ML20148K245

Requests Addl Info Re Dpc'S Eval of Alternatives to Transp Oconee Spent Fuel to McGuire Site,Specifically on Increase of Storage Capacity at Existing Oconee Basins,Needed for Review of Appl for Amend of Special Nuc Matl Lic SNM-1773

ML20148K245
Person / Time
Site:	07002623
Issue date:	10/12/1978
From:	Starostecki R NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
To:	Parker W DUKE POWER CO.
References
NUDOCS 7811170057
Download: ML20148K245 (2)

Text

! O 4 UNITED STATES y *q t NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION h $ WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

's OCT 121978

%...../

Docket 70-2623 SNM-1773 1

Mr. William O. Parker, Vice President Steam Production Department Duke Power Company 422 South Church Street Charlotte, N. C. 28242

Dear Mr. Parker:

The purpose of this letter is to confirm discussions between Mr. Brett Spitalny with members of your staff on October 5,1978, regarding the need for additional information. As a result of our review of your application for the amendment of Special Nuclear Material License SNM-1773, we have found that insufficient infor-mation has been provided to support your evaluation of alternatives to transporting Oconee spent fuel to the McGuire site. Specifically, the staff bclieves that further information is required with support-ing basis with respect to increasing storage capacity at the existing Oconee Nuclear Station basins.

The alternative described in Section 18.4 of the application pro-poses an increase in the capacity of the Oconee Units 1 and 2 storage pool by the use of high density storage racks. In order to accomplish this, it is stated that all fuel would have to be moved elsewhere, the pool drained and decontaminated, existing racks removed, and new racks installed. This statement does not appear to consider other existing and available options.

Since the announcement by the Administration to indefinitely postpone fuel reprocessing, and make an increased effort for the continued on-site storage capabilities of utilities, there have been a significant number of modifications to spent fuel pools, already containing fuel. This has been accomplished by the reracking of the pools in increments contingent upon available space at the time.

7811170067

,e Mr. William 0. Parker OCT l 4 27s For example, the Oconee Units 1 and 2 pool presently contains 165 assemblies and will receive an additional 56 assemblies by November 1,1978, resulting from the refueling of Unit 2. Including an allowance for the " PIE" (Post Irradiation Equipment) in the pool, 24% of the pool remains empty. The Oconee Unit 3 pool presently has room for 94 assemblies without jeopardizing the integrity of the 1/3 core reserve. Transferring assemblies from Oconee 1 and 2 to Oconee 3 will result in an availability of 48% of the pool for modification. Include in the cost benefit aspects of your analysis the considerations of maintaining sufficient spent fuel storage capacity in both Units 1 and 2 and Unit 3 pools to receive a full core load of 177 fuel assemblies.

This type of procedure is being used by other utilities at the present time, and has been proven to be a feasible option for installing higher capacity storage racks.

In light of the schedule being adhered to in support of this project by the staf f, we would appreciate your response to this inquiry by Oc tober 18, 1978. If you cannot meet this schedule, please inform Brett Spitalny of your intentions. In the event that you cannot meet this date, the staff will be prepared to enter the pre-hearing conference with this item as an unresolved issue. However, we will not be prepared to complete our review of your application until this information is received. Attendant delays in the commencement of any hearings will be required.

l Si ncerely , '

~

l Richard W. Starostecki, Chief Fuel Reprocessing and Recycle Branch l

Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety