ML19242D446
| ML19242D446 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades, Kewaunee, Point Beach, Cook, Big Rock Point, Zion File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 05/31/1979 |
| From: | Schaefer J LAKE MICHIGAN FEDERATION |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19242D420 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7908150139 | |
| Download: ML19242D446 (20) | |
Text
THE STATUS OF SPENT FUEL STORAGE AT THE SIX NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS LOCATED ON TH: SHCRES OF LAKE MICHIGAN by Jame Schaefer, Chairman Radioactive Waste t'anagement Study Committae LAKE MICHIGAN FEDERATION Board of Directors May 1979 7908150tM us n;sa
FOREWO:?D On December 9, 1978, the Board of 1%rectorc of the Icke llichigan Federation crcated the Radioactive Wactc 1:anagement Study Co-dttcc to examine the status of opent fuct storage at the six nucicar power plants located on the shorca of Take &lichigan -- Big Rock Point, Palicadca, Donald C.
Cook (?!ichigan),
Zion (Illinoic), Point Beach and Ecommec (Wicconcin).
Jama Schacfer (Wisconsin) cas acked to chair the Codttee and Board mcmbarc Fay Witc, Tom (Myhy, F!al Rocc, l'ici Frankel (Illinois), Flo Watch (1!ichigan), and Charlotte Ecad (Indiana) volun-teored to participate in the ctudy.
Aftcr concidcrabic raccarch and catious deliberations, the Con.mittee rcportcd orally and in uriting to the Fcdcration 's Board at its Aprtl 28, 1979 raeting and reennended the folicuing five resoluttene
' uhich were imaninously adopted:
I Thc Laka blichig=: Ecdcration chould cncouraga the United Statcc Department of Encrgy, Nuclear Ecgulatory Coc.iccion, and appro-priato elected officials to caricualy attend to the developmcc of a cound radio:ctive vaste management progr:n :.;hich could pro-vida for the rcmov:2 of cpant fucl from the nualcar pouer plants around Cake ilichigan.
lI The Lake 7ichigan Ecdcration chould call for a rwratorben on the conctruction of additional nuclear poucr planto along the Lake until the uncertain ics pcrtaining to cycnt fuci disposition are recolved by a workabic federal radioactiva ::asic managc=ent plan.
III The Lake llichigan Fedsrution chould call for prohibition of tranc-chipment of opent nuclcar fuct acccmbtha fror cther nuclear facilitics to nualcar poucr pianic along Lake Iichigan.
IV The Radioactive Wa.nte 1!anagement Study Coditce should rcmain as a spccial car;mittec of the Fcdcration 's Board to catch-dog tha status of cpent fuci storage at the nucicar plants located on the chorcs of Laha Wahigan.
V The Lake llichigan Fcderation chould participate in the Ecystone Ccnter Radioactive :13cte f!anagement Diccuccion Group's proceedinga on public participation.
The follo: Jing doc:enanted rationalc vac prcparcd by Comdttcc Chairmn J=sc Sch:cfcr to facilitate the Federation staff's enacting the provisions of nco policy ciatements and captaining them to intercctcd partics.
Quections per-taining to the facts prccented and documento cited harcin c7.culd be dirceted to
!:rc.
W.
W. Schaefer, 3741 Kochicr Drive, Shcboygan, Wisconcin 53081 (414/458-9274).
The &acutiva Director of the Lake blichigan Fedcration, 53 Wcat Jackcon Street, Chicago, Illinois COCO 4 (312/427-5121) chould be contacted for co-mants regarding Federation action on thccc official pacitionc.
LD (Ud
I The Lake Michigan Federation should encourage the United States Department of Energy, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and appro-priate elected officials to seriously attend to the development of a sound radioactive waste management program which would provide for the removal of spent fuel from the nuclear power plants around Lake Michigan.
Spent fuel is highly radioactive, thermally hot material resulting from the fissioning of uranium fuel in the core of a nuclear reactor.
The uranium fuel consists of ceramic pellets of enriched uranium doixide (UO ) sealed in zirconium 2
alloy tubes approximately 1/2 inch wide by 12 feet long.I These fuel rods are bundled together to form assemblies which are subsequently placed in the reactors of nuclear power plants.
An assembly of a boiling water reactor (BWR -- e.g., Big Rcck Point) contains 49 to 64 fuel rods whereas 195 to 289 rods are grouped together for an assembly of a pressurized wattr reactor (PWR -- e.g., Donald C. Cook 1 and 2, Palisades, Zion Station 1 and 2, Point Beach 1 and 2, Kewaunee).
The average weights of fuel in BWR and PWR assemblies are 0.2 and 0.45 metric tons respectively.2 After about three years of operetion in the reactor, the concentration of fissionable isotopes in the. fuel becomes tco low while the intensity of the fission products is too high. At this time the fuel is considered inefficient and is removed from the reactor.
Approximately one-third of the assemblies of a PWR nuclear core and one-fourth of those in a CUR are removed annually and new fuel emplaced.
"While exter-nally the spent fuel is little changed from new fuel, after irradiation within the fuel rods, some of the UO2 pellets may have been fractured 6e to thermal stresses and the composition has changed dramatically.
Whereas new fuel is relatively inncc-uous and can be handled and shipped as a standard ccmmercial product, spent fuel is highly radioactive and produces considerable heat. For these reasons, spent fuel must be cooled and shielded."3 Immediately af ter removal from the reactor at refueling time, the spent fuel assemblies are moved by remote centrol to a storage pool within the nuclear power plant where the material is immersed in mechanically-controlled circulating coolant water.
The spent fuel is placed at the bottom of the storage pool where approximately I Draft Environmental Impact Statement on Stort of United _ States Spent Power Reactor Fuel, United States Department of Energy, Du /EIS-00iS-D, August 1978, 11-3, hereaf ter referred to as DOE Draf t EIS.
2Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement on P.ndling and Storage of Spent Light Water Power Reactor Fuel, United States nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-0404, March 1978, Volume 1, 2-1, hereaf ter referred to as NRC Draf t Generic EIS.
3 Ibid., 2-2.
pu i.% @
.n,.7 9 feet of water cover the assembly tops, previding the requisite shielding.4 Im-purities in the pool water are removed via filtration and ion exchange treatment.5 The storage pools of the subject nuclear plants are composed of 31/2 to 6 feet thickness of reinforced concrete with stainless steel liners 3/16th of an inch thick.0 The spent fuel pools range in size from 15,600 cubic feet at Big Rock to 99,528 cubic feet at the Cook plant.7 The Point Beach and Zion spent fuel storage pools are built into the ground at 6 and 13 feet below grade respectively; the other four facilities' pools are suspended within the plants.8 According to the f;uclear Regulatory Commission, the stainless steel liners of the spent fuel stcrage pc;1s at Zion and Point Beach plants have minor leeks, the locations of which are not precisely known.9 "At Zion the leak is about 2 gallons
-3 per hour and the measured level of the beta gamma activity is in the range of 10
-2 to 10 microcuries per cubic centimeter. At Point Beach the leak is extremely
-5 smali, about 0.002 gallons per hour and has an activity level of about.75 x 10 microcuries per cubic centimeter."
The leakage that is occurring is collected within the concrete pool or in leak collection channels associated with the stain-less steel liner welds, monitored, processed (if appropriate) to remove radioactivity that exceeds permissible levels set by the I;RC, and released to Lake liichigan via tre low-level radioactive waste circulating water discharge pipes.
Racicactive monitoring programs have not detected the occurrence of any leakage into the soil surr aunding the plants.II Approximately 460 assemblies of spent fuel weighing altogether about 200 metric tons are discharged ennually from the six operating plants located around a ;RC Draf t Generic EIS, Volume 2, B-2.
t Ibid., Volume 1, 4-14 6Letter from Harold Denton, Director of Office of t'uclear Reactor Regulation, f;uclear Regulatory Commission, to.Jame Schaefer, Chairman of Radioactive Waste Manage-ment Study Committee, Lake Michigan Federation, April 25, 1979, hereafter referred to as Denton, April 25, 1979.
7The dimensions of the six plants' storage pools are indicated in Chart A.
8Denton, April 25, 1979.
9 Ibid.
10Letter from Harold Denton to Jane Schaefer, March 8,1979, hereaf ter referre to as Denton, March 8, 1979.
II Ibid.
6b O.'C6 Lake Michigan.12 Each ton of spent fuel contains nearly thirty kilogram of fission products, the radioactive remains of fissioned atoms (e.g., krypton-85, strontium-90, cesium-137, iodine-129) and slightly less than 10 kilograms of transuranic elements (e.g., neptunium-237, plutonium-239, curium-243). The remainder is unburned uraniwn containing about 0.8 per cent uranium-235.13 "The precise composition of [ spent fuel] depends on reactor type and length of time the fuel remains in the reactor generating power; longer burnups in the bl43 result in higher concentrations of fission products and transuranic ele-reactor ments.
The intensity of radioactivity present is very high.
Im:nediately after reactor shutdown, a ton of spent fuel contains about 300 million curies of activity.
After about ten years, this level has decayed to about 300 thousand curies.
Spent fuel also produces a great deal of heat: one day after reactor shutdown, 30 tons of spent fuel have a heat output of about 10,000 kilowatts; af ter ten years, this is reduced to about 1 kilowatt per ton."
Most of the radioactivity and heat resulting from the waste during the first few hundred years after generation are due to the l6 fission products which have varying periods of half lives ranging from a few hours l2Chart A delineates the number of assemblies discharged at refueling times per plant.
13Nuclear Power Issues and Choices, Ford Foundation / Mitre Corporation, Ballinger Publishing Company, 1977, 246.
Isotopic concentration of Uranium-235 in new fuel is slightly over 3 per cent.
Environmental _ Survey of the Reprocessing and Waste Management Portions of LWR Fuel Cycle, USNRC, NUREG-Oll6, 3-7.
14Commonwealth Edison, owner of the Zion plant, recently received approval from the NRC for a higher burnup rate for four assemblies in Unit 2.
Letter from A. Schwencer, Chief, Operatir.g Reactors Branch #1, Division of Operating Reactors, NRC to Cordell Reed, Assistant Vice President, Commonwealth Edison Company, Docket Nos. Sn-295 and 50-304, March 7, 1979.
The utility is now licensed to increase expo-sure of the four assemblies to 55,000 t'.WD/MTU; the original specification was 38,000 MWD /MTU. The NRC stated that although there has been no experience with full-size fuel assenblies irradiated to this burnup, there have been tests of single fuel rods to extended burnups of E8,000 MWD /MTU.
The NEC concluded that the higher burnup of the four assemblies would have no appreciable environmental impact.
Safety Evalu-ation by the Office of Nuclear Peactor Regulation Supporting Amendment No. 44 to r
Facility Operating License No. DPR-39 and Amendment No. 41 to Facility Op_erating_
License No. DPR-48, Corrnonwealth Edison Company, Zion Station, Units 1 ar.d 2, Docket-Nos. 50-295 and 50-304, NRC.
In light oflimited data on the potentiaTlmpact of Iiigher burnups, an Illinois citizens' organization has requested the NRC to prepare a generic environmental impact statement on high burnup fuel in the reactor and in the spent fuel storage pools.
Letter to Harold Denton, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, NRC from Catherine Quigg, Research Director, Pollution & Envir-onmental Problems, Box 309, Palatine, Illinois 60067, April 29, 1979.
Nuclear Power Issues and Choices, 246.
Q j'y/
A half-life is the amount of time it takes for half of the radioactivity of an element to decay.
to millions of years.17 More than a hundred different isotopes of fission products are involved.
The total activity of the fission products is reduced by a factor of about 10 million approximately 700 years af ter generation, at which time the demi-nant source of radioactivity in the spent fuel comes from highly toxic transuranic elements,18 some of which have half lives of nillions of years.l9 Under normal operating conditions, the only known mechanisms for dispersal of these highly radioactive elements from the spent fuel in underwater storage is through corrosion of defective fuel reds by the pool water.20 Currently, an esti-mated 1300 spent fuel assemblies containing approximately 600 metric tons of highly I
irradiated spent fuel are stored underwater in the six plants' pools.
Some of the spent fuel rods in the assemblies are leaking radioactivity at three of the plants:
21 leakers at Big Rock,18 at Palisades, and 2 at Point Beach.22 Leakers occasion-ally originate in the reactor wherein "... fuel cladding develops small cracks or pinholes while at power (on the order of 800" F. temperature at the surface) which tend to close up when removed from the core and stored in the pool..." (where the surface temperature decreases to about 180 F.).23 According to the NRC's Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, eacapsulation of the spent fuel rods 2
that are leaking at the three plants is not being considered at this time to pre-vent increased dispersal of spent fuel elcments into the pool should greater loss of integrity of the leaking rods occur.
Abnormal operating conditions in the spent fuel pools could result in the rupture of the spent fuel rods which would release radionuc1 ides posing hazards to plant workers and to the general public.
Potential accidents include fuel assembly drop, penetration of the storage pool by a tornado-generated missile, fire and 17 11alf-lives of some of the fission pruducts are:
Krypton-85, 10.7 years; strontium-90, 29 years; technicium-99, 210,000- jears; iodine-129, 16,000,000 years; iodine-131, 8 days; cesium-137, 30.1 years.
hRC Draft Generic EIS, Volume 2, G-10.
IONuclear Power Issues and Choicy, 247.
Some of the transuranic elements' half-lives are:
Uranium-233,160,000 years; neptunium-237, 4,100,000 years; plutonium-239, 24,000 years; americium-243, 7,370 years.
NRC Draft Generic EIS, Volume 2, G-15.
O Ibid., Volume 1, 4-16.
21 See Chart A for the number of assemblies in storage at each plant.
2Denton, March 8, 1979.
23 Ibid.
24 b
Ibid.
explosion, criticality accident (nuclear runaway chain reaction), high pool water activity, waste tank or piping ruptures, lowering of pool water, and loss of coeling.25 Some of these abnormal conditions (e.g., loss of cooling water and criticality accident) could result from a major " event" at a nuclear power plant rendering the plant operators unable to maintain the vital mechanical systems in the spent fuel pool.
A catastrophic rupture of the fuel cladding could cause dis-persal of the highly radioactive fuel resulting in contaminaticn of the land around the storage pool and Lake Michigan.26 Contamination of the environment could also result from uninpeded leakage of radioactive water and impurities from the spent fuel pool via enlargement of the already existing pinholes in the stainless steel liners of the Zion and Point Beach pools.
Ruptures in the reinforced concrete pools could lead to storage pool water contamination of the soil and, quite possibly, the Lake.
According to the tiRC,
...there is no indication that soil leakage has occurred..." 7 at these plants.
Extreme care in storing and handling the spent fuel and cautious monitoring of the spent fuel pool environs are necessary to help prevent dispersal of radionuclides to the environment where health and economic impacts may be sizeable.
Only one of the six plants around Lake Michigan has spent fuel stored away from the reactor (AFR).
Point Beach has 114 assemblies stored at the !!uclear Fuel Services facility in West Valley, tiew York, and 109 assemblies at the General Electric Morris Operation in Grundy County, Illinois.28 Return of the spent fuel from f1FS and GEMO to the Point Beach plant has been contemplated,29 but the NRC had not been informed of any decision regarding plans to ship the spent fuel from the AFR facilities to Point Beach as of March 8, 1979.30 Little commercially-owned space is available at AFR facilities for storage of spent fuel from the six nuclear plants located on the Lake Michigan shoreline.
The flFS storage facility is no longer accepting additional assemblies pending itew 25tiRC Oraft Generic EIS, Volume 1, 4-18 through 4-23.
26See Chart A for distances of plants' storage pools from Lake Michigan.
7Denton, March 8,1979.
28 1 bid.
29Application for Amendment to License rios. DPR-24 and DPR-27, Point Beach f;uclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Docket tios. 50-266 and 50-301, HRC, Tables 9.1 and 9.2.
0Denton, March 8,1979.
shC.D York State and federal resolution of the disposition of the former reprocessing plant and the radioactive wastes therein. Linited space for additional spent fuel assemblies from nuclear power plants exists at GEMO.
A propotal to increase the storage capability of GEMO is now before the NRC.31 There are no other licensed commercial AFR facilities in the United States.
Nor are there federally-owned temporary storage facilities for co rner-cially-generated spent nuclear fuel. Though originally contemplated as a normal step in the nuclear plant fuel cycle to recover and reuse uranium and plutonium frca the spent fuel, commercial reprocessing of spent fuel has been deferred indef-initely by an April 7,1977 order of the President of the tinited States who reasoned that reprocessing technology increases opportunities for direct access to caterials used in making nuclear weapons.32 On October 18, 1977, President Jimmy Carter announced his preference that the federal government assume title to the spent
,1uclear fuel from commercial and foreign reactors for a one-time storage fee.33 Legislation was introduced in Congress on March 1,1979 (H.R. 2586) to facilitate the President's " interim" spent fuel storage proposal.
31 General Electric (General Electric Morris Operation) Application to Mooify License No. SNM-1265 to Increase Spent Fuel Storage Capacity, Docket. No.
70-i308.
Illinois Attorney General William Scott has petitioned the NRC to conduct poblic hearings before deciding on renewal of GE's license to store nuclear spent fuel at GEMO.
GE's license to operate the Morris Operation expires August 31, 1979.
Chicago Sun-Tines, May 22, 1979, 28.
32Just prior to this Presidential announcement, the Ford Foundation / Mitre Corporation study group reported:
"There is no compelling national interest to be served by reprocessing. There appears to be little, if any, economic incentive and it is unlikely that reprocessing and recycle could proceed without [ federal] subsidy.
The non-economic benefits of reprocessing are sn,all:
fuel supply for LWRs would be little enhar.ced...and contemporary waste management risks with reprocessing are likely larger than possible reductions in long-tern hazards from disposal.
Health hazards and new accident risks argue against reprocessing.
But the most serious risks from reprocessing and recycle are the increased opportunities for the prolifer-ation of national weapons capabilities and the terrorist danger associated with plu-tonium
, the fuel cycle." Nuclear power Issues and Choices, 333.
In explaining rhy t re would be increased waste management risks with reprocessing, the authors stated:
'The volume of solid waste (cladding hulls, process trash, and so forth) resulting directly from re, ocessing and fabrication of mixed oxide fuel...would be rather large and would contain quantities of plutonium and other transuranics com-parable to those in the much smaller volume of resolidified high-level waste." Ibid.,
249.
"The net result is that the volume and heat output of waste from reprocessing and recycle operations requiring permanent disposal is about the same as that of the original spent fuel." Ibid., 329.
3300E Draft EI^, II-1 W i2GO A federal decision regarding the ultimate disposition of spent fuel is still pending the development and implementation of a federal radioactive waste management policy.
In light of the political, economic, health and waste manage-ment adversities of current reprocessing technologies, spent fuel is being viewed as a potential waste form to be stored in geological formations. The President's Interagency Review Group on f;uclear Waste Management has reco cended retrievable emplacement of up to 1000 spent fuel assemblies in a proposed " intermediate scale facility" within the controversial Waste Isolation Pilot Project (WIPP) slated to be operable in 1986 near Carlsbad, New Mexico.34 WIPP is now under consideration by the United States Department of Energy.
According to the IRG, current United States full-scale repository design should be b-s c1 the ability to receive either solidified reprocessing waste or discarded spent fuel as a waste material; "... repro-cessing is not required to assure safe disposal of commercial spent fuel in appro-priately chosen geologic environments."36 The IRG estimates that a full-scale reposi-tory for storing high-level waste, which could include spent fuel if so decided by the federal government, might be available between 1988 and 1992 if sited in a sali, deposit or 1992 to 1995 if a rock medium such as granite, shale or basalt is chosen. 7 ideral executive and legislative decisions regarding these spent fuel manacement proposals have not yet been made.
Complicating this decision-making process is the insufficiency of scientific data to assure safe containment of the highly radioactive wastes in specific types of gealogical settings over long periods of time.38 With geologists playing an increasing role in data gathering, some information can be generated about the potential suitabili 4Report to the President by the Interaaency Review Group on ?!uclear Waste Mena,qement, TID-28817, Octcber 1978, vii-viii, hereaf ter referred to as IRG October 197L Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Waste Isolation Pilot Project, U.S.
Department of Energy, US00E/EIS-0026-D, April 1979, 2 Volumes.
36P.eport to the President by the Interagency Review Group on fluclear Waste Management, TID-29442, March 1979, 73, hereafter referred to as IRG March 1979.
37 Ibid., 60.
38 IRG October 1978, vii IRG March 1979, 3S; State of Geolocical Knowledce Regarding Potential Transport of Hiqh-Level Radioactive Eastc from Dee] Continental
_ Repositories _, Report of an Ad Hoc Panel of Earth Scientists, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA /520/4-78-004; J.D. Bredehoef t, A.W. England, et al, ' Geologic Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes--Earth Science Perspectives", Geological Survey, Circular 779, U.S. Cepartment of the Interior,1978; Report of Task Force for Review of fluclear Waste Management, U.S. DOE /E"-0004/D, February 1978, 16-17 and 52; i;uclear Energy's Dilemma.
Disposing _of Hazardous Radioactive Waste Safely, U.S.
General Accounting Office, EMD-77-41, Septenber 9, 1977, 13-20, hereafter referred to as fluclear Energy's Diler.ma, GA0.
6 5.1161 of the candidate rock types. The IRG believes ",..[s]uccessful isolation of radio-active wastes from the biosphere appears technically feasible for periods of thou-sands of years provided that the systems view is utilized rigorously to evaluate the suitability of sites and designs, to minimize the influence of future human activities and to select a waste form that is compatible with its host rock, Beyond a few thousands years and during the period of time in which actinides and long-lived fission products remain toxic, our capability to predict and therefore our assurance of successful isolation diminishes.
Some uncertainties can be bounded or compensated for and, tnerefore, need not be resolved coupletely before se.ecting a site or con-structing a repository.
In addition, some will be resolved ducir.g repository con-struction.
Although some residual oncertainty will always remain, reliance on con-servative engi'eering practices and multiple barriers can compensate for a lack of totai knowledge and predictive capability." 9 Scsides the scientific and technical uncertainties regarding the development of a radicactive waste management program, the federal government must struggle with political and social obstacles to the siting of a waste repository.
Several states have enacted laws and sone are considering bills forbidding dispesal of radioactive wdstes withir, their borders.4I Political resistance appeared when the federal govern ment indicated an interest in northern Wisconsin granite formations and Michican salt deposits as potential high-level radioactive vaste repositories.
Public and political opposition was partly responsible for the federal government's abandening an atten?t to develop a radioactive waste disposal facility in salt beds near Lyons, Kansas.
Ccntroversy rages over the proposed WIPP facility slated for a salt deposit near Carirbad, New Mexico.
Considerable conflict exists regarding the role, if any, the states should play in the federal development of geological repositories.
The IRG rece". ended that states should n<:t nave "seto power" over the siting of a radioactive s.aste disposal facility, rather, the IRG suggests " consultation and concurrence" as the dacision-making process which would allow the federal officials to eventually overrule state objections.
Thc IR3 hes also suggested that regional sites are selected which would have the cffect of spreading political decision making among a m ber of associated states rather than focusing on a specific state.43 39 IRG fiarch 1979, 38, 40fluclear Energy's Dilenza, GA0. i.
41 fluclear Powar Costs, U.S. lioase of Representatives Committee on Government Gperations, April 26, 1978, 14-15, 42 ;uclear Energy's Dilemma, GAO,15.
f i:WDR
,93 IRG March i979, 43.
9-Several other technologies have been examined for the ultimate disposal of highly radioactive wastes other than storage in mined geological repositories:
Placement in deep ocean sediments; placement in very deep drill holes; placement in a mined cavity in a manner that leads to rock melting; transmutation of heavy radio-nuclides after partitioning of reprocessing waste and subsequent geo,gic disposal of the fission products; and, ejection into space.
While the IRG believes mined repositories will be available the ecrliest, deep ocean sediment and deep drill hole dispcial should be perhaps 10-15 years away from being able to begin implemen-tation.
" Transmutation, rock melting and space disposal are more distant because of tht sciantific, engineering or institutional problems that must be overcome."
THE STOP-GAP MEASURE:
Because of current unavailability of storage space for spent fuel elsewhere, the six nuclear plants located on the shores of Lake Michigan have modified or are in the process of modifying their spent fuel pools to provide additional spaces for storage of spent fuel assemblies which must be discharged from the reactor cores so that new fuel can be emplaced. 5 The sizes of the pools have/are not being changed; rather, space between assemblies has been/is being decreased via installation of new high-density racks. Without increased storage capability, the plants eventually would have to cease operating for lack of ability to offload the inefficient part of the nuclear core.
Big Rock, "ewaunce, Palisades, and Point Beach would have had to cease generating electricity ia 1980 or shortly thereafter due to inability to offload and store the spent fuel.
Zion and Cook have anticipated the shortage of :torage space well in advance of any threat to continuing operations.
44 1RG March 1979, 35.
45Chart B provides the breakdown of compaction proposals already approved or under consideration by the MRC.
There is a conflict regarding the status of the Big Rock spent fuel r>ool.
The March 8,1979 letter from Harold Denton and " Status of Spent Fuel Storage Capability", Operating Redctors Status Regort, FUREG-0020, Volume 3, Ihnbe-1, January 1979 indicate that Big Rock has authority to store 120 assemblies and that the storage pool will be filled by 1930 with no pending request to amend the operating license to store additional quantities of spent fuel.
However, tne DOE wrote:
"According to the data which DOE has from Consumers Power Company, the Big Rock reactor has already expanded its spent fuel basin several tines to store more fuel than originally planned.
The utility is nearing completion of a rerecking activity which vould permit storage of 365 fuel assemblies.
This means the reactor would lose the ability to discharge the full core around 1988 and to discharge for annual fuel loading in about 1992." Letter from Michael J. Lawrence, Director, Division of Trans-portation and Fuel Storage, DOE to Jame Schaefer, Chairman, Radioactive Waste Manage-rent Study Committee, Lake Michigan Federation, May 14, 1979. The NRC anc DDE are investigating this conflicting information, W <y53 x.
46Fuel centerline to assembly centerline dimensions have changed from 21 incht to 10.5 inches at Cook, 21 to 10-11 inches at Kewaunee,11.25 to 10.25 at Palisades, 20 and 15.5 to 10 inches at Point Beach, 21 to 10.35 inches at Zion.
Data is unavailabl regarding dimension changes at Big Rock which was originally licensed for 12 inch center-line to centerline.
Denton, April 25, 1979.
The plants' owners obviously do not expect that off-site storage space will be avail-able within the next decade, and most of the plants anticipate storing spent fuel at least thrcugh the mid-1990s.
By that time approximately 4,000 mr tric tons of highly irradiated spent fuel will be stored at the six plants.
The TIRC approval of more dense and additional spent fuel storage at the nuclear plants has been granted prior to completion of a generic environmental impact statement assessing the reasonable alternatives for storing spent fuel and the safety of these options. The General Accounting Office, the investigative arn of the United States Congress, has recommended that the "...i1RC complete and issue its generic en-vironmental impact statement on spent fuel as soon as possible...and in the interim, limit through licensing restrictions the amount of spent fuel which can be stored in reactor pools to rio more than was originally licensed for, unless the reactor would be forced to shut down operations, if increased storage was not allowed at that site..
f1RC's interim licensing for increased storage capacity may raise public suspicions and concern, because the overall environmental effects -- including safety -- of such actions have not yet been fully determined.,,47 Spent fuel compaction approval has created an abrupt change in the nature of a nuclear power plant.
At the time the original license to operate was granted by the AmC, a nuclear plant was contemplated to store s.nent fuel for only six months af ter Jischarge from the core. The extended periods of storage time already granted for Pcint Beach, Kewaunee, Palisades and Big Rock and under consideration for Zion and Cook indicate that the electric generating plants have nou also become long-term storage facilities.4S And, the uncertainties regarding final disposition of the highly radioactive fuel has resulted in concerns questioning the safety of underwater storage over long periods of time.
A major concern is whether or not the spent fuel will remain intact to allow for safe removal from the six plants for ultimate disposition sometime in the future.
According to flRC Commissioner Victor Gilinsky, the United States has had ... satis-factory experience with such storage for periods of about ten years...."49
- However, there is no experience with the stability of spent fuel in underwater ste" am for longer periods of time -- from 20 to 50 years.
The longest storage time reported f ; clear Energy's Dilemma, GAO, 59.
Thb situation intensifies the impression that the plants' pools may becomo permanent storage sites.
49Victor Gilinsky in Testimony Before the California Energy Resources Conser-vation and Development Commission, January 31, 1977, hereaf ter referred to as Gi'.insky Testimony.
bM2b4 for zircalloy-clad fuel is 19 yerrs for one feel element; stainless steel-clad 50 fuel has been stored for 13 year
...[E]xpert opinion seems to be in general agreement that storage would be safe for longer periods, although further study is needed."51 "Because of the lack of information on the status of fuel stored under-water for long times, corrosion mechanisms wiiich may affect long-term integrity of spent fucl are not fully understood."52 The tiRC is currently "...considering the Potential benefits of requiring additional pool chemistry controls or corrosion surveillance..."53 as the long overdue, final generic environmental impactment state-ment on storage of spant fuel is being prepared.
The potential for corrosion of neutron absorber reaterials and their effects on the spent fuel high-density racks proposed for installation at the Zion plant is currently urJ..' study.
Of particular concern is the effect of the pool water chem-istry on these racks which are prone to swelling and may entrap the spent fuel assem-blies, thus preventing removal or causing rupture of the cladding upon attempts to dislodge the assemblies from the racks.
Because of our short-term experience with underwater storage.of spent fuel, our ability to accurately ascertain the environmental, health, and safety risks of spent fuel storage beyond 20 years is limited.55 Compacted and increased storage of spent fuel at the six nucleer power plants thus necessitates even greater management Cdu im in light of the amounts of spent fuel assenblies now stored or planned for storage on the Lakeshore.
The active mechanical cystems providing the requisite 50A. R. Johnson, Behavior of Spen _t I;uclear Fuel in Water Pool Storage,,
Battelle florthwest Laboratory, September 1977, 14-15.
51 Gilinsky Testimony.
52 uel Reorocessing, Spent Fuel Storage and High-Level Status of I;uclear r Waste Discosal, California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Comission, January ll, 1978, 103.
tiechanisms requiring further study are accelerated corrosion, microstructural changes, alterations in mechanical properties, stress corrosion cracking, intergranular corrosion, and hydrogen absorption and precipitation by the zirconium alloys.
flRC Draft Nneric EIS, Volume 2, H-25.
53Denton, April 25, 1979.
54" Director's Cecision Under 10 CFR 2.205 Request", t;orthern States Power Comany_ (Monticello t!uclear Generating Plant, Unit 1) Docket t;o. 50-253, i;RC, April 24, 1979, 3-5.
55The fission product radionuclides of primary concern under conditions of long-term spent fuel storage are krypton-85, cesium-134 through 137, and possibly iodine-129 which are present in significant quantities, are soluble in water, and biologically mobile.
f;RC Draft Generic EIS, Volume 1, 4-14.
tb,2 W cooling and purifying of the spent fuel pool environs will have to be carefully main-tained by the plants' operators and cautiously monitored by the flRC.
Compacted spent fuel storage at the six nuclear power plants located on the shores of Lake Michigan is a "stop-gap" measure which must remain under close surveillance by the Lake Michigan Federation.
Because of the potential threat to the health and welfare of the people who use Lake Michigan for recreational and occupational purposes, spent fuel should be transferred from the storage pools of the six nuclear plants to a more secure and isolated location.
The federal govern-ment must gather the requisite data and make the appropriate decisions to facilitate the disposition of spent fuel from the Lake area.
There is no assurance at the present time that the spent fuel now stored at the plants will ever be removed from the storage pools for disposal or processing elsewhere.
As !!RC Commissioner Gilinsky testified, if an alternative form of spent fuei storage is not available, "...the answer rust be continued interim stcrage in pools."
The f;RC, the DOE, and our elected federal officials must develop a sound radioactive waste management program which would provide for the removal of spent fuel from the six plants around Lake Michigan.
II The Lake Michigan Federation should call for a moratorium on the construction of additional nuclear power plants along the Lake until the uncertainties pertaining to spent fuel disposi-tion are resolved by a workable federal radioactive waste management plan.
Spent fuel is being accumulated at the six nuclear power plants along Lake flichigan.
Storage of the spent fuel discharged from the reactors is contemplated for much longer periods of time than was originally planned when the plants were licensed.
Approval of modification of the methods of storing spent fuel a' the plants through re-racking to allow for more dense pMcement of the spent fuel assemblies has been granted or is under consideration by the f!RC -- though the generic environmental impact statement assessing the safety of such storage and other methods has not been compl eted.
A federal decision regarding the disposition of spent fuel has not been made.
Sufficient temporary away-from-reactor storage is not available. And, there are many scientific, technical, political and social obstacles to spent fuel dis-posal in geological settings.
Until a decision regarding the disposition of spent fuel has been made and the federal government has a workable radioactive waste ranage-ment program vnich provides for the removal of spent fuel from the storage pools of 56Gilinsky Testimony.
i S AGS the six nuclear power plants now operating on the shores of Lake Michigan, additional nuclear plants should not be built around the Lake. The licensing process for the tuo nuclear-powered electricity generating plants proposed to be constructed near Sheboygan, Wisconsin and Gary, Indiana should be halted, III The Lake Michigan Federation should call for prohibitt'n of trans-shipment of spent nuclear fuel assemblies from otner nuclear facilities to nuclear power plants along Lake
- Michigan, Currently each of the six nuclear power plants now operating on the shores of Lake Michigan is licensed to store only the spent fuel discharged from its own on-site reactor (s) in the plant's stnrage poel(s). The possibility of storage of spent fuel generated by other domestic commercial or foreign reactors is not ruled out, however.57 "All applications for such storage would be considered on a case-by-case basis."58 The DOE considers trans-shipment of spent fuel between nuclear power plants within the same utility as an integral part of meeting spent fuel storage requirenents in the near future 59 As of March 8,197?, the NRC nas not received applications for license amendments to store spent fuel from another reactor at any of the six nuclear power plants along the Lake.60 Because of the liabilities inherent in storing spent fuel along Lake Michigan and particularly in some reactors in highly-populated areas, only the spent fuel discharged from the reactors should be stored at each of the six plants' spent fuel storage pools.
Additional quantities of spent fuel from any other plant should not be trans-shipped to any of the six plants now operating en the shores of Lake Michigan.
Trans-shipment would exacerbate the spent fuel storage situation aiceady rodified at the plants, increase opportunities for accidents in handling and trans-parting the spent fuel, and magnify the appearance of a long-term, perhaps " terminal" storage facility for highly-radioactive spent fuel.
57Denton, March 8, 1979.
58 Ibid.
59Spent Fuel Storage Requirements -- The Meed for Away-From-Reactor Storage _,
US DOE /ET-0075, January 1979, 2+, hereafter referred to as Spent Fuel Storage Require-ments, DOE.
60"To date, one utility in another region of the country has been authorized to store spent fuel from one of its reactors -- H.B. Robinson -- in the storage facilities ct its Brunswick facility some distance away."
Denton, March 8,1979, Also refer to Spent Fuel Storage Requirements, DOE, B-2 and B-4.
W,3367 IV The Radioactive Waste Managemenc Study Committee should remain as a special committee of the Federation to watch-dog the status of spent fuel storage at the nuclear plants located on the shores of Lake Michigan.
The nM for keeping abreast of the spent fuel storage situation around Lake Michigan is self-evident. The Radioactive Waste Management Study Committee of the LMF Board of Directors should continue to research this difficult dilemma and make recommendations to the Board when appropriate.
The Study Committee is currently examining: The need for encapsulating the defective and leaking spent fuel rods at Palisades, Point Beach and Big Rock; the necessity for locating the pinhole leaks in the stainless steel pool liners at Point Beach and Zion; the lesirability of encouraging the development of funds in escrow for long-term maintenance of the spent fuel at the plants and eventual removal of the spent fuel to an ultimate destination;61 and the advisability of endorsing legislation before the United States Congress to facilitate the disposition of spent fuel and the development of a sound radioactive waste management policy.
V The Lake Michigan Federation should participate in the reystone Center Radioactive Waste Management Discussion Group's proceedings on public participation.
The Keystone Center Radioactive Waste Management Discussion Group was fccmed in 1976 under the auspices of the Keystone Center for Continuing Education, le;ated in Keystone, Colorado, to facilitate an interdisciplinary dialogue on radicactive waste nanagemnt among the audemic, environmental movement and independent citizens organizations, and the private nuclear industry.
Discussion Group members have met 62 infcmally since 1976 and in July 1978 the fell group agreed on the feasibility of convening several workshops to formclate recomnendations pertaining t.o radioactive w ste management that all can agree on -- nuclear critics and advocates alike.
61 The NRC will no longer issue a uranium nill license or renew an existing license unless the mill owner submits a reclamation ?lan for mill tailings and a bor. ding arrangement to finance the plan when mill operations cease.
Cleaning Up The Remins of i'uclear Facilities -- A Multibillicn Dollar Problem, U.S. General Accounting Office, EMD-77-46, June 16, 1977, 12.
A similar arrangement might be pursued to assure funds for spent fuel disposition.
62Dr. Irwin Bupp--Marvard, Dr. L. James Colby--Allied Chemical Corporation, Robert Craig--Keystone Center for Continuing Education, Kenneth Davis--Bechtel Power Corocration, Dr. David Deese--Harvard, Daniel Ford--Union of Concerned Scientists, James Harding--Friends of the Earth, Dr. Charles D. Hollister--Uoods Hole Oceanographic Institute, Dr, Terry Lash--Natural Resources Defense Council, Dr. Vince Taylor--Pan Heuristics, Dr. Joel Primack--UC Santa Cruz, Dr, Peter Montague--Soutbaest Research and Information Center, Alan McGowan--Scientists Institute for Public Info 6 mation.
W72GS Members of the Keystone Group met in August and September 1978 to discuss and nake recommendations to the Interagency Review Group on Nucleuc Waste l'anagement whose subgroups had issued drafts of their findings and suggestions to the President of the United States.
In December 1978, the Discussion Group members reviewed the critical situation of spent fuel storage at nuclear power plants in the country and made recommendations regarding disposition to the President's IRG and Office of Science and Technology Policy.
Technical issues related to high-level radioactive waste repository siting was the topic of discussion at the April 1979 meeting.
On June 17-20, 1979, the Keystone Center Radioactive Waste Management Dis-cussion Group will hold a meeting on issues related to public understanding and participation in the development and acceptance of radioactive waste management policy.
Forty people representing the various sectors of society involved ir nuclear power and in particular the radioactive waste dilemma are expected to participate in the workshop -- including the original Discussion Group members, representatives of the flational Governors' Conference and flational Association of State Legislatures, Staff Director of the United States Senate Subcommittee on Energy, fiuclear Prolifera-tion and Federal Services, and representatives of the various " publics" who have expressed interest in and concern for the development of a sound radioactive waste nanage. ment program in the United States.
Discussion Group participants will develop a list of practical suggesti 's for improving current state and federal programs for public participation and draft u general statement emphasizing broad-scale public involvement in the development and implementation of a radioactive waste management program in our country.
Because people nov, and in the future will use Lake Michigan for their pleasures and occupations, they are both individually and collectively " publics" with the need to protect and preserve Lake Michigan from radioactive contamination due to the storage of highly irradiated spent fuel through the creation of and implementation of a sound nuclear waste management program.
The Lake Michigan Federation is com,nrised of nany sectors of these publics -- fishermen, environmentalists, homeowners, boating enthusiasts, businessmen, consumers, and 1:borers, The Federation should identify their concerns by participating in '.he Keystone Center Radioactive Uaste Management Discussion Group in June and help pave the way for their education and representation in the radioactive waste disposal decision-making process.
Jame Schaefer has been invited to participetc in the June meeting of the Keystone Group and has agreed to voice the concerns and needs of Lake Michigan's various publics as a representative of Lake Michigan Federation.
S M S9
CHART A N
M C
r
.L 5
E 5%
e E
<E 3
8 uh 12 E
E 5
5 zo s.s e 8" Ss x
s 2:
E "t
"s x#
s R2
%5
&~
E 2c CEE E
?8 o
M b
- 8 B=
B3 au o
w m
m BIG ROCK 84 21 83 26x20x30d 330 COOK 1 & 2 193 each 128 193 58x39x44d 400 KEWAUNEE 121 40 160 19x50x40d 660 PALISADES 204 68 273 39x15x38d 290 POINT BEACH 1 & 2 121 each r,0 220 18x68x40d 500 ZIO:! 1 & 2 193 each 128 368 60x33x41d 600 1" Status of Spent Fuel Storage Capability", Operating Reactors Status Report, NUREG-0020, Volume 3, l' umber 1, January 1979.
2Estimation of assemblies normally discharged based on 1/4 of the assemblics removed from Big Rock (BWR) and 1/3 of the assemblies removed from the other plants (PW 3" Status of Spent Fuel Storage Capability" and adding the estimated additiona:
fuel assemblies to be discharged from the reactor since January 1, 1979 and stored in the spent fuel pools.
4 Denton, April 25, 1979.
uS...,_0 ua 5 Ibid.
BIG ROCK POIf4T
/
KEUAuflEE g
ck Point, Mgan POIfiT BEACH Consumers Pcwer Company PALISADES -- South Haven, Michigan Haver?
Consumers Power Company D0f1ALD C. COOK -- Bridgman, Michigan Indiana & Michigan Electric Compcny ZI0ri STATI0f1 -- Zion, Illinois Commonwealth Edison Company I
POIrlT BEACH -- Two Creeks, Wiscensin Wisconsin Electric Power Company
/
ZIO:i h C PALISADES KEWAUt!EE -- Carlton, th.sconsin Wisconsin Public Service Corporation O DO:!ALD C. COOK Wisconsin Power & Light Company
\\
~
Madison Gas & Electric Company
\\
t Bailly?
Request for license to construct under review:
B j))2 -- Gary, Indiana J fiorthern Indiana Public Service Company Haven -- Sheboygan, Wisconsin Wis;onsin Electric Power Company Wisconsin Power & Light Co.apany Wisconsin Public Service Corporation
,...,,,-,4 t 4 i.
citi::en action to protcet a gwat lake..... LAKE MICHIGAtt FEDERATI0ti
CHART B e
% Ci 5 J
3 5% S T
o x
8 E
ap 02 L
en "85 CE
- a eM
- 't bSS Sa f8 12
" 8,
"=
83 BA 8t 245 S;
a >,
30 2"
5, c-E 5; E El T S S'a o >,
b 3-8 'c 2:
Bz%
3.
b Tn E
~2 BEE "332 EM I;
tc3 St fh3 SEBR sa g
gom g<
gum gew<
go N/A fl/A 1980 S IG ROCK 120 fl/A (365)4 fl/A (1992)"
5 COOK 1 & 2 500 N/A 2050 4/79 1995 KEUAUI!LE 168 3/79 990 Complete 1996 -
PALISADES 276 6/77 798 Complete 1985 3
10/75 3 51 Co..v}. e ce Cogpete 1980 POINT EEACH 1 & 2 206 1996 4/79 1502 8/76 868 I
710'! 1 & 2 340 5
- E*he 1983 fi/A 2112 3/79 1992 1Denton, March 8, 1979.
2Denton, April 25, 1979.
3Point Beach has 223 assemblies stored at AFR facilities.
See text page 5.
4Conflic + in flRC and DOE records.
Refer to text footnote 45 on page 9.
5f! umber ct assemblies when increase under consideration is authorized.
6" Status of Spent Fuel Storage Capability" g..o m
,, v ( & t re 7 'RC bearings on the Zion amendment request are scheduled for June l
11, 1979 in Illinois.