ML19269E513
| ML19269E513 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | North Anna  |
| Issue date: | 06/01/1979 |
| From: | Regan W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Proffitt W VIRGINIA POWER (VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER CO.) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7906290199 | |
| Download: ML19269E513 (4) | |
Text
s
(
4.."* q%,
a na UNITEO STATES m_
E } ),;
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- e$2.4 cj WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 v+...+/
JUN 01 13'r3 Docket flos. 50-338 50-339 Mr. W. L. Proffitt Senior Vice President-Power Operations Virginia Electric & Power Company P. O. Box 26666 Ricnmond Virginia 2326i i
Dear Mr. Proffitt:
SUBJECT:
ENVIRONMEllTAL IMPACT APPRAISAL REGARDING EXPANSION OF THE SPENT FUEL POOL AT NORTH ANNA POWER STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 Your letter of May ll, 1979, amending the application to expand the spent fuel pool capacity at North Anna Units 1 and 2, includes a correction of the stretch rating from 2990 MW to 2900 MW. We understand that the 2990 figure was an error in the Summary of Proposed fudification to the Spent Fuel Pool rather than a change in design capacity.
Consequently, we are making a similar correction in Section 3.0 on page 3 of our Enviror,mer tal Impact Appraisal (EIA) dated April 2, 1979, which was sent to you with a letter dated April 6, 1979.
In making a similar change in the footnote on page 6 of EIA, we discovered that the information given in the footnote was in error and we have corrected it.
Copies of corrected pages 3 and 6 are enclosed, with a revi:;ed cover sheet.
These errata corrections have no effect on the analyses and conclusions presented in the EIA.
Sincerely,
/
A
=
Wm. H. Regan, r., Chief Environmental rojects Branch 2 Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis
Enclosure:
As stated 2164 068 rr 9 0 e ? 9 0 l'l7
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPRAISAL BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATIVE TO A PROPOSED INCREASE IN STORAGE CAPACITY OF THE SPENT FUEL P0OL NORTH ANNA POWER STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY DOCKET NOS. 50-338 AND 50-339 FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0. NPF-4 April 2, 1979 (with corrections of errata on pages 3 and 6) 2l64 069
refueling cycles.
If longer refueling cycles, such as the 18-month cycles at the Surry plant, were also adopted after the first two cycles, the staff estimates that operation with full-core off-load capability could be extended approximately one year beyond 1987.
However, without expansion of the SFP, adoption of 18-month cycles would not extend the full-core off-load capability beyond the fall of 1981. Thus, additional storage capacity is needed even if extended refueling cycles are adopted.
3.~ 0 THE FACILIfY Units 1 and 2 each have a pressurized water reactor (PWR) with a maximum design power level of 2900 megawatts thermal (MWt).1 Steam l
generated with the reactor heat can be used in turbine-generators to produce up to 980 megawatts electrical (MWe) per unit. Unit 1 is presently licensed to operate at a maximum steady-state reactor power level of 2775 MWt, which provides an electrical output of appmx-imately 942 MWe.
Principal features of the facility which are pertinent to this eval-uation are briefly described below for convenience in following the discussion in subsequent sections of this appraisal. More details are presented in the FES and the Addendum mentioned in Section 1 and in the Safety Evaluation Report (SER) issued by the staff in June 1976.
3.1 Fuel Inventory The weight of fuel, as U0, in each reactor is app oximately 181,200 pounds. The fuel is cont $ined in long sealed tubes called fuel rods.
A cluster of 264 fuel rods arranged in a 17 x 17 array makes up each of the 157 fuel assemblies in a reactor.
The proposed modification of the SFP would not change the quantity of uranium fuel used in the reactor over the anticipated operating life of the facility and would not change the rate at which spent fuel is generated by the facility. The added storage capacity would increase the number of spent fuel assemblies that could be stored in the SFP and the length of time that some of the fuel assemblies could be stored in the pool.
3.2 Purpose of the Spent Fuel Pool Spent fuel assemblies are intensely radioactive due to their fresh fission product content when initially removed from the core and they have a high thermal output. The SFP was designed for storage of these assemblies to allow for radioactive and thermal decay prior to ship-ping them to a reprocessing facility. The major portion of decay occurs in the first 150 days following removal from the reactor core.
After this period, the spent fuel assemblies may be withdrawn and 2164 070 3
~
i same as that previously considered, since the design temperature limits and rate of water circulation through the pool remain the same.
However, storing additional fuel in the SFP would increase the heat load transferred tc the closed-loop component cooling water system, and then to the service water system by a maximum of 5.6 x 106 Btu /hr.
Dissipation of this heat by evaporation from the service water res-ervoir would require approximately 12 gpm of additional makeup water.
This is a very small amount compared to the station's total water requirements (about 1,905,600 gpm) and would not have noticeable effects on Lake Anna.
4.3 Nonradiological Effluents No additional chemicals or biocides are to be used because of the SFP expansion. Therefore, the only nonradiological effluent attributable to the amendment would be the additional heat load of 5.6 x 106 Btu /hr dissipated from the service water system.
This is about 5.5 percent more than the 103.1 x 106 Btu /hr heat load on the service water reservoir under normal operation and about 4.6 percent of the 122.5 x 106 Btu /hr heat load under abnonnal conditions (unloading a full core), without the SFP modification.
The incremental effects of evaporating 12 gpm to dissipate this additional heat (Sect. 4.2) would be minimal. The service water reservoir is located onsite, ear the main structures of the station (FES Fig. 3.1) and any addi uonal atmos-pheric effects of its operation such as fogging and icing are unlikely to occur offsite.
There is provision for discharge of the service water system to the WHTF if the need should arise. The addition of 5.6 x 106 Btu /hr to the total discharge from Units 1 and 2 (13.7 x 109 Btu /hr)* would be an increase of only 0.04%. This would not have noticeable incremental effects on aquatic biota or the environment.
4.4 Radiological Impacts 4.4.1 Introduction The potential offsite radiological environmental impacts associated with the expansion of the spent fuel storage capacity were evaluated and determined to be environmentally insignificant as addressed below.
- The applicant's submittal of May 1, 1978, indicated 13.7 x 109 Btu /hr in Table 7-2 as the total heat discharged to the environment; of this total, 13.15 x 10 Btu /hr is discharged from the turbine steam condensers to the WHTF 109 x 106 Btu /hr from the service water reservoir and 350 x 10E Btu /hr from the bearing cooling towers are dissipated to the atmosphere. 2164 071