ML19309G842
| ML19309G842 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | FitzPatrick  |
| Issue date: | 04/22/1980 |
| From: | Ippolito T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Berry G POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (NEW YORK |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8005070673 | |
| Download: ML19309G842 (6) | |
Text
Yf
./
4 l
pa art UNITED STATES
,,g
,og y } ),.,
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSI 8005470[.}3 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
. '[..
April 22,1980 Docket No. 50-333 Mr. George T. Berry General Manager and Chief Engineer Power Authority of the State of New York 10 Columbus Circle New York, New York 10019
Dear Mr. Berry:
We have received your letter of April 1,1980 forwarded in response to our March request for additional infor.7,ation regarding Spent Fuel Pool boiling.
In essence, your response indicated that boiling is not possible since the RHR system is available to augment the capacity of the Fuel Pool Cooling and Cleanup System.
If this is a valid argument, our four March questions become mute and this would obviate the need for a response.
Section 9.4 of the FitzPatrick Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) contains the descriptive information which the staff utilized in the review of your operating license.
In section 9.4, the Fuel Pool Cooling and Cleanup System is indicated to be Class II with the exception of the pool itself.
Credit for the RHR system is taken for full core off-load cooling.
In this section, there is no mention of pool boiling.
In section 3.4.3 of your Spent Fuel Pool Expansion amendment application dated July 26, 1978, you provided an analysis for the situation when the pool loses all means of external cocling.
In sum, the boiling which occurs near the top of the assemblies becomes the method of pool cooling.
In several other areas of your submittal analysis is provided which assumes pcol temoeratures of 212*F. Further ore, by letter dated October 10, 1979 ycu proposed Technical Specifications which would allow RHR ccoling of the Spent Fuel Pool only when the reactor is below 212*F. This would appear to confirm pool boiling for many design bases events for which a redundant RHR is necessary for lo".; term reat :r decay heat removal.
Either a safe shut down earthquake or a loss of off-site power would render the normal Spent Fuel Pool cooling system unavailable.
In sum, your FSAR and letter cf April 1,1980 provide information that leads to the conclusion that Spent Fuel Pool coiling will not occur at Fi : Patrick.
Your license amendment request of July 26, 1973 and your i
letter of October 10, 1979 provide infcrmation which leads to the con-clusion that pool boiling cccur:.
- n order to resolve the pool boiling l
i i
Mr. George T. Berry April 22,1980 question, please provide:
(1) additional information as requested in our March 7,1980 letter which assumes pool boiling, or (2) additional informa-tion as delineated in Enclosure (1) to this letter in the event pool boiling is precluded from occurring.
In your letter you requested that the question of spent fuel pool boiling be separated from the NRC's review of the spent fuel pool expansion request.
Unfortunately, pool design, rack design, our Safety Evaluation and Environ-mental Impact Appraisal are highly dependent on spent fuel pool cooling capacity.
Therefore, amendment approval pends resolution of the boiling concern.
Your letter of April 1,1980 requested the acceptance criteria for the spent fuel pool cooling system which was applicable at the time of FitzPatrick licensing.
Enclosure (2) is a delineation of licensing criteria wnich are presently applicable.
Most, if not all, of these criteria are applicable to FitzPatrick. Please note that if prior review of the FitzPatrick design did not uncover the above inconsistencies, we feel strongly that clarifica-tion is necessary.
In this perspecti<e, it is felt that a Bethesda meet-ing would be productive.
Please advit e if this approach would be agreeable.
Please find attached (Enclosure 3) a request for additional economic informa-tion regarding the costs of t'se alternatives to expanding the capacity of the FitzPatrick Spent Fuel Pool. This information is requested in order to update and augment the cost ber,sfit information found in section 5.0 of your original licensing applict.~cion. Your earlies? response would be appreciated.
Please advise if we can be of further assistance.
Sincere?y,-g;
. A (
,,$ n Thomas A. Ippolito, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #3 Division of Operating Reactors
Enclosures:
As stated cc w/ enclosures:
See next page 1
l l
l
Mr. George T. Berry April 22, 1980 Power Authority of the State -
of New York i
CC; Mr. Charles M. Pratt Assistant General Counsel Power Authority of the State of New York 10 Columbus Circle New York, New York 10019 Mr. Peter W. Lyon Manager - Nuclear Operations Power Authority of the State of New York 10 Colur. bus Circle New York, New York 10019 Mr. J. D. Leonard, Jr.
Resident Manager James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant P. O. Box 41 Lycoming, New York 13093 Direc:ce, Tecnnical Developr.ent Procrans
~
State of New York Energy Office Agency Building 2 Emoire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223 State University Cellege at Oswego Penfisic Library
.'ccu ents Oswe;c, *iew York. 13126 George !'.. Wilverding, Licensing Supervisor Power *utnority of the State of New York 10 Colu-bus Circle New Ycrk, New York 10019
-m
r r
Enclosure (1) l SPENT FUEL POOL COOLING AND PURIFICATION SYSTEM REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION 1.
Following a Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) what components, systems or subsystems of pool cooling systems remair available. For those items assumed available, please provide design details such as the stress analysis, hydraulic analysis and applicable codes and standards used in the design procurement and installation.
(In the event availability is time dependent, please provide justification for system line-up changes as they effect redundant reactor core cooling capability.)
2.
Please provide similar information as requested in item (1) above assuming a loss of off-site power.
t
Enclosure (2)
SPEhi FUEL POOL COOLING AND PURIFICATION SYSTEM LICENSING CRITERIA
_I.
Code of Federal Regulations 1.
10 CFR 50, Appendix A, General Design Criteria 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 44, 45, 46, 54, 60, 61, 62, 63 H. Regulatory Guides 1.
1.13, 1.21, 1.26, 1.28, 1.29, 1.48, 1.52, 1.75, 1.119, 1.102, 8.8.
III. Standard Review Plans 1.
9.1.2. 9.1.3, 9.4.2, 3.6.1 H.
Branch Technical Positions 1.
APCSB 9-1, APCSB 3-1, MEB 3-1 E.
Industry Standards 1.
ASMEB&PV,SectionsIII,VIII,d I
l
\\
l
)
Enclosure (3) 1 SI'ENT FUEL POOL COOLING AND PURIFICATION SYSTEM REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL ECONOMIC INFORMATION 1.
Cost of Storage at other nuclear plants.
2.
Cost of storage at an independent facility.
3.
Cost of storage at a reprocessing facility.
4.
Daily cost of reactor shutiown.
5.
Cost of building new storage pools.
6.
Cost of storage at Indian Point (Unit 3)
Nuclear Power Plant.
i I
l
.