ML19332A643

Discusses Projected Fuel Utilization for Tarapur Reactors. Current Supply of Fuel in India Is Adequate for Four Refuelings & Would Permit Scheduled Operation of Taps II to Aug 1981 & Taps I to Feb 1982

ML19332A643
Person / Time
Site:	Peach Bottom
Issue date:	01/16/1979
From:	Peterson K NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:	Gilinsky V, Hendrie J, Kennedy R NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
NUDOCS 8009160583
Download: ML19332A643 (8)

Text

F

~

J>p g,gnW J'

4,o.

UNITED STATES e. $ N,,- 7 NUCLE AR REGULATORY CO?.U115 g

S }'-fc,( 4; f.Qh.; 0j W ASHING TON. D. C. 20E55

~,4

}

a January 16,19" I~

i l

u{h (Yh ~ (h& V S

MEMORANDUM FOR:

Chairman Hendrie Com.issioner Gilinsky Commissioner Kennedy Commissioner Bradford

~

==

Commissioner AS FRO'i:

'KeI Pederse

\\

SU3 JECT:

TARAPUR REACTORS - FUEL REOUIREMENTS I am providing for your information an analysis of the fuel requirements for the Tarapur Reactors, TAPS I and II, which updates our earlier analysis of April 3, 1978.

The present analysis is based on more de-tailed and current information in that it reflects the data the State Department obtained from India in response to my questions regarding fuel

=

requirements and schedules during the past two years, future refueling

=

plans, and the current inventory of fuel available in India.

1 CONCLUSIONS 1.

Based on an average of recent fuel usage -- 55 subassemblies per refueling -- the current supply of fuel in India is orobably

~

adequate for four more refuelings.

This would pemit. scheduled operation of TAPS LL to August 1981 and TAPS L ta February 1982.

2.

The additional fuel that would be provided in the cending export, XSNM-1222, would probably allow one more refueling each for TAPS I and II.

It appears.that operation of TAPS II could then extend to

~~

1'ovember 1982 with TAPS I running until May 1983. (Assuming normal 3a;,eration and based on same average fuel consumption as in 1.)

3.

If significantly higher fuel consumotion were experienced, for example an average of 70 subassemblies per refueling *, the last dates for TAPS I operation would occur earlier, but the TAPS II t

dates would be unchanged.

Thus, with only the fuel on hand, TAPS I

• 70 subassemblies correspond to about one-half the normai annual output

~

of the fuel fabrication facility; refuelings of reactors are sequenced roughly 6 months apart.

CONTACT:

Bernie Snyder (OPE)

[i 634-3276

-8009160 5 D H

Io The Commission '

could probably operate to flovember 1980; with XSi;M-1222, TAPS I probably could go to February 1982.

TAPS II capability remains the same as in 1 and 2 above -- August 1981 (only fuel on hand) and !!avember 1982 (with XSf;M-1222).

4.

Allowing 12 months for delivery and fabrication, XSt;M-1222 would probably need to be shipped by ilovember 1979 (high fuel usage rate of 70) er August 1980 (fuel usage rate of 55) in crder to allcw Tor continued cperation of TAPS I and II under the assumptions used s

here.

_=

5.

The above schedules of fuel supply and usage may not allow adequate

=

operational contingency in case of a major problem (e.g., high leakage rate of fuel in a reactor).

DISCUSSION During 1977 and 1978, the following average usage and schedules have been f-experienced at the Tarapur reactors:

_=

o Fifty-six subassemblies of fresh fuel have been required

=

for each refueling; o The reactor operating period between refuelings has been approximately 12 months; and,

'E The refueling outage period has been approximately 2h months.

=- ]

e The schedules for future refuelings are apparently baret on-12~mnthr of operations, with a 3 month refueling outage.

Table 1 below gives the full pattern of this cycle, based on extrapolation of the information from the State Department (December 18, 1978 Telegram).

Figure 1 gives R

the results of the OPE analysis, with the method of calculation given in the Appendix.

Two average fuel consumption rates have been used, 56 and 70 subassemblies (S/A) per refueling.

The dates at which each reactor i*

will no longer have adequate fuel to perr.it each of the assumed average f(T refueling rates (56 or 70) are denoted by the end points of each ber chart.

The projected date for the start of each refueling is shown by the arrows.

q b

i

^~

=

= :...

TABLE 1 TAPS I & II RE.UELING SCHEDULE p

Aporox.

Da te for Refueling TAPS Start of

....~7=

Cycle I or II Refueling 1

II 2/79 2

I 8/79 3

II 5/80 4

I 11/80 5

II 8/81 6

I 2/82 7

II 11/82 8

I 5/83 Refueling Outage-= 3 months-Operating Period = 12 months I

l-9 e

4

d. b

• A... M.. a.! h..h;n, 5,

$![

0 4

3

~u n

?!'....-.!.

,f U.b i: d? d:'

~ ' ..

ii!.

' ii M ;i.t..} :n '.. A;j;!

f s

l~ j i

. ; d.,[

m I'

FIGURE 1

-, l-

..J_.

PROJECTED OPERATING SCilEDULE FOR TARAPUR REACTORS

• l

~

' 7.-

• Assumes 123onth operating cycle

-[cl and 3 month refueling outage.

r t

.t i

i.

9T5-Q.O~.h.L. !.l.S. k.. !G.QP55'/, ///x,$/rj,I/25 [///

70_S/A per Refueling

.f q,

s j

j

~

g 7.p 2/82

.,5/83 Refueling Dates;__

p

.i8/ g 11/80 d ---

" r-l. 1.

1.

I ~i

~

E<

hDI.N.D!I[,

h'.hkh k h h bh/((XkNN,l'2,2'2;

/

56 S/A per Refueling i

t

,-.,' u a

L

.. =.

A o

-r

':.A o

o-p c.

. t,;.~.:,.

.y v

.O

.;t ::

1.

u m.

o c;f-N.. g y-g.1,.n.

e:s-y_

n n

a

._Lu

.a-

_. a t N

I d

h: h

.[$'k '/k.Ih-]

h 1

1

... ;e.: 8:.

&.e..-

r.s.p

.5

_2._

' l,\\ - nh -

n,*

l,'

~

.-s e

[

-(( fy 3~

~

m

(?f_if?!C(""J.6ji,M,,.jfap$@}$5Mf/N@- $$ik/[,/1[XSddik22['//

70 S/A per Refueling,

~

._i I h 1 a : c.Lr e

.I -' i

' M'

' 1.,

'H O

'8/81lq:; - '4

, -M y

4'.,

h

! 11/82,.J RefuelingDates[

H

'~

i 2/ 9

--- 5/80 g

F Y

m

'l

' M

~ ~ ". '

7" 4

P 3 T'l~.T'l a-i

~

$ h._ p 'W hdh M Q Q M[i$$.. h-, @,9]I@//,.

y//Xh.}d}2E2 //k 56 S/A per Refueling ! f-p.

)

n.a g

,n l-

.e i

( x

.c 9 *,

]...

y;

.9 i

+

4 o

v.

. o..

.___u m

• ~

l1i/791 18/80]

L I

l 1 1/82 1/83

__. _'1/84 _'

. _ _. 1 85 i

... Ia17 1/80 ' _m,s

,l/81

- y

~

~ r' yp.2

-. p

_. _---i H r --

1 J

i-

- ~~

~~~

' -- _N.' La s t Da te for

.J 2

Last Date for

'_ Sea Shipment (56);c.-

o;

., Sea S;upment (70)

.c._

1 I

1 t_ _

=g

~

To Tha Commissio'n -

If on the average 56 S/A are loaded, 'then TAPS I probably can operate until February 1982 (with only fuel on hand) or until May 1983 (with XS!1M-1222 added to the fuel on hand).

TAPS II can operate until August

_=

198i (only fuel on hand) or until flovember 1982 (ruel on hand plus XStiM-1222).

If the higher average requirement of 70 S/A per refueling gM is assumed, only TAPS I is affected since for either fuel usage rate, p =..

TAPS II is refueled in May 1980 with fuel on hand.

With a fuel require-l_g ment of 70 S/A, TAPS I can probably operate until Mvember 1950 (only L3 fuel on hand) or until February 1982 (fuel on hand plus XS:iM-1222).

[;

E.gu E

With sea shipments * (about 2 months) and considering customs clearances, overland transportation (about 1 month) and fabrication time of about 9 months, fuel must be shipped about 12 months before it is needed for re-fuel ing.

Two shipment: dates are shown at the bottom of Figure 1.

Under

[

pessimistic assumptions, i.e., 70 S/A per refueling and sea shipment, it i

appears that XSNM-1222 could be shipped in November 1979, without impacting i~

the planned refueling schedules.

With the lower usage rate, but still assuming sea shipment, XSNM-1222 could probably be shipped in August 1980 without impacting operations.

One of the issues you may wish to consider is whether the U.S. obligation for fuel supply encompasses an obligation to ensure optimum operation of the entire fuel cycle (fabrication facility and TAPS I, II) or whether the obligation is only for the reactors.

The State Department has previously taken the position (June 15, 1978 letter from Joseph Nye to Senator L=

John Glenn) that efficient operation of the fuel fabrication facility (apart from efficient operation of TAPS) is a factor to be.censidered.

In the Nye letter regarding. continued. fuel supply,. he_ states-

=

"However, operation of the Nuclear Fuel Complex (NFC) where the L

TAPS fuel is fabricated has been severly disrupted since p=

March 1978, when its. supply of fresh uranium feed was

~

exhausted...

...We interpret the amount of material needed for operation to be the amount required to sustain normal operation of the Nuclear Fuel Complex at Hyderabad for the production of TAPS fuel, consistent with the usual method of operating this facility."

However, it is' relevant to note t. hat Article I.C. of the Agreement for lL-Cooperation is concerned only with "... efficient and continuous operation of the Tarapur Atomic Power Station."

The foregoing analysis is directed at reactor operations and not necessarily.

at assuring ctptimal operations at the fuel fabrication facility.

The most

• Recent shipments have required air shipment, saving about 2 months.

p b

L i

E

=-

To Tne Com.ission sults when operations

[']

efficient use of the fuel fabrication facility re t uranium enrichments

[t umed do not need to be interrupted to process differenAlso, recycle o

!?

=.

is that scrap is processed of fresh fuel - recent information from Sta.tein this a P

E in short runs.

((

h feed m.aterial.

at caly 20% the rate for fresh fuel. fuel f acility should ha

-![

1..

.. i.

f you have any questions on the above, or iI trust t

Attachment:

As Stated James Kelley cc:

Sam Chilk Lee V. Gossick James R. Shea t

i1; p

I k

e e

e 1

o l

'[

~

'l

[.

~

2

l Accen' dix - Method of Calculating Fuel Recuirements One TAPS subasser.bly consis'.s of:

i s[.,...

U-Enrichment Ka.U No. Rods _

M 22 (2 with GdO )

2.66%

85.6 2

42.8

==

2.1 %

11 1.55%

11.5 3

~+h2 140 b=:;

m Totals 36 d-

~

l[

(Kg.)

Total unfabricated fuel material available with exocrt:

p U-Enrichment _

In-process

• Scrap _* -

XSNM-1222**

Kg. Total 1

2.66%

11,970 1,195 9,120 22,285 2.1 %

1,444 91 0 6,080 16,434

.I).

1.66%

1,195 708 1,520 3,423 Data from State Telegram, December 18, 1978 In the State submission of January 5,1979, they indicate that 115 Based on finished subassemblies may be fabricated from XSNM-1222.

somewhat more detailed analysis, only 105 subassemblies may be cbtained, since the 2.66% U enrichment is 1.imiting, viz.

Since all This has been discussed with State.

9,120/85.6 = 106.

available uranium of like enrichments would be combined to maximize

.L the number of full subassemblies, the above procedure has been used to add together uranium available from all sources (in process, scrap, and XSNM-1222) for each of the three enrichments.

y,.:= _

j I'n f.

G

'l

.N

.l' d'd.

~

~ ::::.22::

-- 13.. _.

b

.T

-T g;-

o. Subassemblies which can be fabricated from fuel material available

(ignores small processing lossesl U-enrichment Subassemblies

. q r

2.66%

22,285/85.5 = 260 (limiting) u;:M 2.1 3 16,434/42.3 = 334

.9 ir.

EJ' l.6 %

3,423/11.6 = 295 7

==

Conclusion:==

The available 2.66% U material limits the nurhber of complete subassemblies to 260. '

Additional completed subassemblies on hand (per State 12-19-78 Telegram)is 97.

=

Total subassemblies:

260 + 97 c 357

. Consider two rates of usage per refueling:

(1) 56 subassemblies (average of refueling requirements last two years) 357/56 = 6.4 i e. 6 refuelings with 21 spare subassemblies t

l ':.....

(2) 70 subassemblie.s 1

357/70-= 5.1 i e. 5 refuelings with 7 spare subassemblies

![

[:

g ee 1 J:.T G

..Y.

I f.

i

. 4:.:=_:

.; ::.. = :g ::=

z: g;.;

y::.

..=:p

-c w -

9 c

~

m-a F

W'