Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
UCS Concerns about Harris Spent Fuel Pool Plans <br />Increased Probability of Fuel Handling Accident <br />In the middle paragraph on page 3 of Enclosure 2 to Serial: HNP-98-188,."IOCFR50.92 <br />Evaluation Significant Hazards Consideration," CP&L stated: <br />Since the methods used to move loads during normal operation remain nearly the same as <br />those used previously, there is no significant increase in the probability of an accident <br />[spent fuel assembly drop in a Spent Fuel Pool]. <br />On page 1 of Enclosure 1 to Serial: HNP-98-188, "Basis for Change Request", CP&L stated: <br />Following this proposed change, Spent Fuel Pool capacities will be as follows: <br />Pool PWR S aces BWR S aces Total <br />`A' 360 363 723 <br />- `B' 768 2178 2946 <br />`C' 927 2763 3690 <br />`D' 1025 0 1025 <br />Total 3080 5304 8384 <br />Under the current configuration at the Harris Nuclear Plant, there is storage capacity for a total of <br />3669 irradiated fuel assemblies (723 in Pool A and 2946 in Pool B). CP&L proposes to increase <br />that capacity by 228 percent. There will be significantly more irradiated fuel assembly <br />movements if Pools C and D are activated than would otherwise be encountered at the Harris <br />Nuclear Plant. While the probability of a fuel handling accident during any individual movement <br />is not significantly affected,-the overall probability of a fuel handling accident is at least doubled. <br />By way of analogy, if the odds of being killed in an aircraft crash are defined as X, than a person <br />taking 8384 flights will be exposed to a significantly greater risk of dying in an aircraft accident <br />than a person taking only 3669 flights. <br />Therefore, CP&L was wrong when it claimed that the proposed activity involved "...no <br />significant increase in the probability of an accident [spent fuel assembly drop in a Spent Fuel <br />Pool]." <br />,04/05/99 Page 1 <br />