ML19282A740
| ML19282A740 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07002623 |
| Issue date: | 01/25/1979 |
| From: | Porter W DUKE POWER CO. |
| To: | Hand C, Lazo R, Luebke E BODEGA MARINE LABORATORY, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7903060166 | |
| Download: ML19282A740 (4) | |
Text
.
8 Dam POWER Goxem LEGAL DEI %_RTMENT P. O. Box u t7.& os...)
m GruntorrE, N. G. cae42 PUBLIC DOCUMENT ROOM
,w -
u..
m,
January 25, 1979 9, jct
-y0 vM o
gY(.9 Robert M.
Lazo, Esq.
Dr. Emmeth A.
Luebke Chairman Atomic Sa fety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Board U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.
C.
20555 Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555 Dr. Cadet H.
- Hand, Jr.,
Director Bodega Marine Laboratory of California j g kfy P.
O.
Box 247 W '~ ^^%/f,$
Bodega Bay, California 94923
&o u' o,c,gl,
%(q ou:,
Re:
In the Matter of Duke Power Compan"t d,
JA s'y 2 #
s c
IO7S )}~1 (Amendment to Materials License SNB1-1773 c.,.
A N's.,*Tp%.
for Oconee Nuclear Station Spent Fuel T\\
js
<~
s Transportation and Storage at McGuire m",3.
Nuclear Station) Docket No. 70-2623 y
Gentlemen:
This is to advise the Board and parties that Applicant anticipates, in the very near future, the submittal of a request for an amendment to the Oconee Nuclear Station Operat-ing License and revision to the Technical Specifications.
Approval of ;his reques t would permit high -density reracking of the spent fuel pool of Oconce Units 1 and 2 for increased storage of Oconee spent fuel.
The proposed request will not supersede or alleviate the need for the Part 70 amendment presently pending before the Board.
Rather, the contemplated action serves as another ef fort to maintain flexibility in the n.atter of spent fuel s to rage.
Applicant desires to maintain a sing'e full core dischargc capability at Oconee which requires s torage capacity for 177 assemblies.
7 9 0 3 0 6 0 MCo
t Rober~t M.
Lazo, Esq.
Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Dr. Cadet H.
Hand, Jr. January 25, 1979 Five hundred forty-five of the 810 spaces built into Oconee's two spent fuel storage pools now contain spent fuel.
Nineteen contain irradiated non-fuel core components.
Fuel bridge access to 14 spaces is blocked by equipment installed to permit post irradiation examination of fuel assemblies.
(Note:
Technical Specification 4.13 requiring post irradiation inspection of fuel following each of the firs t three cycles of Oconee Unit 1 was satinfied in mid-November, 1978.)
The equipment has been re tained in place and war. most recently utilized on November 24 to innpect eight Oconee 2 assemblies, planned for use in cycle 4, for rod bow and to evaluate the performance of four 17 by 17 test assemblies.
Eighteen of the 810 spaces are enlarged end are designated fo:- failed fuel or other components too large to fit into a regular space.
Thus, 214 spaces arc presently useable for spent fuel.
The Oconee Unit 3 refue)ing now scheduled for :my 27 to June 3, 1979 with a planned discharge of 56 assemblies will preclude a full core discharge unless the previously mentioned 51 spaces are made available.
The next refueling (either Oconee 1 or 2) acheduled for late fall with planned discharge of 68 assemblics, as a matter of course, precludes full core discharge unless spent fuel is moved o f f-site.
Time!y approval of applicant's ou ts ta r.di ng request to store Ocence fuel at McGuire will enable continuea maintenance of full cora discharge capability.
- However, completion of the McGuire Part 70 amendment proceeding within the necessary cime frame is uncertain.
There fo re, approval to rerack the Oconee Units 1 and 2 spent fuel pool may be essential to permit maintenance of full core discharge capability.
In an October 18, 1978 letter to the Commissien, a discussion of the reasibility of rcracking the Oconee Units 1 and 2 sper.t fuel pool was provided.
In this submittal it was s tated that on-site activities to modify the pool could not begin until late-1979 or early-19BO and that it was not con:;idered possible to suf ficiently expedite the Oconee 1 and 2 reracking schedulo
Robert M.
Lazo, Esq.
Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Dr. Cadet H.
Hand, Jr. January 25, 1979 such that the work could 1-e performed unile the necessary number of excess storage spaces were present.
Therefore, some shipment of Oconee spent fuel to McGuire was contemplated, even if the capacity of the Oconee 1 and 2 spent fuel pool was to be increased.
These statements were based on schedule evaluations for both the physical replacement oi exis ting Oconee 1 and 2 spent fuel storage racks and the modification of the spent fuel pool cooling system to provide the additional heat removal capacity necessitated by the eventual storage of more spent fuel.
Subsequent evaluations have determined that the schedule for the spent fuel cooling sys tem modification remains unchanged.
The schedule for rack replacement only, however, may be able to be expedited sufficiently to allc; this effort to proceed in the third quarter of 1979 without directly impacting the power operations of the Oconee units.
(Note:
Post irradiation examination equipment must be removed to perrait reracking.
Removal can begin as early as mid t'ebruary.
It is planned that the equipment will ne reinstalled after reracking.)
Spent fuel pool cooling system modifications would then be performed at a later date, prior to storage of sufficient spent fuel requiring the increased hea t removal capacity.
Applicant wishes to point out that the present spent fuel s torage problem was not a matter of its creation; indeed, Applicant has a contract with A31ied-General Nuclear Services to ship spent fuel to Allied-General's Barnwall reprocessing facility.
However, with the present Aduinistration's ban on reprocessing and the subsequent halt of the licensing proceedings for Barnwell, Applicant has been placed in the position of reacting to changing government policy and has been forced to consider various alternatives to accommodate the storage of additional quantities of spent nuclear fuel.
Applicant has determined that storage of Oconee spent fuel at McGuire is the preferred alternative.
Howaver, as stated above, due to the time that has been expended to date in obtaining approval for shipments to McGuire, plus tha t contemplated in the future, Applicant finds that it must consider more costly, less desirable, yet necessary alternatives such as the one sought herein so as to avaid the most costly and totally unacceptable alternative of limiting the operation of Cconee.
This position takes on
.?
Robert M, Lazo, Esq.
Dr. 'Emmeth A.
Luebke Dr. Cadet H.
Hand, Jr. January 25, 1979 added significance in light of the uncertainty of further announcements from the White House.
In the event a timely and satisfactory result is reached in the Part 70 anend:aent proceeding, Applicant may choose at that time not to pursue the raracking option further.
- However, based upon the above-stated reasons, coupled with the fact that various jurisdictions within Applicant's service area are con-sidering restrictions on or prohibitions of cpant fuel trens-portation activities, it may be prudent for Applicant to pursue this option regardless.
In conclusion, if Applicant follows through with its present intention to seek approval to rerack the opent fuel pool of Oconee Units 1 and 2, such action would be in the Ocones docket and would be separate and apart from the Part 70 amendment proceeding.
The reracking option's impact on the Part 70 amendment proceeding would be limited to the considers tion of alterna tives.
As stated above, Applic7nt continues to believe that of f-site ship:ae nt o f Oconee spant fuel is the preferred alternative.
Reracking approval is being sought to provide Applicant with spent fuel storage flexibilities with regard to future uncertain events.
Very truly yours, i
\\
J u.\\mw 'y as' Williara L.
P o r t e.r s
E P/fhb cc:
Mr. Jesse L.
Riley Richard P. Wilson, Esq.
Mr. Jeremy Bloch Mr. Chase R.
Stephens Edward G.
Yetchen, Esq.
C hairrJ.a n, Ato:nic Sa Cety & Licensing Shelley Blum, Esq.
Appaal Board Ms. Brenda Best Chairman, Atomic Sa fe ty & Licensing J.
Michael McGarry, III, Esq.
Board Panel