ML17329A734
| ML17329A734 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cook  |
| Issue date: | 12/14/1992 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17329A729 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9212300310 | |
| Download: ML17329A734 (9) | |
Text
~ ghee RECy, Ci+ 'p
+4 0
A.
O C
cA
/g Cp
+~*yW UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON,,D. C. 20555 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATING TO THE EXPANSION OF THE SPENT FUEL POOL FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NOS.
DPR-58 AND DPR-74 INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER COMPANY DONALD C.
COOK NUCLEAR PLANT UNITS 1
AND 2 DOCKET NOS.
50-315 AND 50-316
1.0 INTRODUCTION
- l. 1 Description of Proposed Action By letter dated July 26,
- 1991, as supplemented by letters dated June 7,
- 1991, February 4, April 1, and October 26,
( IMPC or the licensee) requested amendments to the Technical Specifications (TS) appended to Facility Operating License Nos.
DPR-58 and DPR-74 for Donald C.
Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 (D. C. Cook).
The amendments would increase the spent fuel pool (SFP) storage capacity from 2050 to 3613 fuel assemblies.
The increased capacity would be achieved by removing the existing storage racks and replacing them with free-standing, high density fuel racks, as well as placing racks in areas of the SFP where racks are not currently located.
1.2 Need for Increased Storage Capacity The present D.
C.
Cook SFP storage racks are licensed to store 2050 fuel assemblies and in fact, currently store 1403 assemblies.
The reactor core of each unit holds 193 fuel assemblies.
Thus, in order to maintain full core off-load capability from one reactor, 1857 storage cells (2050 minus 193) are available for normal off-load storage.
Based on the licensee's projected refueling schedule and the anticipated number of fuel assemblies that will be transferred into the SFP at each refueling, the licensee estimates that D.
C.
Cook will lose full core discharge capability for one reactor in 1995.
Therefore, to preclude this situation, the licensee will reconfigure the SFP by installing high density spent fuel storage racks.
The licensee currently has no contractual agreements with any fuel reprocessing facility.
There are no operating or planned fuel reprocessing facilities available in the U.S.
Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, spent fuel can be removed and disposed of at a government facility; however, such a facility does not currently exist and is not expected to be in service until 2010 at the earliest.
(
92i23003i0 92i2i4 PDR ADOCK 050003i5 PDR
1.3 Alternatives Commercial reprocessing of spent fuel has not developed as originally anticipated.
In 1975, the Commission directed the staff to prepare a Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) on spent fuel storage.
The Commission directed the staff to evaluate alternatives for the handling and storage of spent light water power reactor fuel with particular emphasis on developing long-range policy.
The GEIS was to consider alternative methods of spent fuel storage as well as the possible restrictions on termination of the generation of spent fuel through reactor shutdown.
A "Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement (FGEIS) on Handling and Storage of Spent Light Water Power Reactor Fuel" (NUREG-0575, Volumes 1-3) was issued by the Commission in August 1979.
The finding of the FGEIS is that the environmental impact costs of interim storage are essentially negligible, regardless of where such spent fuel is stored.
A comparison of the impact costs of various alternatives reflects the advantage of continued generation of nuclear power versus its replacement by coal-fired power generation.
Continued generation of nuclear power versus its replacement by oil-fired power generation provides an even greater economic advantage.
In the bounding case considered in the FGEIS, that of shutting down the reactor when the existing fuel storage capacity is filled, the cost of replacing nuclear stations before the end of their normal lifetime makes this alternative uneconomical.
The storage of spent fuel as evaluated in NUREG-0575 is considered to be an interim action, not a final solution to permanent disposal.
One spent fuel storage alternative considered in detail in the FGEIS is the expansion of the onsite fuel storage capacity by modification of the existing SFPs.
Over 100 applications for spent fuel expansion have either been approved or are under consideration by the Commission.
The finding in each case has been that the environmental impact of such increased storage is negligible.
Since there are variations in storage design and limitations caused by spent fuel already in storage, the FGEIS recommends that licensing reviews be done on a case-by-case
- basis, so as to resolve any plant-specific concerns.
The licensee has considered several alternatives to the proposed action of the SFP expansion.
The staff has evaluated these and certain other alternatives with respect to the need for the proposed actions as discussed in Section 1.2 of this assessment.
The following alternatives were considered by the staff and are discussed below:
(1)
Shi ment of S ent Fuel to a Permanent Federal Fuel Stora e Dis osal
~Facilit Shipment of fuel to a permanent Federal fuel storage/disposal facility is a
preferred alternative to increasing the onsite spent fuel storage capacity.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is developing a repository under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA).
However, the facility is not likely to be able to receive spent fuel until approximately 2010, at the earliest.
Under the NWPA, the Federal government has the responsibility to provide not more than 1900 metric tons capacity for the interim storage of spent fuel.
The impacts of storing spent fuel at a Federal Interim Storage (FIS) facility fall within those already assessed by the Commission in NUREG-0575.
In enacting the NWPA, Congress found that the owners and operators of nuclear power stations have the primary responsibility for providing interim storage for spent nuclear fuel.
In accordance with the NWPA and 10 CFR Part 53, shipping'of spent fuel to an FIS facility is considered a last resort alternative.
At this time, the licensee cannot take advantage of FIS because existing storage capacity is not yet maximized.
(2)
Shi ment of Fuel to a
Re rocessin Facilit Reprocessing of spent fuel from D.
C.
Cook is not viable because there is no operating commercial reprocessing facility in the United States, nor is there the prospect for one to become operational in the foreseeable future.
(3)
Shi ment of Fuel to Another Utilit or Site for Stora e
The shipment of fuel from D.
C.
Cook to the storage facility of another utility would provide short-term relief from the storage problem.
- However, the NWPA and 10 CFR Part 53 clearly place the responsibility for interim storage of spent nuclear fuel with each owner or operator of a nuclear power plant.
The shipment of spent fuel to another site is not an acceptable alternative since the licensee does not own or control any facility where it could transfer spent fuel.
(4)
Reduction of S ent Fuel Generation Improved usage of fuel in the reactor and/or operation at a reduced power level would extend the life of fuel in the reactor.
In the case of extended burnup of fuel assemblies, the fuel cycle would be extended and fewer off-loads would take place.
Through increasing the enrichment of the fuel, the licensee is already working towards extended fuel cycles.
- However, the current storage capacity would still be exhausted in the near future, as discussed in Section 1.2.
Operating at reduced power would not be an effective use of available resources and would create undue economic disadvantages for the li'censee and its customers.
Therefore, this is not a
practical alternative for D.
C. Cook.
(5)
Construction of a New Inde endent S ent Fuel Stora e Installation Additional storage capacity could be developed by building a new, independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI), either similar to the existing SFP or a dry storage facility.
The staff has generically assessed the impacts of the pool alternative and found, as reported in NUREG-0575, that the storage of spent light water reactor fuel in water pools has an insignificant impact on the environment.
The staff has not made a generic assessment of the dry storage alternative.
- However, assessments of several proposals, including those for the dry cask ISFSI at the Surry Nuclear Power Station, and the dry modular concrete ISFSIs at both the H. B. Robinson Electric Plant and the Oconee Nuclear Station resulted in findings of no significant impact.
Subsequent to these licensing actions, the NRC promulgated a final rule that permits the onsite storage of spent fuel in NRC-approved dry storage casks
under a general license.
Several cask designs have been approved by the staff pursuant to this rule.
While these alternatives are environmentally acceptable, such a new storage facility, either at D.
C.
Cook or offsite, would require new site-specific design and construction, including equipment for transferring spent fuel. It is not likely that such an effort could be completed in time to meet the need for additional storage capacity as discussed in Section 1.2.
Furthermore, such construction would not make effective use of the available expansion volume of the existing pool and would be a waste of available resources.
(6)
No Action Taken If no action were taken, the storage capacity would become exhausted in the near future and D.
C.
Cook would have to shut down.
This would be a waste of an available resource and is not considered viable.
It would also place a
heavy financial burden on the customers served by the licensee and cannot be justified.
- 2. 0 RADIOACTIVE WASTES D.
C.
Cook, Units 1 and 2, contain radioactive waste treatment systems designed to collect and process the gaseous, liquid, and solid waste that might contain radioactive material.
The radioactive waste treatment systems are evaluated in the Final Environmental Statement (FES) dated August 1973.
There will be no change in the waste treatment systems described in the FES because of the proposed SFP expansion.
- 2. 1 Radioactive Material Released to the Atmosphere Total releases and release rates of gaseous activity are limited by facility TS, which also require that releases be continuously monitored to assure that releases are maintained as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA) and within the limits of 10 CFR Part 20.
With respect to releases of gaseous radioactive materials to the atmosphere, the only radioactive gas of significance which could be attributable to storing additional spent fuel assemblies onsite for a longer time is the radionuclide Krypton-85 (Kr-85).
Average annual releases of Kr-85 are estimated by assuming that all of the Kr-85 released from any defective fuel assembly stored in the SFP will be released prior to the next refueling.
Enlarging the storage capacity of the SFP would have no effect on the calculated average quantities of Kr-85 released to the atmosphere each year.
Consequently, calculated annual doses to an individual would likewise be unchanged as a result of the proposed modification to the SFP.
Iodine-131 releases from spent fuel assemblies to the SFP water will not increase appreciably since Iodine-131 will decay to negligible levels between refuelings.
Most of the tritium in the SFP water results from activation of boron and lithium in the primary coolant and this will not be affected by the proposed
changes.
A relatively small amount of tritium is contributed during reactor operation by fissioning of reactor fuel and subsequent diffusion of the tritium through the fuel and cladding.
Tritium releases from the fuel assemblies occur mainly during reactor operations and, to a limited extent, shortly after shutdown.
Therefore, increasing the SFP capacity will not increase the tritium activity in the SFP.
2.2 Solid Radioactive Wastes The licensee intends to decontaminate the existing storage racks to minimize the amount of solid radioactive waste generated by the SFP modification.
Afterwards, the portion of the racks that could not be decontaminated will be packaged and shipped offsite to licensed processing/disposal facilities and the licensee stated that such shipments would conform to applicable State and Federal Department of Transportation requirements.
The licensee also noted that an additional 10-30 cubic feet of spent resin may be generated during the project on a one-time basis as a result of SFP cleanup operations.
- However, we do not expect any significant increase in the amount of radioactive waste generated from the SFP cleanup systems due to the increased storage capacity.
It is not expected that either the SFP expansion or the disposal of the existing spent fuel storage racks will have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.
2.3 Radioactive Material Released to Receiving Waters It is not expected that there will be a significant increase in the liquid release of radionuclides from the plant as a result of.the proposed modifications.
The SFP cooling and cleanup systems operate as closed systems.
The SFP demineralizer resin removes soluble radioactive materials from the SFP water.
These resins are periodically replaced and disposed of as solid radioactive waste.
The amount of activity in the resin may increase slightly due to the increased amount of spent fuel in the pool; however, the amount of radioactivity released to the environment as a result of the proposed change would be negligible.
3.0 RADIOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT This section contains the.staff's estimates of the impacts on the public from the proposed SFP expansion.
This section also contains the staff's evaluation of the estimates of the additional radiological impacts on the plant workers from the proposed operation of the modified SFP.
- 3. 1 Public Radiation Exposure Sections
- 2. 1 and 2.3 indicated that releases to the atmosphere and receiving waters would not be significant and would be well within regulatory limits.
Consequently, the estimated increase in doses due to exposure of individuals and the population to radioactive material associated with the SFP expansion will not be significant; i.e., will be within regulatory limits.
3.2 Occupational Exposure The collective occupational dose for the proposed modification of the SFP is estimated by the licensee to be about 6 to ll person-rem.
The licensee denoted the activities expected to be performed during the reracking process including the removal, washing, and decontamination of existing racks, removing underwater appurtenances, installing new racks, and preparing old racks for shipment.
The reracking is to be accomplished with detailed procedures in place that take into consideration ALARA principles.
Similar operations have been performed at a number of other facilities and there is every reason to believe that the SFP modification can be accomplished safely and efficiently with minimum radiation exposure to personnel.
The estimated occupational exposure for the reracking is a small fraction of the average occupational exposure for the D.
C.
Cook site.
The small increase in collective radiation dose should not affect the licensee's ability to maintain individual occupational doses within the limits of 10 CFR Part 20 and as low as is reasonably achievable.
The licensee has committed to using the guidance contained in draft Regulatory Guide DG-8006, "Control of Access to High and Very High Radiation, Areas in Nuclear Power Plants, Appendix A" to ensure procedures are in place and followed for radiation protection of divers.
Instituting this guidance as well as normal radiation control procedures should preclude any significant occupational exposure.
Therefore, we conclude that the proposed storage of additional fuel in the modified SFP will not result in any significant increase in doses received by radiation workers.
4.0 NON-RADIOLOGICAL IMPACT The only non-radiological effluent affected by the SFP expansion is the additional waste heat rejected from the plant.
The total increase in heat load rejected to the environment will be insignificant compared to the current total heat load from all plant sources to the environment.
Thus, the increase in rejected heat will have a negligible affect on the environment.
The licensee has not proposed any change in the use or discharge of chemicals in conjunction with the SFP modification.
The proposed reracking project will not require any change to the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit.
Therefore, the staff concludes that the non-radiological environmental impact of expanding the capacity of the SFP will be insignificant.
5.0 ACCIDENT ASSESSMENT
- 5. I Accident Considerations The staff, in its Safety Evaluation Report (SER) issued September 10,
- 1973, addressed the safety and environmental aspects of a fuel handling accident.
A fuel handling accident may be viewed as a "reasonably foreseeable" design basis event which the pool and its associated structures,
- systems, and components (including the spent fuel storage racks) are designed and
constructed to prevent.
The environmental impacts of the accident were found not to be significant.
The staff has reviewed the accidental fission product releases that could occur at D. C.
Cook in conjunction with the proposed expansion of the spent fuel pool storage capacity.
The staff finds neither the reracking operations nor the increased capacity of spent fuel storage affecting the calculated consequences of postulated accidents.
Likewise, the proposed rack addition does not create the possibility of a new type of accident not previously analyzed.
The radiological consequences resulting from postulated accidents have been previously analyzed and found acceptable.
5.2 Radiological Assessment of Potential Accidents Although no onsite fuel handling accidents having significant offsite radiological consequences have ever occurred, such accidents must be postulated and their potential environmental consequences must be analyzed.
Potential environmental consequences of such postulated accidents may be realistically bounded by extrapolation of results obtained from conservative estimates.
Offsite dose consequences are conservatively estimated for plant siting purposes and for performing design and operation reviews.
The combination of assumptions used for these conservative dose estimates assure that calculations of doses for such accidents result in dose estimates that are unrealistically high.
As a result, safe plant siting, design, and operation are enhanced because the doses so calculated would exceed regulatory limits without the adoption of plant safety features and/or operational controls.
The principal regulatory dose limits for safety reviews are set forth in 10 CFR Part
- 100, "Reactor Site Criteria."
For safety reviews, the limiting dose is,set at 25 rem to the whole body and 300 rem to the thyroid from iodine exposure.
For reactor safety reviews such as those performed to evaluate consequences from fuel handling accidents, doses to the thyroid from inhalation of accident-released iodine are controlling.
By increasing the spent fuel storage capacity at the D. C.
Cook facility, the accidents considered and evaluated previously are still bounding and do not require reevaluation.
Therefore, the environmental consequences of postulated accidents meet our criteria and are, therefore, acceptable.
6.0
SUMMARY
The FGEIS on handling and storage of spent light water power reactor fuel concluded that the cost of various alternatives reflects the advantage of continued generation of nuclear power with the accompanying spent fuel storage.
Because of the differences in SFP designs, the FGEIS recommended environmental evaluation of SFP expansions on a case-by-case basis.
For D.
C. Cook, the expansion of the storage capacity of the SFP will not create any significant additional radiological effects or measurable non-radiological environmental impacts.
The small increase in radiation dose should not affect the licensee's ability to maintain individual occupational
doses at D. C.
Cook within the limits of 10 CFR Part 20, and as low as is reasonably achievable.
The only non-radiological effluent affected by the SFP expansion is additional waste heat rejected.
The increase in total waste heat is insignificant.
Thus, there is no significant environmental impact attributable to the waste heat from the plant due to SFP expansion.
- 6. 1 Alternative Use of Resources This action does not involve the use of resources not previously considered in connection with the Commission's Final Environmental Statement, dated August
- 1973, in connection with D.
C. Cook, Units 1 and 2.
6.2 Agencies and Persons Consulted The staff reviewed the licensee's request.
No other agencies or persons were consulted.
7.0 BASIS AND CONCLUSIONS FOR NOT PREPARING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT The staff has reviewed the proposed SFP modification to D.
C. Cook, Units 1
and 2, relative to the requirements set forth in 10 CFR Part 51.
Based upon the environmental assessment, the staff has concluded that there are no significant radiological or non-radiological impacts associated with the proposed action and that the proposed license amendment will not have a
significant impact on the quality of the human environment.
Therefore, the Commission has determined, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.31, not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed amendment.
Principal Contributors:
W.
Dean B.
McCabe R. Hernan Date: