ML20041D505
| ML20041D505 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Haddam Neck File:Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co icon.png |
| Issue date: | 03/01/1982 |
| From: | Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Counsil W CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO. |
| References | |
| TASK-09-01, TASK-9-1, TASK-RR LSO5-82-03-005, LSO5-82-3-5, NUDOCS 8203050366 | |
| Download: ML20041D505 (6) | |
Text
'
.fi r.p G
l%
A
. p;,
G1
=%
x)
%)
s March 01, 1982 Docket No. 50-213 LS05-82-03-005 Mr. W. G. Counsil. Vice President
[Qd_lh>h Nuclear Engineering and Operations
N Connecticut Yankee Power Company Post Office Box 270 sf
.x
[/,
j\\
Hartford, Connecticut 06101 l
g lb 1~}
Dear Mr. Counsil-
~
\\-
~ ~.
I
$(,
SUBJECT:
SEP TOPIC IX-1, FUEL STORAGE
?
HADDAM NECK m
w.
,/
x!gy/
Enclosed is our final evaluation of SEP Topic IX-1, " Fuel Storage" for the Haddam Neck plant.
This assessment compares your facility as described in Docket No. 50-213 with the criteria currently used for licensing new facilities.
Please inform us if your as-built facility differs from the licensing basis assumed in our assessment within 30 days of receipt of this letter.
If no response is received in that time we will assume the topic is complete.
The topic evaluation has concluded that the Haddam Neck spent fuel storage system meets current acceptance criteria.
This evaluation will be a basic input to the integrated safety assessment for your facility unless you identify changes needed to reflect the as-i built conditions at your facility.
This assessment may be revised in the l
future if your facility design is changed or if NRC criteria relating to this subject are modified before the integrated assessment is completed. 5, Sincerely,
/
i p g e b8 b Dennis M. Crutchfield, Chief A 0 0
Operating Reactors Branch No. 5 Division of Licensing 6-
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/ enclosure:
See next page
,d/
'DT S, A: DL
.t omcc)
,{o,,[,,,,,,
Dg,,
h,f.iel.d,
,,,t3rtjas,
SURNAME)
.,,...O p
.,/J8,82,
.2/,$,$E,
,,,,,2h,8.2.,
8203050$6 "820301"'
^
'^^
2 PDR ADOCK 05000213 P
PDR OFFICIAL RECORD COPY USGN.1981-335960
Mr. W. G. Counsil
!!. '.
- I
- J cc Day, Berry & Howard Counselors at Law One Constitution Plaza
~ ~ '
Hartford, Connecticut 06103 Superintendent Haddam Neck Plant RFD #1 Post Office Box 127E East Hampton, Connecticut 06424 Mr. Richard R. Laudenat Manager, Generation Facilities Licensing Northeast Utilities Service Company P. O. Box 270 Hartford, Connecticut 06101 Russell Library 119 Broad Street M'ddletown, Connecticut 06457 Board of Selectmen Town Hall Haddam, Connecticut 06103 State of Connecticut Office of Policy and Management ATTN: Under Secretary Energy Division 80 Washington Street Hartford, Connecticut 06115 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region I Office ATTN:
Regional Radiation Representative JFK Federal Building Boston, Massachusetts 02203 Resident Inspector Haddam Neck Nuclear Power Station c/o U. S. NRC East Haddam Post Office East Haddam, Connecticu't 06423 Ronald C. Haynes,. Reg,fonal Administrator Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region I Office of Inspection and Enforcement 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 m
SYSTEMATIC EVALUATION PROGRAM TOPIC IX-1 H'ADDAM NECK
' )
1- :2(jl ' '
TOPIC:
-IX-1, fuel Storage I.
INTRODUCTION The purpose of SEP Topic IX-1 is to review the storage facility. for new and irradiated fuel, including the cooling capability and seismic classification of the fuel pool cooling system of the spent fuel storage pool in order to assure that new and irradiated fuel are stored safely with respect to criticality, cooling capability shielding, and structural capability.
II.
REVIEW CRITERIA The plant design was reviewed with regard to Section VI,'" Fuel and Radioactivity Control of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50, General Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants" which requires that the fuel storage systems shall be designed to assure adequate safety under normal and postulated accident conditions.
III.
RELATED SAFETY TOPICS
~
SEP Topic II-3.B, " Flooding Potential and Protection Requirements" identifies the design basis flood for which the plant must be adequately designed for.
SEP Topic.III-1, " Classification of Structures, Components and Systems (Seismic and Quality)" is intended to assure that structures, systems and components important to safety are of the quality level commensuPate with their safety function.
SEP Topic III-4.A, " Tornado Missiles" covers tornado missile protection of a number of structures and systems including fuel u'.orage areas and support systems.
SEP Topic III-6, " Seismic Design Considerations" will ensure the capability of the plant to withstand the effects of earthquakes.
SEP Topic IX-2, " Overhead Handling Systems-Cranes" covers the potential for dropping heavy objects onto spent fuel.
This topic has been deleted since the review criteria is identical to that of Unresolved Safety Issue A-36, " Control of Heavy Loads Near Spent Fuel."
SEP Topic IX-5, " Ventilation Systems" assures that the ventilation systems have the capability to provide a safe environment for plant personnel and engineered safety features equipment.
l l-
IV.
REVIEW GUIDELINES e
.tf ;j ' -
Current guidance for the review of spent fuel storage is provided in Standard Review Plan Section 9.1.1 New Fuel Storage, Section 9.1.2 Spent Fuel Storage, Section 9.1.3 Spent Fuel Pool Cooling and Cleanup System, Section 9.1.4 Fuel Handling System and Regulatory Guides 1.29 Seismic Design Classification,1.13 Fuel Storage Facility Design Basis, 1,.26 Quality Group Classification and Standards for Water-Steam and Radioactive Waste-Containing Components of Nuclear Power Plants as well as the guidance contained in the April 14, 1978 generic letter - OT Position for Review and Acceptance of Spent Fuel Storage and Handling Applications (i.e., 00R Technical Activities Category A item 27, Increase in Spent Fuel Storage Capacity).
Those portions of the topic which have been previously reviewed to current criteria have not been reevaluated.
V.
EVALUATION By letters dated July 29, 1981 and August 31, 1981 the licensee provided a safety assessment report for SEP Topic IX-1, Fuel Storage, to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of SRP Sections 9.1.2 and 9.1.3.
The staff has reviewed these submittals with respect to the correct require-ments for spent fuel storage.
Our evaluation is given below.
On June 8, 1976, the Commission issued Amendment No. 7 to Facility License No. DP 12-61 for the Haddam Neck plant.
The amendment permitted changes in the design of the spent fuel storage racks allowing spent fuel storage capacity to be increased from 366 to 1172 fuel assemblies.
Since the proposed new rack design and its installation remains the same as that reviewed and approved in the previous NRC safety evaluation for Amendment No. 7 our conclusions concerning the criticality analysis, rack structural, mechanical and material review and radiation level remain valid.
Further some requirements for construction of the spent fuel pool have changed with later revisions of the Standard Review Plan, and our
~
conclusions in the June 8,1976 SER remain valid.
We have re-examined the design of the spent fuel pool cooling system with respect to inoperability of the heat exchangers.
Although a failure modes and effects analysis for the spent fuel pool cooling system was done previously,' it did not consider inoperability of the heat exchangers, only the pumps.
The original spent fuel cooling system consisted of one pump and one heat exchanger.
As part of the increase in storage capacity of the spent fuel pool an additional pump and heat exchanger were added.
The system s
e
is designed so that either pump can provide flow to either heat exchanger.
q However, the new heat exchanger has aphrox'imately three times the heat removal capacity of the original heat exchanger.
This was necessary to accommodate the increased heat load due to the increased storage capacity.
Therefore, a question arose during our review as to whether adequate cooling could be maintained with the larger heat exchanger out of service.
The licensee has calculated, and the staff has confirmed, that the fuel pool temperature in 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> following loss of the larger heat exchanger would b2 139 F.
This assumes a reloading has just taken place and that the smaller heat exchanger is still in service. The licensee states that the most common failures of the large heat exchanger (which is a plate typd heat exchanger) would be gasket leakage or plate leakage and that repairs of this type can be made within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.
The licensee further stated in a conference call with members of the staff on December 28, 1981 that during tiscussions with the heat exchanger manufacturer the manufacturer stated that no gross failures of this type cf heat exchanger have occurred at temperatures below 212 F.
We therefore consider that adequate time would be available to make repairs following the most likely failures.
In addition, the large heat exchanger is not needed continously, but only for a period of several months after a refueling. Therefore, it is possible to schedule regular maintenance during periods when adequate cooling is available from the smaller heat exchanger.
In addition, if failure of the spent fuel cooling system occurred so that boiling occurred in the spent fuel pool, the makeup system would still be available so that the fuel would not become uncovered.
A failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) presented by the licensee and reviewea and accepted by the staff considered loss of either or both pumps and demonstrated that adequate cooling would be available.
An-extension of this FMEA to include the heat exchangers of the spent fuel pool cooling system also demonstrates, as previously discussed, that adequate cooling can be maintained or restored in a reasonable time.
The structural response of the Haddam Neck plant with respect to seismic capability wil.1 be examined as. part of SEP Topic III-6, " Seismic Design Considerations."
We therefore conclude that the spent fuel storage facility at Haddam Neck is acceptable with respect to the requirements of Standard Review Plan Sectibns 9.1.2 and 9.1.3.
Regarding new fuel storage, the new fuel storage area is located in the fuel storage building.
New fuel is stored dry in the fuel storage area.
The primary concern would be flooding of the storage area with the potential for inadvertent criticality.
e
^
. _4 t
The new fuel storage facility is designed to provide center-to-center spacing of 18 inches which would maintii~n tuocriticality of the fuel even i' the facility were filled with unborated water.
In addition, the new fuel storage area is covered with locked steel plates which would prevent sudden flooding of the area.
Leakage through the steel plates would be remcved via a drain in the new fuel enclosure.
B,asedontheaboveweconcludethatthenewfuelstorAgefacilitymeets
~
the guidance of Standard Review Plan 9.1.1.
VI.
LONCLUSIONS Based on the~above considerations, we conclude that the,Haddam Neck fuel storage systems meet current acceptance criteria.
We further conclude that SEP Topic IX-1 is complete.
e e
9 s
4 9
e 1