ML20085M619

Responses to Questions Re Spent fuel,low-level Radwaste Mgt, Aquatic Resource & Socioeconomic,In Response to NUMARC Survey in Support of NRC License Renewal Rulemaking

ML20085M619
Person / Time
Site:	Summer
Issue date:	07/06/1990
From:	Brian Lee SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS CO.
To:
References
RTR-NUREG-1437 AR, S, WM, NUDOCS 9111110220
Download: ML20085M619 (8)

Text

, .

/

t untm Areluict dedAt i cG6vL sur bMajd_.

a-h (5kunwu_A tricLosu ds _LL d n av % bh dm %151A4 tins-c n r, u e r Ac m P % _ t : # .ss ( U d d )

LS_ dawn.s ( dl L ogb c e n _ pIP.<c n lfr4 4 (4) _ Sito(G !CN) ._.

ga ,,a c_ n-rw) - >. r c or~ w c.n v yuru 7

EM" A8llE8 '

1437 C PDR

Attachment 1 to Mr. Byron tee, Jr. Letter July 6. 1990 Page 1 of 7 4*

WASlf t%NAGEMENT QUL5110Nd A. Spent fuel lhe following resp 0nses are based on the assumptton that full core discharge capability will be lost in the year 2008 (Refuel 17). Some kird of compensatory action will be necessary pending the availability of an of f-site spent fuel storage f acility to accommodate spent fuel generation through August 20?? (expiration date of the current Operating license),

1. a. The spent fuel pool was re-racked in 1984 increasing the pool capacity from 68? to l?76 high density fuel storage P ' -ions.

Presently. 300 fuel assemblies have been discharged 'he spent fuel pool,

b. Option deleted by NUMARC.

c. Not used at this time.

d. 1onger (higher) fuel burnup management is being used in a two-fold strategy to reduce spent fuel generation:

(1) 18-month cycles were initiated beginning with Cycle 3.

(?) A reduced number of fresh fuel assemblies is being inserted into each cycle. This has resulted in higher discharge burnups requiring higher 'nitial U-23$ enrichments.

c. None.

2. There are no plans for additional re-racking since the present racks are high density. SC[&G plans to continue the CJrrent fuel management strategy.

3. a. No re-racting is plar,ned current'ly; however, space exists in the spent fuel pool to insert an additional rack which could expand the pool capacity by an additional !?1 fuel storage cells,

b. Option deleted by NUMARC.

c. Above-ground dry storage will be considered.

d. Two options ere being considered to increase fuel burnup:

(1) Maintaining 18-month cycles while further reducing the number of fresh assemblies being inserted into each cycle.

This will result in higher discharge burnups and enrichment

! requirements than the present fuel management strategy.

(?) Changing to longer fuel operation cycles (e.g. 24 months) with a strategy to maintain or reduce the present number fresh fuel assemblies being inserted into each cycle.

Attachment 1 to Mr. Dyron Lee, Jr. Letter ,

July 6, 1990 I g

Page 2 of 7 No studies have been performed to determine which option is the  !

must ecenomical.

e. fuel rod consolidation will be considered.

4 The techniques described in question 3 should be adequate. However, no studies have been performed on any of the anticipated storage alternatives plus any impact due to a 20-year Operating License extension. An alternate at reactor fuel storage decision will be made prior to the year 2000.

6. SClLG does not onticipate the need for additional land for spent fuel storage.

6. No studies have been performed to date which cause SCELG to predict the need for additional construction.

7. Not applicable.

13 . Low-level Radioactive Waste (LLRW) Management

1. Yes, SCEtG is part of the Southeast Compact and anticipates that there will be sufficient storage capacity for wastes generated through the license renewal period. Scientific Ecology Group (SEG) currently processes the Dry Active Waste (DAW) generated at VCSNS which constitutes the majority of waste shippec. Processing includes volume reduction (compaction / incineration). It is anticipated that waste shipments in the future may be reduced due to advances in technology and plans for handling waste on site.

2. If VCSNS is denied :ccess to a licensed disposal site; for a snort

-period of time, an extended storage facility (described in question

8) may be available to store and monitor wastes. "A short time" is assumed to be five years. If this facility is unavailable other methods for short term storage would,be assessed.

3. Currently, VCSNS sends compactible and incinerable waste to SLG for processing. Metals tnat can be decontaminated are also shipped to SEG. The wastes are segregated by kind; i.e., metals, resin, filters, and DAW. VCSNS does not decontaminate or sort DAW prior to shipment. However, clean trash is controlled separate from DAW.

Resin is dewatered in High integrity Containers (HICs) prior to shipment for disposal, filte: , are loaded into HICs with sufficient absorbent material to absorb two (2) times the volume of the filter if still wet. Metals are shipped as DAW to SEG for decontamination and disposal. The pc-cent ge of current LLRW handled by methods listed in the survey is as follows:

a. Wast? compaction is performed on approximately 80% of the UAW.

b. Waste segregation (at SEG) eliminates approximately 5%.

Attachment 1 to Mr. Byron Lee, Jr. Letter July 6, 1990 g

Page 3 of 7 No detontamination of wastes other than metals is done. This

! c.

I has been applied to ?t of the VCSNS waste by SEG.

d. No sorting 15 done on DAW prior to shipment to SEG.

e. To date, 3% of the DAW shipped to SEG has been incinerated, in addition, resin is dewatered. (1989 resin was 16% of the total disposal volume.)

4. Plans for future LLRW management include compaction, incineration, segregation, decontaminat on, and sorting. The percentage of anticipated, future LLRW handled by methods listed in the survey is as follows: '

a. Waste cc : 3ction (DAW) 10%

b. On-site cineration of DAW (proposed) 80%

c. Decontam n.'. ion of waste metals 50%

d. Sorting o. waste prior to shipping 100%

e. Resin dewatering 100%

5. VCSNS does not anticipate the need f or any additional land for LLRW storage.

6. See question 9.

7. Additional construction activity would be required to provide for temporary LLRW storage (See question 8).

8. VCSNS may construct a waste storage facili+.y designed to store three (3) steam generators. The steam generators may be stored indefinitely or until the short-lived radionuclides have decayed sufficiently to allcw VCSNS to decontaminate or dispose of portions of the steam generators. Plans have not been finalized for replacement or disposal of the steam generators.

9. VCSNS plans to replace the three (3), steam generators prior to iicense renewal (?0??). Since VCSNS is a relatively young plant, no odditional major modifications have been projected for license renewal.

C. Sectidn deleted b.y NUMARC.

' Attachment 1 to Mr. Byron lee, Jr. Letter Jul: 6, 1990 Page 4 of 7 AQUAllC RESOURC[ QUlSil0N5

1. 1here have been no t)ost-licensing changes to the intake or discharge systems. Discharge system changes may be necessary, however, to alleviate fish kill problems. Ilow rate changes are also being considered for the circulating water system. These changes would affect the intake velocity and the volume of heated water discharged to the reservoir.

2. 1he most evident impact of station operation on aquatic resources has been the occurrence of fish kills in the circulating water discharge 8 canal area during hot weather. Tne problem is ongoing and is being studied for possible solutions, lhe South Carolina Ocpartment of Health and Environmental Control (SCOHLC) and the South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department (SCWMRD) have expressed concern over the fish kills. Both agencies are kept informed of the progress of the fish kill study. (See Attachment ? for the fish kill action plan, the first Quarter 1990 Summary Report, and exampics of fish kill reports.) In general, the fish kills are restricted to the discharge canal area and are limited as to the number of fish killed.

A chronic problem has existed with pH levels exceeding NPDES limits in lagoon wastewater treatment systems. The problem is related to excessive algal growth. (See Attachment 3 for a summary.) This problem has not been resolved and continues to be evident during warm weather.

There have been no NPDES enforcement actions against VCSNS to date.

3. Changes to the NPDES permit have reflected increasing regulatory pressure in the ervironmental area. The original NPDES permit expired prior to issuance of the operating license. The facility operated under this expired permit until the new r?rait was issued in 1984. (The operating license was issued in 1982.) lhis second permit has since expired (6/30/89) and the facility is again operating with an expired permit. A renewal application was submittedl however, a new permit is not expected for several months. The table shown below presents the monitoring changes that occurred with permit renewal.

$i Y l

l

.e fwm i o Mr. Dyron Lee, Jr. Letter t; 1990

= i, ! of 7 g

Discharge # Description Monitoring Change Date 001 circulating water none ---

002 service water none ---

003 rad weste include these 1984 parameters:

oil & grease, chromium, boron, copper, iron, pH, flow 004 steam generator blow- none ---

down 005 treated sewage effluent none ---

006 low volume waste changed to two 1984 discharge points 006A, 0068 007 low volume waste 007 specified as 1984 neutralization basin 008 metal cleaning wastes none ---

009 constuction runoff deleted 1984 009A CRDM cooler added 1984 009B industrial cooler added 1984 010 treated sewage effluent added, permit 1984 consolidation 011 treated sewage effluent added, permit 1984 consolidation g SCE&G cxpects some changes in monitoring requirements to occur when the NPDES permit is renewed. Monitoring i,ill probably be required for parameters such as morpholine, hydrazine, and a molluscicide used for asiatic clam control, lighter controls over chlorine discharges and pH are also expected. A major change in monitoring requirements will be effluent toxicity testi/3 which SCEf,G anticipates to be required in the renewal permit. /.15 0 , ground water monitoring is expected to be required near wastewater treatment lagoons.

4. There has been no ongoir" monitoring of water quality or biota since l issuance of the Operating License. Monitoring has been restricted to j the 316(a) and 316(b) related studies. Copies of reports from these  ;

studies are attached as requested in question 9. j l

Attachment I to Mr. Dyron tee, Jr. tetter i July 6, 1990

, Page 6 of 7

5. There has been no ongoing monitoring of impingement or entrainment at this facility. Impingement and entrainment studies are limited to the 316(b) demonstration. A copy of the report is attached as requested in question 9.

6. lhere have been no major changes to aquatic habitat in the vicinity of the station since the issuance of the Operating license.

7. Plant operation does not appear to have any appreciable impact on l recreational fishing. Recreational fishermen use the area near the cooling water discharge heavily at certain times of the year. The ,

heated water discharge appears to attract some species of fish. There  !

is no known commercial fishery on the Monticello Reservoir. Also, there does not appear to be any significant impact from the cool'ng water i discharge. The recreational use of the lake appears to be increasitg along with residential development adjacent to the reservoir.

8. Since Monticello Reservoir receives water from a very small drainage area, makeup is provided by the operation of the pumped storage hydroelectric station. Agricultural runoff, because of the small drainage area, appears to have negligible impact on the reservoir. The hydroelectrical plant does not contribute significant discharges (other than water transferred from the Broad River as a result of pumpback operations) to the reservoir. There are no major industries located on the reservoir. SCEf,G coes not expect significant water quality degradation in the Monticello Reservoir.

9. Copies of the Section 316(a) and (b) Demonstration Reports are provided in Attachment 4.

t

/

+

l-

Attachment 1 to Mr. Byron Lee, Jr. Letter July 6, 1990 Page 7 of 7 SOC 10 ECONOMIC QULS110NS

1. Approximately 660 serma..ent SC[LG and 300 permanent contract workers were on site in 1989.

2. The Operating License was received in 1982, lhe number of permanent workers assigned to VCSNS (in 5-year increments) were 317 permanent SCELG in 1982 and 380 permanent SCf LG and 310 permanent contract in 1987. A record of contract workers was not available for 1987.

3. The f ollowing information is provided for the Refuel 5 outage which is the largest single outage to date (in terms of the number of workers involved) and represents future typical planned outages for VCSNS.

Please note that VCSNS is not scheduled for a ten-year 151 outage until 1994.

The Ref uel 5 outage lasted sixty-two (62) days and occurred between the months of March and May, 1989. The cost for the outag. is estimated at

$18,486,000, 11 is estimated that 800 additional temporary workers were utilized for the outage. The total occupational dose accumulated during the outage was 391 RlM. Inis includes 103 RLM f or the Reactor Coolant System RlD Bypass removal project and 96 REM for steam generator maintenance and inspection. The leftporary workers utilized for these jobs were approximately 65 f or RTO Bypass removal and 140 f or the steam generators.

4. The taxable value and amount of taxes paid for VCSNS were as follows:

State T axes Local T axes Au sed alue 1989 46,306,930 0. 9,676,309 1985 46,455,970 0 4,697,030 The plant was not in service in 1980, therefore, no property taxes were paid.

Also, the state does not collect property taxes. Local taxes are paid to Iairfieid County,

_- - -______ _ _ _ _ _