ML20197A552

Forwards Request for Addl Info Based on Review of Re Proposed Spent Fuel Pool Expansion

ML20197A552
Person / Time
Site:	Vermont Yankee
Issue date:	10/22/1986
From:	Rooney V Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Capstick R VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORP.
References
NUDOCS 8610270313
Download: ML20197A552 (6)

Text

.

• October 22, 1986 Distribution W Docket No. 50-271 TDocket File JPartlow NRC & L PDRs NThompson Branch Files RBernero OGC-Bethesda Mr. R. W. Capstick ACRS (10)

Licensing Engineer SNorris Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power .VRooney Corporation EJordan 1671 Worchester Road BGrimes Framingham, Massachusetts 01701

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION - SPENT FUEL P00L EXPANSION Re: Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station We are reviewing your proposed spent fuel pool expansion submitted by letter dated April 25, 1986 in which you requested that we complete our review by mid-November. We find that we need additional information to complete our review. The enclosed questions were telecopied to you on October 2, 1986, and we request that you provide responses as soon as possible so that our review may proceed on a schedule consistent with your request.

The reporting and/or recordkeeping requirements contained in this letter affect fewer than ten respondents; therefore, OMB clearance is not requirej under P.L.96-511.

Sincerely, l c;ty ' .s.mi b{

Vernon L. Rooney, Project Manager BWR Project Directorate #2 Division of BWR Licensing

Enclosure:

As stated cc: w/ enclosure See next page DBL:PD#2 - BL:PD#2 o DB ; M Sh VRooney:jch D ler 10/,U/86 10/p/86 10/M /86 8610270313 DR 861022 ADOCK 05000271 PDR

- - - - _.-__m__ _,_..__,.__.__,._ ,,_ __ ._ ,__ m, , - - , , . , _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _m_ .,___._ __. . _ _ __ , . - _ ,_ . . _ .

Mr. R. W. Capstick Vemont Yankee Nuclear Power Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation Station cc:

Mr. J. G. We15and Mr. W. P. Murphy, Vice President &

President & Chief Executive Officer Manager of Operations Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp.

R. D. 5, Box 169 R. D. 5, Box 169 Ferry Road Ferry Road Brattleboro, Vermont 05301 Brattleboro, Vermont 05301 Mr. Donald Hunter, Vice President Mr. Gerald Tarrant, Comissioner Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. Vermont Department of Public Service 1671 Worcester Road 120 State Street Framingham, Massachusetts 01701 Montpelier, Vermont 05602 New England Coalition on Public Service Board Nuclear Pollution State of Vemont Hill and Dale Farm 120 State Street R. D. 2, Box 223 Montpelier, Vermont 05602 Putney, Vermont 05346 Vermont Yankee Decomissioning Mr. Walter Zaluzny Alliance Chaiman, Board of Selectman Box 53 .

Post Office Box 116 Montpelier, Vermont 05602-0053 Vernon, Vermont 05345 Resident Inspector Mr. J. P. Pelletier, Plant Manager U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Vemont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. Post Office Box 176 Post Office Box 157 Vernon, Vermont 05354 Vernon, Vermont 05354 Vermont Pubite Interest Mr. Raymond N. McCandless Research Group, Inc.

Vermont Division of Occupational 43 State Street Montpelier, Vermont 05602

& Radiological Health Administration Building 10 Baldwin Street Regional Administrator, Region I Montpelier, Vemont 05602 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 631 Park Avenue Honorable John J. Easton King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 Attorney General State of Vermont 109 State Street Montpelier, Vermont 05602 John A. Ritscher, Esquire Ropes & Gray 225 Franklin Street Boston, Massachusetts 02110

ENCLOSURE REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR VERMON RELATING TODOCKET HIGHNO. DENSITY 50-271 RACK - SPENT FUEL POOL E

" Vermont Yankee Spent Fuel Storage Rack Replacement Report"

Reference:

April 1986.

1.

Describe, in some detail, the procedure that will be used for d (1) removal of the fuel assemblies from the present racks, (2) removal an disposal of the racks themselves, (i.e., The crating intac drumming), ks with the presently stored spent fuel assemblies.

the new rac description should include, step by step, the number of people involve in each step of the procedure, including divers if they are found to be necessary, the dose rate they will be exposed to, the operation.

2.

Demonstrate that the method used for removal and disposal of the old racks will result in ALARA exposures.

3.

Discuss the build-up of crud along the sides of the pool and the remo methods that will be used to reduce radiation levels at the edge of the pool to ALARA levels.

4.

Identify the radiation monitoring systems that willsystems The monitoring be used,in and indica their locations in the spent fuel pool area. h question are those which are to provide a warning to the personnel ever the area radiation levels increase inadvertently to preset alarm trigger levels.

5. Specify the present dose rate in occupied areas outside the pool concrete shield wall.of this dose rate if the space between the sp shield wall is reduced due to the proposed modification.

6.

Provide a summary estimate of the projected The changes estimatesin environmen doses resulting from the spent fuel pool modification. This also should include annual, as well as total plant life doses.

should include an estimate of the potential amoun 7.

Describe the estimated changes in the spent fuel pool filter dose rates, if any.

8.

Indicate the depth of spent fuel pool water which normally will lie over stored-in-place fuel elements, and provide the resulting pool surface dose rates for this condition.

9.

Relative to the proposed rerack modification, describe how an ALARA design review was conducted and documented.The description should include of Regulatory Guide 8.8 were met.available examples of how the to help assure that post-modification operation and main would be ALARA.

p, program that will be applied during spent fuel pool operation.

10.

Provide the number of fuel bundles and cycle length (annual or 18 month) for each reloao from the first operating cycle until the spent fuel pool is full (2,870 fuel bundles).

11.

The submittal identifies compliance with the guidelines of Branch Techni-cal Position ASE 9-2, but does not identify compliance with Standard Verify compliance with the guidelines of Review Plan Section 9.1.3.

Standard review Plan Section 9.1.3 and in particular with the specified uncertainc # actor.

In the spent fuel cooling analysis, the submittal specifies the assumed For operating time for the fuel is 16,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br />. This.is not correct.

1?.

the annual refueling case the power operating time should Provide be 35,040 thehours and for the 18 month fuel cycle should be 39,420 hours0.00486 days <br />0.117 hours <br />6.944444e-4 weeks <br />1.5981e-4 months <br />.

results of a revised analysis esing the correct power operating times.

(Note: a capacity factor maybe applied if adequate justification for the selected value is provided.)

13. Provide a discussion of the capability of the service water system to renove the increased heat load associated with the increased storage capability vithout raising the RBCCWS water temperature above 85 F for -

the worst heat load conditions.

la. Provide the following information for each spent fuel pool cooling system heat exchancer.

c.1 Tuoe surface area (square feet) b)

Overall conductance (BTU /sq-ft-Hr *F) c) Design flow rates for

1) Spent fuel pool water (Lbs/ hour)

2) RBCCWS water (Lbs/ hour)

15. Provide a discussion of when and how the numbers provided in response to s question 14 were verified by actual performance testing.

16. Provide the design details of the spent fuel pool cooling system heat exchangers.

17. Provide a discussion as to the design features of the spent fuel pool cooling system related to meeting the single failure criterion with the spent fuel storage facility filled with normal refueling and maintaining

-the pool water temperature at less than 140*F.

Based on

18. Provide the proposed changes to the Technical Specifications.

the submittal indicating that the spent fuel pool cooling system is under sized, provide a consnitment in the proposed Technical Specification modification to require the facility to be in cold shutdown conditions prior to aligning a loop of RHR for cooling the spent fuel pool.

......-~.-., -

7 .

g 19.

Provide the spent fuel cooling capability model which was used to verify adequate natural circulation along with the detailed assumptions h Generaland inputs. . For each input / assumption which is not identical to t e Electric Company's fuel analysis for licensing the fuel, provide th input / assumption used is conservative.

20. Provide design drawings of the rack modules.

21.

Provide the fuel loading pattern in the spent fuel pool showing each reload with each bundle's equivalent full power operatinc time in hours.

22.

Provide the results cf a vector velocity analysis which demonstrates that each bundle will receive adequate flow for the fuel loading pattern specified in response to question 21 with respect to the spent fuel po water return lines.

receive adequate flow independently of the fuel loading pattern.

23.

Provide drawings showing the proposed exact routing and water distribution l system within the spent fuel storage facility. .

24 Provide a discussion as to why ignoring the downcomer effects in theIf the fuel is stored in vacant fuel storage locations is conservative.

black and white pattern, ignoring the vacant storage locations may not be conservative.

25.

Verify that the reactor building bridge crane, the lifting and handling rigs, and all special handling tools are single failure proof.

26. Verify that the attachment to the new and existing racks are single failure proof.

27. For every iten which has not been identified as single i failure proof, provide the following information.

a)

Detailed drawings of the component and the method and location of attachment (s).

b)

The design and the actual stress factors to be applied during re-racking operations, c)

A discussion as to the purpose (s) and use(s) of the component.

d)

A discussion of the component testing and inspection and frequency sof each.

e) A discussion of the results and effects of the failure of the component at the most adverse time and the protective actions which will be taken te prevent fuel damage or damage to safety-related structures, systems and components.

'~'

en '

f) Provide a discussion of the proposed methods to verify that no damage has resulted to the pool liner, the fuel storage racks, or other safety-related structures, systems, or components as the result of the failure of this component.

28. Provide drawines which shew:

a) The arrangement of the spent fuel in the pool when each existing rack is being removed and each new rack is being installed.

b) The sequence of each rack removal and installation of each new rack.

c) The path which each rack will follow within the pool, within the reactor building, and within any other area until the rack is outside of all safety-related structures.

d)

The maximum height that each rack will be lifted >bove -he surface below, related systems e) The relationship of each load path to other safet and components and to embedded structural beams b

nin each surface oser which the rack will pass.

29. For the spent fuel pool, and any other body of rater over which the racks may pass, provide the results cf an analysis of dropping the rack at its maximum carrying height. The results should address the effects of splashing water out of the pool, impact effects en the pool liner at its wetkest point (at the leakage detection traces),

and impact on other fuel storage racks.

30. Verify that if the rack were to fall er its side that no fuel would be impacted.

31. Verify that all operator training, load handling procedures, and eye testing of operators will be in conformance with NUREG-0612. " Control of Heavy Loads at Nuclear Power Plants."

,