ML20041F762
| ML20041F762 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 03/09/1982 |
| From: | James Shea Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Counsil W NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY CO. |
| References | |
| TASK-09-01, TASK-9-1, TASK-RR LSO5-82-03-060, LSO5-82-3-60, NUDOCS 8203170392 | |
| Download: ML20041F762 (5) | |
Text
7 w
e March 9,198E Docket No. 50-245 as q>
LS05-82 060 O
P 1
RECihV*]
[,-
{ " MAR 1719825 @
Mr. W. G. Counsil. Vice President Nuclear Engineering and Operations Wlfgs? '
Northeast Nuclear Energy Company s
m:
s&
Post Office Box 270 Hartford, Connecticut 06101
&g b
Dear Mr. Counsil:
SUBJECT:
SEP TOPIC IX-1. FUEL STORAGE (HILLSTONE 1)
Enclosed is our final evaluation of SEP Topic IX-1. Fuel Storage for the Millstone 1 plant. This assessment compares your facility as described in. Docket No. 50-245 with the criteria currently used for licensing new facilities. This evaluation is based on the safety analysis produced by your letter dated August 31. 1981 as supplemented by letter dated December 14, 1981.
The topic evaluation has concluded that the Millstone 1 spent fuel storage system meets current acceptance criteria.
This evaluation will be a basic input to the integrated safety assess-Sg ment for your facility unless you identify changes needed to reflect 3
the as-built conditions at your facility. This assessment may be revised in the future if your facility design is changed or if NRC
//
criteria relating to this subject are modified before the integrated th d (yy) i assessment is completed.
ADO!
Sincerely, s.sWey l
y, 92at.ul1b James Shea, Project Manager Operating Reactors Branch No. 5 Division of Licensing l
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/ enclosure:
l See next page 8203170392 820309 PDR ADOCK 05000245 v ;,'s ",
.,. P PDR h1W s
~~ '
^
S.E..P..B...:.0..L.?.......
S..E.P.,B,.:.0D.......S.EPB...:.D.L.......
.O..R.B..#.5.. : Pt OR A: A:DL orrme>
..GP.N..lnj.... M q/
..Wange.),1.........g.h,g.g.,,
0,C,,,,,,,,,,f,ie,ld..Gk,@a s,,,,,,
1 su==c h
.1/.01/82.... l...../.W1d...
3/. 6/.82.......
. 34fl.8.i,.,.,.,.,.,,.31..{1.82........
. 3/.b.. / 82.........................
om>
unc ronu ais tio-aoi sscu o24o OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usw. mi-mua
Mr. W. G. Counsil Cc State of Connecticut William H. Cuddy, Esquire Office of Policy & Management Day, Berry & Howard ATTN: Under Secretary Energy Counselors at Law Division One Constitution Plaza 80 Washington Street Hartford, Connecticut 06103 Hartford, Connecticut 06115 Natural Resources Defense Council Ronald C. Haynes, Regional 917 15th Street, N. W Washington, D. C.
20005 Administrator Nuclear Regulatory Commission Northeast Nuclear Energy company Region I office 631 Park Avenue ATTN: Superintendent King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 Millstone Plant P. O. Box 128 Waterford, Connecticut 06385 Mr. Richard T. Laudenat Manager, Generation Facilities Licensing Northeast Utilities Service Company P. O. Box 270 Hartford, Connecticut 06101 Resident Inspector c/o U. S. NRC P. O. Box Drawer KK Niantic, Connecticut 06357 Waterford Public Library
-Rope Ferry Road, Route 156 Waterford, Connecticut 06385 i
First Selectman of the Town of Waterford Hall of Records 200 Boston Post Road Waterford, Connecticut 06385 John F. Opeka Systems Superintendent I
l Northeast Utilities Service Company l
P. O. Box 270 Hartford, Connecticut 06101 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region I Office ATTN: Regional Radiation Representative JFK Federal Building Boston, Massachusetts 02203
e SYSTEMATIC EVALUATION PROGRAM TOPIC IX-1 MILLSTONE 1 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 shield-ing, and structurrl 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.
!!I.
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 commensurate with their safety function.
SEP Topic III-4. A " Tornado Missiles" covers tornado missile protection of a number of structures and systems including fuel storage 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 Systers" assures that the ventilation systers have the capability to provide a safe environment for plant personn.1 and engineered safety features equipment.
s.
IV.
REVIEW GUIDELINES 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 August 31, 1981 and December 14, 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 currect requirements for spent fuel storage. Our evaluaticn is given below.
On July 15, 1976, the Commission issued Amendment No. 39 to Facility License No. DPR-21 for the Millstone 1 plant. The amendment permitted changes in the design of the spent fuel storage racks allowing spent fuel storage capacity to be increased from 1100 to 2184 fuel assemblies.
Since the existing fuel rack design remains the same as that reviewed and approved in the previous NRC safety evaluation for Amendment No.
39 our conclusions concerning the criticality analysis, rack structural, mechanical and material review, radiation level, nuclear thermal and hydraulic aspects and heat removal capability of the spent fuel pool cooling system remain valid.
The design of the storage pool includes a leak collection network behind the pool liner welds to detect and collect leakage through the welds, a pool water level monitoring systen, and radiation monitoring systems with indications and alarms. To preven; a 31gnificar.t 'oss of water from the storage pool, syphon breaks are provided on those segments of piping which enter the pool to prevent the water level from dropping below the safe shielding depth. These features satisfy the requirements of GDC 63, Monitoring Fuel and Waste Storage, and the guidelines of Regulatory Guide 1.13 Position C.6 and C.7.
. Normal makeup to the pool is from the condensate demineralizer system via the spent fuel pool cooling system. A backup makeup supply is provided by the fire protection system.
The fire protection system is capable of providing the maximum makeup requirement. Thus the guide-lines of Regulatory Guide 1.13 Position C.8 have been met.
Based on the above, we conclude that the spent fuel storage facility meets the requirements of GDC 61, 62 and 63 as related to radiation protection, prevention of criticality and monitoring provisions, and the guidelines of Regulatory Guide 1.13 regarding the facility design and is, therefore, acceptable.
In response to a staff request for additional information, the licensee stated that the spent fuel pool cooling system was not Seismic Category I, but that it was designed to meet the requirements of USAS 831.1.0, A major difference between USAS B31.1.0 predecessor to ANSI B31.1.
requirements and those shown in Regulatory Guide 1.26 (i.e., ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Section III Class 3 requirements) is that ASME Section III Class 3 requires documentation of the material requirements Con-and a prescribed nondestructive examination of the weld surfaces.
sidering the benign service conditions of the spent fuel pool cooling system as compared to primary coolant systems (also included in Regulatory Guide 1.26), the number of successful years of operation without de-ficiencies beccming manifest and the normal spread in the composition in materials we conclude that the Millstone 1 spent fuel pool cooling system is acceptable as it relates to Regulatory Guide 1.26.
The structural response of the Millstone 1 plant with respect to seismic capability has been reviewed and presented in NUREG/CR-2024, " Seismic Review of the Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. I as Part of the Systematic Evaluation Program." This review concluded that the reactor building structure (which houses the spent fuel pool and new fuel storage vault) has sufficient strength to withstand the postulated safe shutdown earthquake loads.
We therefore conclude that the spent fuel storage facility at Millstone 1 is acceptable with respect to the requirements of Standard Review Plan Sections 9.1.2 and 9.1.3.
Regarding new fuel storage, the new fuel storage area is located in the reactor 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.