ML20054M747
| ML20054M747 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/24/1982 |
| From: | Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Ahearne J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20053D504 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8207140355 | |
| Download: ML20054M747 (7) | |
Text
-
,7
)
g y
9 g.
~
JUN 241982
!!EMORANDUf1 FOR: Conmission Ahearne FROM:
Willian J. Dircks, Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
ONSITE EXPANSIGH OF SPENT FUEL CAPACITY In response to your memorandun of June 11, 1982 on this subject the following is provided:
Ouestion 1 Provide information on the cost and time to conplete reracking.
Answer With a few exceptions, the applications received in the past few years to increase the storage capacity of onsite spent fuel pools (SFP) are second reracking programs for the facilities involved. Except for the newer plants that have not generated spent fuel (e.g., Farley Unit 2) the costs associated with reracking the SFPs include significant costs to renove, decontaminate and dispose of the existing racks. The present costs for reracking with poisoned, high density storage racks - including removal and disposal of the existing racks - is in the range of $3.5 to $4.5 million per facility.
This represents an increase of about $1 million, during the past 5 years, from what it had cost the utilities to install intermediate density racks.
For BURS, the costs range from about $1200 to $1600 per fuel assembly.
For PWRs, the costs range from about $2600 per fuel assembly for Farley Unit 2 (where no decontanination or disposal costs are involved) to $5300 per fuel assembly. These costs are generally based on progress paynents at 20% interest and frequently on extended delivery of the new racks to reduce yearly capital outlays.
Frequently, utilities advise us when they are first considering reracking their SFPs. Apparently, it takes one to two years for the utilities to complete the engineering design and analyses, issue bids, execute a contract and prepare an application. Generally, it takes the staff about one year to review the application and prepare a safety evaluation report and environ-rental frpact appraisal. The hearing process, if there is one, has generally been less than 6 nonths, although there have been a few protracted hearings.
In the case of Big Rock Point, the staff's Safety Evaluation Report was issued f/
kp in May 1981, about two years after receipt of the application. Hearings on i
this application are still in progress.
8207140355 820624 CONTACT:
PDR COMMS NRCC C. Nel son, i:RR CORRESPONDENCE PDR X28140 cmcr >
QURNAMEk N.
"' ' *- 3 2 " 2 '
- cu o2" OFFICIAL RECOFiD COPY
l f, = _ f q,
,y G
M el
(
2-The time the utility takes to complete the modification, once the Comission approves it, depends on the utility's needs and varies from weeks to years.
In the case of Duane Arnold, the additional storage space was needed to off-load the core to start replacement of the recirculation inlet safe ends.
The licensee started installation of the new racks the day they received our approval and cogleted the installation in 3 weeks. On the other hand, there are utilities who received approval to rerack over 4 years ago and who are still replacing the existing racks on an as-needed basis.
Question 2 Provide information on the cost and time to complete Maine Yankee type of disassembly.
Answer The spent fuel consolidation propcsed for Haine Yankee involves the dis-assembly of standard fuel assemblies (176 fuel rods) and the asserbly of cogacted fuel assenblies containing up to 285 fuel rods.
In conjunction with the spent fuel consolidation Maine Yankee has also proposed a reracking of their spent fuel pool, in addition to the costs of reracking discussed in response to question 1, there are costs directly related to the fuel consolidation. The cost estimates presented below were taken from Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company's submittal of October 5,1981.
Cost per Standard Item (Uncompacted) Assembly Note 1 Haterials (compact cage consisting of grids,
$2,470 tie rods and end plates)
Disposal of old fuel cages (cutting, shipping 1,200 and burial)
Labor 900 Total
$4,570 Note 1: This is an equivalent cost based on $4,000 per compacted assembly.
"'c'>
""'"4 DATEf swerosu m e soin=cu o2 a OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
- *o "** *2 *
.g
. (
if h
$?
h
~
, 1 The licensee first notified the staff of its desire to perfom fuel consoli-1 dation in Novenber 1978. The licensee submitted its application for our approval of this fuel consolidation in September 1979. Since that time the proposed l
action has been expanded to include reracking (September 1980) and the use of a temporary storage rack (October 1981). The staff's safety evaluation and environmental impact appraisal were issued June 16, 1982. There is a hearing board assigned to this matter but a hearing date has not yet been set.
1 If approved, the licensee intends to implement the changes over an extended period of tine. The licensee estimates, based on experience with fuel recon-stitution, that a complete disassembly of a standard fuel assembly and the reassembly of the fuel rods in the compacted fom can be accomplished within 30 hours3.472222e-4 days <br />0.00833 hours <br />4.960317e-5 weeks <br />1.1415e-5 months <br /> by 2 nen. The licensee plans on consolidating about 200 assemblies per year.
Question 3 Provide information on the cost and time to complete construction of a new onsite spent fuel storage facility.
Answer Recently the Department of Energy commissioned a study of spent fuel stor-age at a reactor site in different types of dry storage independent spent fuel storage installations. The reactor site chosen for comparative economic projections was the Surry site with two operating reactors for the period 1985-2009. The study, DOE /ET/47929-1 dated Hovember 1981, is entitled "A Preliminary Assessment of Alternative Dry Storage Methods for the Storage of Commerical Spent Nuclear Fuel." Estimated schedules for implementation of different modes of spent fuel storage are shown in the attached Table 7-1 taken from DOE /ET/47929-1. Construction time varies from an estinated 10 months for cask storage of consolidated or unconsolidated spent fuel to 36 nonths for water basin or vault storage, options involving massive structure construction. Estinated Costs for different storage nodes are shown in the attached Table 8-1 fron 00E/ET/47929-1 in 1981 dollars. Storage operations were assuned to begin in 1985 with a discount rate of 14 percent / year. For options not scheduled to be available by 1985, cask storage was assumed for excess spent fuel until the storage nethod was available. Thereafter, all further excess spent fuel would be stored in accordance with the method specified.
I trust this information is responsive to your request.
(Signed) William!.Ditske Willian J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations Attachnents:
cc: Chairman Palladino 1.
Table 7-1 Commissioner Gilinsky 2.
Tabl e 8-1 Commiss ioner Roberts o,,,4 Commiss ioner Asselsti ne- -
. ~. -
. 0GC.
OPE o.u )
. -SECY.
... ~ ~.
~
- we row mwe m %cM **
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
- e
ea s
--1.
m S
!c
.n a no a
e, -
9 3
4 1
DISTRIBUTION:
Central File w/ incoming NRC PDR w/ incoming l
Local PDR w/ incoming l
EDO Rdg ORB #3 Rdg & Memo File ORB #3 Green Ticket File DEisenhut RPurple JHeltemes OELD MBridgers (ED0-11980)
Program Support Staff, NRR l
MJambor MStine/DNottingham PMKreu tzer-3 CNelson RAClark ECase HDenton WDircks TRehm JDavis ACunningham j
PFine
(
PPAS SHanauer RMattson RVollmer HThompson PCheck RSnyder ED0Lt p
WJDirc s
{,^(, i (
6/yf82 MW (.s
/
A r
orricr >
ORB #
ORB #3:DL OPNDL D: h MN:fP..
DD >
D YNft zEr "d@sEn,'id" "RXUi ad""
F alf " " "WEHienliilt'"
' EC' se" "",'" '
H
.unuur) 6 /^1........p/l.I......... 6/g82 6
/82
/82 6
/82 oma) 6/p/82 691/82 6/)l/82
- f..\\
NRC FORM 318110,801 NMCM O240 Q((lClAL RECORD COPY
' " ' + 32 n 2.
)[
Ie
\\-
TABLE 7-l' ESTIMATED SOIEDULES FOR SPENT FUEL. ST01 AGE PROJECTS 6 -
AT REACTOR Si1E Project Impicmentation Time (Months)
Consolidated Year Available (C) or Location Location Testing &
Unconsol-of of Design FRC Construc-Preopera-Tot al for a
b C
Idated (U)
Canning Olsassembly Prep.
Licensing tion attonal Time Operation Rankin1 18 24 36 6
81 1988 5
Water Pool U
(Base Case)
C Storage Sto' rage 18 24 36 6
81 1988 5
Pool Pool 6
24 10 2
42 1985 1
Casks U
C Reactor Reactor 12 24 10 2
48 1985 2
Pool Pool 2
50 1986 3
12 24 '
12 Drywells U
Reactor Pool j
18 24 30 6
78 1988 4
U Separate Facility C
Reactor Reactor 12 24 12 2
50 1986 3
y Pool Pool e
C Separate Separate 18 24 30.
- 6 78 1988 4
fact 11ty Facility 12 24
- 12 2
50 1986 3
Concrete Silos U
Reactor Pool 18 24 30 6'
78 1988 4
U Separate Facility C
Reactor Reactor 12 24 12 2
50 1986 3
Pool Pool C
Separate Separate 18 24 30 6
/0 1988 4
facility Facility Vault U
Reactor 18 24 36.
6 84 1988 5
Pool 18 24 36 6
91 1988 5
U Separate Facility C
Reactor f.eactor 18.
24 36 6-81 1988 5.
Pool Pool C
Separate Separate 18 24 36
.6
, 81 1988 5
Facl11ty Factitty aAssunes no extensive intervention or regulatory problems; also assumes that storage casks are separately liccised by rnanuf acturers.
bAssunes project impicmentation cormnences l'n mid-1981.
Lowest nunerical value represents hl hest ranking, highest nunerical.value represents lowest r'anking, and so on.
C 9
I
)/
Io TABLE 8-1 COMPARIS0N OF ESTIMATED COSTS FOR ALTERNATIVE METil005 0F DRY STORAGE 0F SPENT FUEL AT Tile SURRY STATION (1981 Dollars)
D!scbunted Total Total Total Total System System Capital Operating Lifetime
- Iretime Unit Costs Costs Cost Cost Cost c
($-Millions) ($-Millions) ($-Millions),($- Millionsl ($/kgU) Ranking Uf1C0f150LIDATED FUEL a
Water Basin
$65.4
- $129.8
$195.2
$55.9
$345 13 a
Storage Casks 70.7 21.8 92.5 19.1 117 3
Drywells Canned in Reactor Pool _.
71.6 39.2 110.8 22.1 137 S
Canned in Separate Facility-98.3 78.4 176.7 41.6 257 10 Concrete Silos Canned in Reactor Fool 67.8 49.2
,117.0 26.0 160 6
4 Canned in Separate Facility 89.3
.75.8 165.1 40.6 251 9
Air-Cooled Vault Canned in Reactor Pool 104.1 103.5 207.6 67.9 419 15 Canned in Separate facility 126.4 133.6 260.0 01.7 504 16 C0rlSOLIDATED FUEL D
n!ater Basin
$62.6
$103.3
$165.9
$10.7
$301 12 b
Storage Casks 59.4 22.4 81.8
!?.9 110 1
Drywells Disassembled & Canned in Reactor Pool 47.7 30.7 78.4 18.2 112 2
Disassembled & Canned in Separate Facility 76.6 70.1 116.7 33.9 240 8
Concrete Silos Disassembled & Canned in Reactor Pool 44.9 37.7 82.6 2J. 3 131 4
Disassembled & Canned in Separate Facility 69.2 67.5 136.7 31.6 232 7
Air-Cooled Vault lisassembled & Canned in Reactor Pool 71.3 76.0 147.3
-48.5 300 11 Disassembled & Canned in Separate Facility 96.7 110.0 206.7
,65.6 406 14
'Only uncanned fuel stored bDisassembly and canning accomplished in. reactor storage pool c ln order of increasing unit cost O
_--.~ -. ~ -,
1 l
.i j
.~-
1 l
FROM:
AC~10N CONTROL
. DATES CONTROL NO.119 8 0 I
{.73G1$113RC1" AhMM@
COMPL DEADLINE
$/23fn I.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT D ATE OF DOCUMENT 3
j INTERIM REPLY
{f]jfj TO:
- ~
PREPARE FOR SIGNATURE OF:
~
gggg FINAL REPLY' ' <
o 4 L*
O CHAIRMAN FILE LOCATION j '/
,jq G EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR j
OTHERr i
'~
DESCRIPTION O LETTER M MEMO O REPORT O OTHER SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS.
I
. PR!st!TY Re I inre re on-site expansion of spent
- j
= faal capacity r
i i
i I
CLASSIFIED DATA DOCUMCNTICOPY NO.
'CLASSIFICA TION l NUMBER OF PAGES CATEGORY F
POST AL REGISTRY NO.
O NS: O RD O fro ASSIGN ED TO:
DATE
. INFORMATION ROUTING LEG AL REVIEW.
0 FINAL.
O COPY l
Dantaa. MM EM1/02 Dircks Case /Denten
$7 N ' "" " "*~
^ * * ' " " ' ' '
4*
Y'II"**
O EDO ADMIN & CORRES OR nn ".=
?/14/et-Carnell P.~Flas W
1.
FFAS S*
D" En fe. Check p~~
Ogygg g ggg COMMENTS. NOTIFY:
s-A l
7 Snyder ext.
l q gg 4..
CW8199h43 3.
P.ati.at NOTIFICATION RECOMMENDED:
O vEs O NO 1
N C'[ dM 232 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS DO NOT REMOVE TH/S COPY PRINCIPAL CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL i
5 i
i
_