ML15112A868
| ML15112A868 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 06/19/1979 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML15112A864 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7907250601 | |
| Download: ML15112A868 (28) | |
Text
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPRAISAL BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATING TO THE MODIFICATION OF THE SPENT FUEL POOL FACILITY OPERATING LICENSES NOS.
DPR-38, DPR-47 AND DPR-55 DUKE POWER COMPANY OONEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS NOS. 1 2 AND-3 DOCKETS NOS. 50-2691 50-270 AND 50-287 79072 50&5\\
1.0 DESCRIPTION
OF PROPOSED ACTION By letter dated February 2, 1979 and as supplemented April 20, 1979 and May 2, 1979, Duke Power Company (DPC or the licensee) requested amendments to Facility Operating Licenses Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47 and DPR-55 for the Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3 respectively. This request was made to obtain authorization to provide additional storage capacity in the Oconee Station Common Unit 1/2 spent fuel pool (SFP).
The Oconee Nuclear Station was designed and constructed with two.spent fuel storage pools--one associated with Units 1 and 2 and one with Unit 3. The design was such that the pools would be capable of storing 1 2/3 and 1 1/3 cores respectively. The original design capacity for each pool was 336 and 216 locations. In 1975 DPC desired to increase the storage capacity at the Oconee site. The Unit 1 and 2 pool contained spent fuel from the initial Unit 1 refueling. The Unit 3 pool did not contain any spent fuel; thus, DPC decided to increase the capacity of the Unit 3 pool.
A request to amend the Unit 3 Operating License was submitted on September 12, 1975 and was approved, as License Amendment No. 17, on December 22, 1975. The completed modification increased the Unit 3 SFP capacity to 474 loca tions. The proposed modification would increase the capacity of the common Unit 1/2 SFP from the present design capacity of 336 fuel assemblies to a capacity of 750 fuel assemblies. The total capactiy for both pools would become 1224 locations.
1-1
2.0 NEED FOR STORAGE CAPACITY The NRC issued the Oconee Unit 1, 2 and 3 operating licenses on February 8, 1973, October 8, 1973 and July 19, 1974 respectively.
Commercial operation began on July 18, 1973, September 9, 1974 and December.16, 1974 for Units 1, 2, and 3 respectively.
Tq date, Unit 1 has had four refuelings, Unit 2 has had three refuelingsand Unit 3 has had four refuelings.
For each of these refuelings, about 1/3 of the core ( between 56 and 72 fuel assemblies) has been removed and trans ferred to the spent fuel pools.
The current storage capacity of the Unit 1/2 spent fuel pool is 336 fuel assemblies and there are 209 assemblies presently in the spent fuel pool.
A full core consists of 177 fuel assemblies per reactor.
Under the current fuel management plan, each reactor is scheduled to be refueled annually. After the 1980 refueling outages, neither spent fuel pool would have sufficient capacity for another reload cycle.
2-1
3.0 FUEL REPROCESSING HISTORY Currently, spent fuel is not being reprocessed on a comnercial basis in the United States. The Nuclear Fuel Services (NFS) plant at Westoalley, New York, was shut down in 1972 for alterations and expansion; on September 22, 1976 NFS informed the Commission that they were withdrawing from the nuclear fuel reprocessing business.
The Allied General Nuclear Services (AGNS) proposed plant in Barnwell, South Carolina, is not licensed to operate. The General Electric Company (GE)
Midwest Fuel Recovery Plant in Morris, Illinois, now referred to as the Morris Operation (MO), is in a decommissioned condition.
Although no plants are licensed for reprocessing fuel, the MO storage pool and the NFS plant storage pool (on land owned by the State of New York and leased to NFS through 1980) are licensed to store spent.fuel. The storage pool at West Valley is not full but NFS is. presently not accepting any additional spent fuel for storage.
Construction of the AGNS plant receiving and storage station has been completed.
AGNS has applied for but has not been granted a license to receive and store irradiated fuel assemblies there, prior to a decision on the licensing action relating to the separation facility.
3-1
4.0 THE FACILITY The Oconee Nuclear Station Units 1, 2 and 3 (the facilities) are described in the Final Environmental Statement (FES) related to operation of these facilities.
The FES was issued by the commission in March 1972. Each facility has a ressurized water reactor (PWR) rated at 2568 megawatts thermal (MMt core power and 899 megawatts gross electrical (MWe) output. Pertinent descriptions of principal features related to the SFP of each facility as it currently exists are summarized below to aid the reader in following the evaluations in subsequent sections of this appraisal.
4.1 Station Service Water Systems The Class I (seismic) service water system consists of a low pressure service water (LPSW) system and a high pressure service water (HPSW) system. The station has two PsW systems. One is shared by Units and 2 and the other, of almost identical design, services Unit 3. The principal safety related use of the hPSW systems is to provide cooling to the low pressure injection and decay heat coolers outside contain ment and to the reactor building coolers inside containment. Each LPSW system takes its water supply from the condenser circulating water system through three 15,000 gpm pumps. The LPSW removes heat from the Spent Fuel Cooling System, which in turn rejects its heat to the condenser circulating water system for discharge into Lake Keowee.
4.2 Radioactive Wastes The station contains waste treatment systems designed to collect and process the gaseous, liquid and solid waste that might contain radio active material.
The waste treatment systems are evaluated in the Final Environmental Statement (FES). There will be no change in the waste treatment systems described in Section III.D.2 of the Final Environmental Statement because of the proposed modification.
4.3 Purpose of spent Fuel Pool The spent fuel pool is designed to receive irradiated fuel assemblies removed from the reactor either to accomplish a core refueling or to allow for inspection or modification of core internals. The latter purpose may require space in the pool for up to a full core.
When first removed from the reactor, assemblies are initially intensely radioactive (due to their fresh fission product content) and have a high thermal output. The spent fuel pool provides shielding and cooling.
The major portion of the radioactivity and its associated heat decays in the first 150 days following removal from the reactor core. After this period, the spent fuel assemblies can be placed into a heavily shielded fuel cask and shipped offsite.
Space permittling, spentfuel assemblies may be stored for an additional period allowing continued fission product decay and thermal cooling prior to shipment.
4-1
4.4 Spent Fuel Pool Cleanup System The spent fuel pool cooling and cleanup system for each pool consists of two circulation pumps, two heat exchangers, two filters, an ion exchanger, and the required piping, valves and instrumentation.
This equipment is in two separate loops.
The pumps draw water from the pool.
This flow is passed through the heat exchangers and then returned to the pool.
Approximately 100 gpm in each loop is bypassed through the filter and ion exchanger to maintain the clarity and purity of the water.
Because we expect only a small increase in radioactivity released to the pool water as a result of the proposed modification, as discussed in Section 4.2, we conclude that the spent fuel pool purification system will keep concentrations of radioactivity in the pool water to levels which have existed prior to the modification.
4-2
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF PROPOSED ACTION 5.1 Land Use The proposed modification will alter only the Unit 1/2 spent fuel storage racks. It will not alter the external physical geometry of the spent fuel pool structure. The spent fuel pool was designed to store spent fuel assemblies under water for a period of time to allow shorter-lived radioactive isotopes to decay and to reduce the associ ated thermal heat output. The Commission has never set a limit, other than the length of the license, on how long spent fuel assemblies could be stored onsite. The longer the fuel assemblies decay, the less radioactivity they contain. The proposed modification will not change the basic land use of the spent fuel pool.
The pool is pre sently designed to store the spent fuel assemblies for up to 6 normal refuelings. The proposed modification would provide storage for up to 13 normal refuelings.
The pool was intended to store spent fuel.
This use will remain unchanged by the proposed modification.
5.2 Water Use There will be no significant change in plant water consumption or use as a result of the proposed modification. As discussed subsequently, storing additional spent fuel in the spent fuel pool will slightly increase the heat load on the spent fuel pool cooling system..This heat is transferred in turn to the Spent Fuel Cooling system and to the low pressure service water system. The modification will not change the flow rate within these cooling systems.
5.3 Radiological 5.3.1 Introduction The potential offsite radiological environmental impacts associated with the expansion of the spent fuel storage capacity were evaluated and determined to be environmentally insignificant as addressed below.
The additional spent fuel which would be stored due to the expansion is the oldest fuel which has not been shipped from the plant. This fuel should have decayed at least 4 years. During the storage of the spent fuel under water, both volatile and nonvolatile radioactive nuclides may be released to the water from the surface of the,.
5-1
assemblies or from defects in the fuel cladding. Most of the material released from the surface of the assemblies consists of activated corrosion products such as cobalt-58, cobalt-60, iron-59 and manganese-5 4, which are not volatile.
The radionuclides that might be released to the water through defects in the cladding, such as cesium-134, cesium-137, strontium-8 9 and strontium-9 0, are also predominantly nonvolatile.
The primary impact of such nonvolatile radioactive nuclides is their contribution to radiation levels to which workers in and near the spent fuel pool would be exposed.
The volatile fission product nuclides of most concern that might be released through defects in the fuel cladding are the noble gases (xenon and krypton), tritium, and the iodine isotopes.
Experience indicates that there is little radionuclide leakage from spent fuel stored in pools after the fuel has cooled for several months. The predominance of radionuclides in the spent fuel pool water appears to be radionuclides that were present in the reactor coolant system prior to refueling (which becomes mixed with water in the spent fuel pool during refueling operations) or crud dislodged from the surface of the spent fuel during transfer from the reactor core to the spent fuel pool.
During and after refueling, the spent fuel pool cleanup system reduces the radioactivity concentrations considerably. It is theorized that most failed fuel contains small, pinhole-like perforations in the fuel cladding at the clad operating temperature of approximately 800*F.
A few weeks after refueling, the spent fuel cools in the spent fuel pool so that fuV1 clad temperature is relatively cool, approximately 1800F. This substantial temperature reduction should reduce the rate of release of fission products from the fuel pellets and decrease the gas pressure in the gap between pellets and clad, thereby tending to retain the fission products within the gap.
In addition,'most of the gaseous fission products have short half lives and decay to insignificant levels within a few months.- Based on the operational reports submitted by the licensee or discussions with the operators, there has not been any significant leakage of fission products from spent light water reactor fuel stored in the Morris Operation (MO) (formerly Midwest Recovery Plant) at Morris, Illinois, or at the Nuclear Fuel Services (NFS) storage pool at West Valley, New York. Spent fuel has been stored in these two pools which, while it was in a reactor, was determined to have significant leakage and was therefore removed from the core. After storage in the onsite sent fuel pool, this fuel was later shipped to either the MO or NFS for extended storage. Although the fuel exhibited significant leakage at reactor operating conditions, there was no significant leakage from 5-2
0 this fuel in the offsite storage facility, nor has there been subse quent significant leakage from the assemblies.*
5.3.2 Radioactive Material Released to Atmosphere With respect to gaseous releases, the only significant noble gas isotope attributable to storing additional assemblies for a longer period of time would be krypton-B5.
As discussed previously, experience has demonstrated that after spent fuel has decayed 4 to 6 months, there-is no significant release of fission products from defective fuel.
However, we have conservatively estimated that an additional 84 Curies per year of krypton-fl may be released from the SFP when the modified pool is completely filled.
This increase would result in an additional total body dose of less than 0.002 mrem per year to an individual at the site boundary.
This dose is insignifi cant when compared to the approximately 100 mrem per year that an individual receives from natural background radiation. The additional total body dose to the estimated population within a 50-mile radius of the plant is less than 0.005 man-rem per year. This is small compared to the fluctuations in the annual dose this population would receive from natural background radiation. These exposures.represent an increase of less than 0.2 percent of the exposures from the plant evaluated in the Final Environmental Statement. Thus, we conclude that the proposed modification will not have any significant impact on exposures offsite.
Assuming that the spent fuel will be stored onsite for several years, iodine-131 releases from spent fu1el assemblies to the spent fuel pool water will not be significantly increased because of the expansion of the fuel storage capacity, since the iodine-13l inventory in the fuel will decay to negligible levels between refuelings.
Storing additional spent fuel assemblies is not expected to increase the bulk water temperature during noomal refuelings above the 120tF used in the design analysis. Therefore, it is not expected that there ewill be any significant change in the annual release of tritium or iodine as a result of the proposed modification from that previously.
evaluated in the Final Environmental Statement.
'Most airborne releases from the plant result from leakage of reactor coolant which contains tritium and iodine in higher concentrations Athan the spent fuel pool.
Therefore, even if there were a slightly higher evaporation rate from the spent fuel pool,.the increase in
- ],'EDp.213Zb, January 1977, "Consolidated Safety Analysis Report for Morris Operations," Morris, Illinois, Vol. 1'.
AS"E Publication (Morris Operations) 77-JPGC-NE-15 by L. L. Denio, et al.,
"Control of Nuclear FuelStorage Basin Water Quality by Use of Powered Ion Exchange Resins and Zeolites," June 19, 1977.
5-3
tritium and iodine released from the plant as a result of the increase in stored spent fuel would be small compared to the amount normally released from the plant and that which was previously evaluated in the Final Environmental Statement. If levels of radioiodine become too high, the air will be diverted to charcoal filters for the renoval of radiolodine before release to the environment. In addition, the plant radiological effluent Technical Specifications, which are not being changed by this action, restrict the total releases of gaseous activity from the plant, including the spent fuel pool.
5.3.3 Solid Radioactive Wastes The concentration of radionuclides in the pool is controlled by the filters and Ion exchanger and by decay of short-lived isotopes. The activity is high during refueling operations while reactor coolant water is introduced into the pool, and decreases as the pool water is processed through a filter and ion exchanger. The increase of radio activity, if any, should be minor because the additional spent fuel to be stored is relatively cool, thermally, and radionuclides in the fuel will have decayed significantly.
While we believe that there should not be an increase in solid rad waste from the spent fuel pool operations due to the modification, as a conservative estimate we have assumed that the amount of solid radwaste may be increased by 51 cubic feet of resin per year from the ion exchanger (an additional resin bed per year) and the filters (two additional filters per year). The estimated annual average amount of solid waste shipped from the Oconee Station from 1973 to 1977 was about 37,000 cubic feet per year. The annual average amount of solid waste shipped from Oconee 1/2 would be about 24,000 cubic feet per year. If the storage of additional spent fuel does increase the amount of solid waste from the SFP purification systems by about' 51 cubic feet per year, the increase in total waste volume shipped would be less than 0.3% and would not have any significant environ mental impact.
The present spent fuel racks to be removed from the SFP are contami nated and will'be disposed of as low level solid waste. The licensee has estimated that less than 14,000 cubic feet of solid radwaste will be removed from the SFP because of the proposed modification. If the old racky are cut up, the amount of solid waste should be less than 800 cubic feet. Averaging the 14,000 cubic feet over an assumed remaining plant life 6f 30 years results in ahnut 470 eubic feet per year; this 470 in comparison to the annual average of 37,000 cubic feet per year represents an increase of less than 1.5% annually. This will not have any significant environmental impact.
5.3.4 Radioactivity Released to Receiving Waters There should not be a significant increase in the liquid release of radionuclides from the plant as a result of the proposed modification.
The amount of radioactivity on the spent fuel pool filter and 5-4
demineralizer might slightly increase due to the additional spent fuel in the pool, but this increase of radioactivity should not be released in liquid effluents from the plant. The plant radiological effluent technical specifications, which are not being changed by thit rtion, I-Ort-fet tihp t't~al l
of liniid rAdiarctivity frm the The cartridge filter removes insoluble radioactive matter from'the SFP water.
This is periodically removed to the waste disposal area in a shielded cask and placed in a shipping container.
The insoluble matter will be -retained on the filter or remain in the SFP water.
The demineralizer resins are periodically flushed with water to the spent resin storage tank. The water used to transfer the spent resin is decanted from the tank and returned to the liquid radwaste system for processing.
The soluble radioactivity will be retained on the resins. If any activity should be transferred from the spent resin to this flush water, it would be removed by the liquid radwaste system.
Leakage from the SFP is collected in the leak collection system which consists of stainless steel channels imbedded in the concrete struc ture. The leakage is transferred to one of the waste storage. tanks in the liquid radwaste system and is processed by the system before any water is discharged from the plant. Before the waste storage tank, the leakage flows through an open basin where the flow could be observed.
The basin is inspected periodically for signs of pool leakage. There have not been siigns of leakage from the pool.
Any leakage from the pool that could occur during the modification of the pool could also be detected through an increase in make-up water to the pool or an unusual increase in the level in a waste storage tank.
5.3.5 Occupational Exposures We have reviewed the licensee's plan for the removal and disposal of the low density racks and the installation of the high density racks with respect to occupational radiation exposure. The occupational exposure forthe entire operation is estimated by the licensee to be about 75 man-rem. We consider this to be a reasonable conservative estimate because it is based on conservative dose rates and occupancy factors for individuals performing a specific Job during the modifi cation.
This operation is expected to be a small fraction of the, total man-rem burden from occupational exposure.
We have estimated the increment in onsite occupational dose resulting from the proposed increase in stored fuel assemblies on the basis of Information supplied by the licensee for occupancy times and dose rates in the spent fuel pool area.
The spent fuel assemblies them-'
selves will contribute a negligible amount to dose rates in the pool area because of the depth of water shielding the fuel.
The occupa tional radiation exposure resulting from the proposed action represents a negligible burden.
Based on present-and projected operations in the spent fuel pool area, we estimate that the proposed 5-5
modification should add less than one percent to the total annual occupational radiation exposure burden at this facility. Thus, we conclude that storing additional fuel in the SFP will not result in any sionificant incrpa, in doses received by occupationAl workprs.
5.3.6 Impacts of Other Pool Modifications As discussed above, the additional radiological environmental impacts in the vicinity of Oconee 1/2 resulting from the proposed modification are very small fractions (less than 1%) of the impacts evaluated in the Oconee 1/2 FES. These additional impacts are too small to be considered anything but local in character.
Based on the above, we conclude that a SFP modification at any other facility should not significantly contribute to the environmental impact of the Oconee 1/2 SFP and that the Oconee 1/2 SFP modification should not.contribute significantly to the environmental impact of any other facility.
5.3.7 Evaluation of Radiological Impact As discussed above, the proposed modification does not significantly change the radiological impact evaluated in the Final Environmental Statement.
5.3.8 Nonradiological Effluents There will be no change in the chemical or biocidal effluents from the plant as a result of the proposed modification. However, the plant thermal discharge will be increased somewhat by the proposed modifica tion. At present, each pool has the ability and would be permitted to contain, as a maximum heat load, 1/3 of a recently discharged core plus a subsequent offloading of one full core plus prior spent fuel reload discharges totaling up to 1224 assemblies. Prior discharges contribute little to the total heat load. This heat load is to be discharged to Lake Keowee via heat exchangers in the spent fuel pool cooling system and the cooling water systems discussed in Section 4.1.
With the proposed modification, an additional maximum heat load could be present in the pool due to accumulating the spent fuel from.the first 30 refueling cycles with the final 3 being discharged simulta neously as a full core offload. This additional heat load would be 1.9x 106 Btu per hour, which represents the difference in peak heat loads for full core offloads that essentially fill the present and the modified pools.
The total station thermal discharge to Lake Keowee without the pro posed modification is approximately 17.6 x 109 Btu per hour.. With' the 5-6
proposed modification, it would be increased by no more than 1.9 x 106 Btu per hour, which is less than 0.02 percent of the esti significant environmental impact.
5.3.9 Impacts on the Community The new storage racks will be fabricated offsite and shipped to the facility.
No environmental impacts on the environs outside the spent fuel storage building are expected during removal of the existing racks and installation of the new racks. The impacts within this building are expected to be limited to those typically associated with normal metal working activities.
No environmental impact on the community is expected to result from the fuel rack conversion or from the subsequent operation with the increased storage of spent fuel in the spent fuel pool.
5-7
6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF POSTULATED ACCIDENTS Although the new high density racks will accommodate a larger inven tory of spent fuel, we have determined that the installation and use of the racks will not change the radiological consequences of a postu lated fuel handling accident or spent fuel cask drop accident in the SFP area from those values reported in the FES for Oconee 1/2 dated March 1972.
The environmental impact of a spent fuel shipping cask falling into the Oconee 1/2 SFP or Oconee 3 SFP is given in the Environmental Impact Appraisal dated September 10, 1976. These impacts are not changed because of the proposed modification of the Oconee 1/2 SFP.
Additionally, the NRC staff has underway a generic review of load handling operations in the vicinity of spent fuel pools to determine the likelihood of a heavy load impacting fuel in the pool and, if necessary, the radiological consequences of such an event.
Because Oconee 1/2 will be required to prohibit loads greater than 3000 pounds (the normal weight of a fuel assembly, control rod and handling tool) to be transported over spent fuel in the SFP, we have concluded that the likelihood of any other heavy load handling accident is suffi ciently small that the proposed modification is acceptable and no additional restrictions on load handling operations in the vicinity of the SFP are necessary while our review is underway.
6-1
7.0 ALTERNATIVES With respect to the Oconee Station Unit 1/2 spent fuel pool, we have considered the following spent fuel storage alternatives:
(1) Increase storage capacity as proposed.
(2) Reprocessing of spent fuel.
(3)
Storage at independent spent fuel storage installations (ISFSI).
(4)
Offsite storage in spent fuel pools of other reactors.
(5)
Shutdown of facility (storage in reactor pressure vessel).
7.1 Increase the Storage Capacity of the Spent Fuel Pool, as Proposed The total estimated installed capital cost of the proposed Oconee Station Unit 1/2 new storage racks is about $3,426,000.
This equates to about $8,300 for each additional proposed fuel assembly storage space.
The estimated cost of each of the alternatives considered is discussed in the following sections, where applicable, and summarized in Table 7.0.
7.2 Reprocessing of Spent Fuel As discussed earlier, none of the three commercial reprocessing facilities in the United States i-s currently operating.
The Morris Operation (MO) is in a decommissioned condition. Otn September 22, 1976, Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. (NFS),
informed the Nuclear Regula tory Commission that it was "withdrawing from the nuclear fuel processing business." The Allied General Nuclear Services (AGNS) reprocessing plant received a construction permit on December 18, 1970. In October 1973, AGNS applied for an operating license for the separation fAcility (construction of which is essentially complete).
On July 3, 1974, AGNS applied for a materials license to receive and store up to 400 metric tonnes of uranium (MTU) in spent fuel i.n the,,
completed onsite storage pool Hearings have not been completed on the materials license application. However, even if AGNS decides to proceed with operation of the Barnwell facility in light of t 'he President's policy statement of April 7, 1977, discussed below, the separation plant will not be licensed until the issues presently being considered in the GESMO proceedings are resolved And the GESMO proceedings are complete.
On April 7,' 1977, the President issued a statement outlining his policy on continued development of nuclear energy in the United States.
The President stated that:
"Vie will defer indefinitely the commercial reprocessing and recycling-~of the plutonium produced in the U.S. nuclear power programs.
From our own experience, we have con cluded that a viable and economic nuclear power program can be sustained without such reprocessing and recycling."
7-1
On December 30, 1977, the NRC ordered (42 FR 65334) the termination of the pernding.fuel cycle licensing actions involving GESMO (Docket No. RM-50-5), Barnwell Nuclear Fuel Plant Separations Facility, Uranium Hexafluoride Facility, and Plutonium Product Facility (Docket Nos. 50-332, 70-1327 and 70-1821, respectively), Exxon's NFRRC (Docket No. 50-564), the Westinghouse Electric Corporation Recycle Fuel Plants (Docket No. 70-1432), and the Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc., West Valley Reprocessing Plant (Docket No. 50-201). The Commission also announced that it would not at this time consider any other applications for commercial faci-lities for reprocessing spent fuel, fabricating mixed oxide fuel, or related functions. At this time, any consideration of these or comparable facilities has been deferred for the indefinite future. Reprocessing is not a reasonable alternative to the proposed expansion of the Oconee Station spent fuel pool. Accordingly, no esti mate of cost is considered appropriate.
7.3 Storage at Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations An alternative to expansion of onsite spent fuel pool storage would be the construction of new "independent spent fuel storage installations" (ISFSI).
Such installations could provide storage space in excess of several thousand metric tonnes of uranium of spent fuel. This is far grqater than the capacities of onsite storage pools such as at Oconee.
Fuel storage pools at MO and NFS are functioning as independent spent fuel storage installations, although this was not the original design intent. Likewise, if the receiving and storage station at the AGNS
-reprocessing plant is licensed to accept spent fuel., it also would be functioning as an independent spent fuel storage installation. The*
license for MO was amended on December 3, 1975 to increase the storage capacity to about 750 metric tonnes of uranium; approximately 306 metric tonnes of uranium are now stored in the pool.
We have discyssed the status of MO with GE personnel and have been informned* that GE is primarily using the storage space there for GE-owned fuel (which had been leased to utilities) or for fuel which GE had previously contracted to reprocess. We were inforedvthat the present GE policy is not to store spent fuel unless GE has previously committed to do so.** There is no such commitment for Oconee.
The NFS facility has capacity for about 260 metric tonnes of uranium, with approximately 170 metric tonnes of uranium presently stored in
- GE letter to NRC dated May 27, 1977.
- An application for a 1,100 metric tonnes of uranium capacity addition is pending. Present schedule calls for completion in 1980 if approved.
- However, by motion dated November 8, 1977, General Electric Company requested the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to suspend indefinitely further proceedings on this application. This motion was granted.
7-2
the pool.
The storage pool at West Valley, New York, is on land owned by the State of New York and leased to NFS through 1980.
Although the storage pool at West Valley is not full, NFS has indicated that it is not accepting additional spent fuel for storage even from those reactor facilities with which it had reprocessing contracts.
Based on the above, we conclude that these MO, NFS and AGNS facilities are not available to Oconee Station as independent spent fuel storage installations.
We also considered under this alternative the construction of new independent spent fuel storage installations. Regulatory Guide 3.24, "Guidance on the License Application, Siting, Design, and Plant Pro tection for an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation," issued in December 1974, recognized this alternative and provided regulatory guidance for water-cooled independent spent fuel storage installa tions. Pertinent sections of 10 CFR Parts 19, 20, 30, 40, 51, 70, 71 and 73 would also apply.
We estimated that at least 5 years would be required to construct an independent spent fuel storage installation. We assumed 1 year for preliminary design, 1 year in which to prepare the license application and environmenta report, to obtain approval for construction licensing and to finalize the design, 2k years for construction.and to obtain an NRC operating license, and year for plant and equipment testing and startup.
Industry proposals for independent spent fuel storage installations
.are scarce to date. In late 1974, E. R. Johnson Associates, Inc., and Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner and Smith, Inc., issued a series of joint proposals to a number of electric utility companies with nuclear plants in or near operation, offering to provide independent storage services for spent nuclear fuel. A paper on this proposed project was presented at the American Nuclear Society meeting in November 1975 (ANS Transactions, 1975 Winter Meeting, Vol. 22, TANSAO 22-1-836, 1975).
In 1974, E. R. Johnson Associates, Inc., estimated construction'costs would approximate $9,000 per spent fuel assembly.
Several licensees have evaluated construction of a separate indepen dent spent fuel storage installation.
The Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company, for example, estimated that an independent spent fuel storage installation with a capacity of 1,000 metric tonnes of uranium would cost approximately $54 million and take about 5 years to con struct and have ready for operation. The licensee, Duke Power Company, estimated the construction costs of an independent spent fuel storage installation at about $34,500 per spent fuel assembly.
On December 2, 1976, Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation submitted a topical report requesting NRC approval for a standard design inde pendent spent fuel storage installation intended for siting ntear nuclear power facilities. Based on discussions with Stone & Webster, 7-3
we estimated that the present day cost for such a fuel storage instal lation would be about $24 million, exclusive of site preparation costs. On July 12, 1978, we concluded that the proposed approach and conceptual design are acceptable.
Based on the above facts, on a short-term basis (i.e., prior to 1985),
an independent spent fuel storage installation is not available as an alternative. One would not be available in time to meet the licen see's needs. It is also unlikely that the environmental impacts-of this alternative, on a delayed availability basis, would be less than the minor impacts associated with the proposed Oconee modification.
This is based on the fact that offsite transportation would be involved and a structure, pool, and supporting systems would have to be erected and installed for an independent spent fuel storage instal lation, whereas for the Oconee modification only new storage racks are involved.
On October 18, 1977, the U.S. Department of Energy announced a new "spent nuclear fuel policy." The Department of Energy will determine industry interest in providing interim fuel storage services on a contract basis. If adequate private storage services cannot be pro vided, the Government will provide interim fuel storage facilities for which utility companies would pay a fee for such services. This interim storage could not be expected to be available until at least 1983 or 1984. A National Waste Repository could be available in the 1988-1993 time frame. The Oconee Station spent fuel pool as presently designed would lose the ability to discharge a full core after the 1980 refuelings and would have to shut down instead of refueling in 1981 since the spent fuel pool would then be full.
The lack of a precise date that such Government-sponsored interim storage would be available makes this an unreliable alternative to consider for the Oconee Station. Should such storage not be available when needed, Oconee as presently designed would be forced to shut down.
7.4 Offsite Storage in Spent Fuel Pools of Other Reactors Another nucl6ar facility owned by the licensee and to be licensed in the very near future is McGuire Unit No. 1. DPC also has a construc tion permit for the Catawba Nuclear Station as well as McGuire Unit No. 2. The use of the already constructed storage pool at McGuire is under consideration by NRC. The McGuire Unit 1 spent fuel pool will be available for storage of spent fuel in 1979. The McGuire Unit 2 and Catawba pools (which have been expanded for this purpose) will be available sometime in the early 1980's. Duke Power Company by a letter dated March 9, 1978 requested approval of the use of te McGuire Unit No. 1 pool.
A hearing before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board on this issue is scheduled to start on June 19. 1979.
The availability of this alternative is dependent uponfavorable-.
Board action.
According to a survey conducted and documented by the Energy Research and Development Agency, upsto 46 percent of the operating nuclear 7-4
power plants will lose the ability to refuel during the period 1975-1984 without additional spent fuel storage pool expansions or access to offsite storage facilities. Thus, the licensee cannot assuredly rely upon any other utility's power facility to provide additional storage capability except on a short-term emergency basis.
If space were available in another reactor facility, the cost would probably be comparable to the cost of storage at a commercial storage facility.
Based on the above facts, we have concluded that storage at another utility's reactor site is not a realistic alternative at this time, or in the foreseeable future.
7.5 Shutdown of Facility Upon filling the Oconee spent fuel pool as presently designed, there would be no ability to reload any of the three units after the 1980 refueling outages. After the cycles following the 1980 refuelungs,
'the Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3 would be forced to shut
- down in 1981 for lack of space to store spent fuel.
There would be a resultant energy availability loss and an associated loss of economic benefit from the facility, a cost associated with the purchase of replacement energy and the cost of maintaining the facility in a standby condition.
The licensee has estimated that aushutdown of the three units (rated at 887 megawatts net electrical output each) would result in replace ment power costs alone of $635,000 per day. This is based on the differential costs of producing energy from the Station as compared to production from other available units in and out of the DPC system.
We also have reviewed the differential costs of not operating the Oconee Station-Units 1, 2 and 3. The costs involved would be far in excess of the costs associated with the proposed modification, i.e.,
$8,300 per assembly.
7.6 Summary of Alternatives In summary, alternatives (2) and (3), above, are either presently not available to the licensee or could not be made available in time to meet the licensee's needs.
Alternative (3) would be more expensive than the proposed modification. Alternative (4) in regard to uslnq the McGuire Unit No. 1 pool, is dependent upon favorable Board action.
Alternative (5), the shutdown of Oconee Units 1, 2 and 3 would be much more expensive than the proposed action because of the need to provide replacement power, if it could be found.
7-5
We have also determined that the expansion of the storage capacities of the Unit 1/2 spent fuel pool at the Oconee Station would have a negligible environmental impact. Accordingly, considering the econo mic advantages of the proposed action, deferral or severe restriction of the action here proposed would result in substantial harm to the public interest.
7-6
TABLE 7.0
SUMMARY
OF COST VS. BENEFITS Alternatives Cost Benefits f$8,300 per assembly
'Continued operation of station and (1) Increase storage capacity of
$production of electrical energy Oconee 1/2 spent fuel pool (2)cReproes of2 spentfuepl NotNone; this alternative is not avail (2) Reprocessing of sp ent fuel Not Applicable able either now or in the foreseeable future This alternative will not be available (3) Storage at an independent
$34,500whnedd spent fuel storage installation when needed (4) Offsite storage in spent fuel
$2,100 per assembly This alternatiabve would be available pool of McGuire Unit No.
favoable Board action.
($9 million per month None; no production of electrical (5) Shutdown of Facility enrg
8.0 EVALUATION OF PROPOSED ACTION 8.1 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts 8.1.1 Radiological Impacts As discussed in Section 5.3, expansion of the storage capacity of the SFP will not create any significant additional radiological effects 1 The additional total body dose that might be received by an individual or the estimated population within a 50-mile radius is less than 0.002 mrem per year and 0.005 man-rem per year, respectively. These exposures are small compared to the fluctuations in the annual dose this population receives from background radiation. The population exposure represents an increase of less than 0.2% of the exposures from the plant evaluated in the FES. The occupational radiation exposure of workers during removal of the present storage racks and installation of the new racks is estimated by the licensee to be about 75 man-rem.
This is a small fraction of the total man-rem burden from occupational exposure at the plant.
Operation of the plant with additional spent fuel in the SFP is not expected to increase the occupational radiation exposure by more than one percent of the present total annual occupational exposure at this facility.
8.2 Relationships Between Local Short-Term Use of Man's Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity Expansion of the storage capacity of the spent fuel pool will not change the evaluation of long-term use of the landas described in the Final Environmental Statement for. the Oconee Nuclear Station. In the short term, the proposed modification would permit the expected bene fits (i.e., production of electrical energy and minimizing reliance upon foreign oil) to continue.
8.3 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 8.3.1 Water, Land and Air Resources The proposed action will not result in any significant change in the commitments of water, land and air resources as identified in the Final Environmental Statement for the Station.
No additional alloca tion of land would be made. The land area now used for the spent fuel pool would be used more efficiently by adopting the proposed action.
8.3.2 Material Resources It is not likely that the licensing action here proposed would con stitute a commitment of resources that would tend to significantly foreclose the alternatives available with respect to any other individual licensing action designed to ameliorate a possible shortage of spent fuel storage capacity. The time frame under consideration is 3 to 4 months--our estimate of the time necessary to complete the 8-1
generic environmental statement. The added spent fuel pool capacity proposed for the Oconee Station will not significantly affect the need for the total additional storage space presently planned at repro cessing facilities for which licensing actions are pending. In order to carry out the proposed modification, the licensee will require custom-made racks of stainless steel.
This material is readily available in abundant supply. In the context of this criterion, we conclude that the amount of material required for the racks for Oconee is insignificant and does not represent an irreversible commitment of natural resources.
The longer-term storage of spent fuel assemblies withdraws the unburned fissionable material from the fuel cycle for a longer period of time. The usefulness of this material as a resource in the future, however, would not be changed. The provision of longer onsite storage would not result in any cumulative effects due to plant operation, since the' throughput of materials would not change. Thus, the same quantity of radioactive material will have been produced when averaged over the life of the plant. This licensing action would not consti tute a commitment of resources that would affect the alternatives'.
available to other nuclear power plants or other actions that might be taken by the industry in the future to alleviate fuel storage problems.
No other resources need be allocated because the other design charac teristics of the spent fuel pool remain unchanged.
8.4 Commission Policy Statement Regarding Spent Fuel Storage On September 16, 1975, the Commission announced (40 FR 42801) its intent to prepare a generic environmental impact statement on handling the storage of spent fuel from light-water reactors.
In this notice, it also announced its conclusion that it would not be in the public interest to defer all licensing actions intended to ameliorate a possible shortage of spent fuel storage capacity pending completion of the generic environmental impact statement.
The Commission directed that in the consideration of any such proposed licensing action, the following five specific factors should be applied, balanced, and weighed in the context of the required environ mental statement or appraisal.
(1) Is it likely that the licensing action here proposed would have a utility that is independent of the utility of other licensing actions designed to ameliorate a possible shortage of spent fuel capacity?
The reactor core for each Oconee unit contains 177 fuel assem blies.
The projected schedule for refueling the Oconee units is provided in the February 2, 1979 report by the licensee. The facilities are scheduled to be refueled at approximatel 18-month intervals with between 56 and 72 fuel assemblies genera ly scheduled to be replaced at each refueling.
8-2
With the present spent fuel storage racks, there will not be sufficient room to store an additional normal discharge of spent fuel after the 1980 refueling. If expansion of the storage capacity of the spent fuel poolsnt approved, or if an alter nate storage faci1lity for theospesintfuel is not located, the Oconee units will have to shut down in 1981.
The proposed licensing action (i.e., approve installing new racks of a design that permits storing more assemblies in the same space) would allow the Oconee Station to continue to operate beyond 1983 and until the proposed Federal repository is expected to be in operation. The proposed modification will also provide the licensee with additional flexibility which is desirable even if adequate offsite storage facilities hereafter become available to the licensee.
We have concluded that a need for additional spent fuel storage capacity exists at the Oconee Station which is independent of the utility of other licensing actions designed to ameliorate a possible shortage of spent fuel capacity.
(2) Is it likely that the taking of the action here proposed prior to the preparation of the generic statement would constitute a comimitmnent of resources that would tend to significantly fore close the alternatives available with respect to any other licensing actions designed to ameliorate a possible shortage of fuel storage capacity?
With respect to this proposed licensing action, we have con sidered commitment of both material and nonmaterial resources.
The material resources considered are those to be used in the expansion of the spent fuel pool.
The increased storage capacity of the Oconee Station spent fuel pool was considered as a nonmaterial resource and was evaluated relative to proposed similar licensing actions within a 3e to 4-month period (the-time we estimate necessary to complete the generic environmenta) statement) at other nuclear power plants, fuel reprocessing facilities and fuel storage facilities. We have determined that the proposed expansion in the storage capacity of the spent fuel pool is only a measure to allowor continued operation and to provide operational flexibility at the facilities, and will not foreclose similar licensing actions at other nuclear power plants. Similarly, taking this action would, not comnmit the NRC to repeat this action or a related action in 1983, at which time the modified pool is estimated to be full if no fuel is removed.
We conclude that the expansion of the spent fuel pool at the Oconee Station, prior :t o the preparation of the generic state ment, does not constitute a commitment of either material or 8-3
nonmaterial resources that would tend to significantly foreclose the alternatives available with respect to any other individual licensing actions designed to ameliorate a possible shortage of spent fuel storage capacity.
(3) Can the environmental impacts associated with the licensing action here proposed be adequately addressed within the context of the present application without overlooking any cumulative environmental impacts?
We have considered the potential nonradiological and radiological impacts resulting from the fuel racks conversion and subsequent operation of the expanded spent fuel pool at this station.
We find that there will be very small environmental impacts on the environs outside the spent fuel storage building during removal of the existing racks and installation of the new rack--
We conclude that the impacts within this building will be limited to those normally associated with metal working activities and with the occupational radiation attributable to these activities.
The potential nonradiological environmental impact attributable to the additional heat load in the spent fuel pool was determined by us to be negligible compared to the existing thermal effluents from the facility.
We have considered the potential radiological environmental impacts associated with the.expansion of the spent fuel pool and have concluded that they would not result in f adioactive effluent releases that significantly affect the quality of the human environment during either normal operation of the expanded spent fuel pools or under postulated fuel handling accident conditions allowed by the facility license.
(4) Have the technical issues which have arisen during the review of this application been resolved within that context?
Yes. We believe that this Environmental Impact Appraisal and the accompanying Safety Evaluation have responded to all technical issues concerning health, safety and the environment which have arisen during our review.
(5) Would a deferral or severe restriction on this licensing action result in substantial harm to the public interest?
We have evaluated the impact of deferral. of the proposed action as it relates to the public interest. As we have seen, there are significant economic advantages associated with this proposed action, and expansion of the storage capacity of the spent fuel pool will have a negligible environmental impact. Therefore, it 8-4
is clear that the proposed action itself is in the public interest.
Deferral of this action would not be in the public interest.
While it is true that the Oconee Units 1, 2 and 3 do not face certain shutdown until 1981, there are other factors which weigh in favor of issuing the proposed amendments now. Following the 1980 refuelings, the existing spent fuel pool will not have sufficient room to accommodate a full core (177 assemblies) should this be necessary to effect repairs, for example, to return the unit to service. Therefore, after this point Oconee faces the possibility of shutdown at any time due to lack of a full core reserve in the spent fuel pool.
While no serious adverse consequences to the public health and safety or the environment would likely result from this action itself, the reactor shutdown would, of course, remove the unit from service, and this in turn could adversely affect the licensee's ability to meet electrical energy needs, or force the operation of other plants which are less economical to operate or which have greater environmental impact, and thereby result in substantial harm to the public interest.
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that public interest consideration weighs in favor of taking the proposed action now.
We have applied, balanced, and weighed the five specific factors and have concluded that this action to expand the spent fuel pool is in the public interest.
8-5
9.0 0ST-BENEFIT BALANCE This section summarizes and compares the cost and the benefits resulting from the proposed modification to those that would be derived from the selection and implementation of alternatives.
Table 7.0 presents a tabular comparison of these costs and benefits.
The benefit from two of these alternatives, if available, would be the continued operation of Oconee Units 1. 2 and 3, or other production of demanded electrical energy. Additional storage capacity at McGuire Unit No. 1, if approved by the Board, would serve as an adjunct to expanding the Oconee 1/2 SFP capacity. The cost would be less than that, per assembly, of expansion at Oconee. However, the availability of this option is dependent upon favorable Board action.
The one remaining alternative of reprocessing of the spent fuel is not possible at this time or in the foreseeable future.
From examination of the table, it can be seen that the most cost effective readily available alternative is the proposed spent fuel pool modification. As evaluated in the preceding sections, the environmental impacts associated with the proposed modification would not be significantly changed from those analyzed in the Final Environ mental Statement for Oconee Units 1, 2 and 3 issued in March 1972.
9-1
10.0 BASIS AND CONCLUSION FOR NOT PREPARING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT We have reviewed this proposed facility modification relative to the requirements set forth in 10 CFR Part 51 and the Council of Environ mental Quality's Guidelines, 40 CFR 1500.6, and have applied, balanced, and weighed the five factors specified by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 40 CFR 42801. We have determined that the proposed license amendments will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment and that there will be no significant environ mental impact attributable to the proposed action other than that which has already been predicted and described in the Commission's Final Environmental Statement for the facility dated March 1972.
Therefore, the Commission has found that an Environmental Impact Statement need not be prepared and that, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.5(c),
the issuance of a negative declaration to this effect is appropriate.
Date: June 19, 1979 10-1