ML20079N362
| ML20079N362 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello  |
| Issue date: | 11/11/1991 |
| From: | NORTHERN STATES POWER CO. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-1437 AR, S, WM, NUDOCS 9111110179 | |
| Download: ML20079N362 (12) | |
Text
/
UTILITY IJ o r+h e r m
$4c&es howcr Ce SITE bout: t e il t,
~
M_
A_ ) u e s L ; o cs >
ENCLOSURES A ri > ton 5 0 Lochment 0 059 Pninconmedd (Kos koNx3 4
% Crolo$1 cd hdies \\\\carq A 163 A n^ *i tc(A.
Su m mcc>l M LJo&re on'.Lc',nu J
i s e A n n,. a t e ~ a
- 3) Th h \\ r s
- 4) (ree I $ w ruc w t%1 Annud 2cr'r" d '? ! 6(a) T I
0 <moort cd o y;
s 9121110179 911111 PDR NUREG PDR 1437 C
A RESPONSE TO QUESTIONNAIRE TO SUPPORT PART 51 RULE CHANGE MONTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT Note: Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant is a one-unit boiling water reactor located on the Mississippi River.
WASTE MANAGEMENT QUESTIONS i
A.
Spent fuel questions:
1.
Which of the following current techniques for at reactor storage are you using and how?
A.
Reracking of spent fuel B.
Control rod repositioning C.
Above ground dry storage D.
Longer fuel burnup E.
Other (please identify).
ANSWER:
A.
Monticello is reracked to the maximum exts,t possible. The plant expects current storage space to be adequate until the year 2005.
D.
The fuel cycle is managed to between 13 and 17 months for maximum economy and coordination with the company's other nuclear plaats, 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 operating license or do you expect to change or modify them in some way!
ANSWER:
The plant expects to continue using the current techniques until approximately 2005.
3.
Which of the following techniques for at-reactor storage do you anticipate using until off-site spent fuel storage becomes available and how?
A.
Reracking of spent fuel B.
Control rod repositioning C.
Above ground dry storage D.
Longer fuel burnup E.
Other (please identify)
ANSWER:
Reracking of spent fuel (A) and longer fuel burnup (D) will be used. The spent fuel pool is already reracked to the maximum extent possible and the fuel cycle will continue to be managed.
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?
QL Questionnaire Response Page 2 ANSWER:
It is anticipated that dry cask storage may be added to handle storage of spent fuel if and as necessary to support operation during the license renewal period.
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 license renewal? If so, how much land? When would this acquisition occurt Where?
ANSWER:
No acquisition of additional land is anticipated.
6.
Do you anticipate any additional construction activity on-site, or immediately 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?
ANSWER:
Yes, additional construction is anticipated.
7.
If you answered yes to question 6, briefly describe this construction activity.
ANSWER:
Additional construction mty involve building an above ground dry storage facility.
B.
Low-level radioactive vaste (LLRW) 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?
ANSWER:
Monticello expects the three operating LLRW disposal facilities to remain available for disposal through 1992.
Beginning in 1993, Monticello plans to store its LLRW on site for approximately three years. Michigan, the first host state for the Midwest Compact, plans to begin operation of its disposal facility in 1996.
M*chigan will operate its facility for 20 years, after which another midwest state will be chosen to host another facility.
2.
If for any reason your plant (s) is/are denied access to a licensed disposal site for a short period of time, what plans do you have for continued LLRW disposal?
ANSWER:
If denied access, Monticello plans to store its LLRW on site until a disposal facility is available.
p 4
1 Questionnaire Response Page 3 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 volume) is managed by:
A.
Vaste compaction?
B.
Vaste segregation?
C.
Decontamination of wastes?
D.
Sorting of waste prior to shipment?
E.
Other ANSWER:
A.
Compaction-75% Most dry active vaste is compacted using a stock barrel compactor or a box compactor.
B.
Segregation-06 Packaging and other non-essential material is removed or segregated before it enters contaminated areas.
C.
Decontamination-5% Essentially all LLRW that will be decontaminated is sent off site to a decontamination vendor.
D.
Sorting-On E.
Other 20% The resine are dewatered to aid in disposal.
4 couple of pages, please describe the anticipated plans for LLRW uanagement to be utilfzed by your plant (s) during the remainder of the operating license and through the license renewal term.
What percentage of your anticipated waste (by volume) will be managed by:
A.
Vaste compaction?
8.
Vaste segregation?
C.
Decontamination of wastes?
D.
Sorting of waste prior to shipment?
E.
Other ANSWER:
A.
Vaste compaction-50 to 60% off-site incineration may be usod which would reduce the compaction volume and the to al LLRW volume.
B.
Vaste segregation-On C.
Decontamination-5%
D.
Sorting-OL E.
Other-30% The retins volume (which will remain the same) will be correspondingly a larger percentage of the total 1 lume because of the decrease caused by the incineration.
5.
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?
ANSWER:
No additional land acquisition is anticipated to store LLRW for the operating lifetime of the plant.
Questionnaire Response Page 4 6.
To provide information on the timing of future low-ler 1 waste streams, if you answered yes to question u9, over what periods.' time are these activities contemplated?
ANSWER Not applicable 7.
Do you anticipate any additional construction activity, on site, or immediately 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?
ANSWER:
Dopending on the length of storage, Monticello may have to build a shielded structure for its highly radioactive components (i.e.,
8, If you answered yes to question 7, briefly describe this construction activity.
ANSWER:
The material described in question 7 would probably be stored in casks.
9.
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 term?
ANSWER:
No major plant modifications are seen as hinging on license renewal.
Replacement of components will be carried out as the need is identified as is the usual action at Monticello.
1 Questionnaire Response Page 5 AQUATIC RESOURCE QUESTIONS 1.
Post-licensing modifications and/or changes in operations of intake and/or discharge systems may have altered the effects of the power plant on aquatic resources, or may have been made specifically to mitigate impacts that were not anticipated in the design of the plant.
Describe any such modifications and/or operational changes to the condenser cooling water intake and discharge systems since the issuance of the operating license.
ANSWER:
In 1980, an overflow weir structure (fish barrier) was installed at the end of_the discharge canal. The structure consists of an earthfill dike with a vertical sheet-pile overflow section. It permits normal overflow of cooling water and inhibits fish from entering the canal where they could be subjected to cold shock during rapid plant shutdown.
The number and magnitude of fish kills has decreased substantially since the canal was closed off.
2.
Summarize and describe (or provide documentation of)_any known impacts on aquatic resources (e.g., fish kills, violations of discharge permit-conditions) o'c National Pollutant Discharge Elimin6 tion System (NPDES) enforcement actions that have occurred since issuance of the Operating License.
How have these' beeti resolved or changed over time?
hNSWER:
The following is a list of the number of fish lost in fish kills and the date of-their occurrence.
D6IE NUMBER OF FISH 1/08/75 63 2/19/76 28 10/17/76 90 11/15/76 150 2/23/77 700 12/15/77 176 7/20/77 unavailable
.2/14/79 13 2/24/81 10 1/09/87 43 12/22/88 320 The NPDES permit violations occur periodically dun to equipment failure or operator error. Examples of violations include elevated turbidity and most commonly exceeding the halogen limit.
Equipment and procedural changes are usually recommended as responses to the violations.
.,-m
., - ~
i Questionnaire Response Page 6 3.
Changes to the NPDES permit during operation of the plant could indicate whether vator quality parameters <ere determined to have no significant impacts (and were dropped from monitoring requirements) or were subsequently raised as a water quality issue.
Provide a brief summary of changes (and when they occurred) to the NPDES permit for the plant since issuance of the operating License.
ANSWER:
On May 23, 1985, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) concurred with changes to the Monticello environmental monitoring program. The changes were:
1.
Elimination of the creel census at Monticello.
2.
Elimination of terrestrial vegetation and avian population inventories.
3.
Expansion of the aquatic bioaccumulation study.
The creel census provided somewhat auxiliary inforcation on the fish population atd there were several years worth of data available. The terrestrial vegetation and avian studies did not 3
show any trends due to the Monticello Nuclear Plant influence.
The bioaccumulation studies appeared to be a more timely and important issue in 1985.
In March of 1988, the MPCA approved the termination of the annual Chemical and Physical (temperature monitoring) Vater Monitoring Studies at the Monticello plant.
The MPCA determined that after 20 years, the chemical and thermal analyses had demonstrated that the only parameter showing a continuous long term variation between ambient and affected waters was the temperature, which was within the $'" DES permit limitations.
Routine NPDES water monitoring is conducted by the plant chemistry laboratory and continues as a permit requirement.
4 An examination of trends in the effects on aquatic resources monitoring can indicate whether impacts have increased, decreased, or remained relatively stable during operation.
Describe and summarize (or provide documentation of) results of monitoring of water quality and aquatic biota (e.g. related to NPDES permits Environmental Technical Specifications, site-specific monitoring required by federal or state agencies).
What trends are apparent over time?
ANSWER:
Environmental monitoring programs have determined that there were no long term detrimental trends to aquatic resources at the Monticello plant site.
Thermal input is the only demonstrated effect on the river system and it has remained within permit limits. Water quality monitoring under the environmental program has been eliminated, but the Monticello plant continues to do routine NPDES water quality monitoring as required.
Questionnaire Response Page 7 is a copy of the 1989 Environmental Monitoring and Ecological Studies Program for Monticello. is copies of sections of previous years of the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Environmental Monitoring Program Annual Reports.
These sections summarize the various monitoring programs conducted at the plant in the past.
The most recent version of each study has been included.
Sections pertaining to monitoring programs that have been eliminated were summarized in the final year of inclusion in the report.
5.
Summarize types and numbers (or provide documentation) of organisms entrained and impinged by the condenser cooling water system since issuance of the Operating License.
Describe any seasonal patterns associated with entrainment and impingement.
How has entrainment and impingement changed over time?
ANSWER:
Entrainment and impingement at the Monticello plant were not deemed to be significant by the 316(b) studies so these parameters have not been monitored since the 316(b) studies were completed. is data from the 316(b) Demonstration report and the Annual Environmental Monitoring Reports that discuss the issue of entrainment and impingement.
6.
Aquatic habitat enhancament or restoration efforts (e.g., anadromous fish runs) during operation may have enhanced the biological communities in the vicinity of the plant.
Alternatively, degradation of habitat or water quality may have resulted in loss of bi.ological resources near the site.
Describe any changes to aquatic habitats (both enhancement and degradation) in the vicinity of the power plant since the issuance of the Operating License including those that may have resulted in different plant impacts than those initially predicted.
ANSWER:
The only change to or enhancement of fishery habitat was the discharge canal modification described in question 1 of this section.
The modification reduced the number of fish susceptible to cold shock by closing off the discharge canal to access by fish from the river.
No specific aquatic habitat enhancement or restoration efforts have been made at the Monticello plant.
7.
Plant operations may have had positive, negative, or no impact on the use of aquatic resources by others.
Describe (or provide documentation for) other nearby uses of waters affected by cooling water systems (e.g., swimming, boating, annual harvest by commercial and recreetional fisheries) and how these impacts have changed since issuance of the Operating License.
ANSWER:
Tne aret directly below the discharge canal outlet is open to the public for fishing and is available year round because of the warm water discharge. The warm water attracts fish during the cold
Questionnaire Response Page 8 seasons making this a popular spot for sport bank and boat fishing.
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has established special harvest limits to protect some species from over exploitation on this reach of the Mississippi River. is a copy of the last Creel Survey report from Monticello.
8.
Describe other sources of impacts on aquatic resources (e.g.,
industrial discharges, other power plants, agricultural runoff) that could contribute to cumulative impacts.
What are the relative contributions by percent of these sources, including the contributions due to the power plant, to overall water quality degradation and lorses of aquatic biota?
ANSVER:
The nearest large city to the Monticello Plant is St. Cloud (population approximately 50,000) which is located 20 miles upstream. Monticello, a smaller community of approximately 7000 people, is located > miles downstream.
Both municipalities have modern vaste water treatment plants that discharge to the Mississippi river. A paper mill in Sartell, just north of St.
Cloud, operates a small h;droelectric plant and uses river water in the paper making process but also has water treatment facilities.
Northern States Power operates the SMERCO Generating complex about 5 miles upstream of the Monticello Nuclear Plant.
This three-unit fossil fuel electric generating station has a closed cycle cooling system and withdraws an average of SC cfs and discharges 35 to 40 cfs of river citer, concentrated 7 to 10 times normal.
The surrounding area is primarily agricultural which is likely to be responsible for the chemical input to the river in the 'orm of water and wind induced crosion. The percents are not quant.fiable, The only input to the Mississippi river from the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant is heat which has been demonstrated to have negligible effect on the river except to reduce ice cover in the winter and seastaally attract or repel fish.
Water quality is not degraded by the plant nor has fishery habitat been lost-9.
Provide a copy of your Section 316(a) anc lb) Demonstration Report required by the Clean Waste Act.
What Section 316(a) and (b) determinations have been made by the regulatory authorities?
ANSkiR:
The 316(a) and (b) Demonstration Report was partially responsible for the discharge canal modification (see question 1) done at the Monticello Plant. Attachment 5 includes copies of the Table of Contents and Summary and Impacts Sections of the 316 studies. The reports are too extensive to facilitate providing complete copies.
Selected sections of the reports can be supplied if required.
\\
Questionnaire desponse Page 9 SOCIOECONOMIC QUESTIONS 1.
To undersre-the japortance of the plant and the degree of its socioeconowie impacts on the local region, estimate the number of
]
permanent workers on site for the most recent year for which data are 1
availabic.
j l
AMSWER:
Permanent staff oi. site 1989 360 workers Staff at nearby (but offsite) training center 38 workers 2.
To understand the importance of the plant to the local region, and how that has changed over time, estimate the average number of permanent workers on site, 7,a. five year increments starting with the issuance of the plant's C'perat4ng License.
If poss Ule, provide this information for each unit at a plant site.
ANSWER:
The numbhrs given include security staff which are sontracted en*ployees, but are always tequired to be onsite by $.ie plant.
Listed as a separate category are the employees of the training center.
The center is not directly onsite but within the area of the ; tant and affects the local region.
1971 120 employees onsite 1976 140 employees onsite 1981 220 employees onnite 8 employene + raining center 1936 355 eniployot e % site 32 er 'oyees training center 3.
To understand the potential impact of continued operation for an additional 20 years beyond the origina: licensing term, please provide for the following three cases:
A)
L typical planned outage; B '.
an ISI outage;'and Cy the largest single outage (in terms of che number of workers involved) that has occurred to date an estimate of additional workers involved (for the entire outage and.
for eat' principal task), length of outage, months and year in which _
work occurred, and cost. - Also, esti'nate occupational doses received by
. 3
^
permanent and temporary workers during each principal task.
t v
_.. - - - +, _ - _ _
._.-.-_._.-._.._.-,-_m__
...m
Questio iaire Response Page 10 ANSWER:
Monticello has not developed a pattern of ypical outages, but the l
1986 outage was selected as na example.
The plant also does not have separate ISI outages.
A portion of the ISI work is done each refueling outage, i
A)
A typical planned outage Additional workers lQM (not able to break down per tack)
Length of outage 76 dava Months and year of outage April 30 to July 15. 1986 Cost -The estimated cost given does nni include: (a) replacement energy (b) normal t,ase load operating cost (such as permanent
?
employees salaries) (c) Nen recurring items, (d) costs associated with fuel cycle design and analysis and (c) fuel cost.
It does include (a) radwaste (b) plant labor and NSP support groups (c) consulting and service contracts and (d) percentage of capital costs.
Approximate Cost of 1986 outage $21.400.000 Doses The following are the estimates of the occupational doses received by permanent and temporary employees during the work on each 1986 outage principal task.
Automatic Shutdown System modification 3 man rem Reactor level modification 5 man rem Replacement of core spray piping 96 man rem Seismic review program 30 man rem Painting of the torus.
10 man rem Inservice Inspecticn 11 man rem hefueling 27 man rem C)
The largest single outage Additional workers 4DD (not able to break down per task) 1.eagth of outage 350 days M(nths and year of outage 2/2/84 through 1/17/85 Cost The estimated cost given does n21 include: (a) replacement energy (b) normal base load
.tating cost (such as permanent-r employees salaries)-(c) Non recurring items, (d) costs associated with-fuel cycle design and analysis and (e) fuel cost.
It does include (a) radwaste (b) plant labor and NSP support groups (c) consulting and service cont- :ts and (d) percentage of capital costs.
Approximate cost of 1984 outage S87.500.000
Questionnaire Responso Page 11 Doses The estimates of the occupational doses received during the work on the major projects during the 1984 outage are:
Recirculation pipe replacement 1583 man rem condenser retube 5 man rem Reactor Vater Cleanup heat exchanger modification 69 man rem Inservice Inspection work 19 man rem Refueling 11 man rem 4.
To understand the plant's fiscal importance to specific jurisdictions, for 1980, 1985, and the latest year for which data are available, estimate the entire plant's taxable assessed value and the amount of taxes paid co the state and to each local taxing jurisdiction.
Distribution of Tax 1980 1985 1990 Market Value
$ 81,424,161
$167,935,000
$251,098,300 City 650,261 1,151,243 2,056,651 County 823,354 1,202,785 2,792,939 School District 882 1,324,693 2,422,405 5,191,625 llospital 0
182,867 357,408 Total
$ 2,798,308
$ 4,959,300
$ 10,398,623
......-m m-W