ML20079N319
| ML20079N319 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee, Mcguire, Catawba, McGuire  |
| Issue date: | 11/11/1991 |
| From: | DUKE POWER CO. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-1437 AR, S, WM, NUDOCS 9111110158 | |
| Download: ML20079N319 (9) | |
Text
._
UTILITY U kC e O LJ c e newnanu
,h
[
J SITE bc[ru'ir-e bc h hq, Ocmne<
(Lnat$ a % CLl\\
'lLLkircw.o ENCLOSURES i)bc[ruire hurJ eat,4rMen
?ltda) Denenarcal.n be bn.jre_ hojece $4cm4lnn 2 lb[b) 9 red;cWve Sk u L e>C 1 m n '. n n e rack + E n4 re knin m e n&
1
\\
O NCtdlno Ni> r l# n r
& k~;0m 3 \\l.cftb El%bh bk(Q$541 b U niv Onerc L nct f <.s o r+
4)C4 4 n uh A', ort ne St,.clo n 3 L O bemendec4lon
% Lt nA Doren % n\\ Perect - h oocnA ;<es -
g-ii D Oc o nee-nue\\n < %&: c, n En;, con ~ emu \\
K n nae o Re och 14*7\\- t'1 % Ucl. 1 1
\\
)
L) Oco nee _ A m clene 54cM a n Endi ro n m e n+t l Su m mor-defeb 1971-LS'?(# U ol I Cae cor n, o - smm m ar3 ohi B) Lc t.c.
Doeman hm m Acq Uolwe il Gumo t ears (4-md)
Tuos w
h>n r am s, aos eop nm r+
n par, -
9/ uf em 3
4 9111110158 911111 PDR NUREG PDR 1437 C
- i..
4 Duke Power Company s
i
'yg Responses to Waste Manager;ent Questions A.
Spent fuel questions:
1.
Which of the folleving current techniques for at-reactor storage are you using and how?
A.
Re-racking of spent fuel.
ih---Centrol-rod-reposittening,-
C.
Above ground dry storage.
D.
Longer fuel burnup.
E.
Other (please identify).
Response
Ocouee A
C, and D.
Each of Oconee's two spent fuel pools has been reracked twice; the current total capacity of the pools is 2129 assemblies. A dry above ground spent fuel storage facility which utilizes the NUROMS 24P system has recently been completed, and loading of the first canister / module is expected for late July. Righer discharge fuel burnup has occurred ever tire as a re4 ult of economic trends and fuel technology improvements. - Equilibrium fuel burnups were expected to be around 27,000 MWD /MTU when the Oconee units began operation in the early 1970's; currently, discharge burnups are expected to be about 45,000 MWD /MTU.
McGuire: A and D.
As the result of a single reracking of each of McGuire's two pools, present total capacity is 2,779 assemblies.
Discharge burnups were expected to be approximately 33,000 MVD/MTU in the years before plant startup; currently, discharge burnups are expected to be about 40,000 MWD /MTU.
Catawba:
E.
The initial ecpacity of the two Catawba spent fuel pools totals 2840 fuel arsen' lies, which provides adequate storage until o
about 2008.
2.
Do you plan on continuing the use of these current techniques for at-reactor storage of spent fuel during the remaining time of your operat-ing license or do you expect to change or modify them in some way?
Response
General comment: Significantly higher burnups are not presently
$g anticipated for any of Duke's stations.
Oconee: Oconee's ISFSI license allows addition of enough NUEOMS modules to provide storage until the expiration of the current operating licensa 2013.
-f 5.
Do you anticipate the need'to acquire additional land for the storage of spent-fuel for the operating lifetime of the plant, including a 20-year period of-liccuse renewalt if so, how much land? When would this acquisition occur? Where?
(if answer is "yes", 5-4 sentences)
Response
LO,conee t No.
McGuire No.
Catsv,ba No.
6.
. Do you anticipate any-additional construction activity on-site, or imaediately adjacent to the power plant site, associated with the continued at-reactor storage of spent fuel for the operating lifetime of the plant, including a 20-year period of license renewal?
(yes/no)
Responset Oconee:. Yes.
McGuite: Yes, if above ground dry stotage is chosen for storage expansion.
{\\
Catawba: Yes, if above ground dry-storage is chosen for storage erpansion.
7.
If you answered yes to question 6, briefly describe this construction activity (e.g., expansion of fuel storage pool, building above ground dry storage facilities)
Response
Oconeet Up to-the end of curict lite-v.a lii%, ec61+2iy w111 involve addition of horizontal storage modules.
(Of course, periodic evaluations will be-made to ensure that continued use of the' existing
- dry storage system represents our best alternative.)
Should additional dry storage be required, expansion of the existing f acility or construction of another on-site facility would be considered.
McGuire: See response to question 6.
Catawb a See response to question 6..
e Nhur
__._____.._.__m___
McGuire: - Existing spent fuel pool capacity
- will be exhausted at McGuire by about 1998, well short of operating license expiration in 2021. See respouse to question 3.
Catsuba As_noted in the response to question 1 storage capacity
- is currently adequate until about 2006. See response to question 3.
- NOTE:
Capacity presumes sufficient space for a full core offload and storage of a feed batch.
3.
Which of the following techniques for at-reactor storage do you antici-pate using until off-site spent fuel storage becomes available and how?
A.
Re-racking of spent fuel.
B...Ceetrol-red-repositientage C.
Above ground dry storage.
D.
Longer fuel burnup.
E.
Other (please identify).
l-Responses-
-Oconee:
S.
As noted in the response to question 2, addition of dry storage modules can provide storage adequate to carry the station until l
2013.
McGuire: C and/or E.
Evaluation of storage expansion alternatives for McGuire is upcoming. The pools have been raracked to the maximum g
practicable extent.
All other alternatives including dry storage, rod consolidation, and on-system transshipment will be considered.
Catsuba A
C, and/or E.
Because of the increasing dif ficulty of raracking. spent fuel pools as the inventory increases, we arpect to perform an evaluation of alternatives for future storage expansion at Catawba in about two years.
Raracking, dry storage, rod consolidation, and any other available options will be _ considered.
4.
Will the techniques described above be ' adequate for continued
+
at-reactor storage of spent fuel for the operating lifetime of the plant, including a 20-year period of license renewal, or are you developing other plans?
Response
Oconee We believe the techniques described above provide technically adequate solutions for at-reactor storage for the operating lifetime of the plant, including a 20-year period of license renewal.
FGuira:
See immediately above.
Catawba:
See immediately above.
l
WASTE MANAGEMENT QUESTIONS (cont.)
continued at-rcactor storage of spent fuel for the operating lifetime of the plant, including a 20-year period of license renewal?
(yes/no) 7.
If you answered yes to question 6, briefly describe this construction activity (e.g., expansion of fuel storage pool, building above ground dry storage facilities)
B.
Low-level radioactive waste management questions:
1.
Under the current scheme for LLRW disposal (i.e. LLRW Policy Amendments Act of 1985 and regional compacts) is there currently or will sufficient capacity for wastes generated during the license renewal period be available to your plant (s)? If so, what is the basis for this conclusion? NM, g Tf.c5E MT PLA45 To A 9aTH EAST Omf*x W %@.
If for any reason your plant (s) is/are denied access to a iteensed disposal site for a short period of time, what plans do you have for continued LLRW disposal? 6EE MMVMT 7.
d ". t ** I NFo 14 AtrA cH AeN r T.w m. ye uPb4Te n t u u % t% c -
3 In a couple of pages, please describe the specific methods of LLRW management currently utilized by your plant. What percentage of your current LLRW (by vulume) ir managed by:
$CE ATTAC RA\\ER T 1 A.
Waste compaction?
B.
Waste segregation (through special controls or segregation at radiation check point)?
C.
Decontamination of wastes?
D.
Sorting of waste prior to shipment?
E.
Other (please identify)
NUhARC Page 3 L
,,,,n 4
.h u
J,,.
J
-en-~
.a--
4 a
J, 4
k 4
9 e
DUKE POWER COMPANY
~
LOW LEVEL WASTE QUESTIONNAIRE 4
O e
O 4
4
WASTEMANAGEMENTQUESTIONS(cont.)
p To provide information on future low-level waste streams which may effect workforce levels, exposure, and waste compact planning, do you anticipate any major plant modifications or refurbishment that'are likely to generate unusual volumes of low-level radioactive waste prior to, or during, the relicensing period for the plant?
If so, please describe these activities. Also, what types of modifications do you anticipate to be necessary to achieve license renewal operation through a 20-year license renewal tem?
6EE 4% QR%\\ERi~1.
C.
Mixed low-level radioactive waste question:
L If your plant generates mixed LLRW, how is it currently being stored and what plans do you have for managing this waste during the license renewal period?
See anAcaywrTL NUMARC Page S I
e
^
WASTE MANAGEMENT QUESTIONS (cont.)
~
4.
In t couple of pages, please describe the anticipated plans for LLRW management to be utilized by your plant (s) during the remainder of the operating license and through the license renewal term. What percentage of your anticioated waste (by volume) will be managed by:
6EE ATAC)M\\CRT
'IL.
A.
Waste compaction?
B.
Waste segregation-(through special controls or segregation at radiation check points)?,
C.
Decontamination of wastes?
D.
Sorting of waste prior to shipment?
E.
Other (please identify) h Do you anticipate the need to acquire additional land for the storage of LLRW for the operating lifetime of the plant, including a 20-year
-period of license renewal? If so, how much land? When would this
-acquisition occur? Where? (ifansweris"yes",3-4 sentences)
SEE ATme.awewT.I.
To provide information on the timing of future low-level waste streams, 6.
if you answered yes to question #5, over what periods of time are these activities contemplated?
$EE ATTACHAN.47 L E
Do you anticipate any additional construction activity, on-site, or inmediately adjacent to the power plant site, associated with temporary LLRW storage for the operating lifetime of the plant, including a 20-year period of license renewal?
(yes/no) 6EE ATTACH N\\ENr T.
8.
If you answered yes to question 7, briefly describe this construction activity (e.g., storage areas for steam generator components or other materials exposed to reactor environment).
6 EE ATT4 0H g Eh!T E
~
~
NUMARC Page 4
--.