ML20052G168

Forwards Safety Evaluation Supporting SEP Topic XV-20 Re Radiological Consequences of Fuel Handling Accidents

ML20052G168
Person / Time
Site:	Oyster Creek
Issue date:	05/12/1982
From:	Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Fiedler P JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT CO.
References
TASK-15-20, TASK-RR LSO5-82-05-022, LSO5-82-5-22, NUDOCS 8205140369
Download: ML20052G168 (7)

Text

...

04 4,[

(7 May 12,1982 i

s Docket No. 50-219 LS05-82-05-022 S

Ng N4y # g&g g

cj Mr. P. B. Fiedier Vice President and Director - Oyster Creek A

Oyster 0 eek Nuclear Generating Station

//

Post Office Box 388 Forked River, New Jersey 08731

'b 9

SUBJECT:

OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, SEP TOPIC XV-20, RADIOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCES OF FUEL HANDLING ACCIDENTS Enclosed is our draft Safety Evaluation Report (SER) for SEP Topic XV-20, Radiological Consequences of Fuel ibndling Accidents. This evaluation concludes that the design of the Oyster Creek Plant is acceptable for mitigating the consequences of this accident. Please review the facts contained in this report and provide your comments (if any) within 30 days of receipt of this letter.

The contents of this safety evaluation report will be a basic input to the integrated assessment fbr the Oyster Creek Plant. This topic i

assessment may be revised in the future if your facility design is changed or if NRC criteria relating to this topic are modified before the integrated assessment is completed.

Sincerely,

/

/ QQ)(flI (l$

.h*"**

(i u

i Dennis M. Crutchfield, Chief Operating Reactors Branch No. 5 j

Division of Licensing i

i

Enclosure:

As stated See next page hp QN cc w/ enclosure:

Ci l

[

8205140369 820512 l

PDR ADOOK 05000219 i

P PDR

• See previous yellow for additional concurrences.

M

. OF FICL)$

SEPB:DL SEPB :DL SEPB :DL ORB #5:PM B

A:DL 4.C i

l

- - < >....Re.ud.h.*.. Car.i.m.e s *

..H.Ru s s e,11,*

,,,J Lom ba r,do *,,,,,,,,,,,,W i,@,,,,,,,, n,a s.,

onn>

.. 41211A2......4 /. 2ll.G 2............ 41211.62......... 51.31B2...........100i.C2...

.....li/\\QlW.

_.f..FICI A L R ECO R D CO PY.___._____________-m,o O

ucc m ini nac ronu sis oow ancu oao

~

r Docket No. 50-219 LS05 -.

Mr. P. B. Fiedler Vice President and Director - Oyster Creek Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Post Office Box 388 Forked River, New Jersey 08731

SUBJECT:

OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, SEP TOPIC XV-20 RADIOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCES OF FUEL HANDLING ACCIDENTS Enclosed is our Safety Evaluation Report (SER) for SEP Topic XV-20 Radiological Consequences of Fuel Handling Accidents. This evaluation concludes that the design of the Oyster Creek Plant is acceptable for mitigating the consequences of this accident. Please P.eview this report and provide your comments (if any) within 30 days of receipt of this letter.

The contents of this safety evaluation report will be a basic input to the integrated assessment for the Oyster Creek Plant. This topic assessment may be revised in the future if your facility design is changed or if NRC criteria relating to this topic are modified before the integrated assessment is completed.

Sincerely, Dennis M. Crutchfield, Chief Operating Reactors Branch No. 5 Division of Licensing

Enclosure:

As stated cc w/ enclosure:

See next page

,,S E.PBdQ[,,,0RB,#,5 I

.E,PB,,h, SEPB 0,R,B # 5,,,,,,,,,,,,,

AD:SA,:DL S

omcry sunsaur) R Fe,l l : d.k.....

C.G. r..i m e s....

.... W..Russ ell JLombar DCrutchfield Glainas f.l.? /.82,,,,,,,,,,,,4/

/,82,,,

,/f}](,8,2,,,,[,/,g,/,8,,

.. 4

,, /,,,,/,82

/ /82 oan >

NRC FORM 318 (10-80) NRCM 0240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY use. m

- m.eo I

g

.s Mr. P. B. Fiedler cc G. F. Trowbridge, Esquire Resident Inspector Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trewbridge c/o U. S. NRC 1800 M Street', N. W.

Post Office Box 445 Washington, D. C.

20036 Forked River, New Jersey 08731 J. B. Lieberman, Esquire Commissioner Berlack, Israels & Lieberman New Jersey Department of Energy 26 Br6adway 101 Commerce Street New York, New York 10004 Newark, New Jersey 07102 Ronald C. Haynes, Regional Administrator Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region I 631' Park Avenue King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 J.. Knubel BWR Licensing Manager

~

GPU Nuclear 100 Interplace Parkway Parsippany, New Jersey 07054

"~

Deputy Attorney General ~

State of New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety 36 West State Street - CN 112 Trenton, New Jersey 08625 Mayor Lacey Township 818 Lacey Road Forked fiver, New Jersey 08731 U. S. Environmental. Protection Agency Region II Office ATTN:

Regional Radiation Representative 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10007 Licensing Supervisor

~

Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Post Office Box 388 Forked River, New Jersey 08731 6

g

w Q,

0YSTER CREEK.

~

XV-20 RADIOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCES OF FUEL DAMAGING ACCIDENTS

1. INTRODUCTION The safety objective of this topic is to assure that the offsite doses from fuel damaging accidents as a result of fuel handlina within the seco~nd-ary containment are well within the guideline value of 10 CFR Part 100.

II. REVIEW CRITERIA Section 50.34 of 10 CFR Part 50, " Contents of Applications:

Technical Information," requires that each applicant for a construction pemit or operating license provide an analysis and evaluation of the design and performance of structures, systems, and components of the facility with the objective of assessing the risk to public health and safety resulting.from operation of the ' facility. A fuel handling accident in the fuel handling and storage facility resulting in damage to fuel cladding and subsequent release of radioactive material is one of the postulated accidents used to evaluate the adequacy of t' ese structures, systems, and components with h

respect to the public health and safety.

In addition,10 CFR Part 100 provides the acceptable dose consequences for siting of nuclear power plants.

III. RELATED SAFETY TOPICS Topic Il-2.C " Atmospheric Transport and Diffusion Characteristics for Accident Analysis" provides the meteorological data used for calculating y

I the offiste dose consequences.

/

l y

s The review of the fuel damaging accidents did not consider fuel damage as a result of drops of the spent fuel cask or other heavy objects which can be carried either over an open reactor vessel or the spent fuel pool. Review of the drops of casks and heavy objects is covered in two SEP Topics, IX-2,

' Overhead Handling Systems-Cranes" and XV-21, " Spent Fuel Cask Drop Accidents".

IV. REVIEW GUIDELINES Accidents involving spent fuel within the secondary containment were reviewed following the assumptions and procedures outlined in Standard Review Plan (SRP) Section 15.7.4 and Regulatory Guide 1.25.

The dose to an individual from a postulated fuel handling accident should be "well

^

within" thi exposure guidelines of 10 CFR Part 100.

"Well within" the guidelines of 10 CFR Part 100 has been defined as less than 75 rem to the thyroid.

(Whole body doses are also examined but are not controlling due to the decay of the short-lived radioisotopes prior to fuel handling.) This is based on the probability of this event relative to other events which are evaluated against'10 CFR Part 100 exposure guidelines. The review considers single failure, seismic design and equipment qualification only when the potential co.nsequences might exceed the guidelines of 10 CFR Part 100 in the absence of containment isolation and effluent filtration.

l l

l t

(

t 1

y.

. V.

EVALUATION In the evaluation of the fuel handling accident, the data used by the staff is based on the Oyster Creek Final Environmental Report and on information provided by the licensee through telephone exchanges. The staff assumed that a single fuel assenbly is dropped in to the fuel pool during refueling operations and that all of the fuel rods in the assenbly are damaged, releasing radioactive materials in the fuel gaps into the. pool. The radioactive material that would escape from the pool was then assumed to be released over a two-hour period with most of the iodine activity reduced by ESF-grade filtration system. The analysis was performed using the guide-lines and requirements of SRP 15.7.4 and Regulatory Guide 1.25.

The list of assumptions and parameters used in the analysis is given in Table XV-20-1.

VI. CONCLUSION The offsite thyroid and whole body doses at the Exclusion Area Boundary for the postulated fuel handling accident are 0.6 rem and 0.3 rem, respectively.

'The doses at the low population zones would be lower. These doses are well within the guideline values given in 10 CFR Part 100. The staff concludes that this system is acceptable in mitigating the consequences of the fuel handling accident.

we 4

TABLE XV-20-1 Fuel Handling Accident Dose Assumptions Power Level, MWT 1930 Radial Peaking Factor 2.55 Decay time, hours' 100 Number of fuel assemblies affected 1

Number of fuel assemblies in core 560 Activity release period, hours 2

Filtration efficiency, %

99 Iodine deco'ntamination factor in pool 100_

X/Q sec/m3 (0-2 hour, EAB) 7.6E-4 9

4 e

e e

w-..--

-.