ML040790063
| ML040790063 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 03/11/2004 |
| From: | Cottingham A Duke Energy Corp, Winston & Strawn, LLP |
| To: | Anthony Baratta, Elleman T, Austin Young Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Byrdsong A T | |
| References | |
| -nr, 50-413-OLA, 50-414-OLA, ASLBP 03-815-03-OLA, RAS 7473 | |
| Download: ML040790063 (9) | |
Text
1?As Thr3 WINSTON & STRAWNLLP 1400 L STREET, N.W., WASHINGTON DC 20005-3502 202-371-5700 37 W Vt 9 t too P., 101 cA d,. 435*S.0 aI A CHE 02AVd C.02. I P2 8' C--89IL 606084703 Alto. 1019-419 LMA CA 00071.1541 1 FfCA S. A d 94111 .184 10 751Ps . L.C C 272 vI -a-ssf6oo a,2-894-6700 115-419-8700 5-99.10 48-22.517.75-7 531454 -az- 44-07-I 55-102 DOCKETED USNRC March 11, 2004 March 17,2004 (11:33AM)
OFFICE OF SECRETARY RULEMAKINGS AND Ann Marshall Young, Chairman Anthony J. Baratta ADJUDICATIONS STAFF Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Dr. Thomas S. Elleman Administrative Judge 5207 Creedmoor Road # 101 Raleigh, N.C. 27612 Re: In the Matter of Duke Energy Corporation, Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 (Docket Nos. 50413-OLA, 50414-OLA)
Dear Administrative Judges:
Enclosed herewith Duke Energy Corporation submits copies of a March 1, 2004 letter from Duke Energy to the NRC transmitting the response to an NRC Request for Additional Information ("RAI") concerning environmental issues. The RAI response includes information material and relevant to Contention III, as admitted by the Licensing Board in the Memorandum and Order of March 5, 2004.
Respectfully submitted, Anne W. Cottingham Counsel for Duke Energy Corporation Enclosures cc: Service list (with enclosures)
DC:348841.1
-jeepla
/ e - - q Cy
PhDuke Duke Power OPower. Energy Center P.O. Box 1006 A DuAe Ensi Cmpany Charlotte. NC 28201-1006 March 1, 2004 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555
Subject:
Duke Energy Corporation Catawba Nuclear Station Units I & 2, Docket Nos. 50-413, 50-414 Response to Request for Additional Information (TAC Nos. MB7863, MB7864)
Mixed Oxide Fuel Lead Assemblies (Environmental)
By letter dated February 27, 2003 Duke Energy submitted an application to amend the licenses of McGuire and Catawba to allow the use of four mixed oxide fuel lead assemblies. As part of the review of this application the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff requested that Duke provide additional information. The responses to these questions are included in Attachment 1.
Inquiries on this correspondence should be directed to M.T. Cash at (704) 382-5826.
H.B Barron Executive Vice President - Nuclear Generation Duke Energy Corporation attachments
cc: w/attachments L. A. Reyes U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regional Administrator, Region 11 Atlanta Federal Center 61 Forsyth St., SW, Suite 23T85 Atlanta, GA 30303 R. E. Martin (addressee only)
NRC Project Manager U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop O-8G9 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E. F. Guthrie Senior Resident Inspector U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Catawba Nuclear Station J. B. Brady Senior Resident Inspector U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission McGuire Nuclear Station Diane Curran Harmon, Curran, Spielberg & Eisenberg, LLP 1726 M Street, N.W.
Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 Mary Olson Director, Southeast Office Nuclear Information and Resource Service P.O. Box 7586 Asheville, NC 28802 H. J. Porter, Director Division of Radioactive Waste Management Bureau of Land and Waste Management Department of Health and Environmental Control Columbia, SC 29201
bcc: w/attachments Richard Clark-DCS Patrick Rhoads-DOE David Alberstein-DOE Don Spellman-ORNL NCMPA-I NCEMC PMPA SRE bcc: w/attachment (via email)
S. P. Nesbit M. T. Cash F. J. Verbos J. L. Eller S. P. Schultz L. F Vaughn M. W. Scott L. J. Rudy J. Hoemer - Framatome ANP G. A. Meyer - Framatome ANP bcc: w/attachments (paper copy)
NRIA File/ELL - ECO50 MOX File 1607.2304 Catawba Document Control File 801.01- CN04DM Catawba RGC Date File (J. M. Ferguson - CNOISA)
Oath and Affirmation I affirm that I, HB Barron, am the person who subscribed my name to the foregoing, and that all the matters and facts set forth herein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
HIB Barron Subscribed and sworn to before me on this Isr day of /1srtk) _0__ v otary Public MICHAEL T. CASH My Commission expires: Notary Public Lincoln County. North Carolina Commission Expires January 22,2008 jThub)U, 2.2, 2vos Date
Attachment I MOX Fuel Lead Assembly License Amendment Request Environmental Review - Response to NRC Request for Additional Information'
- 1. Please provide and assessment that evaluates McGuire, and also Oconee, as alternative facilities for the irradiation of the MOX lead test assemblies and your rationale for determining that neither would be preferable to Catawba.
Response to Question I (McGuire)
MOX fuel lead assembly irradiation at a McGuire unit is a technically feasible alternative to using MOX fuel at Catawba. McGuire and Catawba share the same fuel assembly design, and the reactor coolant system operating parameters are similar among all four units. All of the reactors are base loaded, with approximately eighteen month intervals between refueling. All four reactors have the same rated thermal power - 341 1 MWth nominal. In addition, transportation modes and means of delivery to the two plants are the same.
Due to these and other similarities, there is a de mininis difference in the environmental impacts of MOX fuel lead assembly use at McGuire as compared to MOX fuel lead assembly use at Catawba. The Environmental Report on MOX fuel lead assembly use submitted to the NRC in Reference I is applicable to both plants. The responses to NRC requests for additional information related to environmental consequences (Reference 2, pp. 113-1 15; Reference 3, ) would be applicable to McGuire as well as Catawba.
In September 2003, Duke amended the Reference I license amendment request to apply to Catawba only. As described in Reference 4, this action was based on refueling schedule considerations and the desire to minimize the resource requirements associated with MOX fuel lead assembly licensing. While use of MOX fuel lead assemblies at McGuire remains technically feasible, these refueling schedule and resource considerations make Catawba preferable for use of the MOX fuel lead assemblies in the late spring of 2005. That date, in turn, is driven by lead assembly fabrication and transportation.
Response to Ouestion I (Oconee)
MOX fuel lead assembly irradiation at Oconee is not considered to be a technically feasible alternative to using MOX fuel lead assemblies at a Catawba unit. As described in Reference 1, Attachment 3, Section 3.1, the reason for the lead assembly program is to demonstrate the acceptable performance of MOX fuel derived from weapons grade plutonium in support of future larger scale use of MOX fuel in the McGuire and Catawba reactors. McGuire and Although the request for additional information did not contain numbered questions or requests, for clarity Duke has recast the requests into numbered format.
1
Catawba are very similar in design to European reactors that have amassed decades of experience using reactor grade MOX fuel. Further, McGuire and Catawba are the facilities that have been proposed to and accepted by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) for the larger scale irradiation of the MOX fuel.
As noted above, McGuire and Catawba share the same fuel assembly design. By contrast, Oconee has a different fuel assembly design and a different reactor coolant system design than the McGuire and Catawba plants. Oconee fuel assemblies have a 15xI5 lattice; McGuire and Catawba use 17x17 fuel. The fuel rod pitch is 0.568 inches at Oconee, versus 0.496 inches at McGuire and Catawba. Oconee has 177 fuel assemblies in each core; McGuire and Catawba have 193 fuel assemblies in each core. Oconee uses a fixed incore detector system with rhodium detectors to measure neutron flux; McGuire and Catawba use a movable incore detector system with fission chambers. Oconee is a Babcock and Wilcox designed reactor; McGuire and Catawba are four-loop Westinghouse plants. The core thermal power level is 2568 MWth at Oconee, vs. 3411 MW~h at McGuire and Catawba. Reactor coolant system average temperature is 5790 F at Oconee, vs. 586 0 F at McGuire and Catawba.
Duke considers that a lead assembly program with the prototypical fuel design under prototypical conditions is required prior to using significant quantities of MOX fuel at McGuire or Catawba. The differences between McGuire/Catawba and Oconee, while not extreme, are great enough such that MOX fuel lead assembly use at Oconee would not be considered prototypical. For those same reasons, Duke considers it likely that NRC would not consider a MOX fuel lead assembly program at Oconee to be sufficient for NRC to authorize Duke to iuse significant quantities of MOX fuel at McGuire or Catawba. Therefore, Oconee is not a practical alternative for a MOX fuel lead assembly program.
This response should not be taken to imply that there is any technical reason that MOX fuel could not be used safely at Oconee. Duke knows of no such reason. However, in the context of the ongoing United States program to dispose of surplus plutonium using MOX fuel, McGuire and Catawba are the only reactors selected for the program and the only technically feasible alternatives under Duke's control for a MOX fuel lead assembly program.
- 2. Provide information discussing the feasibility of an alternative that results in DOE transportation offsite of all of the irradiated MOX fuel rods that are expected to result from the MOX lead test assembly program at the Catawba facility.
Response to Question 2 It is Duke's position that transportation of irradiated MOX fuel is beyond the scope of the Duke lead assembly license amendment application. Duke's application is specifically limited to the receipt and storage of MOX fuel as well as incore irradiation of the MOX fuel. Duke does provide the following response to the staff request.
As part of the MOX Fuel Project lead assembly program, a limited number of irradiated MOX fuel rods (expected to be 4-10 rods) will, at the direction of DOE, be transported to Oak Ridge 2
National Laboratory (ORNL) for post-irradiation examination (PIE). Apart from that limited number of rods, offsite transportation and disposal of irradiated MOX fuel rods will be done in the same manner as other irradiated nuclear fuel, i.e., pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) of 1982, as amended: As noted in Reference 1, Attachment 5, Sections 5.3.5 and 5.3.6, the environmental impacts of irradiated MOX fuel transportation and disposal have been addressed in other environmental impact statements. There are no specific plans in place to transport offsite all of the MOX fuel rods from the MOX fuel lead assemblies in conjunction with the offsite shipment of a limited number of rods to ORNL for PIE.
ORNL is prepared to receive a limited number of rods for PIE. Using ORNL (or some other DOE site) as an interim storage location for all of the MOX fuel lead assemblies has never been contemplated and has never been offered by DOE. It is technically feasible to ship irradiated MOX fuel rods or fuel assemblies offsite; however, such shipments require a destination. At this time, Duke is unaware of any DOE facility that is prepared to receive the irradiated MOX fuel assemblies for storage until a permanent repository is available. In that respect, the MOX fuel lead assemblies are no different from the thousands of other spent nuclear fuel assemblies that are presently being stored at Duke reactors, and at other commercial power reactors around the country. Based on these considerations, Duke does not consider the proposed alternative to be feasible or environmentally beneficial.
It should be noted that it is necessary to cool spent fuel assemblies in the spent fuel pool prior to shipping them offsite. Therefore, the alternative of shipping all of the fuel offsite would by necessity involve some period of onsite storage at Catawba. There is no conceivable alternative (other than no action) that involves no spent MOX fuel assembly storage at Catawba.
- 3. Provide information assessing the differential impacts that would be expected from this alternative compared to those expected as a result of your proposed action.
Response to Question 3 As discussed in Response (2), above, Duke believes that transportation of irradiated fuel is beyond the scope of its MOX fuel lead assembly license application. Duke's application is limited to the receipt and storage of MOX fuel as well as incore irradiation of the MOX fuel. In addition, transportation and storage to the high level waste storage repository at a Yucca
.Mountain repository are clearly beyond the scope of this application, the environmental effects of which are addressed in the Department of Energy Environmental Impact Statement (Reference 5). Also, as noted in Response (2) above, Duke does not consider the proposed alternative to be feasible. Duke does provide the following response to the staff request.
In the MOX lead assembly program, a small number of shipments (probably one or two) of a limited number of fuel rods (expected to be 4-10 rods) will take place between Catawba and ORNL. The fuel rods in this case will be destructively examined at ORNL and eventually disposed of as waste. As noted in Reference 1, Attachment 5, Section 5.3.5, a bounding analysis of the environmental impacts of post-irradiation examination was performed in Reference 6. The remainder of the MOX fuel rods will remain in the spent fuel pool at Catawba until they are 3
accepted by DOE pursuant to the NWPA, presumably for shipment to the Yucca Mountain repository (as discussed in Reference l, Attachment 5, Section 5.3.6 and analyzed in Reference 5).
In the alternative, it could be postulated that Duke could ship all of the MOX fuel assemblies to ORNL for storage there. It should be noted that, to Duke's knowledge, there are no facilities for such storage at ORNL. Nevertheless, in this hypothetical case, following interim storage ORNL would ship the four MOX fuel assemblies to a disposal location, presumably the Yucca Mountain repository. The difference in these approaches would appear to be minor from an environmental perspective. The alternative approach eliminates the need for the direct shipment of four fuel assemblies from Catawba to Yucca Mountain; however, offsetting this benefit is the shipment from Catawba to ORNL and from ORNL to Yucca Mountain. To the extent that there is any difference between the alternatives, it could be argued that the alternative involving interim storage at ORNL may have greater impacts because it involves additional waste package handling at the ORNL site, and additional shipment distance, that would not be required for direct shipment from Catawba to Yucca Mountain. Duke expects that the difference between the alternatives would be negligible.
References I. Letter from M.S. Tuckman (Duke) to U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, re "Proposed Amendments to the Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications to Allow Insertion of Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Lead Assemblies and Request for Exemption from Certain Regulations in 10 CFR Part 50," February 27, 2003.
- 2. Letter from H.B. Barron (Duke) to U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, re "Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding the Use of the Mixed Oxide Lead Fuel Assemblies," November 3, 2002.
- 3. Letter from W.R. McCollum (Duke) to U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, re "Response to Request for Additional Information (TAC Nos. MB7863, MB 7864) Mixed Oxide Fuel Lead Assemblies (Environmental, Radiological and Materials)," February 2, 2004.
- 4. Letter from M.S. Tuckman (Duke) to U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, re "Mixed Oxide Fuel Lead Assembly License Amendment Request," September 23, 2004 (amending LAR to apply to Catawba only).
- 5. U. S. Department of Energy, DOE/EIS-025F, FinalEnvironmentalImpact Statementfor a Geologic Repositoryfor the Disposalof Spent NuclearFuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada (February 2002).
- 6. U. S. Department of Energy, DOE/EIS-0283, Surplus Plutonium DispositionFinal EnvironmentalImpact Statement (November 1999).]
4