDENTS g
tn e
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS e
SUMMARY
OF COST BENEFIT ANALYSES Nn*
4.
FSAR SECTION PREPARATION 1
f EVALUATION OP km km, NOMINAL (68 P)
.0086 CALCULATIONAL UNCERTAINTIES A k,
=
Ak.
o KENO vs CRITICALS, I
o 95% C. L. STATISTICS, A k.
h MOST REACTIVE WATER TEMP, Ak_
TOLERANCES CENTER-TO-CENTER SPACING, A k_
o Ak o
CAN DIMENSIONS, ECCENTRIC LOADING, A k.
o SS COMPOSITION, A k_
o WORST POSSIBLE k O
~
4 ACCIDENTS ASSEMBLY ON RACK TOP, k,,
N o
A ASSEMBLY ON SIDE OF RACK, k.
o Ln
ATTACHMENT 3 ENVIRONMENTAL and COST / BENEFIT ASSESSMENT What are the specific needs that require increased storage capacity 1.
in the spent fuel pool (SFP)? Include in the response:
(a) status of contractual arrangements, if any, with fuel-storage or fuel-reprocessing f acilities, proposed refueli g schedule, including the expected number of (b) fuel assemblies that will be transferred into the SFP at each ref ueling, (c) number cf spent fuel assemblies presently stored in the SFP, control rod assemblies or other components stored in the 577, and (d)
(e) the additional time period that spent fuel assemblies would be stored on-site as a result of the proposed expansion.
2.
Discuss the total construction cost associated with the proposed modification, including engineering, capital costs (direct and indirect) and allowance for funds used during construction.
Discuss the alternatives to increasing the storage capacity of the 3.
SFP? The alternatives considered should include:
(a) shipment to a fuel reprocessing facility, (b) shipment to another reactor site, (c) shutting down the reactor.
The discussion of options (a) and (b) should include a cost comparison in terms of dollars per KgU stored or cost per assembly. The discussion of (c) should include the cost for providing replacement power either from within or outside the licensee's generating system.
4.
Discuss whether the commitment of material resources (e.g., stainless steel, boral, B C, etc.) would tend to significantly foreclose the 4
alternatives available with respect to any other licensing actions designed to ameliorate a possible shortage of spent fuel storage capacity.
Describe the material resources that would be consumed by the proposed modification.
5.
Discuss the additional heat load and the anticipated maximum temperature of water in the SFP which would result from the proposed expansion, the resulting increase in evaporation rates, the additional heat load on component and/or plant cooling water systems and whether there vill be any signficant increase in the amount of heat released to the environment.
1453 246
./
R.. m 0LOCT C/1 EW.LUATH__._
l.
Plc*ase provide the following information related to the reter purificaticn system:
( a)
U.) s t 10 the average volume of water in the SFF?
(b)
Wh.at is the present equipm:nt in the purificctim cy; tar, and c at additicnal equipment will be added due to the erp: sion of tha capacity cf the SFP? S tate tPe i z of the equipment and the criteria for the replacct:._a; of the d2minercif zer and filter.
and (c)
C. ' t is the purif f. cation flov rates for the present for the new purification sjstem? What is th.
f re gt. 2 cy of operation of the present purification syste e p ipr. cat, and tihat frequency of operation is expectcd for ti, n r.?
equipr.c at ?
is the present annual quantity cf solid radicactive (d) W h'ha t i r, wastes generated by the SFP purification systca?
the expected increase in solid wastes uhich ulll rc sul.
f ro.: the expansion of the capacity of th2 SFF?
the fuci 2.
Please provide da ta regarding krypten-05 twast rcd from building ventilation system by year for the last tuo years. If availabic from the fuel building ventilation system, data are not provide this.tdata for the ventilation release which incl"#
this system.
3.
k~nat is the design burnup of the fuel in WD/MT?
4.
Describe the ventilation filter essenblies for tha fuel storage building and discuss the effect, if any, of the SFP modification on the ef ficicacy of these assemblics. Provide an analysis of fuel the ESF filter assenblies, for the fuel handling and spant cask drop accidents, with respect to the positions in Section C of Ru ; ulatory Guide 1.52.
References to FS/.R Sections are acceptable.
1453 247
Radiological Evaluation 5.
Provide a discussion of the increases in the doses to personnel from radionuclide concentrations in the SF7 due to the expansion of the capacity of the SFP, including the following:
(a) Provide a table showing the most recent gamma isotopic analysis of SFP vater identifying the principal radionuclides and their respective concentrations.
(b) Please provide the models and calculations used to determine the esternal dose equivalent rate from these radionuclides.
Consider the dose equivalent rate at some distance above the center and edge of the pool respectively. (Use relevent experience if necessary).
(c)
Provide a table of recent analysis performed to determine the principal airborne radionuclides and their respective concentrations in the SFP area.
(d) Provide the model and calculations used to determine the increase in dose rate from the radionuclides identified in (c) above in the SFP area and at the site boundary.
(e) Provide an estimate of the increase in the annual man-rem burden from more frequent changing of the demineralizer resin and filter cartridges.
(f) Discuss the buildup of crud (e.g., 58Co, 60Co) along the sides of the pool and the removal methods that will be used to reduce radiation levels at the pool edge to as low as reasonably achievable.
(g) Specify the expected total man-rem to be received by personnel occupying the fuel pool area based on all operations in that area including the doses resulting from (e) and (f) above.
Include a discussion of your radiation protection program, as it affects (a) through (g) above, in your response.
1453 248