ML20087B849

Forwards TS Laguardia 911230 Affidavit Re Unit 1 Capacity to Store Spent Fuel on Site.Present Spent Fuel Storage Capacity Is 17 Cycles or 18 Yrs on 13-month Cycle Base

ML20087B849
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	01/06/1992
From:	Haffer E SHEEHAN, PHINNEY, BASS & GREEN, P.A.
To:	Smukler L NEW HAMPSHIRE, STATE OF
References
NDFC-91-1, NUDOCS 9201130340
Download: ML20087B849 (6)

Text

' .

billlll4N I

hiiNNn II A% +

GHIN s ,

e 1 4

'AI TORNL td Al L AN January 6, 1992 ,

p u t n,stai,3

}'O ti ss 37 -

\le t i:6 - .11,

\14.i-is!Nihk!

m --- Larry strukler, Chairman Nuclear Decommissioning Financing Committee N.H. Public Utilities Commission 8 Old.Suncock Road Concord, New Hampshire 03301 RE: NDFC 91-1

Dear Mr. Smukler:

4' I enclose an Affidavit of Mr. LaGuardia dated December 30, 1991 relating to Unit l's capacity to store spent fuel on site.

Sincerely,

- .,Y ,/f.. Af, c '

^;/

i f

/

Edward A,. Haffer,,,j-:

EAH:dl Enclosures CC with enclosures:.

Service List-State Library 4 Office of State Treasurer

. f,-[gf b i

l /.

9201130340 920106 PDR ADOCK 05000443 p PDR

t THE STATE OF NEW HAMP8 HIRE NUCLEAR DECOMMISSIONING FINANCING COMMITTEE DOCKET NO. NDFC 91-1 I, Thomas S. LaGuardia, under oath affirm as follows:

1. I have read Mr. Boyle's dissent to the Committee's Report and Order dated November 26, 1991, and note that Mr. Boyle says the following at p.53: "(B]y present design the plant has only 12 years of spent fuel storage on-site, which means that by 2002 the cooling pools are full."

2. I respectfully submit that the quoted statement is incorrect.

3. Although this issue was not specifically addressed in NDFC 91-1, it was specifically addressed NDFC 87-1. See New Hampshire Yankee Exhibit 10 in NDFC 87-1, my May 12, 1988 Supplemental Testimony, question and answer 2; a true copy of that Exhibit is attached hereto and incorporated herein.

4. In my attached 1988 Supplemental Testimony, I indicated that there was capacity in the spent fuel pool for 18 years of operation. Under updated projections and current planned fuel cycle lengths, Seabrook Station will not lose its ability to offload a full core of reactor fuel into the spent fuel pool, i.e. ,

its Full Core Reserve (FCR) discharge capt.bility, for 20 years of operation or until the last half of 2010.

5. This information is presented to clarify the record only and

• does not impact any of the studies, testimony or responses to data requests that I have heretofore sponsored before this Committee.

Date: hEteM6eg. 39 /19/ '

kmE Thomas S. LaGua ia STATE OF CONNECTICUT :

ss. Bridgewater COUNTY OF LITCHFIELD :

s Subscriped and sworn to before me this M 'lday of pl'FWil3Cr , 199I .

~

Q Neum

'Lt{1 M. Ca' field Octn4ald U

Notary Public My Commission Expires: 3/31/96

l]il'l %It. IC

,,' Ulf L 91-l -

May 1988 t

' Supplemental Testimony,of Thomas 5. LaGuardia  :

an 1 Q.

Mr. Arnold Wight suggested in his testimony that 2

option of the state of New Hampshire might be to con-3 tract for radioactive waste disposal with the 4 -Appalachian Compact. Have you evaluated the effect 5

on decommissioning costs if the intended disposal 6

site was located within the Appalachian Compact?

7 8 A. TLG based its prompt removal / dismantling cost 9

estimate on a postulated shipping distance of 250 10 miles assuming New Hampshire would negotiate a 11 radioactive waste disposal agreement with the North-east Compact. Until firm plans are made. TLG 12 13 believes its 250 mile assumption is reasonable for 14 estimating the transportation costs associated with 15 decommissioning.

16 17 Nevertheless, for purposes of illustrating the + act 18 of shipping distances an decommissioning costs 1.

19 calculated the costs to ship decommissioning waste 20 to Pennsylvania, the designated host state in the-21 Appalachian Compact. The far western regions of_

22 Pennsylvania are approximately 750 miles from the 23 Seabrook site. Using the same Tri-State Motor Transit rate schedules relied upon in the 1987 cost 24 25 study, TLG reran the cost estimate for prompt 26 removal / dismantling with a postulated chipping dis-27 tance of 750 miles.

q,

0 Page 2 1 The result was a minimal increase in the total decom-2 missioning costs for the Seabrook Station, Unit 1 3 from $242,429,000, for 250 miles, to $244,222,000 for 4 750 miles. This 0.7% increase is not great enough to 5 warrant changing the cost basis at this time.

6 7 This hypothetical scenario illustrates the non-linear 8 relationship between shipping distance and cost.

9 While the distance increased by a factor of 3, the 10 associated cost rose only 38%. Considering both ths 11 distance / cost relationship and that transportation is 12 a minor cost contributor in the total program cost, 13 changes in the ultimate location or the low-level 14 waste disposal site will have little impact on the 4

15 total cost of decommissiening.

16 17 Q. What it the capacity of Unit 1 to store spent fuel 18 on-site?

19 20 A. Based upon information from New Hampshire Yankee, the 21 current projected capacity for the Unit 1 spent fuel 22 storage pool is 1236 assemblies. It is-expected that 23 approximately one-third of-the core (64 assemblies) 24 will be changed out every refueling. This practice 25 would take Seabrook Station through 17 cycles of 26 operation. If a minimum capacity factor of 65 per-i l

s Page 3 1 cent with associated outage time is assumed, each 2 cycle would run about 13. months. Therefore, this 3 would result in a minimum of 18 years of operation.

4 5 In addition, New Hampshire Yankee (NHY)-has the capa-6 bility to augment this capacity by either rod con-7 solidation or dry cas,. storage. Rod consolidation, a 8 process where the fuel bundles are repacked, could 9 conservatively increase capacity by a factor of 1.5 10 to at least 1854 assemblies thereby adding an extra 11 10 cycles or 11 years of operation.

12 13 Dry cask storage is a process whereby " older" spent 14 fuel (minimum of at least 5 years) is taken out of 15 the spent fuel pool and consolidated in dry storage, 16 This option, which is already in use.at'other-17 facilities in the United States, would meet all 18 applicable regulations, 19 20 In summary, present spent fuel storage capacity is 17 21 cycles or 18 years on a 13 month cycle base. Rod 22 consolidation could extend.that capacity by at'least 23 10 years and_ dry cask storage, whether used alone or 24 combined with rod consol'idation, could provide ade-25 quate capacity for the full expected operating life 26 of the plant, f

1 i

Page 4 1 Q. If spent fuel cannot be removed immediately following 2 final plant shutdown what impact, if any, would this 3 have on the decommissioning process?-

4 5 A. The disposition of spent fuel can be both a con-6 current and a predecessor activity to_decommis-7 sioning. The expediency by which the fuel is removed.

8 from the site should not interfere with the decommis-9 sioning process. Storage of fuel in the Fuel Storage 10 Building can continue after shutdown until such time 11 that the critical path activities associated with the 12 disposition of the structure and integral support 13 systems are affected. This conjunction doesn't occur 14 until late in Period 2, almost 4 years into the 15 decommissionit.2 process. At that time the fuel could 16 be removed from the building such that-decommis-17 sioning activitier,-could proceed. If when uhis 18 occurs, off-site distesal'is still not a viable 19 alternative, the fuel could be placed in dry storage 20 cacks and held on-sito until such options become .

21 available. However, dec mmissioning of the Seabrook 22 Unit 1 facility could be completed.

o c - . - . _ - - _ _ _ _ _ ______-_-___a