ML19309C338
| ML19309C338 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | FitzPatrick  |
| Issue date: | 04/01/1980 |
| From: | Early P POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (NEW YORK |
| To: | Ippolito T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| JPN-80-19, NUDOCS 8004080473 | |
| Download: ML19309C338 (4) | |
Text
'
o POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK to CoLUMaus CIRCLE NEW YORK. N. Y. f oo19 (212) 397.6200 TRUSTEES GEoRGET, BERRY opunar we orric[a JOH N S.DYSON JOHN W. SCSTON G EORGE 6. ING ALLS
,vi E
To p
Ectom VIC E CHAl# MAN OF POWER CPE A4floh9 RICH ARD M. PLYNN JOSEPH R. SC IECER PRESIDENT & CHIEF RCSERT I. MILLONZI April 1, 1980
,,,,,,,c,
,,eg,,,
,,,,y
,,ct,,,
<;o,a, v,qr a,agionar OFFICER THOM AS R. FREY
."C."E* 'c o " '~'.'Ec' **
w Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555 Attention:
Mr. Thomas A.
Ippolito, Chief Operating Reactors Branch No. 3 Division of Operating Reactors
Subject:
James A.
Fit: Patrick Nuclear Power Plant Docket No. 50-333 NRC Questions on Spent Fuel Pool Cooling
Dear Sir:
Attached is the Authority's response to questions enclosed with the NRC letter of March 7, 1980 concerning spent fuel pool cooling.
The Authority has proposed no changes to the spent fuel pooi cooling system in conjunction with the efforts to increase spent fuel storage capacity.
The increased capacity will not signifi-cantly increase heat loads to be handled by the spent fuel pool cooling system.
Therefore, the NRC questions relate to the ori-ginal design basis for JAF.
The NRC questions were broached informally in September 1979.
At that time, the Authority indicated that spent fuel boiling is not considered a design basis for JAF and that because of the above, the questions concerning spent fuel cooling should be considered as matters separate from the modification to spent fuel storage capacity.
It was our understanding at that time that NRC was pro-ceeding on that basis.
The Authority has recently, by letters of November 29, 1979 and February 22, 1980, requested completion of NRC review and approval for the proposed spent fuel storage capacity increase.
Acor s
l lll l
8004080473 1
l
I U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission It is disturbing that now, after six months of inactivity, the NRC has re-introduced these matters as a part of the application for storage capacity expansion.
The Authority hereby formally requests that the NRC's review of the attached responses be separated from and not interfere with the NRC's swif t completion of the spent fuel storage capacity expansion review.
The Authority also requests a copy of acceptance criteria which NRC applies to spent fuel pool cooling systems for plants built in.the time frame in which JAF was designed and constructed.
Very truly yours, i
Paul J.
Early Assistant Chief Engineer-Projects Att.
4 i
a 7
RESPONSE TO NRC REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OF MARCH 7, 1980 ON SPENT FUEL POOL CAPACITY EXPANSION OUESTION:
For a situation where all fuel pool cooling is lost (due to its being non-safety grade equipment) for a period of more than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> so that the water in the spent fuel pool starts to boil, please provide the following infor-mation for the expanded pool:
1.
The FitzPatrick plant's capability for removing vapors and liquids from the reactor building.
2.
The access requirements for personnel entering the Reactor Building during and after spent fuel pool boiling.
3.
The environmental qualifications of the safety related equipment which is located in the Reactor Building.
4.
Provisions for restoring cooling capability or a description of your ability to deal with a boiling pool indefinitely.
RESPONSE
The postulation that the spent fuel pool may loose cooling and begin to boil is not valid.
The design basis of the JAF spent fuel pool cooling (SFPC) system, as described in the FSAR, required the redundant safety-grade RHR systems to back up the normal spent fuel cooling system.
Either RHR system above is capable of maintaining the spent fuel pool temperature <l50 F, which is the design basis for the pool wall concrete, under full core offload conditions.
The RHR system in the shutdown cooling mode can maintain both the reactor and the spent fuel pool below 150 F under normal refueling conditions and will be available for spent fuel cooling within an acceptable time after any shutdown.
Since the RHR system is fully capable of preventing spent fuel pool boiling, no provisions for (1) removing vapors and liquids from the reactor building or (2) access to the reactor building during pool boiling or (3) qualification of equipment for reactor building environmental conditions resulting from spent fuel pool boiling are required.
.. Three bounding cases which are discussed below provide an assessment of cooling capabilities of the alternative cooling systems and the scenarios for their use.
Case 1 is for a full core offload in 1989 where it is assumed that the pool is full after the full core is introduced.
The heat load is described in Table 3-3 from Attachment A to the Authority's July 1978 application.
Full core offloads are done with both the SFPC system and the RHR system providing spent fuel pool cooling.
With the two SFPC heat exchangers and the RHR option in service and using the conservative heat loads of Table 3-3, the pool temperature would be 1280F.
In the event of loss of the SFPC system, temperatures would rise to 1550F with cooling provided only by RHR.
Therefore, the Authority will take appropriate steps to assure that heat loads will not be introduced into the spent fuel pool (SFP) which are sufficient to cause the fuel pool to exceed 1500F with only the RHR providing cooling to the SFP.
Available steps include assessment of actual heat loads and, if necessary, delay of fuel movement from the reactor to the SFP to allow further decay.
Case 2 would be in 1992 after approximately one-fourth core movement to the spent fuel pool, where it is assumed that the spent fuel pool is full after the fuel movement.
The heat load in described in Table 3-2 of Attachment A to the Authority's July 1978 application.
Heat loads are at 150 hours0.00174 days <br />0.0417 hours <br />2.480159e-4 weeks <br />5.7075e-5 months <br /> after shutdown, which is the earliest that the unloading would be complete.
With the two heat exchangers of the SFPC system in operation and using the conservative heat loads of Table 3-2, the pool temperatures would be 135 F.
In the event of loss of the SFPC system, 3.4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> would pass prior to the pool temperature reaching 1500F.
In this case the reactor would already be in cold shutdown.
The available time would allow for assessment of the nature and cause of loss and system line-up.
Case 3 would be in 1992 after the above cited refueling, but back at power.
Approximately six weeks is assumed to have elapsed from the shutdown for the previous cycle.
With two heat exchangers of the SFPC system in operation, the pool temperature would be 120 F.
In the event of loss of the SFPC system, 11.2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> would pass prior to the pool temperature reaching 150 F.
The available time would allow the reactor to be placed in cold shutdown and RHR system line-up to be accomplished.
l I
-m
-.. -_