ML20037A586
| ML20037A586 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 06/02/1978 |
| From: | Adensam E Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Reid R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8003160019 | |
| Download: ML20037A586 (4) | |
Text
I
.~.y~m.7~.,
y yyx
..,,. g.
..y-n.-
c
,, ~ -,..
q=
~ o-
,_e,,
,,,_y g.%,,
.k
~
~
- y
...pg nr.
.:e
~
-,m, n
~
QUn L did
!s10RANDUM FOR:
R. Reid, Chief, Operating Reactors Branch f4, 00R FROM:
Acting Chief. Envircrxental Evaluation Branch, DOR
SUBJECT:
. CRYSTAL RIVER 3 - SPENT FUEL P0OL EXPANSION (TAC 7468)~
PLANT ?WiE: ' CryJtalRiver Nuclear Generating Plant Unit 3 DOCKET fiocAO-302 /'
RESPONSIsLEB1MITCit: ORB (4 PROJECT "ANAGER:
C. Nelson REVIEli STATUS:
EES - Continuing The Environmntal Evaluation Branch has revieveed the January 9 and V, arch 3, 197" suicittals frm the Florida Po.s Co?aratica, which catain infone tion un 1.ha weposed a:cact3icn of the cap;it;, of the sper.t fuel peel at Crystal Rivcr Nnclear C.mrath;; Plant Unit 2 V ditiom i infomation identiffed in the enclosare is raeded to cent'rua cur re'/fca.
This review was.wfonted by 5. ilic.c a J. Dcnchest and
. Jchi.
E.G.Adsum n
Acting Chief Envircnnental Evaluation Branch Divisien of Gerating Reactors
Enclosure:
As stated
' DISTRIBUTION l
cc:
.V. Stello G1di%
0
/,.; 7
~
EEB Rdg
,g.
l S. Grimes.
JDonohew
_.~ ~--
r D. Eisenhut Q:
h C. Nelsen V. Benaroya-i JCarter D. Bur:ch W. tracer E. Adeilsan c/
i l
L. Barrett o
E3 in l
80031840 4 p.
Contact:
J. Co, chse 28066 E,EB/OGR EEB/ DOR EE8LC EEBLC0fs
'C[/
f %'.o.._h l GAA/-'S...B_l_g_c'k 5 -
EAd'ehdai
. H. _a r e[d_
J0okkewhiP p /.n /78 5/6.-[./78 5f.3l/78 5
'. - - -.. -5/ W /78 5/ Jo /78 u ; n >.
%..,,. un,.am. amu,,.W-aui" m sncu na
m ENCLOSURE 1 QUESTIONS FOR THE CRYSTAL RIVER 3 SPENT FUEL POOL MODIFICATION 1.
Discuss the occupational exposure expected during the SFP modification.
Address the expected dose rates, numbers of workers (including divers, if necessary) and occupancy times for each phase of the operation. In-clude removal and disassembly (or crating) and disposal operations of the low density spent fuel racks and installation of the new high den-sity racks.
Provide the resultant man-ren exposure.
2.
If the low density racks are to be cut up for disposal, explain why the expr.r.ures received by personnel would be as low as reasonable achievable (ALARA) as compared to crating the icw density racks intact.
3.
Identify the principal radionuclides and their respective concentration in t9e spent fuel pool as a result of placing the core in the pool dur-l ing steam generator repair operations.
4.
Pr' vide the dose rates above and around the spent fuel pool from tne con-l l
centrations of the radionuclides identified in 3 above. Also, provide' i
l the estimated dose rate of the contaminated racks when they are removed from the spent fuel pool.
l l
5.
Provide a numerical value for the expected increase in occupational man-l rem exposure from all operations in the SFP as a result of the modifica-l l
gion.
6.
Ciscuss the capability of the Spent Fuel Pool Cooling System to keep the j
actual spent fuel pool bulk water temperature at or below the FSAR design l
('n
'])
- of 120 F during normal refuelings until the modified pool is filled.
If the bulk water temperature is expected to be above the FSAR design value, discuss when this will occur and for what period of time.
Dis-cuss also the impact of any expected higher than design value pool tem-peratures on the gaseous releases of radiciodines and tritium from the pool.
7.
Provide the estimated volume of contaminatec material (e.g., spent fuel racks, seismic restraints) expected to be removed from the spent fuel pools during the modification and shipped from the plant to a licensed burial site.
8.
Provide a list of typical loads that might be carried near or over the spent fuel pool.
P"avide the weight and dimensions of each load.
Dis-cuss the load transfer path, including whether the load must be carried aver the pool, the maximum height at which it could be carried and the expected height during transfer.
Provide a description 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 tipping each typical load carried over the pool.
9.
Discuss the instrumentation to indicate the spent fuel pool water level and water temperature.
Include the capability of the instrumentation to alarm and location of the alarms.
I c.
~
e T
, 10.
Your March 3,1978 submittal did not 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 gaseous effluents from the pool, b.
radioactive licoid effluents from the clant, including leakage of water from the pool and the SFP leak collection system, and c.
radioactive solid wastes frcm the plant, including the change in the frequency of replacing the SFP decineralizer resin and filters, 11.
Your Marcn 3,1978 submittal did not orocose changes to the SFP purifi-cation syste.
Discuss in scre detail.vhy the present SFP purificaticn is adequate for the proposed SFP r.odification.
Include the exoerience of operating the SFP.vith a full core in tne cool during steam generator repair cperations with the typical dose rates in the vicinity of the pool and the frequency of replacing the derineralizer resin and filters.