ML19269D463
| ML19269D463 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07002623 |
| Issue date: | 04/17/1979 |
| From: | Spitalny B NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7906040098 | |
| Download: ML19269D463 (10) | |
Text
4/17/79 52 P_ DEL;g ggc.
UNITED STATES OF AMER NUCLEAR REGULATORY COPJ4ISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC' SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
)
Docket No. 70-2623 DUKE POWER COMPANY
)
(Amendment to Materials License
)
~
SNM-1773 for Oconee Nuclear Station
)
Spent Fuel Transportation and Storage )
at McGuire Nuclear Station)
)
W
- >) 3. a NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE
. $ "4 Z 9 COUNCIL REQUEST TO APPLICANT AND STAFF FOR
- !,ch:
ADMISSIONS DATED APRIL 2, 1979 s
/
s Request for Admission:
N
\\
,.9 1.
Approval of the pending application for re-racking at Oconee (dated February 2,1979), if approved before would provide, with existing storage capacity at the site, sufficient spent fuel storage space to discharge the spent fuel generated by the Oconee reactors through 19 assuming one full core discharge capability for all three reactors is not retained.
Admission:
1.
Approval of the pending application for re-racking at Oconee (dated February 2,1979), if approved before June 1979, (see the transmittal letter from vuke Power Company dated February 2,1979 which submitted an application to modify the Oconee spent fuel pool) would provide, with existing storage capacity at the site, sufficient spent fuel storage space to discharge the spent fuel generated by the Oconee reactors through June 1983, based on the current Duke Power Co. discharge schedule for Oconee, Units 1, 2, and 3, assuming that one full core discharge capability for all three reactors is not retained.
2258 208 790804oo97
. Request for Admission:
2.
If Staff keeps its present schedule for completion of its review of the re-racking proposal,,the Staff review would be completed prior to Admission:
2.
If Staff keeps its present schedule for completion of its review of the re-racking proposal, the Staff review would be completed prior to June 8, 1979.
Request for Admission:
3.
Operation of the Oconee reactors without a full core discharge capability does not endanger the health and safety of the public or workers or cause substantial adverse environmental impact.
Admission:
3.
The Staff agrees with this statement.
Request for Admission:
4.
Re-racking the spent fuel pool at Oconee as proposed by the Applicant does not endanger the health and safety of the public or workers and does not cause substantial adverse environmental impacts, even if no spent fuel is trans-shipped to McGuire prior to or during the re-racking.
2258 269
. 4.
Duke Power Company's request of February 7,1979 to expand the capacity of the spent fuel pool at the Oconee facility is being reviewed in accordance with NRC Staff environmental, and health and safety review procedures. This admission, therefore, cannot be made until completion of that review. However, based generally on the NRC Staff's review and approval of similar requests from other utilities at other nuclear generating facilities in the past involving re-racking with saent fuel in the spent fuel pool, as a general matter, with an approved procedure it would appear that re-racking of the Oconee spent fuel racks will not cause undue risk to the health and safety of the public or workers, and will not cause substantial adverse environmental impacts. However, by this admission the Staff does not in any way agree that trans-shipment of Oconee spent nuclear fuel for storage in the Unit 1 spent fuel pool at the McGuire facility is precluded.
Request for Admission:
5.
If the Applicant is unable to ship spent fuel from Oconee to an away-from-reactor storage facility prior to 1995, it would cost less money to Applicant's ratepayers to now expand exis ting spent fuel capacity at Oconee or-to build new capacity at Oconee than to ship spent fuel from Oconee to McGuire.
Admission:
The NRC Staff does not admit to this statement.
It is not clear whether the admission refers to a " permanent" away-from-reactor storage facility, an " interim" away-from-reactor storage facility, or to an " interim", " independent" away-from-reactor storage facility.
2258 270
The costs to the Applicant's ratepayers in 1995 for capital expenditures near the 1995 period for expansion of existing spent fuel capacity at Oconee or to build new capacity at Oconee is not known and is a speculative matter at best. However, on the assumption the Applicant is unable to ship spent fuel from Oconee to a " permanent" or " interim" away-from-reacto spent fuel storage facility prior to 1995, both the option of expanding existing spent fuel capacity at Oconee now and trans-shipment and storage of Oconee spent fuel at McGuire will be needed prior to 1995, and both are economically feasible.
As a general proposition, it is batter to make capital expenditures in the present than in the future.
If the request for admission is that the option of spent fuel pool capacity expansion at Oconee will be ultimately required to handle Oconee spent nuclear fuel notwithstanding trans-shipment to McGuire it is probable as a general economic proposition that capital expenditures made to expand the capacity of the existing spent fuel pools at Oconee in the near term would be less than if deferred to the period near 1995. However, the procedures proposed by Duke to deal with the shortfall of spent fuel storage space can be shown to be economically advantageous with regard to capital expenditures.
The same factors apply with respect to trans-shipment and storage at McGuire when compared to building new spent fuel capacity at Oconee, i.e, it is better to make necessary capital expenditures now rather than later.
2258 271
. However, it is not economically feasible to build new, separate spent fuel facility for storage of just Ocone spent nuclear fuel now or in the future.
Such capital expenditures would be justified only if the spent fuel from a number of reactors at other sites were trans-shipped for interim storage at such a facility located at the Oconee site. Thus, the options of trans-shipment and storage of Oconee spent fuel at McGuire and of expansion of the existing Oconee spent fuel pools appear to far outweigh capital expenditures for a new spent fuel pool facility located at the Oconee site.
Request for Admission:
6.
Storage of spent fuel from Oconee in the McGuire spent fuel pool during 1979 would make any subsequent modification in the McGuire spent fuel pool more expensive.
Admission:
6.
The Staff does not admit to this statement as worded. A modification of the McGuire spent fuel pool at the time the pool is empty would indeed be less expensive than with spent nuclear fuel in the pool.
However, anticipated discharges of spent nuclear fuel from McGuire Unit 1 may occur as early as October 1980. Therefore, the Staff would agree with the statement only for that increment of time that Oconee spent fuel may be in the McGuire pool prior to October,1980.
Request for Admission:
7.
Total exposure of all workers to radiation associated with re-racking the Oconee spent fuel pool will be reduced more if the spent fuel is transferred to spent fuel casks until the re-racking is completed 2258 272
than if it is transferred to McGuire where it would be unloaded from the casks and placed in the McGuire spent fuel pool and later it had to be removed from the McGuire spent fuel pool for storage in an interim spent fuel storage facility.
Admission:
More importantly, however, the option of transferring the Oconee spent fue' to be stored in casks rather than shipped to McGuire as described exposure from the different procedures described in the admission are essentially indistinguishable in terms of effects. However, in absolute terms either sequence suggested in the request for admission might result in more total exposure than the other, although no specific calculations of total worker exposure comparing the alternative sequences suggested in the request have been made at this time.
More importantly, however, the option of transferring to casks as described in the request for admission is impractical. The total number of cooled (truck and rail) required for the type of procedure suggested by the request for admission do not exist. The NFS-4 cask which Duke presently owns (Duke has a second one on order) can hold only one (1) PWR assembly.
Rail casks would require unnecessary expenditure for acquisition and also can only hold up to 10 PWR assemblies per cask.
Request for Admission:
8.
Total exposure of all workers from spent fuel handling would be lower with respect to the McGuire and Oconee facilities if at-reactor storage capabilities (including building a new pool at Oconee with maximum 2258 273
. technologically feasible re-racking and expanding the existing pool at McGuire with maximum technologically feasible re-racking to hold the lifetime requirements for spent fuel from each plant) were utilized rather than trans-shipment to McGuire, fur'ther trans-shipment to an interim away-f rom-reactor storage facility and finally trans-shipment to a permanent waste repository.
(Assume all spent fuel handling is done with essentially the same equipment and techniques.)
Admission:
8.
The Staff does not admit to this statement in its entirety.
Exposure to workers is received from the handling operations during loading and unloading the casks.
If Duke Power Company constructed additional spent fuel pools, the number of handling operations would be essentially comparable to the number of handling operations presently being considered by the method of trans-shipment and storage at McGuire that Duke has chosen, The overall total exposure of all workers from the different options would be essentially indistinguishable. The option of construction of new spent fuel pools at Oconee could result in greater total overall exposure, if design size and economic criteria would indicate construction of a spent fuel pool at Oconee was feasible only if spent fuel from other reactors was transported and stored at Oconee. Exposure might be reduced as a result of re-racking; however, monetary costs of this option would be from 3-4 times higher.
2258 274
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of DUKE POWER COMPANY Docket No. 70-2623 (Amendment to Materials License SNM-1773 for Oconee Nuclear Station Spent Fuel Transportation and Storage at McGuire Station)
)
AFFIDAVIT OF BRETT S. SpITALNY I, Brett S. Spitalny, am employed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Fuel Reprocessing and Recycle Branch, as the project manager for the amendment to Materials License No. SNM-1773.
I have prepared or supervised the preparation of the responses to Natural Resources Defense Council's Request for Admissions.
These answers are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
' N -rt T T s-f d.
Brett S. Spitalny'
\\
Subscribed and sworn to before me this /77B___ day of A/ W /,
,1979.
L c' NCL k-
' d <f)
Notary Pu' W c
My Commission Expires: Oit[c2 / /[Q.
7
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0%'11SSION
~
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of DUKE POWER COMPANY Docket No. 70-2623
)
(Amendment to Materials License
)
SNM-1773 for Oconee Nuclear Station
)
Spent Fuel Transportation and Storage )
at McGuire Nuclear Station)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL REQUEST TO APPLICANT AND STAFF FOR ADMISSIONS DATED APRIL 2,1979" and" AFFIDAVIT OF BRETT S. SPITALNY" dated April 17, 1979 in the above-captioned proceeding, have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 17th day of April,1979. *
- Marshall E. Miller, Chairman Ms. Brenda Best Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Carolina Action U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1740 E. Independence Blvd.
Washington, D. C.
20555 Charlotte, North Carolina 28205 Dr. Cadet H. Hand, Jr., Director Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq.
Bodega Marine Laboratory Natural Resources Defense Council University of California 917 - 15th Street, N.W.
P.O. Box 247 Washington, D. C.
20555 Bodega Bay, California 94923 Shelley Blum, Esq.
- Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke 418 Law Building Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 730 East Trade Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 Washington, D. C. 20555 J. Michael McGarry, III, Esq.
W. L. Porter, Esq.
Debevoise & Liberman Associate General Counsel 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Legal Department Washington, D. C.
20036 Duke Power Company 422 South Church Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 Responses to requests for admissions 9 through 12 were not served. These responses will be served April 18, 1979.
2258 276
.
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Mr. Geotfrev Owen Little
~
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission P. O. Box 2501 Washington, D.C.
20555 Davidson College Davidson, N.C.
28036
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555
- Docketing and Service Section U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Mr. Jesse L. Riley, President Carolina Environmental Study Group 854 Henley Place Charlotte, North Carolina 28207 Richard P. Wilson, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General State of South Carolina 2600 Bull Street Columbia, South Carolina 29201 f..c..r.s>..A
): )l* L 1
~... :... ;- ::,..w Edward G. Ketchen Counsel for NRC Staff 2258 277
-