ML17193A518
| ML17193A518 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden  |
| Issue date: | 11/04/1980 |
| From: | Oconner P Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17193A517 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8011070190 | |
| Download: ML17193A518 (7) | |
Text
..
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
)
)
(Dresden Station, Units 2 and 3)
)
Docket Nos. 50-237 50-249 (Spent Fuel Pool Modification)
SUPPLEMENTAL TESTIMONY OF PAUL W. O'CONNOR ON BOARD QUESTION 1 I, Paul W. O'Connor, do state as follows:
I am employed by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, as a project manager, Operating Reactors Branch 5, Division of Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. A statement of my professional qualifications is attached to this testimony.
Board Question lA What is the current status of the spent fuel unfilled storage capacity at Dresden Station Units 2 and 3?
Answer There are 668 fuel assemblies stored in the Dresden 2 spent fuel pool as of October 31, 1980. There are 732 fuel s'torage locations empty in the Unit 2 pool~ There are 760 fuel assemblies stored in the Unit 3 fuel pool as of October 31, 1980. There are 660 empty fuel storage locations in the Unit 3 pool.
f
- Board Question lB When will fullcore discharge no longer be possible?
Answer It will not be possible to discharge all 724 fuel assemblies in the Unit 2 core, to the Unit 2 spent fuel pool after the discharge of 224 fuel assemblies from cycle 7, currently scheduled for January, 1981.
It is not presently possible to discharge all 724 fuel assemblies rrom the Unit 3 core to the Unit 3 spent fuel pool. The Urrit 3 full core discharge capability was lost in February 1980.
Board Question lC When will normal refueling discharge no longer be possible?
Answer Normal refueling discharge will no, longer be possible in the Unit 2 pool after the 1984 refueling of Unit 2.
Normal refueling discharge will no longer be possible in the Unit 3 pool after the 1985 refueling of Unit 3.
Board Question lD What alternatives, if any, exist to shutting down the ~nit(s) when the spent fuel pool(s) is (are) filled to capacity?
- - Answer The following alternatives to shutting down the reactor exist and have been considered in NUREG 0575.
- 1.
PERMITTING THE EXPANSION OF SPENT FUEL STORAGE CAPACITY AT REPROCESSING PLANTS There are no reprocessing plants in operation in the United States at the present time.
With the NRC decision to terminate the generic study on plutonium recycle use in mixed oxide fu~l (GESMO) in December, 1977
~2 FR 65334i in deference to the President's non-proliferation policy, commercial reprocessing has been indefinitely deferred in the United States. The expansion of spent fuel storage at reprocessing plants is
' technically feasible, but it is not considered a viable alternative for dealing with the problem of spent fuel storage because of the limited potential spaces at the remaining potential reprocessing plant, Allied General Nuclear Services at Barnwell, S.C., which has storage pool capacity for about 400 metric tons.
- 2.
LICENSING OF INDEPENDENT SPENT FUEL STORAGE INSTALLATIONS (ISFSI).
This alternative represents the major means of providing interim AFR spent fuel*storage.
The former Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. reprocessing plant is now licensed and operating as an independent spent fuel storage installation. However, NFS has annoanced its withdrawal from the reprocessing business, and this plant is no longer receiving spent fuel from utilities for extended storage.
- The Gener~l Electric Company*~ planned reprocessing plant at Morris, Illinois, has now been declared and-licensed as an ISFSI.
The initial licensed spent fuel storage capacity of about 100 MTU has been increased to about 750 MTU by installing spent fuel storage racks in its former high level waste storage pool.
The plant operation as a "storage only" facility has shown that ~n independent spent fuel storage installation can be operated ~ith adequate protection of the health and safety of the public.
The Department of Energy testified on January 26, 1979, before the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs of the House of Representatives that in order to meet its deadline of 1983 for having an operational AFR facility, it is considering the NFS* west Valley, the GE Morris, and.the AGNS Barnwell facilities to supply storage capacity.
Currently, an increasing interest in independent spent fuel storage
- installations is being shown by the nuclear power industry.
One architect-engineer company has submitted to NRC a standard design of such a facility, to be situated at a reactor site. The NRC staff has reviewed it and issued letters of approval for the design.
The methods of expanding spent fuel storage capacity considered in this assessment show negligible difference in environmental impact and cost * *
. with the exception that at-reactor storage pool compact storage is least costly economically, and does not require additional transportation of spent fuel.
In view of this, the reference case alternative for expanded I.
- spent fueJ storage assumes that most additional storage capacity will be provided by AR storage pool compact storage with additional required storage being provided by away-from-reactor (AFR) at ISFSI located either at reactor sites or at separate sites using the available means of wet or dry storage discussed in this statement.
- 3.
STORAGE OF SPENT FUEL FROM ONE OR MORE REACTORS AT THE STORAGE POOLS OF OTHER REACTOR {TRANSSHIPMENT)
Temporary relief for the spent fuel storage problem being faced by some of the older.nuclear power plants could be alleviated in some cases by shipping spent fuel to newer pl~nts with unused available storage capacity.
However, facility operators can be expected to be reluctant to accept spent fuel that may result in prematurely tilling their reactor spent fuel storage pools and potentially impacting the supply of electric power to their regions.
Currently, only. one application has been approved by the NRC covering this alternative.
The staff's analysis shows that intrautility transship-ment, when considered in conjunction with compact storage at reactor pools, provides additional relief delaying the need for AFR storage capacity by about three to four years (see Table 3.2), depending upon whether or not full core reserve (FCR) is maintained.
The staff also considered the alternative of transshipment in conjunction with compact storage at reactor pools on an unlimited basis with all the nation's reactor pools operating as a single system under a national storage allocation plan. This alternative
- is not co~sidered feasible under present regulatory conditions; the staff has analyzed it solely as an emergency alternative necessary to ensure continued reactor power generation in the unlikely event that no AFR storage is made available to prevent spent fuel storage capacity shortfalls. Assuming a preemptive federal regulatory authority to allow this alternative to work, unlimited transshipment in theory could delay the need for AFR storage to the late 1990's.
Board Question IE Which if any of thesealternativeswould require subsequent license amendments?
Answer Alternative 3, storage of spent fuel from the Dresden reactors in the storage pools of other reactors, would require that the facility operating license of the receiving reactor be amended to permit the possession of fuel other than that produced by the operation of the receiving reactor.
Alternative 1 and 2 would not require reactor license amendments but would, however, require NRC licensing action to permit operation or expansion of the storage facilities.
PAUL W. O'CONNOR
- Professional Qualifications Division of Licensing
- Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission I am employed as a Project Manager in Operating Reactors Branch 5, Division of Licensing, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C **
My duties include managing and participating in the staff's review of applications for license amendments for facilities assigned to me.
I have been employed as a project manager at NRC (formerly USAEC) since 1972.
At various times during my employment at NRC I have been assigned project responsibility for Dresden Units 1, 2 and 3, Quad Cities 1 and 2, and Pilgrim Unit 1. I am currently assigned as project manager for Dresden Units 1 and 2.
I received an A.B. degree in Physics from Northeastern University in 1962.
I have taken graduate courses in Nuclear Engineering at Massachusetts Institute of Technology between 1965 and 1969.*
In 1962 I was employed at the U. S. Army Materials and Mechanics Research Center in Watertown,.Massachusetts as a health physicist, reactor engineer and operations supervisor of the AMMRC Research Reactor.
In 1970 I joined the staff at the Babcock and Wilcox Research Center in Lynchburg, Virginia. At B&W I served as a Senior Research Engineer and Facility Supervisor of the Nuclear Fuel Laboratory and the B&W Test Reactor.