ML20079N337

Response to NUMARC Survey in Support of NRC License Renewal Rulemaking

ML20079N337
Person / Time
Site:	Fort Calhoun
Issue date:	11/11/1991
From:	OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT
To:
References
RTR-NUREG-1437 AR, S, WM, NUDOCS 9111110165
Download: ML20079N337 (14)

Text

._a .._ . ._,. ax.___e - u s. _ a .a_ e a 2 ,, _-,, ' _.

4 W

UTIL11Y hTY1(Lk(L tdt (L (MOl LN QC k~

suc N+ C_dhesen % -hi<n ENCLOSURES (l3 O_nouMAA 40 KSddkcMo

( 2) Cht alf i ? h A L obviFWow(Mnd t

('A v b Iw oA Pluwtc- Q4cdb f '

'l e'

1437 C PDR i

0 b

L a

.t e

RESPONSE TO WAS1E MANAGEMfHT QUESTIONS Section A

1. For at-reactor storage of spent fuel through fort Calhoun's operating license and beyond the initial strategy will be to re rack the pool. We anticipate this option will increase our on site storage capacity to the year 2002. The fuel racks will be designed for rod coi.solidation should this technology be commercially available. Storage of fuel for the re .ainder of the operating license and possible extensions will be through either rod consolidation shipments to MRS if available or dry cask storage above ground.

Our current storage capacity will be exceed by mid 1994 (to maintain full Core Discharge). We are currently in the scoping analysis for re-racking and thus the actual projected on site storage capacity is unknown at this time. We lcipate to be able to achieve storage for a minimum of 950 fuel ass'mblies.

2. As stated in response to question 1 above our current strategy to re rack will not give us storage capacity through the remainder of our operating license (2008). We will have to use rod consolidation, shipment to MRS or dry cask storage for fuel storage strategies in the 2002 time frame.

3. OPPD plans on using either Rod consolidation or Dry Cask Storage for on-site storage until off-site storage is available. With rod consolidation the spent fuel woa.e remain within tha existing fuel storage pool. The consolidated fuel would remain within the protected area until DOE storage is available. With Dry Cask Storage the fuel would be stored in independent facilities within the site boundary.

4. OPPD considers the technologies listed in response 3 will be adequate for storage through cur operating license. The technologies would be adequate for an additional S years of operation or for life extension.

5. We will not need to acquire add;tional land for storage.

6. Yes. ,

7. OPPD anticipates constructing dry storage facilities for on-site storage through reactor operatino license in the event a DOE repository or MRS facility is not available.

RESPONSE TO WASTE MANAGEMENT QUESTIONS Section 0

1. The Central States Compact, of which Nebraska is a member, has met all milestones and is anticipated to continue to meet all milestones mandated by the LLRW Policy Amendments Act of 1985 in development of an operational burial site by January 1,1993. As long as the Compact met- s these milestones, it is anticipated that low IcVel waste may be disposed of at the existing burial sites.

2. In the event the Fort Calhoun Station was denied access to the existing sites, there is sufficient onsite storage capability to allow adequate time to investigate other disposal alternatives. At this time, a new radioactive waste processing building is being constructed which is scheduled to be operational by Decenher,1990. This facility was orj inally designed to store 600 drum: and 60 liners (i.e. over 15,000 ft .

Ilowever, due to volume reduction and minimizatjon techniques imp emented at the fort Calhoun Station, only 5000 ft is projected to be generateri on an annual basis. This ample onsite storage is expected to provide sufficient time to explore other disposal alternatives in the event Nebraska or the Central States Compact fail to comply with the LRWPAA and be denied access to disposal sites.

3. A. At the fort Calhoun Station compactable DAW constitutes 75% of the LLRW volume while noncompactable UAW makes up approximately 20% of the volume. The remaining 5% is primarily made up of speni resin.

I Compactable DAW is currently compacted in 55 gallon drums using a 10 ton Consolidated baler compactor. Anti-springbackdisksareusedtg maximize waste compaction. 3oncompactable OAW is placed in a 98 ft metal LSA boxes for transport / disposal. Spent resin from the filtration / ion exchange liquid processing system is sluiced to and dewatered in a high integrity container.

B. A Material Controls Watch is no longer used at the fort Calhoun Station. Instead, the minimization of disposable LLRW is governed by Radiation Protection Procedure RW 500, " Radioactive Waste Minimization Program". This procedure delineates the responsibilities of various individuals (from the Plant Manager to the individual worker) as well as practices to be used in the minimization of LLRW. In addition, this procedure also' requires the training of iriividuals of waate minimization in General Employee Training.

C. Liquid Abrasive, Ultrasonic, and manual methods (i.e. wipe down) are -

employed at the fort Calhoun Station to decontaminate items, it is estimated that 50% of the metal items can be decontaminated.

.. s Response to Waste Hanagement Questions - Section B (Continued)

D. At the fort Calhoun Station trash, anti-C's, etc. is placed in yellow polyethylene bags. In accordance with Radiation Protection Procedure RW-202, " Collection / Sorting / Segregation of Dry Active Waste (DAW)",

the contents of all bags are sorted to segregate reusable items (e.g.

respiratory equipment, anti C clothing, tools) as well as segregating noncompactable DAW.

4. A. The fort Calhoun Station has recently made a contract cgreement with Scientific Ecology Group (SEG) to handle DAW generated at the fort Calhoun Station. . DAW will be transported in Sea / Land containers to the SEG facility for processing, packaging, and subsequent transport and burial. SEG will sort waste (for pVC content) and either supercompact or incinerate based upon PVC content. it is estimated that this process will result in a volume reduction of over 60% over fort Calhoun's present compaction method.

B. The present method (Response 30) is anticipated to be continued.

C. The present method (Response 3C) is anticipated to be continued.

D. The present method (Response 30) is anticipated to be continued. ,

5. At this time it is anticipated that no additional land will be required for the storage of LtRW at the fort Calhoun Station. As previously stated in Responses 1 and 2, it is expected that the Central States Compact will be operational by 1993, but should fort Calhoun be denied access to a burial site, ample onsite storege it available to adequately investigate other alternatives.

6. At this time, the only activity anticipated to generate an unusual volume of LLRW-at the Fort Calhoun Station is the re rack of the spent fuel (Hid 1990's). As with the previous re rack job, the racks would be sent to a decontamination facility to reclaim the metal and would therefore have no impact on onsite storage capabilities.

7. After completion of the Radwaste Processing facility (Dec. 1990), no additional construction activity associated with temporary onsite LLRW storage is anticipated ct the Fort Calhoun Station,

8. Not required to answer.

9. At this time, the only activity anticipated to generate an unusual volume of LLRW at the fort Calhoun Station is the re-rack of the spent fuel (Hid 1990's). As with the previous re-rack job, the racks would be sent to a decontamination facility to reclaim tM metal and would therefore have no impact on onsite storage capabilities.

}

RESPONSE 10 SOC 10 ECON 0 Hit QUEST 10fts FOR ALL UTillTIES

1. 659

2. 1973 - 80 1978 - 111 1983 - 168.5 1988 - 387.5

3. A. See answer for 30.

B. Additional workers involved: Unknown Outage length: Breakers Opened December 3, 1982 Breakers Closed April 7, 1983 Cost: Unknown Occupational doses by task: Unknown Principal Tasks:

Pressurizer Spray Valves Air Supply to AC/RW Interf ace Valves Shutdown to Spent fuel Pool Personnel Air Lock Doors RV Head & Seismic Skirt Insulation D'eining fo IW 4A B & C FW Suction Stm Gen Instiument Root Valves

-long Term Cooling ECCS Perfor Test Relief, Safety & Block Valves Emer Alm & Gai Evac Ancmnt.Sys In Cont flashing or Cavitation of TCV 326 CC to RC Pump Seals & Lube 011 Cooler LCV-Il73 Body Erosion TCV 202 Isolation Drain Valves for CC Relief VLV in Cont Inadequate Core Cooling Modification Main feedwater Isolation Stator Cooler Conversion Move Elect Equip Above flood Level Containment RC Pump Hatch Safety items Beta Rad Shield Elec Pen Lead Wires 1 Missile Shield Seismic Supports FW Regulator Vavles 1101 & 1102 VA 66 Chronic flow Problems 51 Tank Level Switches Access Platform RC 138, RC-139 Replacement of FW 273 & FCV-Il72 Relay Test Plugs in Al-46 Load Shed of 480V Raw Water Strainers RC Pump Motor Covers j

Response to Socioeconomic Questions for all Utilities (Continued)

3. B. (continued)

Loss of AFW Equip Due FW 10 STM Line Bk RPS Temperature Loop Noise Rep Old Style Foxboro Pzr Xmitters Sigma 2 Removal DG-1 & 2 Cooling Water Vent Lines Rerouting of SI 222 Relief VLV Discha Refueling Machine Camera Replacement Control of lleavy Loads Corrective Act FW 10 Mech Trip Linkage Pos Indication Tec Acoustic Monitoring System '

Battery Discharge Test Equipment Alternate Safe S/D Pzr Heater Control .

Fil 12 Limit Switches Downstream Isolation for HCV 2501 ASCO Model NP8314C29E Solenoid failures Level Ind on RCP 011 Collection Tanks ILRT & Control Leakage Line improvement Prep Spare Penet for 83 RV Exam Qualify PCV-2909, 2929, 2949, 2969 Control Key Lock SW Cont Purge LVL Control Cir Improve Seal for HCV-335 Condensate Cooler Backwash Mod Inspect '

Securing Containment Integrity Control of Gas Leaks from WD 32 Laundry Room Modification Aux Bldg High Range Radiation Monitor Telephones in Containment Sta Lighting Transformers 4160V Supply SI-194, 197, 200, 203 .

VCT Relief Repiping Rev Res Vent Piping-Fill & Drain SI-1B Casing Valve Floor Mod for Rem SW Gear Transformer ST Gen Blowdown Processing System Sec Side Radiation Monitor Raw Water Snubbers Modify HP Work Area Conversion Turb to full-Arc Admission Fire Dector Access Platform Waste. Condensate Pump Replacement Bergan-Patterson-Pipe Clamp Shear Lugs l-1 l

Response to Socioeconomic Questions for all Utilities (Continued) t

3. C. Additional workers involved: 644  :

l Outage length: Breakers Opened February 17, 1990 Breakers Closed May 29, 1990 Cost: $28.769,548 Principal Tasks, Nanhours per Task and Occupational Dose by Task follow:

Total Occupational Dose for the 1990 Outage by Parmanently assigned Personnel versus Ter..porary: Permanent 66.9 manrem r Temporary J E D manrem lotal 231.0 manre.n for 1990 Refueling Outage lipdi fications Manrem Manhouts DC Sequenr.tr Relay Replacement 1084.5 Control Room Indication - Diesel Cen. Malfunction 260.7 Reactor Reg./ Steam Dump & Dypass Alarm 760.5 Redundant Power Supply for RW-CCW Interface Valve 356.0 Steam Generator Notzle Dams - Electrical Portion 15.255 587.5 lleater Drain Pump Suction Relief Valve 1263.6 Motor Scale Modifications 1268.5 Replace Oddly Shaped Switch Handles 21.0 Increased Hintinum Flow for TW 4A, B & C 7395.0 Process & Area Radiation Monitor Replacement 0.230 1860.5 Rcdistribute Loads on DC Buses & Inverters 820.5 Limitorque Motor Operator Upgrade 4135.0 HCV-249 & ilCV-2988 Replacement Contiol Room liabitability Analysis (HVAC Upgrade) 46096.7 Containmcnt Equipment Hatch Crane Installation 0.530 1923.0 ERF Computer Terminal Upgrade - 1066.0 Addition of Third Aux. Feedwater Pump 24223.3 i CRDR Labeling / Demarcation / Mimic /Etc. 2506.5 Aux. Controller for feedwater Regulator System 177.0 CRDR Meter Banding 1150.0 HCV-238, 239 & 240 Test Tecs Installation 2.295 213.0 RCS Narrow Range Level Instrumentation 6.390 3063.7 Steam Generator Blowdown Tank Erosion 3695.0 feeowater Supports in Room 81 & Turbine Building 0.485 3160.0 Diesel Generator fuel 011 Pump Instrumentation 1006.8 FW-10 Speed Centrol 255.8 Al-179 Indicators Availability for Fire Protection 215.0 Auxiliary feedwater Supports 1197.3 Main Steam Supports 521.5 Safety lajection Supports 2846.8 ,

Main Stean. Supports in Room 81 & Turbine Building 1025.5 NOTE:- Blanks indicate that the information was either zero or not available.

Response to Socioeconomic Questions for all Utilities (Continued)

3. C. (continued)

Pro.iec11 tionrem 151 Wnid Exams .

43.270 Steam Generator Maint. ECT b.225 SIRWT Repair 1.065

, Eddy Current Testing FW Heaters Cond. Tebe Insp.

HOV Testing - 41 valves 2.525 Moisture Separator Insp. & Repair Erosion Corrosion Project -

EC Inspection (113 locations)

EC Pipe Replacement (7 possible lecations)

Snubber Maint. & Testing 1.263 ILRT Check Valve Inspections 6.765 System Presture Tests - ST ISI CVCS 4, f.1 7 SI Tank Dump Radiography 1.660 Temp. Condensate Polishing System Instrument Air Outage HP Turbine Bucket Replacement Generator Disassembly / Inspection Cire. Water Outage Diesel Generator 1 & 2 UGS Lift Rig Repair Raw Water Outage Tech. Support-CCW Heat Exchanger Clean CCW Outage Tech. Support inspect Cavity Liner .

System Pressure Tests Nozzle Dam Preparations Gamma Metrics Cable Replacement

. Bearing Water & Con. Cooler Piping Replacement Spent fuel /CCW Raw Water Engineering Safeguards Blowdown Tank 1.720 Polar Crane Pendant Replacemant 1.020 Containment / Plant Paint Repair 9.913 Kapton Insulated Cables Insulation Replacement / Upgrade 0.430 Plant labeling / improvement 2.040 Refueling Maintenance 63.058 NOTE: Manhours were not availabic for these project breakouts.

4. Does not apply. Payment in lieu of taxes is based on revenue.

9100273*.10M1 l' 02

)LL-10-1996 13'31 rROM O.P.P.D.-010 TO d

FORT CALHOUN STATION'S CONTRIB'JTION TO PAYMENT IN 1II9 0F 1Alf5 IW5f D ON REYfM00 COVHIl 1222 1935 liff

$ 18 $ 25 5 24 EURT 22,762 45,539 52,664 CASS COLfAX 535 1,016 1,113 D0DGE 13,870 27,297 32,152 DOUGLAS 1,986,587 4,514,392 5,043,131 JOHNSON 1,935 4,272 4,921 NEMAHA 5,384 9.956 12,209 OTOE 1,702 3,216 5,192 RICHARDSON 1.578 3,707 4,203 SARPY 162,281 428,546 553,636 SAUNDERS 28,407 57.674 68,338 WASHINGTON 16,624 97.273 113,319 TOTAL $2.241,633 $5,192,913 56.690,902 LIEUTX 7/10/70 i:'AL P.0;

RESP 0llSE TO AQUATIC RESOURCE QUEST 1011S  :

1. fio modifications have been done to the Plant intake or Discharge System that altered the effects of the power plant or aquatic resources.

One modification was done to the river bank upstream of the Plant. The purpose of the modification was to prevent sand from building up in front of the Intake Structure.

2. 110 significant aquatic impacts on enforcement actions have occurred since the issuance of the Operating License. The following is provided for your information concerning an llPDES outfall to the Missouri River.

In 1983, fort Calhoun Station experienced difficulties in the operation of the Chemical lieutralization Sys%m. Due to component failures, efficiency was reduced significantly, wb'.ch resulted in repeated phi non-compliances of the llPDES Discharge perrit for the outfall. The State was notified of OPPD's intent to solve the non compliances, and a waiver was received from the Stato during the radifications to the system. During the construction phase of the modif(ation, non-compliance of phi and TSS prameters continued until completion of the project.

3. The following is a historical perspective on changes to the flPDES Permit:.

Two NPDES permitted outfalls were entirely eliminated from the discharge monitoring program at fort Calhoun Station. One outfall (Sanitary Treatment) was eliminated in 1977 due to a system upgrade to a non discharging aerobic lagoon system installation. The other discharge (Building Roof Drains) was dropped in 1978 due to the insignificance of impact to the environment.

In 1983, a permit revision climinated analytical parameters from three of five permitted discharges at fort Calhoun. Again, due to insignificant impact of contributions to the environment, the phi requirement was deleted.

In 1988, the NPDES Permit was revised with monitoring requirements remaining much the same except for the addition of thn " Effluent Toxicity

1. imitation" (Biomonitoring). The test measures the mortality of minnows in the effluent for a period of 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.

Currently,'the District is negotiating another permit modification. Issues to be discussed are chemical discharges and relief of monitoring flow requirements from discharges with no significant impact.

No effect on aquatic resources or water quality has been caused by any of the above permit modifications.

Response to Aquatic Resource Questions (Continued)

4. Water quality of the intake Structure and the Chemical Ponds are monitored by the NPDES Permit. As related to water quality and the NPDES Permit, temperature in and out of the intake Structure is monitored and reported.

A maximum discharge temperature has been established by the permit and that maximum temperature has not been exceeded. Intake flows are also monitored.

The Chemical Ponds are also monitored by the NPDES Permit for phi, solids, oil, and grease. Infrequent violations of the permit have occurred for phi, solids, oil, and grease approximately once every two years if we have equipment problems.

Aquatic biota is monitored by the Technical Specifications, but not frequently enough or extensively enough to draw any conclusions, fish samples are taken two times a year, upstream and downstream from the plant, and checked for radioactivity.

Sampics of the river are taken for chemical analysis frequently by the Plant as part of the monitoring of the water quality going into the plant water processing equi > ment. No samples are taken downstream of the Plant because dilution of tie river makes changes in water quality as a result of the Plant undetectable. The natural variation of the river influenced by the-chemical, biological, and physical characteristics far surpasses the effects of the Plant.

No conclusions or trends can be drawn from recent data concerning its effect on water quality or biota that were not discussed in the Five Year Report.

I

Response to Aquatic Resource Questions (Continued)

5. Organism entrainment and impingement by the fort Ct.houn Station Condenser Cooling Water System.

REFERENCE:

Fort Calhoun Station Unit No.1 Five Year Report: A summary of environmental study programs conducted in compliance with Appendix B to Operating Licensing DPR 40.

NOTE: Impingement impact summary begins on Page 34. Entrainmen,t impact summary begins on Page 53.

Response to Aquatic Resource Questions  !

(Continued)

6. flo discernible changes to aquatic habitat have occurred at the site. As discussed in Question 110. ., one modification was done to the river bank upstream of the plant to prevent the buildup of sand, i.e., the modification was done to improve piant operations by stabilizing the river  ;

channel in front of the intake Structure. Environnental impact was  !

considered negligible.

As discussed in Question No. 2, a modification to the Chemical Lagoon System was done to better control .ie pH and suspended solids that were being dinharged to the Missouri R /er. The effect of the discharges due to river dilution was insignificant and the discharge control improvements made the impact even less significant.

7. The Bureau of Commercial fisheries estimated that the commercial fish harvest was only one-eighth of the potential total sustained yield for this

-section of the river. 110 appreciable loss to the sport or commercial fishery is observed or expected because of the operation of the fort  !

Calhoun Station. The channelization of the river with limited shoreline access due to piling placement and the high velocity of the river currents in the fort Calhoun area do not provide ideal conditions for sport or commercial fishing. Fort Calhoun's Cooling ,, er System has been determined to have no impact on the resources or use of the Missouri River, or interconnected aquatic systems, by others (1 e., swimming, boating, etc.) since the issuance of the Operating License.

REFERENCES:

1. Revised Environmental Report, Page 4.4 - 4.5 and 4.25, January 1972

2. Final Environmental Statement, Page X11-10, August 1972

3. Fort Calhoun Station Unit No. 1 Five Year Report: A summary of environmental study programs conducted in compliance with Appendix 8 to Operating License DPR-40, Chapter 1, Pages 8-9

8. Other sources of impacts on aquatic resources (i.e., industrial discharges, other power plants, agricultural runoff) and their relative contributions by percent to overall water quality degradation and losses of aquatic biota have not been directly. addressed in a formal study at the fort-Calhoun Station._ There are no other industrial discharges in the area or other power plants that would have abstantial impact on water quality or aquatic biota. The closest water sewage treatment plant is in the town of Blair, Nebraska chich is 4.5 miles upstream. Sioux City, Iowa, which is located' approximately 60-70 miles upstream is the nearest point of industrial discharge (i.e., water sewage treatment, power plants, packing fouses, l etc.). If relative contributions were possible, agricultural runoff from fields and feedlots would likely .have the largest impact since this '

geographic area (Missouri River Valley) lies within the western half of the corn belt.

4 I

l

'- Response to Aquatie Resource Questions I I

_ (Continued) 1

~

9. The sections concerning thermal impact and fish impingement are attached.  !

Pages 10 and 11 of the Thermal Plume Study gives the summary and conclusions by OPPD. Pages 35 and 36 of the Fish Impingement Study give the summary and conclusions by OPPD.

As a result of the studies _on the Thermal Plume and Fish Impingement, no  :

adverse determinations have been made by regulatory authorities. ,

The Thermal Plume and Fish Impingement information is from " Fort Calhoun Station Unit 110. -1 Five Year Report," a summary of environmental study  ;

programs conducted in compliance with Appendix B to Operating License DPR 40.

I

~f I

4 1

A p -y- 9 -e-t'+r e e v o- e- ve r r y-vy e ye - + va-w w e r - we -rr ey w~e sv i ==---ee wv M-%-- +v m -' e r+ w -- vP w- -we -+-w _ W 6 ar me + 2 -*- E--+r-=wa"- * - -e e--e+eam** -'*'*n----*

-