ML20062C326

Responds to 781012 NRC Request for Info Re Amend to Lic SNM-1773 for Spent Fuel Shipment to Mcguire.Finds That Reracking Oconee Spent Fuel Pool Is Tech Feasible as a Possible Future Action,But Requests Processing of Appl Now

ML20062C326
Person / Time
Site:	Oconee, Mcguire, McGuire, 07002623
Issue date:	10/18/1978
From:	Parker W DUKE POWER CO.
To:	Starostecki R NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
References
NUDOCS 7811080107
Download: ML20062C326 (6)

Text

"

.. ..:..... -:2. . w u.+. ,a s 1

~ -

.' N, .

[s-x L.9 M R C p y g u c m e,',,,

/

==-=e=~

1 Duxz POWER COMPANY  %,17

) Powzu Bun.ntxo I

422 Sourn Cauncu Sims

!. ' j i.J . r, CnAmWtrA i ll Ue N.C.asa4a I wn.ua o.**anza.v n h'er?L8s.1978 L CIcit' O.C . Tetca'cas:^aca 7o4 l v.ec e. oca' 273-4ces j sec. Paoovenoa N

,73 I &

g \5 c,,,

j

~~ /N UCDq Director f Office of Nuclear Material ,-

ei w uoj

_gs Safety and Safeguards 4 4%,

g gig?g A _

~! U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7 Washington, D. C. 20555 //

b Attention

Mr. Richard L Starostecki, Chief Fuel Reprocessing and Recycle Branch

//

/ -

p i N Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety y ,

{'

,Qr' q% ,

jdy .

- .) h.

i Re: Duke Power Company ~

- t-Docket Number 70-2623 5

SNM-1773

,fQ'

} [ .*

%- . , ~. 9., .

, ,' ;l i ' '

i

Dear Sir:

l In response to your letter of October 12, 1978 attached is a discussion of the preferability of shipment of Oconee spent fuel to McGuire versus increasing the j

h. capacity of the Oconee 1 and 2 spent fuel pool. As shipment of Oconee fuel to McGuire continues to be necessary beginning in early-1979 your prompt resolu-

' tion of this matter is requested.

Ve truly yours, j

i i _ d. av William O. Parker, Jr.

DCH:ses

-1 72 m,. 7 7 1 Attachment O

j

, OSoo y y 003'69 A M'. D Q Q 6 lO7 (kW & o.ruc7o A 676o2 6 2 3 C-

V

. m.- ._ L.__ o c , a 2. . l .- _ a wu '%

s. .

'1 . . . .

j , .

• fe DUKE POWER COMPANY

.j AMENDMENT OF SPECIAL NUCLEAR MATERIAL LICENSE SNM-1773

~

{

'I Response to NRC Staff Request for Additional Information Dated ,

October 12, 1978 l I

On March 9, 1978 Duke Power Company submitted an application for amendment of 4 Special Nuclear Material License SNM-1773 to allow storage of spent nuclear fuel from Oconee Nuclear Station at McGuire Nuclear Station. In that applica-tion several options to shipment of Oconee spent fuel to McGuire were addressed.

(! With regard to the expansion of the existing Oconee spent fuel storage facili-1 j ties it was stated:

Consideration was given to providing additional storage at Ocones so j

that transportation of spent fuel to another storage location would

' not be required. The addition of high density racks at Oconee Unit 3

• (Section 1.2 of this doc' ment) alleviated the storage problem tempo-

') rarily. Storage expension of the Unit I and 2 storage pool would also i require use of high density storage racks. To accomplish this, all fuel would have to be moved elsewhere, the pool drained and decon-

, 1 taminated, existing racks removed, and new racks installed. Since i space for interim storage of the fuel in the Oconee 1 and 2 pool is not available this option is not considered viable." ,

d. -

The conclusion as to,the viability of increasing the capacity of the Oconee 1

] &, and 2 spent fuel pool was based on evaluations performed relative to the addi-t

, I tion of high density spent fuel storage racks to the Oconee 3 pool. At that j

time it was and is considered that industry experience did not support removal

• of existing spent fuel storage racks and replacement with higher capacity racks .

i l

for storage facilities of the design of Oconee while spent fuel was present.

i j Specifically, the necessity for draining the pool was foreseen. Rack removal and replacement would therefore involve movement and storage of existing dis-charged spent fuel and the performance of all required activities in tha time i frame available between subsequent Oconee 1 and 2 refuelings.

5 i

'l i

J l'

-. ., - - . .. x , m J' .. .

, , ' , ; ,'i

'4

] Industry experience has since shown that removal and replacement of spent fuel storage racks at pools containing discharged assemblies is feasible and Duka

.s Power Company has further evaluated this option with regard to'the Oconee 1

'4 and 2 spent fuel pool. These studies indicate that increasing the capacity of the Oconee 1 and 2 pool is currently technically feasible but is not preferable l to shipment of Oconee fuel to McGuire.

Table 1 summarizes the projected Oconee spent fuel storage situation, assuming

'.Oi

+3 the capacity of the Oconee 1 and 2 pool is not increased. As can be seen, sta-

.i O tion full core discharge capability is no longer available as of the mid-1979 refueling of Oconee 3. Without providing for full core discharge, the Oconee q

} spent fuel pools are effectively full as of the end of 1979.

i 1

)l Raracking~of the Oconee 1 and 2 pool ~is estimated to require 53 weeks for mate-j rial procurement and delivery, and an additional ten weeks for installation.

1 That is, on site activities to modify the Oconee 1 and 2 spent fuel pool could not

]

begin until late - 1979 or early - 1980. A minimum of 160 unused storage spaces

'J i

O are necessary in order for incremental rack removal and replacement and would i

not be available at that point in time. It is not considered possible to suf-i i i l

! ficiently expedite the Oconee 1 and 2 pool reracking schedule such that it can

).

I 'l be performed while the necessary number of excess storage spaces are present.

Therefore, some shipment of Oconee spent fuel to McGuire must occur, even if the i

j capacity of Oconee 1 and 2 spent fuel pool is to be increased.

' -}-$ If it is postulated that schedule improvements could be made to allow reracking l

l of the Oconee 1 and 2 pool to proceed while sufficient storage spaces are avail-1 i;

.. }

I

^

l .. - -

~ __ .- -

..m a .

_ _ _ . _ = . . . . _ - m - m 4 .

j, ., ,. , able, it should be noted that this would result in the loss of full core dis-charge capability at Oconee. Thisisnotconsideredanacceptablealternath.ve to shipment of Oconee spent fuel to McGuire. Four unplanned defuelings of the Oconee units have been experienced to date. Oconee 1 was defueled in April, i

j 1976; Oconee 2 in February, 1974 and April, 1976; and Oconee 3 in September,

, .i 1976. Further defuelings ,in the near future are not anticipated' but cannot be precluded. Replacement power costs should a defueling be necassary but not possible are substantial (on the order of $250,000 per day per unit affected) and

,] it is considered that this risk should not be incurred if other acceptable options

!, O are available.

i With regard to the cosc of increasing the capacity of Oconee 1 and 2 spent fuel

pool, it is estimated that rack design, fabrication, placement, etc. would cost i

at least $2,750,000. An additional $250,000 would be required to upgrade the

.i spent fuel pool cooling system and other lesser costs would also be incurred.

'l The total cost of the modification would therefore be at least $3,000,000 for a -

J lt '

net increase of approximately 500 spent fuel storage spaces. The resulting cost

_}

O per additional storage space would be approximately $6,000. The actual cost for f

i> ' reracking of the Oconee 3 spent fuel pool in 1976 was approximately $9,000 per 4

additional storage space. The projected cost for the Oconee 1 and 2 effort is

} therefore considered to be between $6000-10,000 per additional storage space when uncertainties, escalation, etc. are considered. Shipment of Oconee spent fuel to McGuire is estimated to cost approximately $2,000 per assembly. Consequently,

increasing the capacity of the Oconee 1 and 2 spent fuel pool is not economically preferable compared to shipment of Oconee assemblies to McGuire.

Ii

, in conclusion, current evaluation indicates that reracking the Oconee 1 and 2 t

l t

0

.i

.iD c x 2-.-. , - . . - . . .: .-

i .

],..,/.

spent fuel pool is technically feasible. Schedule factors however do not permit this option to be exercised without some spent fuel shipment to McGuire, and the 'I

, ~ ,1 )

I

) option is not economically preferable to the planned shipment of Oconee spent I l i fuel to McGuire. Shipment of Oconee as'semblies to McGuire is considered to represent a negligible enviromental impact and low potential risk to the health and safety of the public and to be clearly acceptable. Increasing the capacity of the Oconee 1 and 2 spent fuel pool.is a possible future action should such be necessary to provide additional storage capacity to assure the continued opera-tion of the Oconee units. Approval of the requested license amendment for McGuire should proceed expeditiously, however.  !

h i

s i 6

i i

o i

i 4

}

I /

I e

1:

1

'+

i

!I

[i[.

-- _ .. _ _ ,.._ .. _ . .. U.. . U ._ ... i _ a ._ ; . ; _ u _; _, ... --

I.

O O .:.

~

TABLE 1 ,-

+ OCONEE SPENT FUEL STORAGE STATUS WITHOUT RERACKING OCONEE 1 AND 2 POOL Total

! Useable Occupied Available .Available Storage Storage Storage Storage Spaces Assuming Spaces Spaces Full Core Discharge Remarks Date Spaces

• 275 98 Current Status 10/78 764 489

~

42 oconee 2 Refueling 11/78 764 545 219 163

- Oconee 3 Refueling 06/79 764 601 95

- Oconee 1 Refueling 10/79 764 669 .

Oconee 2 Refueling 11/79 764 737 27 ', -

}

! 1

! l i

t

• Based on 301 spaces in the Oconee 1 and 2 spent fuel pool and 463 spaces in the Oconee 3 pool. F l

l e

4 S

G

.. . i<