ML20134M384

From kanterella
Revision as of 18:24, 22 July 2020 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Summary of 970128 Meeting W/Util to Discuss Program to Dispose of Weapons Grade Pu Through Use as Mixed Oxide Fuel. List of Attendees & Matl Used in Presentation Encl
ML20134M384
Person / Time
Site: Byron, Braidwood, LaSalle  Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 02/13/1997
From: Dick G
NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:
NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
References
NUDOCS 9702200221
Download: ML20134M384 (19)


Text

. .~_ - - . - - -- .- - .- _ . _ - . - - . . - - _ - . - . .

.m I.,i. E a

UNITED STATES kyg I NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f WASHINGTON, D.C. 30eeHOO1 f ,,, February 13, 1997 l

l F

i LICENSEE: Commonwealth Edison Company (Comed) l

! FACILITIES: Byron Station, Braidwood Station, and LaSalle County Station SUMARY: Su m ARY OF MIXED OXIDE FUEL MEETING OF JANUARY 28, 1997 i

On January 28, 1997, the staff met with Commonwealth Edison Company (Comed),

l at Coned's request to discuss its program to dispose of weapons grade i

plutonium through use as a mixed oxide (MOX) fuel. Enclosure 1 includes a l list of attendees. A copy of the licensee's presentation is included in l Enclosure 2.

The Department of Energy (DOE), as the lead agency, is developing a program

for the disposition of weapons grade plutonium. In its Record of Decision issued in January 1997, the DOE proposed a " dual track" approach comprised of
innobilizing, through vitrification, some of the excess plutonium, and burning the remainder in commercial nuclear reactors as MOX. Comed in concert with i Duke Power, British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL), and Cogena has assembled a project i team to develop a plan for the possible use of M0X. The project for Plutonium l Excess Converted to Electricity (Project PEACE) will consider burning MOX at j several of their sites, specifically Byron, Braidwood, LaSalle, Catawba, l

! and McGuire. .

i If the Project PEACE team is selected as a responder to a DOE request for l proposals, scheduled to be issued in 1997, the team proposes to evaluate the 3

! perfonnance of M0X through the use of a lead test assembly (LTA) program.

i Based on successful perfonnance of the LTA, M0X fuel would be integrated as

part of the normal core reloads. Using fuel fabricated in Europe, the j earliest LTA placement in a core would occur in late 1999; and assuming a
successful test, inclusion of M0X in a reload would occur in late 2003.

i l The licensees' team stressed that, while weapons grade plutonium has not been j used in commercial reactors, there is a considerable amount of data on the use i of M0X in Europe obtained from the utilization of reprocessed fuels. M0X was also used as fuel in several U.S. reactors in the 1960s and 1970s. However,

{ the team acknowledged that the use of M0X as proposed in Project PEACE will

require a license amendment supported by the appropriate safety and accident j analyses.
During the meeting, both the staff and the Project PEACE team acknowledged that there are a number of non-technical issues (e.g. political and contractual) that will have be solved before the project can proceed. The j staff provided questions and comments for those technical areas that it i believes will have to be addressed in any request for a license amendment. At
the conclusion of the i

j PDR P

2000n1 9702200221 970213 ADOCK 05000373 PDft fi I i _ - -_ .

meeting it was mutually agreed that as progress occurs on the use of M0X, further meetings between the staff and the Project PEACE team will be j beneficial.

/s/

George F. Dick, Jr., Project Manager Project Directorate III-2 i

Division of Reactor Projects - III/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. STN 50-454, STN 50-455, STN 50-456, STN 50-457, 50-373, and 50-374

Enclosures:

1. List of Attendees
2. Licensee's Presentation 4

a Distribution: E-Mail w/ encl 1: .

Docket File F. Miraglia (FJM) J. Lyons (JEL)

PUBLIC A. Thadani (ACT) L. Phillips (LEP1)

PDIII-2 R/F R. Zimmerman-(RPZ). R. Architzel>(REA)

OGC 015B18 J. Roe'(JWR) e ~

K..Kavanagh;(KAK)

ACRS T2E26 R. Capra.(RAC1).

  • R. Assa (RRA).

G. Dick (GFD) 8. McCabe-(BCM) i M. David Lynch'(MDL)

R. Lanksbury (RDL) C. Moore (ACM) T. Attard (ACA)..

M. Dapas (MLD1) D..Skay (DMS6) Pe Tam (PST) 4 P. Hiland (PLH) E.'Adensam (EGA1); J. Wilson-(sMudl)

  • W. Kropp (WJK) ,

e.. , i e

J d

DOCUMENT NAME: DICK \0128M0X. SUM To receive e copy of this document, indioste in the box: "C" = Copy without encloeures *E" = Copy with enclosures *N" = No copy 0FFICE PM:PDIII-2 Ei LA:PDIII-2 l D:PDIII-2 l5 NAME GDICK LM CM00RE CP/#%z RCAPRA v DATE 02/ O/97 / % 02//3 /97 02/,3/97 i 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY t

l l -

)

i LIST OF MEETING ATTENDEES i JANUARY 28, 1997 l

NRC/ Office of the Commissioners Janice Dunn Lee Jeffery Sharkey NRC/ Office of the Executive Director for Operations Glenn Tracy EC/ Office of the General Counsel Sherwin Turk l

j NRC/ Office of Nuclear Reactor Reaulation A

\

Elinor Adensam Robert Capra I Jim Lyons Larry Phillips Ralph Architzel Kerri Kavanagh Tony Attard  !

Peter Tam Jim Wilson Ramin Assa  !

Donna Skay  ;

M. David Lynch  !

George Dick NRC/ Office of Reasearch Ralph Meyer  ;

David Ebert i NRC/ Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeauards C. W. Emeigh Bruce Moran Vanice Perin Michael Weber i

ENCLOSURE i

NRC/0ffice for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data William Jones Commonwealth Edison Kenneth Ainger William Naughton George Edgar Dave Jenkins Ronald Chin Duke Power Comoany Steve Nesbit Cogema Frank Shallo Vijay Sazawal Doc-Search Associates Lynn Connor CISAC at Stanford University A. David Rossin Nuclear Information Resource and Nuclear Enerav Information Service Mary Olson 3&l.C l Sidney Crawford l

l I

l l

l l

1 l

j

e a

~

M Project P.E.A.C.E. Team Meeting with NRC January 28,1997 Comed ENCLOSURE 2

/ j ( DOE Role in Weapons Plutonium Disposition A U.S. and Russia agreed to declare portions of their weapons materials as surplus to defense needs A DOE Office of Fissile Materials Disposition formed and tasked with determining technical options A DOE performed environmental, technical, and non-proliferation studies i A DOE proposed a " dual-track" approach

- MOX in commercial LWR reactors

- Immobilization using vitrifcation

. Comed ~

S 8 M Timeline to DOE Record ofDecision A Dec '95 - Request for Expression of Interest (EOI)

A Jan '96 - Initial Expression of Interest '

A Feb'96 - Supplement to EOI A Mar '96 - Draft PEIS Issued 1 Jul '96 - Technical Summary Report Issued A Oct '96 - Non-Proliferation Assessment Issued A Dec '96 - Final PEIS issued A Jan '97 - Record of Decision issued i

1 Comed.

1

u.m a.m -. e a e on. u%h a %,%%.mm.e.-===m.suma.mae-==.ww,wa-== =w3.---w-==.m a m a.6- - . - ====.====a=*maes=mu.- e.m.ew.e-m==e-a-.===m-w = aw m.=. ma ma + .s e om, a m.m. m+ .5m a _w e 4ea ma 2 4 1

i . .

~

l M PROJECT P.E.A.C.E.

l i

j Plutonium I Excess t

Arms Converted to i t

Electricity ,

I i

I t

1

[

{

f 1

4 Comed  !

i i

I i

___ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ . .___ ___ _ _ _____ -______ _ _ - _ I

~

M PROJECT P.E.A.C.E. MISSION 'l Effect optimal disposition of excess weapons grade plutonium inventories in the United States and the former Soviet Union through the use of MOX fuel technology i

l Comed t

.t M PROJECT P.E.A.C.E. TEAM 'l :

l i

f A Comed and Duke Power ,

- Major US Nuclear Utilities 1 BNFL and Cogema

- World's Leading MOX Fuel Fabricators 1 Electricite de France via Cogema

- World Leaderin MOX Fuel Expenence 1 Provides full range of capabilities to meet DOE disposition mission Comed

~

M Project P.E.A.C.E. Approach A Primary - Use Euro-Fab rapid start

- Lead Test Assembly (LTA) Program

- First full MOX reload

- Disposition via multiple reactors A Secondary - Use U.S. government fabrication

- Build and license facility

- Confirmatory program

- Disposition via multiple reactors i

m Comed ,

M Scope o Responsibilities:

Project P.E.A.C.E. / DOE Team f

i MOX Fabrication Services Pu Disposition as MOX fuel Project Fabricator (s)

Utility (s) P.E.A.C.E.

n

...................................... n....................... ,,........ ,,,,, ...,,,,,,,,,,,,, g,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,

U V i i

DOE l

Transport fuel Transport spent fuel Provide PuO2 Powder to '

assemblies to away from Fabricator (s)

Utility reactors Utility reactors l

Project P.E.A.C.E. handles all analyses, NRC interface, regulatory action, etc., to support the LTA program and full scale MOX use. DOE provides technical and financial support as required by Project P.E.A.C.E.

.. Comed i

s &

M PotentialNRCInvolvement t

A Transportation of plutonium oxide and MOX assemblies A Licensing of U.S. nuclear plants

- LTA programs

- Reload cores A Licensing of U.S. MOX fabrication plant under DOE Comed

'I M TechnicalDiscussion ~

A State of Mixed Oxide (MOX) Technology 1 MOX Lead Test Assembly (LTA) Program 1 MOX reload irradiation Comed =-lll==llll :

t

,i M State ofMOX Technology i

i i

1 Over 400 tons of MOX fuel safely loaded in reactors since 1963 1 EdF PWRs used for MOX irradiation very similar to the Comed / Duke PWRs 1 Comed MOX experience in the '60's and '70's

- Dresden and Quad Cities

- Achieved burnups, residence time and power density representative of those required for today's operation t i

Comed -

1 4

I

M MOXLead Test Assembly Program

, i l

l A Comed's practise is to confirm fuel design changes with  :

an LTA program if existing database needs to be supplemented i A Program Elements

- Use existing MOX database to the extent possible t

- Address technicalissues: l i

12 vs 18 month cycles i Reactor grade vs weapons grade plutonium 1

r l

Comed  :

b i

M MOXLTA

When and How A Earliest LTA insertion -late 1999 -

(based on DOE Technical Summary Report)

A Process elements

- DOE pit conversion to plutonium oxide

- MOX pellets manufactured and assembled in Europe for shipment to US as finished products

- Pool-side examinations and hot cell examinations ofirradiated pre-characterized MOX fuel rods A Expected results from design process: Overall core behavior expected to be more representative of a uranium than a MOX core - licensing basis events not expected to need reanalysis Comed - '

i

~'

l M MOXReloads l

When and How i 1 Earliest reload insertion - late 2003

(Based on DOE Technical Summary Report)

A Utilization of European fabrication route i A Overall core behavior expected to be more representative of MOX than uranium cores i t

- Licensing basis events may require reanalysis 1 Plant modifications may be necessary t

- Control rods replacement

- Use of soluble boron enriched in isotope B10 i

Comed =

~

M Summary 1

i A No significant technicalissues A Project P.E.A.C.E. team has the experience and can provide the full range of technical capabilities to meet l DOE's MOX disposition mission i

j i

Comed -

i

- - - _ - _ . _ _ - - - _ _ . . _i