ML20126K501

Submits Addl Info Further Clarifying Util Position on Receiving,Possessing & Storing Irradiated Oconee Nuclear Station Fuel Assemblies Under Current License NPF-9 Conditions,Per 850403 & 850514 Proposed License Amends

ML20126K501
Person / Time
Site:	McGuire, Mcguire
Issue date:	06/12/1985
From:	Tucker H DUKE POWER CO.
To:	Adensam E, Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
TAC-57316, TAC-57317, TAC-66970, TAC-66971, NUDOCS 8506190267
Download: ML20126K501 (2)

Text

.

DUKE POWER GOMPANY P.O. Box 33180 CHARLOTn5, N.C. 28242 HALH. TUCKER TELEPHONE nos rpremsww (704) 373-4531

=== r o-cv=- June 12, 1985 Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Attention: Ms. E. G. Adensam, Chief Licensing Branch No. 4 I

Subject:

McGuire Nuclear Station Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370 Receipt, Possession, and Storage of ONS Fuel Assemblies License Amendments

Dear Mr. Denton:

My letter of April 3, 1985 (as supplemented by my letter dated May 14, 1985) submitted proposed licensa amendments ro facility operating licenses NPF-9 and NPF-17 for McGuire Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2, respectively. The amendments seek to incorporate into the McGuire Unit 2 license authority to receive, possess and store irradiated Oconee' Nuclear Station fuel assemblies under the same conditions as is presently authorized by the McGuire Unit 1 license.

With regard to the proposed amendments, the following information is provided to further clarify and support Duke's position on the impacts of this proposed change.

4 With respect to the overall impacts of eventual off-site transportation of the 300 irradiated Oconee assemblies, the proposed amendment will have no ef-feet whatsoever. Impacts due to off-site transportation are directly related to total assemblies shipped from a given location. For purposes of off-site travel, the location of the 300 Oconee assemblies will not change with this proposed amendment.

9 The on-site path of travel for shipments of irradiated Oconee fuel going in-to the McGuire Unit 2 fuel pool will be identical to the path followed by currently approved delivery to the Unit 1 pool with one exception. Unit 2 deliveries will require an additional 1000 feet of travel outside and around the auxiliary building to access the Unit 2 spent fuel pool loading area.

This extra 1000 feet corresponds to the route that would be followed in mov-ing McGuire spent fuel between the Unit 1 and Unit 2 spent fuel pool. The environmental impact of transporting spent fuel along this route has been previously evaluated (Amendment Nos. 25 (Unit 1)/ 6 (Unit 2)). Additionally, under no circumstances will any single shipment of spent fuel from Oconee be divided between the two McGuire spent fuel pools.

\

8506190267 850612 D PDR ADOCK 05000369 g0 P PDR go

Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director June 12, 1985 Page 4 With respect to the overall impact of occupational radiological exposure, this proposed amendment is completely enveloped by previous worse case analyses referenced in either the final appeal board decision in 1981 or in the more recent amendment request and subsequent approval (Amendment Nos. 35 (Unit 1)/16 (Unit 2)) allowing for the rerack of both McGuire spent fuel pools. Storage of all 300 Oconee assemblies in one location would not be as impacting as the worse case situations looked at in these earlier analyses.

8 As long as the maximum number of Oconee. assemblies shipped to the McGuire Station remains at 300, as required above, no cumulative adverse environmental impacts would be created as a result of shipping Oconee fuel to both McGuire spent fuel pools rather than just one.

8 Radiological and non-radiological (thermal) releases from the McGuire Nuclear Station will not be increased as a result of the proposed amendment. Storage of the 300 Oconee assemblies in two rather than one pool at the site will not increase the radionuclide concentration or the decay heat load in either pool over what has been previously analyzed.

This matter has previously been discussed in Telecons between Mr. Darl Hood of your staff and Mr. P. B. Nardoci et. al. (DPC) on June 11 and 12, 1985, during which this additional information was requested- with respect to the environmental impact statement being prepared for these amendments. Should any further information be required, please advise.

Very truly yours, h*' JV Hal B. Tucker PBN/mj f cc: Dr. J. Nelson Grace, Regional Administrator Mr. W. T. Orders U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Senior Resident Inspector Region 11 McGuire Nuclear Station 101 Marietta Street, Suite 3100 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Mr. Darl Hood Project Manager Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Mr. Dayne Brown, Chief Radiation Protection Branch Division of Facility Services Department of Human Resources P. O. Box 12200 Raleigh, North Carolina 27605