ML19289E448
| ML19289E448 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07002623 |
| Issue date: | 03/08/1979 |
| From: | Roisman A National Resources Defense Council |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7904210009 | |
| Download: ML19289E448 (8) | |
Text
,
,, ;- ;. w % "*~
g UNITED STATES OF AMERICA f,. "
. ' '7.,
C' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
7,
~,
In The Matter of
)
4,,
}
[x 2r DUKE POWER COMPANY
)
Docket No. 70-2623 s
)
.' g~;
(License Amendment for Oconee
)
3 Spent Fuel Transportation and
)
Storage at McGuire Nuclear
)
Station)
)
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INTERROGATORIES TO APPLICANT Pursuant to 10 CFR S 2.740 (b), Intervenor Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) requests that the attached Interrogatoriez be answered fully, in writing and under oath, by one or more afficers or employees of Applicant who has personal knowledge thereof or is the closest to having personal knowledge thereof.
If the Interrogatories are answered by more than one person, whether or not he or she verified the answers, and whether or not he or she is an officer or employee of Appli-cant, such person's name and title should be set forth, together with an identification of which interrogatories he or she is responsible for.
Each question is instructed to be answered in six parts, as follows:
Answer to Question 4210007 (A) Provide the direct answer to the question.
(B) Identify all documents and studies, and the particular parts thereof, relied upon by Applicant,
2 now or in the past, which serve as the basis for the answer.
In lieu thereof, at Applicant's option, a copy of each such document and study may be attached to the answer.
(C) Identify all documents and studies, and the particular parts thereof, examined but not relied upon by Applicant, which pertain to the subject matter questioned.
In lieu thereof, at Applicant's option, a copy of each such document and study may be attached to the answer.
(D) Identify by name and affiliation each Applicant employee or consultant that has the expert knowledge required to support the answer to the question.
(E) Explain whether Applicant is presently engaged in or intends to engage in any further research or enrk which may affect Applicant's answer.
Identify such research or work.
(F) Identify the expert (s), if any, whom Applicant intends to have testify on the subject matter questioned.
State the qualifications of each such expert.
The Interrogatories attached are to be considered your continuing obligation.
Accordingly, if, after you have answered these Interrogatories, additional information comes to your attention with respect to one or more of your answers, then you are required to amend your answers to provide such additional information.
3 The request to answer in detail or explain or justify or give references should be interpreted to mean provide more than mere reference to source and summaries of conclusions.
Actual reproduction of critical portions of the source should be provided and the bases for conclusions should be explained.
While PSAR and E.R.
references are helpful, they are not normally source but merely summary.
The request for detail should be interpreted in light of the practical objective of avoiding lengthy cross-examination.
The more data produced now, the less that will have to be elicited in further discovery and cross-examination.
4 These questions are intended to establish, as objectively as possible, the exact physical parameters involved in spent fuel management at the following reactors:
Oconee 1, 2,
and 3, and McGuire 1 and 2.
Please supply the following information for each of the above five reactors:
1.
How mr.ny fuel assemblies in the full core?
2.
How much capacity currently exists at the spent fuel storage facility at the reactor?
(Please supply this figure as the number of spaces which exist, and not simply as the number of unfilled spaces.)
3.
Is this capacity the maximum currently licensed?
If not, what is the maximum number of spaces currently licensed?
4.
How many spaces of the capacity given in Question 2 above are currently filled with fuel assemblies?
If fuel from other reactors is stored at a given reactor's spent fuel facility, please provide a breakdown of the inventory at the fuel pool, and note any changes in the designed existing capacity which ccme as a result of the presence of other-reactor fuel.
5.
When is the next discharge of fuel from the reactor?
5 6.
How many assemblies will be discharged at that time?
7.
What cycle will be used for fueling in the future (i.e.,
annual; 18 months; 15, 15, 18 months; etc.)?
8.
In future fuel cycles, will the number of rods discharged be the same figure as in Question 6 above?
If not, how many rods will be discharged at the end of each refuel?
The next set of questions seeks to establish the physical potential for expansion of at-reactor storage at each of the above five reactors, as distinct from the economic feas-ibility or desirability of such expansion.
To this end, these questions seek to establish the research done on this matter by Duke.
9.
Has Duke Power Company undertaken any in-house or external research on the possibility of expanding spent fuel capacity at any of the above five reactors, either through enhanced or more efficient use of existing physical space, or through construction of additional facilities?
If not, why were such studies not done?
10.
Please summarize the findings of such research on the physical feasibility of expansion through the means considered, including, for example, such widely discussed and applied
6 techniques as more efficient racking of assemblies in the spent fuel pool, establishment of racks incor p crating neutron absor-bers (such as Boron-aluminum composites), physical restructuring of the fuel assemblies ("densification"), and the construction of new or additional facilities.
In particular, if it is not physically possible to utilize any of these listed techniques at any of the above reactors, please explain in detail precisely why such utilization is a physical impossibility.
The final set of questions attempts to ascertain the economic influence on the selection of physically possible alternatives.
11.
Has Duke Power Company or its consultants investigated the economic issues relevant to the desirability of maintaining enough spaces at each reactor's fuel pool to accept the discharge of an entire core?
(Henceforth, having enough space to accept a full core will be called maintaining a " full core reserve,"
or simply "FCR". )
12.
For each of the five reactors of interest, under what circumstances would Duke Power Company operate them without having FCR?
13.
What are the econcmic constraints on applying each of the physical possibilities for expansion of at-reactor storage at each of the five reactors?
7 14.
Do any of the constraints in Question 13 pose so great a problem that they would render the physical possibility for expansion concerned impossible to apply?
If so, please include a detailed analysis showing exactly why Duke Power Company believes this to be the case.
15.
What are the dates on which each of the five reactors runs out of FCR if for the sake of analysis it is assumed that they jointly store spent fuel at a common pool made up of each of the five at-reactor pools?
16.
What are the dates on which each of the five reactors runs out of FCR if for the sake of analysis it is assumed that each reactor stores spent fuel at its own spent fuel facility which is expanded from its present capacity to the maximum physically possible, as discussed in Question 10 above?
What are the analogcus dates if all measures physically possible other than construction of new pools are taken?
17.
What are the analogous dates for loss of FCR at each of the five reactors if at-reactor capacity is expanded to the maximum physically possible and economically feasible in Duke Pcwer Company's view?
Please include a " menu" of measures which were assumed to have been taken for the sake of analysis.
8 18.
In the event the tactic explored in Question 15 above is assumed to occur, what does Duke Power Company plan to do when the reactors run out of FCR?
When they run out of spent fuel capacity at all?
What would Duke Power Company do in these instances if no public or private off-site storage were available, other than the facilities at the five reactors?
Respectfully submitted,
^
-e
.,, k,<, _~. w
.&.+u %
f~.thony Z.
Roisman
? atural Resources Defense Council
. '_ 7 15th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202)737-5000 Dated:
March 8, 1979