ML20050D518

Forwards Addl Info Requested on 820308 Re Storage of non-Catawba Fuel at Facility.Responses to Questions 6 & 10c Will Be Provided by 820507

ML20050D518
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	04/02/1982
From:	Parker W DUKE POWER CO.
To:	Adensam E, Denton J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8204120280
Download: ML20050D518 (20)

Text

. .

DUKE POWER COMPANY Powen 11cu.nswo 422 Sourn Cnuncu Srazer. Cauntorre, N. C.asa4a .

WIL LI A M O. PA R M ER, J R.

Vice Petsiors, itLtewoht:AntA 704 s'ca= Peooucoa April 2, 1982 37 3-4o s 3 Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director -

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation f /

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission e o M x3 Washington, D. C. 20555 ,

%gt h ;; j VJ ig Attention: Ms. E. G. Adensam, Chief g ((! N gi- Yh I!i

• T Licensing Branch No. 4 - =

C

{ j}

Re: Catawba Nuclear Station g Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414

_....J)[

~

Dear Mr. Denton:

Elinor G. Adensam's letter of March 8, 1982 requested additional information related to the storage of non-Catawba fuel at the Catawba Nuclear Station.

Attached are responses to these questions with the exception of questions 6 and 10c, which will be provided by May 7,1982.

V y truly yours, q

., e,.u r c -

William O. Parker, Jr.

ROS/php Attachment l

cc: J. P. O'Reilly l

P. K. Van Doorn R. Guild Palmetto Alliance J. L. Riley H. Presler TzoOl t' s/,i 8204120280 820402 PDR ADOCK 05000 A

a n 2 - S.-

i .

Duke Power Company Catawba Nuclear Station Response to Elinor G. Adensam's Letter of 3/8/82 The following responses are based on the current spent fuel storage capacity of the Duke system plus firmly planned expansions and additions thereof. The current Duke system includes poison storage racks at Oconee 1, 2 and high density storage racks at Oconee 3, McGuire 1 and McGuire 2. Firmly planned additions are the Catawba pools with high density racks. The only firm expansion planned at this time is a poison reracking of the Oconee 3 pool.

1. In the FSAR, you have considered a plan to store irradiated fuel assemblies from Oconee, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and from McGuire, Unit Nos. 1 and 2.

a) Is Duke considering plans to store irradiated fuel assemblies from facilities other.than Oconee or McGuire?

b) If answer to (a) is yes,- does Duke's present application include request for authority to store irradiated fuel assemblies from facilities other than Oconee and McGuire?

c) What is the earliest date that Duke is considering commencement of shipment of irradiated fuel assemblies from Oconee and McGuire to Catawba and storage thereof at Catawba?

Response

a) Duke is not considering plans to store irradiated fuel assemblies from facilities other than Oconee or McGuire.

b) N/A c) Based on current spent fuel storage planning, the earliest date that Duke would consider commencement of shipment of irradiated i

fuel assemblies from Oconee and McGuire to Catawba is March, 1987.

These first shipments would come from McGuire based on a FCR loss j date of 3/88. Shipments from Oconee would commence in March, 1991 based on a FCR loss date of 3/90. Events occurring at McGuire or Oconee which would reduce available storage at those sites could advance these dates.

l

2. a) What is the minimum storage time prior to the shipment of spent fuel assemblies to Catawba from the Oconee and McGuire Stations?

b) Provide the technical specification that will limit .the spent

, fuel capacity in the spent fuel pools at Catawba, Unit Nos. 1 and 2.

! How much space will be reserved for a complete core defueling from i Catawba, for other core components, and for fuel assemblies from the Oconee and McGuire Stations? How much additional space will be provided for spent fuel casks from other Duke facilities?

l Response:

a) Should spent fuel assemblies be transferred from Oconee and McGuire to Catawba, the minimum cooling time of those assemblies will be 5 years.

b) The Catawba Technical Specification limiting spcnt fuel storage capacity will be in accordance with Specification 5.6.3 of NUREG-0452, Rev. 4, " Standard Technical Specifications for Westinghouse Pressurized Water Reactors." The spent fuel storage capacity will be limited to 1418 assemblies per unit as discussed in FSAR Section 9.1.2.2. One (1) full core reserve of 193 assemblies will be reserved at the Catawba Nuclear Station. No actual storage space will be reserved for the storage of non-fuel core components.

Although no specific storage locations will be reserved for non-l Catawba fuel, the maximum number of assemblies from Oconee and l

~

McGuire that would be stored in Catawba's present storage racks will be 896 and 957, respectively, the combined total of which will not exceed 1437 assemblies. No additional space will be provided j for spent fuel casks from other Duke facilities.

l

3. a) What is the maximum number of spent fuel assemblies per year and the maximum number of shipments per year that will be transferred from Oconee and McGuire stations to Catawba? Will they be shipped by truck, rail or barge?

b) What is the estimated water temperature in the spent fuel pool due to the schedule proposed in your response to 3a above?

c) What is the average weight of UO 2 in e ch fuel assembly from the Oconce and McGuire Stations?

c) What is the average irradiation level (burnup) of the spent fuel to be shipped to Catawba?

e) What additional amount of solid radwaste will be generated at Catawba as a result of this alternate plan?

f) Will failed fuel assemblics be shipped from the Oconee or McGuire Stations to be stored in the Catawba spent fuel pools?

Response

a) The spent fuel shipment commencement dates given in Ic above would require the transfer of at least 10 to 12 assemblies per month from each station; however, due to scheduling conflicts that might inter-fere with the shipments, there might be periods of time that would require a faster rate of shipments. It is anticipated, therefore, that the maximum number of asuemblies shipped in one month could be as much as 25 from each station or an annual total of 300 from each station. Assuming the use of a single element truck cask, the maximum number of shipments per year would be 300 from each station.

Shipments from Oconee would be by truck. Shipments from McGuire would be by truck and/or rail, b) Due to the relatively low heat content of a McGuire/Oconee fuel assembly that might be transferred to Catawba (5 years cooled), the maximum water temperature of the Catawba spent fuel pools will not be significantly affected relative to the option of storing only Catawba fuel in the Catawba pools. Liner plate material limitations prohibit bulk pool water temperatures from exceeding 150 F; however, normal operating temperatures of the pools with spent fuel from Oconee and McGuire as described above will be much lower.

c) The average weight of UO2in each Oconce fuel assembly is about 1159 pounds. Each McGuire assembly contains about 1155 pounds of UO2 '

3. Response (cont'd) d) The average burnup of Oconee fuel assemblies which might be shipped to Catawba would be about 26.03 MWD /KgU. The fuel which might be shipped from McGuire would have an average burnup of about 24.97 MWD /KgU.

e) The additional amount of solid radwaste generated as a result of spent fuel shipments would be approximately one cubic foot per shipment. This material will consist mainly of H.P. related supplies such as swipes, clothing and decontamination water filters, f) Any fuel assemblies showing evidence of rod failure will remain at the site from which they were generated.

4. Duke Power Company is presently considering spent fuel rod consolidation at Oconce. Provide your plan for possible future use of the Catawba spent fuel pools for storage of consolidated fuel assemblies from Oconee, McGuire, or Catawba.

Restense:

Duke has no plans at this time for use of the Catawba spent fuel pools for storage of compacted (consolidated) assemblies from Oconec, McGuire or Catawba. Future use of Catawba pools for this purpose would depend upon need for additional storage, development and approval of compaction tech-nology, availability of alternative storage options, licensing considera-tions and cost, a

5. Provide the nominal value of the effective multiplication factor of the racks and the uncertainty to be added to this value due to the storage of non-Catawba irradiated fuel at Catawba.

Response

Criticality calculations performed on the Catawba fuel storage racks included the conservative assumption that all fuel stored in the racks was fresh, j unirradiated fuel. This resulted in an effective multiplication factor of less than 0.95. Since all non-Catawba fuel that would be stored at Catawba would be irradiated to enrichment levels below that of Catawba fresh fuel, no uncertainties will be added to the nominal value for Keff as obtained in the original criticality calculations. Thus, the assessment set out in the Catawba FSAR is the bounding situation.

i t

l j

l l

l i

6. Provide the verification results of the KENO Code used. This should include a description of the experiments which were calculated and the bias and standard deviation of the calculational results. It should be noted that the KENO code was not previously approved by the NRC.

Response

Detailed calculational results, benchmarking results, and documentation of the procedures used for the Catawba fuel storage racks criticality calculations will be provided by May 7, 1982.

l l

4

7. The Oconee fuel assemblies which may be stored in Catawba racks are 15 x 15 rather than 17 x 17 assemblies. For the same enrichment there may be small differences between these and the optimized Westinghouse design. Provide a discussion of such differences.

Response

Other than the actual number of rods in the fuel assembly the only other significant difference between the two types of fuel assemblics is in their length. This difference will be readily solved through the use of a spacer in the cell locations containing Oconee fuel. The other differences between the two fuel types will have no significant effect

on handling, storage, criticality, pool heat-up or any other parameter of importance in the storage of spent fuel at Catawba.

I t

l l

}

I

. _ _ _ _ _ _ , . _ , _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . _, . . ~ . .

8. Identify the casks used for fuel shipments between Oconec, McGuire and Catawba.

_ Response:

Any future Oconee-Catawba spent fuel shipments would be by truck. Planning for any future McGuire-Catawba spent fuel shipments currently includes both truck and rail modes. NRC certified casks suitable for Oconec and McGuire fuel shipments are:

Truck Rail NAC-1, NFS-4 IF-300 NLI 1/2 NLI 10/24 TN-8 Additional NRC certified casks may be available at the time of shipment.

Shipments will be made only in NRC certified casks. Commercial considera-tions dictate that specific casks not be identified at this time.

1 I

1 I

i 1

9. Provide the name of the carrier, i

Response

Carrier or carriers for truck shipments from Oconee to Catawba or from McGuire to Catawba have not been selected. Any carriers selected would be a common carrier who meets Duke Power Company, NRC and DOT regulations.

In addition, any such carrier would be licensed by NRC as a transporter of spent nuclear fuel and regulated by the Department of Transportation j and the States of North Carolina and South Carolina.. -

l Any carrier for rail shipments from McGuire to Catawba would be the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company and the Southern Railway Company or their successors.

4 i

i) i h

a J

i. _. ._ . _ _ . . _ _ _ . _ . . _ , . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . , . _ _ _ _ _ _ , . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ . . _ . _ _ . . , _ _ _ _ ,

l 4

10. a) Provide the routes that Duke plans to consider in shipping fuel from Oconea and McGuire to Catawba.

b) Provide the distances in miles of the proposed routes.

c) What is the average population density along each of the proposed routes?

Response

a) Because of the lack of any firm plans for the eventual shipment of spent fuel from Oconee and McGuire to Catawba, no routes have been selected. Nevertheless, the following routes have been identified to show the spectrum of routes being considered:

Rail Routes - McGuire to Catawba Route A - Seaboard Coastline from McGuire to Mount Holly, N. C.

Seaboard Coastline from Mt. Holly to Charlotte, N. C.

Interchange from Seaboard Coastline to Southern at Charlotte Southern from Charlotte to Rock Hill, S. C.

Southern from Rock Hill to Duke spur to Catawba Station Route B - Same as Route A from McGuire to Charlotte Seaboard Coastline from Charlotte to Monroe, N. C.

Seaboard Coastline from Monroe to Chester, S. C.

Southern Railroad from Chester to Rock Hill, S. C.

Southern from Rock Hill to Duke spur to Catawba Station Route C - Same as Route A from McGuire to Charlotte interchanges Southern Railroad from Charlotte to Gastonia, N. C.

Southern from Gastonia to York, S. C.

Southern from York to Duke spur to Catawba Station Truck Routes - McGuire to Catawba Route A - N. C. 73 East from McGuire to I-77 I-77 South to Westinghouse Blvd.

Westinghouse Blvd. West to N. C. 49 N. C. 49 South to S. C. 49 S. C. 49 South to S. C. 274 S. C. 274 South to Catawba Station i

Route B - N. C. 73 East from McGuire to I-77 I-77 South to S. C. 161 S. C. 161 West to S. C. 274 S. C. 274 North to Catawba Station

_ _ ~ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _. , - _ _ _ _._

10. Response (cont'd)

Route C - N. C. 73 East from McGuire to I-77 I-77 South to I-85 I-85 South to N. C. 161 N. C. 161 South to S. C. 161 S. C. 161 South to S. C. 55 S. C. 55 East to S. C. 274 S. C. 274 South to Catawba Station Route D - N. C. 73 West from McGuire to N. C. 27 N. C. 27 West to N. C. 150 N. C. 150 West to U. S. 321 U. S. 321 South to I-85 I-85 South to N. C. 161 N. C. 161 South to S. C. 161 S. C. 161 South to S. C. 55 S. C. 55 East to S. C. 274 S. C. 274 South to Catawba Station Truck Routes - Oconee to Catawba Route A - S. C. 130 South from Oconee to U. S. 123 U. S. 123 East to S. C. 153 S. C. 153 South to I-85 I-85 North to Charlotte (I-77)

Same as McGuire Route A from Charlotte Route B - S. C. 130 South from Oconee to U. S. 123 U. S. 123 East to S. C. 153 S. C. 153 South to I-85 I-85 North to Charlotte (I-77)

Same as McGuire Route B from Charlotte Route C - S. C. 130 South from Oconee to U. S. 123 U. S. 123 East to S. C. 153 S. C. 153 South to I-85 I-85 North to S. C. 161 Same as McGuire Route C from S. C. 161 Routes D, E, F - S. C. 130 South from Oconee to U. S. 123 U. S. 123 East to U. S. 76 U. S. 76 South to I-85 Same as Routes A, B, C from I-85 @ S. C. 153 Routes G,11, I - S. C.130 North f rom Oconee to S. C. 183 S. C. 183 West to S. C.-11 S. C. 11 East to I-85 Same as Routes A, B, C from I-85 @ S. C. 11

10. Response (cont'd) b) Shipment route mileages are summarized as follows:

Oconee to Catawba Truck Routes:

Route A 182 miles Route B 184 miles Route C 154 miles Route D 191 miles Route E 193 miles Route F 149 miles Route G 181 miles Route H 183 miles Route I 139 miles McGuire to Catawba Truck Routes:

Route A 48 miles Route B 50 miles Route C 79 miles Route D 63 miles McGuire to Catawba Rail Routes:

Route A 66 miles Route B 125 miles Route C 72 miles c) Although large portions of the proposed routes for use from Oconee and McGuire to Catawba have been previously studied under the Oconee to McGuire transportation license, population densities are presently being surveyed. Upon completion of these surveys, the results will be transmitted to the NRC.

$3

11. When does Duke plan to submit a route approval request in accordance with 10 CFR 73.37 for spent fuel shipments between Oconee, McGuire, and Catawba?

Response

If spent fuel were ever shipped from Oconee or McGuire to Catawba, Duke would submit a route approval request, in accordance with 10 CFR 73.37, for such shipments 7 days prior to commencement of shipments between the stations. Based on the potential schedule described in Ic above, this would be March, 1987 for McGuire to Catawba routes and March, 1991 for Oconee to Catawba routes.

l l

{

I 9-+

I t

4 a

j 12. Confirm that the material combinations of the fuel and storage racks l and the spacer-insert materials to be used in the Catawba spent fuel pool for non-Catawba fuel are identical to those for Catawba fuel.

Response

The materials contained in the fuel assemblies that might be transferred to Catawba are stainless steel-304, zircaloy-4 and inconel-718. Also, the fuel assembly spacers that will be used for storing the Oconce assemblies are to be constructed of stainless steel-304. These are the same. materials that are used in the Catawba fuel assemblies. Therefore, no additional material combinations will be added to the Catawba spent fuel pools.

i e

1 l

l I

L h

l

_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ . . , . , _ _ _ _ , _ _ . . , , -~_.._,....._m ,m_._,,,_,. , ,_, . .. , ~ . __,__ . , _ _ _ ...,___ _ , , _ _ . _ , - , , , , , , _ _ _ _ _ , . , _ _ . ~ , _ , , , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . , _ , , _ . _ , ,

13. Does Duke plan to return any of the Oconee or McGuire fuel stored at Catawba to these facilities (i.e., Oocnee or McGuire) in the future?

Response

If any Oconee or McGuire fuel were to be stored at Catawba, Duke would not plan to return it to Oconce or McGuire in the future.

14. Discuss the applicability of Table S-4, 10 CFR 51.20, to your plans for shipping fuel from Oconee and McGuire to Catawba. Include such factors as traffic density, transportation workers, exposure of the general public, radiological effects and any pertinent site specific considerations such as a large number of construction workers at any of these plants.

Response

The environmental impact results contained in Table S-4 of 10 CFR 51.20 make several assumptions on fuel assembly characteristics, traffic and population densities. As discussed below, each of these assumptions is applicable to the proposed shipments of spent fuel from Oconee and McGuire to Catawba.

Reactor type - Table S-4 assumes LWR with limited thermal power of 3800 Megawatts. Oconee and McGuire are both LWR Nuclear Stations with unit thermal power ratings of 2568 and 3411 Megawatts respectively.

Fuel type - Table S-4 assumes Zr-4 clad UO2 at enrichments below 4%.

Both Oconee and McGuire fuel is UO with Zr-4 cladding.

2 Maximum initial enrichment of fuel that would be shipped from both Oconee and McGuire is 3.20 %.

Fuel history - Table S-4 assumes fuel burnup- levels below 33,000 MWD /MTU and a minimum cooling time of 90 days. Average burnup levels are discussed-in the response to question 3D. Oconee's candidate fuel assemblies will have maximum burnup levels of only 31,000 MWD /MTU. However, there will be a limited number of McGuire assemblies with burnup levels between l 33,000 and 43,000. This higher burnup level would, however, be completely off-set by the fact that all fuel transferred (Oconee or McGuire) will have undergone at least 5 years of cooling. In any event, the bulk of shipped McGuire assemblies will have burnup levels below 33,000 MWD /MTU.

Transport Mode-Table S-4 assumes that shipments of irradiated fuel utilize truck, rail or barge transport modes. All shipments from Oconee and McGuire will be by either Truck or Rail.

Heat Loads - Table S-4 assumes a maximum of 250,000 Btu /hr heat load per cask during shipment. Due to the extended cooling time for the candidate fuel assemblies this limit will never be exceeded. For 5-year cooled fuel the heat content will be less than one KW or 3,400 Btu /hr.

14. Response (cont'd)

Weight limits - As mentioned in Table S-4, weight limitations will be governed by State and Federal regulations which will be observed by Duke Power Company.

Frequency of Shipments - With a maximum of 25 fuel assemblies shipped per month from each plant, the Table S-4 limits of 1 truck shipment per day and 3 rail shipments per month will not be exceeded.

Exposed Workers - Spent fuel transportation will generally require the use of less than 10 transportation workers per shipment.

This is considerably less than the Table S-4 limit of 200.

Exposed Population - Since the handling of the spent fuel at both ends of a spent fuel shipment is done within the Oconee, McGuire and Catawba sites there will be no dose to general public onlookers.

Although the general public exposure along the route will depend cn the results of the population surveys being done in response to question 10c., based on information on hand, the 600,000 maximum given in Table S-4 would not be exceeded even in the use of the most populated route being considered for spent fuel shipments to Catawba.

l l

l 1

l

15. The transportation of spent fuel to Catawba from Oconee and McGuire should result (except for mileage and routes) in an increased impact on the total spent fuel movement related to Catawba. What will be the additional increase in spent fuel movement over that normally expected if no spent fuel were imported from Oconee and McGuire?

Response

The additional increase in spent fuel movement over that normally expected if no spent fuel were imported from Oconee and McGuire would be as stated in 2B above.

, _ -_.