L-87-519, Responds to NRC Request for Addl Info Re Util 870612 Request for License Amend.Util Requested to Address 10CFR51.52 Concerning Environ Effects of Transportation of Fuel & Waste for Proposed Rerack of Spent Fuel Pool

Responds to NRC Request for Addl Info Re Util 870612 Request for License Amend.Util Requested to Address 10CFR51.52 Concerning Environ Effects of Transportation of Fuel & Waste for Proposed Rerack of Spent Fuel Pool

ML17221A569
Person / Time
Site:	Saint Lucie
Issue date:	12/21/1987
From:	Woody C FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM)
References
L-87-519, NUDOCS 8712300245
Download: ML17221A569 (13)

Text

REQUL*T INFORi fATION DISTRIBUTION STEN (RIDS) t ACCESSION NHR:8712300245 DOC. DATE: 87/12/21 NOTARIZED:

NO FACIL: 50;335 St.

Lucie Planti Unit 1I Florida Power 8c Light Co.

AUTH. MANE AUTHOR AFFILIATION WOODYe C. O.

Florida Power Zc Light Co.

REC IP. MANE RECIPIENT AFFILIATION Document Control Branch (Document Control Desk)

SUBJECT:

Forwards responsei addressing'10CFR51.

52 re environ effects of transportation of fuel Cc waste per NRC request for infoI util 870612 proposed license amend to peYmit replacement of spent fuel pool racks.

DISTRIBUTION CODE:

AOOID COPIES RECEIVED: LTR ENCL i

SIZE: 9 TITLE:

OR Submittal:

General Distribution DOCKET 0 05000335 NOTES:

RECIPIENT ID CODE/NANE PD2-2 L*

TOURIGNYi E INTERNAL: ARM/DAF/LFNB NRR/DEST/CEB NRR/DEST/RSB NR~

RH E

01 COPIES LTTR ENCL 1

0 1

1 0

1 1

1 1

1 1

RECIPIENT ID CODE/NANE PD2-2 PD NRR/DEST/ADS NRR/DEST/NTH NRR/DOEA/TSH OGC/HDS2 RES/DE/E IB COPIES LTTR ENCL 5

5 1

1 1

1 1

0 1

1 EXTERNAL:

LPDR NSIC 1

1 1

1 NRC PDR 1

1 TOTAL NUNHER OF COPIES REQUIRED:

LTTR 20 ENCL 17 r

I'

\\

0 PI

'l lit P'

P. O.

)X 14000, JUNO BEACH, FL 33408.0420

+I/y~

~~en~~

OEGEMag 2 1 ~1987 L-87-5 I 9 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document Control Desk Washington, D.C. 20555 Gentlemen:

Re:

St. Lucie Unit I Docket No. 50-335 Spent Fuel Pool Rerack - Environmental Effects of Trans ortation of Fuel and Waste By letter L-87-245, dated June l2, l987, Florida Power 8c Light Company (FPL) submitted a proposed license amendment to permit replacement of the spent fuel pool racks at St. Lucie Unit I to ensure that sufficient future capacity exists for storage of spent fuel.

In conversation between the NRC and FPL, the NRC Staff requested FPL address IO CFR 5I.52 concerning the environmental effects of transportation of fuel and waste as related to the rerack of the St. Lucie Unit I spent fuel pool.

Attached is FPL's response to this request.

Ifadditional information is required, please contact us.

Very truly yours, C. O. Wo Execut'ce President COW/EJW/gp Attachment cc:

Dr. J. Nelson Grace, Regional Administrator, Region II, USNRC Senior Resident Inspector, USNRC, St. Lucie Plant B71 2300245 871221 PDR ADOCK,.0S000335 PDR 2JW I /03 I/ I an FPL GrouP company

Il Ia b

I I

wa I bit l ~ ~

a I

If, a*

I J I

I w

H I

Il

~ I 4

I I

f,',

a

~

I' H

I'

~

ll p

~

fl r

Haa af

~

w, Il I

I

~ w KH

Attachment St. Lucie Unit I

10 CFR 51.52 - "Environmental Effects of Transportation of Fuel and Waste" By letter L-87-245, dated June 12, 1987, Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) submitted a request to replace the spent fuel pool racks at St. Lucie Unit I to ensure sufficient future capacity exists for storage of spent fuel.

As discussed in 10 CFR 51.52, environmental reports prepared for construction permits for light-water-cooled reactors submitted after February 4, 1975 are required to contain a statement concerning transportation of fuel and radioactive wastes to and from the reactor.

FPL submitted its application for a construction permit for St. Lucie Unit I in January 1969.

The Staff's Final Environmental Statement related to the operation of St. Lucie Unit I was issued in June 1973.

The following summary discusses the six conditions of paragraph (a) of 10 CFR 51.52 concerning the transportation of fuel and radioactive wastes to and from the St. Lucie Unit I reactor.

I)

The current reactor core thermal power for St. Lucie Unit I

is 2700 megawat ts.

2)

The proposed maximum enrichment in Uranium - 235 for the St. Lucie Unit I fuel assemblies is 4.5 weight percent (w/o).

Although the proposed enrichment limit exceeds the value in 10 CFR 51.52 paragraph (a) (2), the higher enrichment can be shown to have a negligible effect on the environment during transportation to and from the reactor.

With the higher enrichment, and corresponding improved fuel utilization, the total number of fuel assemblies loaded into the core over plant life decreases.

This reduces the number of shipments to the site and so the environmental impact due to the unirradiated fuel remains unchanged or decreases.

ln summary:

II~

There is no change in heat output with higher enrichment fuel assemblies.

The weight of the fuel assembly will remain essentially the same irrespective of enrichment.

I I I ~

With the decrease in number of fresh fuel shipments, the expected radiation dose effects to the transport workers as well as the general public become less than the already small effects.

EJW I /031/2

t II

~ I I

v r

I I'h

~

I, v

I I

" II tt lt I'I'

~.

~

V

~ I I I

I-I

~

~

(

I'l lI, I

IV r

ll

,v II III

~

I l

~

w

'l I

I tf v VV E

~ I tlI',I I

I

~

~ ~

I' I

I I I

II

(

I

'I

~

I ~

IIV I ~ ~ I I

il I

It I

If v

I* ~ I 'll r 'I IV I I It

~ If IIII/ I I.

I I'DI ~

~

l.v

~ 'I'( CI I

I I

- I

iv.

The probability of a transportation accident resulting in a nuclear criticality is not credible due to the characteristics of the fuel assembly and the design of the containers to prevent criticality. Since licensed fresh fuel assembly containers satisfy this regulatory criticality requirement, the probability of radiological releases during transportation continue to remain low for fuel of higher enrichment.

The radiological impact pertaining to the transportation of irradiated 4.5 w/o U-235 fuel assemblies is mainly due to the burnup at the time of discharge (due to fission product buildup) rather than by initial enrichment.

As is discussed below, the effective levels of radioactivity for the expected discharge burnups can be shown to be less limiting than the 33,000 MWD/MTUassumed in 10CFR 5I.52 (a)

(3) based on the cooling period used prior to offsite shipment.

3)

The current average level of irradiation of the St. Lucie Unit l fuel assemblies is less than 42,000 megawatt-days per metric ton (MWD/MTU) and the cooling period after it is discharged from the reactor prior to transportation will be at least l20 days.

Although the average burnup level of the St. Lucie Unit l fuel assemblies exceeds the value in 10 CFR 5l.52(a)(3), the additional cooling period before shipment reduces the significance of the higher average burnup.

Based on the current progress in the development of a high level waste repository, most fuel assemblies,

'will have decayed for several years prior to transportation.

The effective levels of radioactivity of a fuel assembly with an average burnup of 42,000 MWD/MTU that has cooled several years, can be shown to be less than a fuel assembly with an average burnup of 33,000 MWD/MTUthat has cooled for 90 days.

4)

With the exception of irradiated fuel, all radioactive waste shipped from the reactor is packaged and in solid form.

5)

Unirradiated fuel is shipped to the reactor by truck; irradiated fuel will be shipped from the reactor either by truck, rail, or barge; and radioactive waste other than irradiated fuel is shipped from the reactor by truck or rail.

6)

The Final Environmental Statement (FES) for St. Lucie Unit l assumed a

core reload (i.e. 72 fuel elements per the FES) each year during normal operation.

By February l987, St. Lucie Unit I had completed seven fuel cycles which leads to an average fuel cycle of over l7 months.

I EJW I /03 l /3

1

"'fh' 4

4 I

I 4

d It V il vlf 4

f 1

a q

av 4

f illy h

H h

It I,

M v

i

~ f

• 4 U

, fhf il oi'), ii,J

'4 'y df

~ itl ii I IC I ~ ),

~

It

~

I Vt aa 4

I 1

-k d Ir I

ii a

h y

v ~

I C

H I

h h

H d

g X

fi hvf I

Ct',

~ 4

~

4 II I"

I I

I'f vtlv i

va Cht 1

Ld h

Chit I

C.

~ 'lI 4

I 4

~

I a

a

~I f.ft' it

~

E 4

v lime I= ~,

th 4

Ir 4

1 h

I Mvv I

r

~

~

k

~t,h I,

fC 44

~

v If)J lfv 4'

I 1

1 ht 4

II g

~

I M

y

. Mff fit I ha* v

~

E itvf I

)

C ~

I I-144 4

ga

- I v

a 4

a

~ H"

~

44 I

ii 4

1 lt H II I

I' If

~

ll 4

~

ll h,I a h

~

'I

~

II'.I H

~

ti ~ I >>

I't 1

I i

~ M

~

a l'f v

I I vh a.

4 d

4

~

Hh v 4\\

il il 4"

4 k it) 4 4 tf

December 16, 1987

, D.IST.R IBUTION

'.~t, i P~, Ws,~

D.

1>lier w/encl.

E. Tourigny w/encl.

DOCKET NO(S). 50 335 and 50-389 t1r.

C. 0. Hoody Group Vice Presidqnt Nuclear Energy FLorida Power and Light Company Post Office Box 14000 Juno Beach, Florida 33408

SUBJECT:

ST.

LUCIE UNITS 1

AND 2 The following documents concerning our review of the subject facility are transmitted for your information.

Notice of Receipt of Application, dated Draft/Final Environmental Statement, dated Notice of Availability of Draft/Final Environmental Statement, dated Safety Evaluation Report, or Supplement No.

dated Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact, dated Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Facility Operating License or Amendment to Faci1 ity Operating

License, dated

[jQ Bi-Weekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, dated ~~87

[see page(8) j Exemption, dated Construction Permit No.

CPPR-

, Amendment No.

dated Facility Operating License No.

, Amendment No.

dated Order Extending Construction Completion Date, dated Monthly Operating Report for transmitted by letter dated Annual/Semi-Annual Report-transmitted by letter dated

Enclosures:

As stated Division of Reactor Projects-k/II.

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation See next page OFslcKtI! L P

sURNAMKtI!Dl!

r o g

/lF/8 NRC FORM 3IS IIOI80)NRCM0240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

/

I y

December 12, 1987 Docket No. 50-335 Nr. C. 0. Moody, Group Vice President Nuclear Energy Florida Power and Light Company P.O.

Box 14000 Juno Beach, Florida 33408

Dear Hr. Woody:

DISTRIBUTION NRC PDR Local PDR ETourigny PD22 Reading TViurley/JSniezek FYiiraglia HBerkow GLainas Dhii 1 ler NHum F.. Jordan J. Partlow SVarga T. Barnhart (4)

ACRS (10)

GPA/PA ARI'3/LFMB OGC-Bethesda

SUBJECT:

RELIEF FROM INSERVICE INSPECTION REQUIREh>ENTS OF ASIDE CODE SECTION XI (TAC NO. 48622)

By letter dated October 29,

1986, you requested relief from various examination requirements of the ASHE Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI for the St. Lucie Plant, Unit No. 1.

Your submittal was supplemented by letter dated January 21, 1987.

By letter dated May 4,

1987, we informed you of our disposi-tion of Relief Request Ho. 8, and stated that our review of your ~emaining relief requests would be the subject of future correspondence.

Me have now completed our review of the remaining relief requests.

Based upon the results of our review, we have determined that the remaining relief requests can be granted.

Details concerning the relief requests and our evaluation of them are contained in the enclosed Safety Evaluation.

For the subject reliefs, we have determined that the Code requirements are impractical and the granting of reliefs is authorized by law and will not endanger life or property or the cottmon defense and security and are otherwise in the public interest, giving due consideration to the burden upon the licensee that could result if the Code requirements were imposed on the faci lity.

The requests for relief comply with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Corrmission's rules and regulations.

The reliefs from certain requirements of AShE Code Section XI are hereby granted as detailed in the enclosed Safety Evaluation.

S incere ly,

Enclosure:

As stated cc w/enclosur e:

See next page herbert N. Berkow, Director Project Directorate II-2 Division of Reactor Projects-I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation L.

-2 12 87 P

-2 D:P

'l2/

/37 12/

/87 8712240039 8712i2 PDR ADOCK 05000335 P.

PDR

'/87

V e

1 1 ~

~ l I

IM

~

M

'f

~

ll IN I

'I N

t I

'1 I

M N

III

• I II Il II M I N

M ll

~

~

I M I,

)

II I'

I M

'M

'I

~

~

M N

~

M M

N tl 1

N I

P I

M

~

~

~

~

Mr. C. 0. Moody Florida Power 8 Light Company St. Lucie Plant:

CC:

Mr. Jack Shreve Office of the Public Counsel Room 4, Holland Building Tallahassee, F 1 orida 32304 Resident Inspector c/o U.S.

NRC

.7585 S.

Hwy A1A Jensen Beach, Florida 34957 State Planning 5 Development Clear inghouse Office of Planning S Budget Executive Office of the Governor The Capitol Building Tallahassee, Flor ida 32301 Harold F. Reis, Esq.

Newman 5 Holtzinger 1615 L Street, N.M.

Mashington, DC 20036 John T. Butler, Esq.

Steel, Hector and Davis 4000 Southeast Financial Center Miami, Florida 33131-2398 Administrator Department of Environmental Regulation Power Plant Siting Section State of Florida

.2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Meldon B. Lewis, County Administrator St. Lucie County 2300 Yirginia Avenue, Room 104 Fort Pierce, Florida 33450 Mr. Charles B. Brinkman, Manager Mashington - Nuclear Operations Combustion Engineering, Inc.

7910 Moodmont Avenue

Bethesda, Maryland 20814 I

Jacob Daniel Nash Office of Radiatkon'Control Department of Health'nd Rehabilitative'Services

'317 Minewood Blvd.

Ta 1 lahassee, F1 orida 32399-0700 Regional Administrator, Region II

-U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Executive Director for Operations 101 Marietta Street N.M., Suite 2900

Atlanta, Georgia 30323

I