ML19241B237
| ML19241B237 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07002623 |
| Issue date: | 06/04/1979 |
| From: | Hager S DUKE POWER CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19241B218 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7907130257 | |
| Download: ML19241B237 (5) | |
Text
.
c3 e.
D UNITED STATES OF AMERICA D
U"m c
'C NUCLEAR PSGULATORY COMMISSION 6
JUN 51373 > :7 V"k c,,,a. r. 9
~v i
In the Matter of
)
C"%s ww. p f
)
DUKE POWER COMPANY
)
/ geg g j \\ s-c*.
)
Docket No. 70-2623 (Amendment to Materials
)
License SNM-1773 for Oconee
)
Nuclear Station Spent Fuel
)
Transportation and Storage
)
at McGuire Nuclear Station)
)
TESTIMONY OF S.
B.
HAGER My name is S.
B.
Hager.
My business address is 422 South Church Street, Charlotte, North Carolina 28242.
I am Chief Engineer, Civil and Environmental Division, Design Engineerinc Department, Duke Power Company.
I graduated from North Carolina State University in 1960 with a Bachelor of Science degree in Civil Engi*teering.
From July 1960 to January 1961, I was employed by the Veterans Administ.ation.n Washington, D.C.
in the Structural Division.
From January 1961 to July 1961, I was on active military duty with the U.
S.
Army in Ft. Eustis, Virginia as Cperations Officer attached to the Corps of Engineers.
Frca August 1961 to present, I have been employed by Duke Power Company in the Design Engineering Department.
Assign-ments have been in civil engineering design work on thermal and hydro plants.
.....rember 1972, I was prcmoted to Principal Engineer in the Ci.il and Environmental Division which included responsibility for structural, hydraulic, and earthwork of 1
ll 5 ')
0 s
S\\4 7907130,25/s
. specific assigned projects in the Design Engineering Depart-ment.
In May 1978, I was promoted to Chief Engineer of the Civil and Environmental Division of the Design Engineering Department which includes responsibility for civil, architectural, and environmental design work of Duke's generating stations.
Since graduation from North Carolina State University in 1960, I have attended varicus continuing education and technical courses.
I am a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers, member of the American Nuclear Society, and a registered pro-fessional engineer in North Carolina and South Carolina.
My testimony, contained herein, presents economic and scheduling data pertinent to Mr.
R.
W.
Bostian's response to cont.entions concerning alternatives to transportation of Oconee fuel to McGuire.
The alternatives are addressed as follows:
a) Modification of existing Oconee spent fuel pools:
The Oconee Nuclear Station was designed and constructed with two spent fuel storage pools, one shared by Units 1& 2 with 336 storage locations, and one for Unit 3 with 216 storage locations.
In 1976, the capacity of the Unit 3 Spent Fuel Pool was expanded frcm 216 to 474 locations by replacement of the existing racks with the Combustien Engineering, Inc.,
supplied Higi Capacity Fuel Assembly Storage Rack.
The C
\\.!
structural geometry of the pool was unchanged.
The work was completed in 1976 at an actual cost of $2,348,000.
On a per storage location basis, this cost equates to approximately $9000 per additional spent fuel storage location.
Duke is currently pursuing the approval of a license amendment to allow the installation of high density racks in tre Oconee Units 1 & 2 pool.
This expansion, if ap-proved, will increase the storage capacity from 336 to 750 locations.
The modification consists of replacing the existing storage racks with the Combustion Engineer-ing, Inc., supplied High Capacity Fuel Assembly Storage Rack without changing the structur ' geometry of the spent fuel pool.
The cost of this a _ansion is est mated at $3,514,000 (1979 dollars).
On a per st] rage locat'.cn basis, this cost equates to approximately $8,400 per additional spent fuel storage location.
Pending a June 1979 approval of the proposed license amendment, this work is scheduled to be ccmpleted in late 1979.
Based on current discussions with Poison Rack Suppliers, the estimatec cost of poisoned racks for the Ocenee pools is appro:dmately S7,000,000, and the estimated delivery time is 12 to 15 months.
We are currently performing a study to determine the feasibility of installing poisoned racks.
,i 3
i a
/
u r a M
176
~4-b) Construction of a separate storage facility at Oconee:
Support systems for a separate spent fuel storage facility ac
',aec would have to be independent of the existing station, since those systems were sized and designed 'or the existing spent fuel pools.
The most feasible location on the site would be in an area where interference with existing structures is minimized.
A possible location adjacent to the Unit 3 Spent Fuel Pool was evaluated and deemed less suitable because of confined working conditions during construction.
The cost of this facility, an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Facility (ISFSF), was estimated at $44,315,000 (1976 dollars).
On a per storage locatica basis, this cost equates to $29,500 (1976 dollars) or S34,500 (1978 dollars) per additional spent fuel storage space.
The estimate includes costs for materials, equipment, engineer-ing, field
- 7. abor, field and general office overhead, con-tingencies and interest during construction.
The estimate considers fully self-contained, Category 1 facility with a capacity of 1500 spent fuel assemblies located so as to avoid interfere;.ce with existir, structures.
The time to design and construct this facility on a "rr basis is estimated at 45 months; however, the estimated time is 60 months on a oreferred schedule.
r 3
l !' 4 3 - (<
I i
77
. The environmental impact resulting from the construction of this facility at Cconee would be minimized since construction would be in an area adjacent to the exist-ing Oconee station.
c) Construction of a separate storage facility away from Oconee but not at McGuire:
As compared to the facility described in part b, the cost of an ISFSF sited at a location other than a reactor site would ce great due to additional property, roadJay, and security costs.
The licensing and design time would likely be extended due to additional investigations re-quired as a result of the location of the facility in an area where the geology and demography have not been evaluated.
This facility would require a significant volume of earth to be displaced.
Also, the envir:nmental impact associated with the clearing of property, construction of
,adways, power lines, and other utilities, the potential destruction of farmland and/or forest, and the potential displacement of residents may be significant.
7
.s nr
,N
/s