ML20236H065

Forwards Request for Addl Info Re Spent Fuel Consolidation at Facility

ML20236H065
Person / Time
Site:	Millstone
Issue date:	10/30/1987
From:	Jaffe D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Mroczka E NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY CO.
References
TAC-65274, NUDOCS 8711030413
Download: ML20236H065 (4)

Text

_ _ _ - .

October 30, 1987 Docket No.: 50-336 Mr. Edward J. Mroczka Senior Vice President Nuclear' Engineering and Operations f Northeast Nuclear Energy Company P. O. Box 270 Hartford, Connecticut 06141-0270

SUBJECT:

MILLSTONE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT NO. 2 SPENT FUEL CONSOLIDATION PROCESS (TAC NO. 65274)

We are in the: process of reviewing spent fuel consolidation for Millstone Unit 2.

Please respond to the enclosed request for additional information within 60 days following' receipt of this letter.

This request for additional information affects fewer than 10 respondents; therefore, OMB clearance is not required under P. L.96-511.

Sincerely,

}n

\\'[L//Mn f DavidH.paffe,Ph'jectManager Project Directorate I-4 DivisionofReactorProjectsI/II

Enclosure:

4 Request for Additional Information I

(

DISTRIBUTION M iet-File %

NRC & Local PDRs {'

PDI-4. Reading S. Varga  ;

B. Boger l S. Norris j D. Jaffe 1 R. Ferguson  !

J. Stolz OGC-Bethesda ],

E. Jordan g711030413h,M36 ADoc% pop l

J. Partlow PDR ACRS(10) P (

[ Gray File) I cc: Plant Service List i LAPDI-4 / P 4

/ Q PDI W SFr7 DJa f;e:cd d JStolb ~.-

10/47/87 10/19I87 10/p/87 1

a _ __ - )

f

,/ ,

Mr. E. J. Mroczka .

Millstone Nuclear Power Station

- Northeast Nuclear Energy Company- Unit No. 3 cc:

Gerald Garfield, Esq. Ms. Jane Spector Day, Berry & Howard Federal Energy Regulatory Connission -

City Place 825 N. Capitol Street, NE Hartford, Connecticut, 06103-3499 Room 8608C- 4 Washington, D.C. 20426 Mr Mau ce R.'Scully, Executive Connecticut Nunicipal . Electric Radiation Control Unit ,

Energy Cooperative Department of Environmental Protection '

268 Thomas Road State Office Building  !

Groton, Connecticut 06340' Hartford, Connecticut 06 M Robert W. Bishop, Esq. Burlington Electric Department Corporate Secretary c/o Robert E. Fletcher, Esq. 1 Northeast Utilities 271 South Union Street Post Office Box 270 Burlington, Vermont 05402 Hartford, Connecticut 06141 Mr. W1111am J. Raymond Senior Resident Inspector Office -

U. S. Nuclear _ Regulatory Commission N111 stone III P. O. Box 811 Niantic, Connecticut 06357-08

-Mr Michael L. Jones, Manager Project Managenent Department

, Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Company Post Office Box 426 l 1

Ludlow., Massachusetts 01056 i Regional Administrator j

- U. S. N_RC, Region I 631 Park Avenue }

King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 j Mr. Karl Abraham  !

Public Affairs Office, Region I U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, l King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 i l

i

_________m

1 REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION l 10 CFR 50.59 EVALUATION OF THE SPENT FUEL CONSOLIDATION PROCESS MILLSTONE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT N0. 2 DOCKET h0. 50-336 In order to complete our review of the ifcensee's 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation of the spent fuel consolidation process at H111 stone Nuclear Power Station, Unit l No. 2, the staff finds that additional infomation is required as indicated i below. The licensee may provide separate responses to these requests, or may refer to prevfous documentation to complete their response as appropriate.

1. The evaluation of August 11, 1987 indicates that a 3x3 temporary storage J

~

rack will be used for both inhet and consolidated spent fuel. It is the j staff's understanding that this rack was not included in the staff review

{

of consolidated spent fuel storage authorized in the recent Technical i Specification change approval. Provide , justification for use of this l rack to safely store consolidated spent fuel and indicate if such an 1 action will affect the existing technical specification. If so, propose : l the nece~ssary technical specification change.

l

. J. Ac'c ording to the evaluation, the existing spent fuel pool platfom crane will be used fer moving consolidated fuel storage boxes from the cask lay down area to the spent fuel pool. As the weight of a loaded consolidated l fuel box is greater than the design capacity of the crane, explain in i detail how the crane will be requalified for this heavy loads handling l procedure. l

3. Provide more detailed information regarding the criticality sensitivity I analysis performed to detemine the minimum number of fuel rods that can be placed in the consolidated fuel storage box in order to meet the rack K,ff limit of 0.95. Consider both cases with and without the blocking device installed in the rack locations.

1 If, for any reason, the storage box cannot be loaded up to the minimum allowed content, indicate what actions you have considered to ensure that k gff limits are maintained.

4. The seismic analyses consider the maximum tipping displacement of the temporary and other storage racks. Yerify that the analysis for partially loaded racks has considered the case where all the cells along one edge of the racks have been loaded with conso11 dated fuel boxes while the other ce11s are empty. Confirm that unacceptable tipping of the rack will not occur. ,

in addition, provide information regarding the exact locations of ,

the feet of the racks with respect to the outermost storage et11s. l

5. Provide more detailed information to ensure that after pulling a row of rods from a spent fuel assembly with the multiple rod pulling tool (MPRT) that ne rod will slip .or drop f;om the grip of the tml. If for somo  !

reason (e.g., bent rod, awing, int, tTids caused by forced cooli,ng flow in the work area, etc.), the roos Tn the MRPT cannot be deposited in the interim transfer canster (ITC) channels, indicate what actions would be ,

taken during the consolidation process.

]

t It is the staff's understanding from your evaluation that rods from one assembly will be deposited into the ITC and then those rods wf11 be moved from the ITC to a conso11 dated fuel storage box. If so, provide more detaUtd information about the inner structure of the box which avoids  ;

movement or crossing of reds withib th'e box yhen the rods from j the second fuel assembly are inserted in the box. Describe the sequence  !

l of actions when loading the rods from the second assembly in to the box.  !

6. In Section 1.2 of the evaluation, permanent changes to the plant j resulting from the fuel conso'idation program are identified. Explain l

fn more detail the following: l i

e) repositioning of the brackets that support the level switch f and temperature elements in the spent fuel pool.  !

' i b) the meaning of "the north " sweep" plates on the spent fuel j pool fuel handling machine must be partially coped out." )

7. In Section 7.2 of the evaluation, it is stated " fuel consolidation may i be performed continuously... if the water temperature in the cask lay '

i down area does not exceed 120*F." Provide information on the following: l

{

a) how was this temperature Ifmit established? i l

b) what is the temperature difference in cooling water between the 1 lower inlet and upper outlet of the conso11 dated box in the work area. ,

8. Provide information concerning the visual or other inspections of the assembly to be consolidated in order to assure that no damaged rods will be pulled from the assembly. l l

9. Provide infomation on the plans to test or demonstrate proper operation  !

of the consolidation equipment and procedures in their actual configuration prior to beginning the conso11dation of spent fuel. j

20. After removing the upper end fitting and fuel rods from the spent fuel  !

assembly, provide infomation on how the end fittings, grid cages  ;

and control guide tubes are lif'ted to their respective work station. l Describe in more detail the compacting of the grfd cages and control {

guide tubes including related operator exposure radiological i considerations end how the compacted radioactive items will be stored.

11. Concerning the filtration system, provide more detailed infomation on how the system is designed to avoid the dispersion of fuel pellets and j other " heavy" debris in the pool area should any rods break during the <

consolidation process.

5

12. The process and equipment descriptions included in your evaluation appear {

to indicate that the planned rod consolidation involves new technology. ,

Provide references to earlier consolidation tests or enerfence which l supports a conclusion of proven technology. I i

l

--