ML20195D559

Summary of 881013 & 14 Meeting W/Util to Discuss Potential Decommissioning of Facility.W/O Stated Encl

ML20195D559
Person / Time
Site:	Fort Saint Vrain
Issue date:	10/26/1988
From:	Heitner K Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Calvo J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
TAC-69515, NUDOCS 8811070053
Download: ML20195D559 (7)

Text

.,

'a ne%[),

UNITE 3 STATES i

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Q

<J WASM NG TON,0. C. 206S5 k*..,*#

October 26, 1988 Docket No. 50-267 MEMOP'ANDUit FOR:

Jose A. Calvo, Director Project Directorate - IV Division of Reactor Projects - III, I

IV, y and Special Projects FROM:

Kenneth L. Heitner, Project Manager Project Directorate - IV Division of Reactor Project - !!!,

IV, V and Special P.-ojects

SUBJECT:

SUnitARY OF ltEETING k'lTH PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLOPADO (PSC)

TO DISCUSS FOTENTIAL DECOMMISSIONING OF FORT ST. YRAIN (FSV) -

OCTOBER 13 AND 14, 1988 (TAC NO. 69515)

This meeting was held at the request of PSC to discuss the potential decomis-sioning of FSV. The attendees at this meeting are listed in the Enclosure.

Major issues discussed at the reeting include:

- Alternatives for Continued Plant Operation,

- Defueling.

- Decornissioning,

- Storage of Spent Fuel, and

-Pepcwcring(Conversion).

The State of Colorado was represented and participated in the meeting.

Alternatives for Continued Plant Operation PSC is studying several alternatives for continued plant operation. Sore t

possibility exists to have additional fuel fabricated for FSV and continue with nuclear operation. However, more likely scenarios involve ceasing nuclear operation either at the end of the current Cycle (4), or the next Cycle (5).

The possibility also exists of extending each cycle by a coastdown period.

These scenarios would require additional staff review, t

The staff observed that regardless of the scenario selected, PSC's current obligations towards safe operation of FSV were to be maintair.ed. PSC's coreit-rents to long term improvements also rer.ain valid and potentially enforceable t

until PSC formally applied to sodify J.e FSV license for "possession only" and cormitted to cease nuclear production operations. At that time, further efforts I

to improve plant (reactor) operational safety could be reviewed and potentially relaxed. However, requirements needed for future activities, such as defueling and decemissioning would have to be retained.

Defueling I

Provisions for eventual defueling of FSV were not specifically considered in the l

original design reviews.

Because of the unique structure of the reactor core, defueling sirply cannot be an extension of the norrial refuelir.g process.

$k ooh bbb 7

2 Specifically, dummy fuel blocks must be placed in the reactor core to retain the core's structural integrity as defueling proceeds. The dumy fuel blocks could be either a graphite or refractory material. Most likely, the blocks would i

be boronated, to absorb neutrons.

( Af ter the reactor is defueled, Ge dumy.

fuel blocks themselves will M removed as part of the decoroission',ng process)

The defueling process for FSV wou'Id extend over a twc to three year period.

This is because of the plant's limited storage capaci ; to hold freshly removed fuel. As each segment of fuel is removed, it must be readied for eventual shipment or en-site storage (to be discussed). Plant operations during the defueling "ase are of a more limited nature than during normal operatior..

Potentially, a reduced set of Technical Specifications could be proposed and approved to cover defueling phase. Reanalysis of core physics, thermal hydraulics, and structural adequacy during defueling would require staff review prior to beginning the defueling uperation.

j The staff observed the FSV defueling operation will be considerably greater in duration and potential cost than for a light water reactor (LWR).

The scope of the decceraissioning rule does not adequately address this process for FSV.

Althcugh there were no specific requirements in the rules for Comission review i

and apprcval of the costs and funding of the FSV defueling, PSC should consider presenting a sureary of this information to the staff. The staff concurred with PSC in the need to review the technical aspects for the defueling noted above. The staff noted to the extent that new methods or codes would be required, PSC should plan on appropriate lead times for staff review of these methods and codes.

p,ecomissioning i

Decommissioning of the FSV reactor site following defueling was discussed in detail. However, PSC characterized the information presented as preliminary, since the supporting data and analyses were still being developed. The princi-pal decomist foning activities would be concerned with the internals of the Prestressed ';or trete Peactor Vessel (PCRV). Within the PCRV, two sources will contribute most of the residual activity. The first is "plated out" fissien products from reactor operaticn. These are typically deposited in colder areas of the reactor. The principal plate out source is cesium -137 (about 22 curies).

(About 3 to 4 curies of strontium-90 is also present.) This raterial is expected to be present in the steam generators and in the insulation material within the PCRV. These sources could be physically removed fron the PCRV by removal of the steam generators and PCRV liner insulation material.

The se*cond major source of radioactivity are materials with the PCRV activated by neutrons from reactor operation.

PSC ncted that the boronated steel blocks just radially inward from the reactor core carrel would be the most highly activated caterial. However, other acthsted materials can also be present.

PSC is still evaluating these sources to project future activity levels in the PCRY.

f, J

. Initially, PSC plans to renove major internals from the lower PCRV, such as the helium circulators and steam generator modules. Consideration is also being given to reroyal of upper PCRV structures, Mt current technology may not support remote work in this high radiation area (estimated at 1000 R/hr).

Potentially, the upper PCRV internals would not be dismantled in the near term, but would be the motivation for entering the SAFSTOR mode.

SAFSTOR would allow decay of the critical activation sources in the PCRV upper structure in parti-cular cobalt-60. SAFSTOR for a period of 50 years would sufficiently reduce the potential radiation hazard to enable disrantling to proceed. At that point, dismantling would complete the decomissioning process and leave all raJiatica levels acceptable for uncontrolled access.

PSC's intention is to fully describe this ';;ecess in appropriate submittals to the staff under the decomissioning rule, in order to obtain staff approval.

The staff rade the following coments on PSC's presentation:

1.

Remova' of some of the PCRV liner and concrete could be required to r.ert acceptable residual rediation levels at tFe end of the SAFSTOR period. The decocinissicning plan should discuss that renoval process.

2.

Careful attention should be given to health physics planning, since wor ker exposures could be much higher than in PSC's previous FSV experience.

3.

Adequate surveys would be required before and during the decorris-sioning process to validate the projected residual radicactivity and the radiation exposure models being used.

4 Additicnal guidance on reactor decomissicning is expected to published as proposed Fegulatory Guides in the Spring of 1989.

The staff also noted that while the n'anagerent responsibility for this review would be in the Office of fluclear Reactor Regulation, technical staff support would primarily cone froni the Office of t'uclear Material Safety and Safeguards.

Storage _o,f_ Spent Fuel PSC discussed the disposition of the FSV spent fuel. The Departrent of Energy is under contract with PSC to receive fuel segrents 4 through 8, which are currently in the reactor.

PSC's current responsibility is only for segment 9 in the reactor and segment 10 in storage (unirradiated). Although sore possibility exiat for others taking the responsibility for segments 9 and 10, PSC is planning for its loag term storage.

'ong term storage would be in an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation

.(ISFFI). The ISFS! would be located at the FSV site, but its exact location has not been determincd. The 'SFSI would utilize dry cask storage of the spent fuel as has been approved for the Surrey site. Approval would be neehd for both the utilization of a specific cask with the FSV fuel, as well as fer storing the cask use a the FSV site.

F,

.g.

The staff provided PSC with a copy of the Surrey ISFSI License, Technical Specifications and Safety Evaluation Reports. The staff also noted that certain Regulatory Guides concerning ISFSI's have or are being issued.

Repowering (Conversion)

PSC stated that one option being evaluated was converting FSV to fossil energy.

This would involve erecting a boiler and other necessary structures needed for a fossil energy station. The preliminary arrangement of this station is included in the Enclosure. The inajor structure would be the boiler, built adjacent to the current turbine building.

PSC is considering the following questions for potential staff review:

To what extent could the plant be nodified under 10 CFR 50.597 (i.e. specific examples)

Could work construction proceed in the turbine building even if systers required for reactor safety were still in the building?

1 Could the existing AC pcwer system, sarvice water system and instrurcent air syster, be used to support construction work?

At what level dcas the plant's nuclear QA prograr. have to be j

reintained after the plant's final shutdown?

i pSC also wished to explore changes to the FSV security plan to allow the new j;

facilities to be built without requiring extensive security requirerents.

l The staff noted that rany issues of this type were addressed in other 4

situations under current regulations. For example, at least three nuclear 4

sites had adjacent fossil energy plants (Crystal Piver, Turkey point and Waterford). Operating plants nave had construction take place on an adjacent site (i.e.Pillestone,St.Lucie).

Specific issues unique to the FSV situation 1

should he brought to the staff's attention.

(The FSV project Manager will i'iternally review these issues and determine any unique situations that should be brought to the licensee's attention)

S ta t e Pa rt,1,c, ipa tion The., tate of Colorado was represented at this meeting by it designated 1

representative (Mr. A. J. Hazle, Director, Radia* van Control Division, ColortQ DepartmentofHealth). The staff noted that the state's role in the licensing process under 10 CFR 50.91 rade it irportant to keep the state inforced about all steps in the decomissioning process.

The state representative noted that the State was concerned about the eventaul release of the site for r

unrestricted use, and the 1Jdiation level criteria used to approve thet i

release. The State was also opposed to on-site bur'el of radioactive ratt ini l

reroved from the reactor facility. The state representative also noted that j

public concerns about STAFSTOR and the ISFS! could be anticipated.

The state representative expressed sore concern about a potential transfer of i

FSV to state byproduct raterials license after the fuel had besn removed from i

j the site. The NRC staff responded that the new deconrnissioning rule of June 27, i

/,

' 1988 prohibit *.ed such transfer.

10 CfR 50.82 (f) now states:

"{f) The Comissior. will terminate the license if it determinas that -

$1) The decomissiong has been performed in accordance with the approved decomissioning plan the order authorizing decomissioning; and (2) The terminal radiation survey and associated documentation demenstrates that the facility and site are suitable for release for unrasstricted use."

future Actions The staff and PSC discussed the need for future mietings. Specific meetings would be required to further discuss each aspect of potential decomissioning, as ncted above. PSC has outlined specific additional meetings in the Enclosure.

The staff ncted that special meetings may be needed on issues which cover each area, such as Safeguards, Security, and Quality Assurance.

The staff noted that from a safety viewpoint, PSC should saake its final decisions as soon as possible. The staff position was that PSC must retain a full comitment to operational safety until a final decision was made for defueling and decomissioning. The staff observed that resources required to maintair, and improve operational safety canr.ot be reduced until that decision is made and appropriate approvals obtained from the NRC.

Kenneth L. Heitner, Project Manager I

Project Directorate - IV Division of Reactor Projects - Iil, IV, Y and Special Projects

Enclosure:

j As stated

\\

cc w/ enclosure.

T. Westerman, Region !Y l

cc w/o enclosure-I See next page l

l I

h l

_,- - _ - -. = _ !

f' s

y e

Mr. R

0. Williams, Jr.

Public Servict Company cf Colorado Fort St. Vrain cc:

Mr. D. W. Warembourg. Manager Albert J. Hazle, Director Nuclear Engineering Division Radiation Control Division Public Service Company Department of Health of Colorado 4210 East lith Avenue P. O. Box 840 Denver, Colorado 80220 Denver, Colorado 80201-0840 Mr. David Alberstein,14/159A Mr. R. O. Williams, Jr., Acting Manager GA Technclogies, Inc.

Nuclear Production Division Post Office Fox 85608 Public Service Company of Colorado San Diego, California 92138 16805 Weld County Road 19-1/2 Platteville, Colorado 80651 Mr. H. L. Brey, t'anager Nuclear Licensing and Fuel Division Mr. P. F. Tomlinson, Manager Public Service Company of Colorado Quality Assurance Division P. O. Box B40 Public Service Company of Colorado Denver, Colorado 80201-0840 16805 Weld County Road 19-1/2 Platteville, Colorado (3651 Senior Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Corrnission Mr. R. F. Walker P. O. Bov. 640 Public Service Company of Colorado Platteville, Colorado 80651 Post Office Box 840 Denver, Colorado 80201-0840 Kelley, Stansfield & 0'Donnell Public Service Company Building Comitment Control Program Room 900 Coordinator 550 15th Street Public Service Company of Colorado Denver, Colorado 80202 2420 W. 26th Ave. Suite 100-0 Denver, Colorado 80211 Regional Administrator, Region 1Y U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Arlington, Texas 76011 Chairman, Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado Greeley, Colorado 806J1 Regional Representative Radiation Programs Environmental Protection Agency 1 Denver Place 99918th Street, Suite 1300 Denver, Colorado 80202-2413 1

I

. 1988 prohibited such transfer. 10 CFR S0.82 (f) now states:

"(f) The Comission will terminate the license if it determines that -

(1) The decornissiong has been per%rmed in accordance with the approved decomissioning plar, the order authorizing decommissioning; and

(?) The terminal radiation survey and associated docurentation deconstrates that the facility and site are suitable for release for unrestricted use."

Future Actions The staff and PSC discussed the need for future meetings.

Specific meetings would be required to further discuss each aspect of potential decomissioning, as noted above. FSC has cutlired specific additional meetings in the Enclosure.

The staff noted that special meetings may be needed on issues which cover each area, such as Safeguards, Security, and Quality Assurance.

The staff noted that fica a safety viewpoint, PSC should make its firal decisions as soon as possible. The staff position was that PSC must retain a full corniteent to operational safety until a final decision was made for defueling and decorrtissioning. The staff observed that resources required to reintain end ir: prove operational safety cannot be reduced until that decision is made and appropriate approvals obtained from the NRC.

M Kenneth ?.. Heitner, Project !!anager Project Directorate - IV Division of Reactor Projects - Ill, IV, V and Special Projects

Enclosure:

As stated cc w/ enclosure:

T. Westerran, Region IV cc w/o enclosure:

See next page l

DISTRIBUTION Jo~ cwt nTe

FRC & Local POR PD4 Reading K. Heitner OGC-WFN i

~

ACRS (10)

E. Jordan E. Grires F04 Plant File P. Erickson P. ilichaud Tirothy Johnson D. Martin E. Tomlinson L. Nbenstein S. Long C. P. Siess W. Scott E. Chan J. Scinto l

T. Martin, Regien IV T. Vesterran, Region IV J. Callan, Region IV HH PDIV: Pit PDIV!DjfC KHeitner:kb JCalvo 10/ W 88 10/.' G/88