ML19281B029
| ML19281B029 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Zion File:ZionSolutions icon.png |
| Issue date: | 03/29/1979 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19281B027 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7904200162 | |
| Download: ML19281B029 (30) | |
Text
.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPRAISAL BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATING TO THE MODIFICATION OF THE SPENT FUEL POOL FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NOS. DPR-39 AND DPR-48 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY ZION NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT N05.1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-295 AND 50-304 March 29,1979 G
=
9304.206l62
1.0 DESCRIPTION
OF PROPOSED ACTION By letter dated April 13, 1978 and as supplemented October 24, December 18, 1978, January 24 and 26, and March 7 and 19, 1979, Commonwealth Edison Company (the licensee) requested amendments to Facility Operating License Nos. OPR-39 and DPR-48 for Zion Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, respectively.
This request was made to obtain authorization to provide additional storage capacity in the Zion Station spent fuel pool (SFP).
The proposed modification would increase the capacity of the common spent fuel pool from-the present design capacity of 868 fuel assemblies to a capacity of 2,112 fuel assemblies.
O e
1-1
2.0 NEED FOR STORAGE CAPACITY The NRC issued the Zion Unit 1 operating license on April 6,1973 and the Zion Unit 2 operating license on November 14, 1973.
Commercial operation began on December 31, 1973 and September 19, 1974 for Units 1 and 2, respectively.
To date, Zion Unit 1 has had three refuelings and Unit 2 has had two refuelings.
For each of these refuelings, 1/3 of the core (about 64 fuel assemblies) has been removed and transferred to the spent fuel pool.
The current storage capacity of the spent fuel pool is 868 fuel assemblies and there are 308 assemblies presently in the spent fuel pool.
A full core for Zion Units 1 and 2 consists of 193 fuel assemblies per reactor.
Under the current fuel management plan, each reactor is scheduled to be refueled annually.
After the 1981 refueling outages, the present spent fuel pool would not have room to offload a full core. While the ability to offload a full core is not required for safety, it is a desirable capability from an economic and operational standpoint; for example, it would allow inspection of core internals.
If Zion Units 1 '.nd 2 are refueled annually, the present spent fuel pool would not ommodate an additional refueling of either unit after the 1982 ueling outages.
If the storage capacity of the spent fuel pool is not increased or if alternate storage space for spent fuel from Zion Station is not located, botn Zion units would have to be shut down in 1983.
2-1
3.0 FUEL REPROCESSING HISTORY Currently, spent fuel is not being reprocessed on a commercial basis in the United States.
The Nuclear Fuel Services (NFS) plant at West Valley, 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 Morr-;s, Illinois, now referred to as the Morris Operation (MO), is in a decommissioned condition.
Although no plants are licensed for reprocessing fuel, the M0 storage pool and the NFS plant storage pool (on land owne 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 stcrage.
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.
e
=
3-1
4.0 THE FACILITY Zion Unit 1 and Unit 2 (the facilities) are described in the r'inal Environmental Statement (FES) related to operatien of tnese facilities.
The FES was issued by the Commission in December 1972.
Each facility has a pressurized water reactor (PWR) rated at 3250 megawatts thermal (MWt) core power and 1050 megawatts gross electrical (MWe) output.
Pertinent descriptions of principal features 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 Cooling Water Systems The Zion station service water system is a once-through system with six service water pumps rated at 22,000 gallons per minute each.
Water is pumped from Lake Michigan and supplies all the equipment cooling requirements for the facility, inc'. ding the emergency shutdown requirements, and is then returned to Lake dichigan.
During normal operations, two service water pumps supply the needs of one unit with a third pump serving as a standby.
The essential coolers of each unit are provided with two cooling water supplies by loop headers from two main supply headers, one for each.
The two main headers are normally cross-connected so that various combinations of service water pumps can serve both units' needs.
The component cooling water (CCW) system is a shared system serving both Zion units.
During normal operation, the service water system removes heat from the three (two in service, one in standby) component cooling water system heat exchangers.
Among the systems further cooled by the component cooling water system are those components associated with the removal of heat from the spent fuel pool.
4.2 Radioactive Wastes The plant contains waste treatment systems designed to collect and process the gaseous, liquid and solid waste that might contain radioactive material.
The waste treatment systems are evaluated in the Final Environmental Statement (FES) dated December 1972.
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 Scent 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 4-1
9 first removed from the reactor, assemblies are initially intensely radioactive (due to their fresh fission product content) and hate 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 permitting, spent fuel assemblies may be stored for an additional persed allowing continued fission product decay and thermal cooling prior to shipment.
4.4 Spent Fuel Pool Purification System The spent fuel pool cooling and purification system for each ur.it consists of two pumps, two heat exchangers, two filters, two demine-ralizers, and tne 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 demineralizer 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 di'scussed 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 spent fuel storage racks.
It will nct alter the extcenal 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 radicactive isotopes to decay and to reduce the associated thermal heat output.
The Commission has never set a limit, other than the length of the licen3e, on how long spent fuel assemblies could be stored onsite.
The longer the fuel assemblies decay, the less radio-activity they contain.
The proposed modification will not change the basic land use of the spent fuel pool.
The pool is presently' designed to store the spent fuel assemblies for up to 13 normal refuelings.
The proposed modification would provide storage for up to 33 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 < pent 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 component cooling water system and to the service water system.
The modification will not change the flow rate within these cooling systems.
The temperature of the spent fuel pool water during normal refueling operations.nd with only one spent fuel pool cooling pump running and one heat exchanger is expected to remain below 120 F, the design basis in the Final Safety Analysis Report.
Therefore, the rate of evaporation and thus the need for makeup water will not be significantly changed by the proposed modification.
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 additienal 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 cf the assemblies or from defects in the fuel cladding.
Most of the material released from the surface of the assemblies contists of acti.<atec corrosion crcducts such as ccbalt-58, cobalt-60, iron-59 and anganese-54, which 5-1
are not volatile.
The radionuclides that might be released to the water through defects in the cladding, such as cesium-134, cesium-137, strontium-89 and strontium-90, 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 fuel clad temperature is relatively cool, approximately 180 F.
This substantial temperature reduction should reduce the rate of release of fis.sion products from the fuel pellets and oecrease 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 siqqificant leakage and was therefore removed from the core.
After storage in the onsite spent 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 this fuel in the offsite storage facility, nor has there been subsequent significant leakage from the assemblies.*
'NE00-21326-1, January 1977, " Consolidated Safety Analysis Report for Morris Operations," Morris, Illinois, Vol. I.
MME Publics ian (Morris Cperations) 77-JPGC-NE-15 by L. L. :eric, et al.,
- atrol of Nuclear Fuel Storage Basin Water Quality by Use of Powered Ion 5-2
5.3.2 Radioactive Material Released to Atmosohere 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-85.
As discussed previously, experi-ence 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 90 Curies per year of krypton-85 may be released from both units when the modified pool is completely filled.
This increase would result in an additional total body dose of less than 0.0002 mrem per year to an individual at the site boundary.
This dose is insignificant 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 0.008 man-rem per year.
This is small compared to the fluctuations in the annual dose this population would receive from natural background radiation.
Under our conservative assumpticas, these exposures represent an increase of less than 0.2 percent of the exposures from the plant evaluated in the Final Environmental Statement for the individual (page V-27) and the population (Table V-7), respectively.
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 fuel assemblies to the spent fuel pool water will not be significantly increasud because of the expansion of the fuel storage capacity, since the iodine-131 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 normal refuelings above.the 120 F used in the design analysis.
Therefore, it is not expected that there will 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 pl' ant result from leakage of reactor coolant which contains tritium and iodine in higher concentrations than the spent fuel pool.
Therefore, even if there were a slightly nigher evaporation rate from the spent fuel pool, the increase in 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 wnich was previously evaluated in the Final Environmental Statement.
If levels of radiciodine become too high, the air will be diverted to charcoal filters for the removal of radiciodine before release to the environment.
In addition, the plant radiological effluent Technical Specifications, which are not being changed by this act'on. restrict the total releases of gaseous activity from tne plant. 'ncluding the scent fuel pool.
5-3
5.3.3 Solid Radioactive Wastes The concentration of radionuclides in the pool is controllec by the filters and the demineralizers 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 the demineralizer.
The increase of radioactivity, 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 radwaste 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 30 cubic feet of resin per year from the demine-ralizer (an additional resin beo per year).
The estimated annual average amount of solid waste shipped from Zion Units 1 and 2 for 1974 to 1977 is about 73,000 cubic feet per year.
This includes approxi-mately 13,000 cubic feet of crated spent fuel racks from the first pool modification shipped from the site in the second half of 1976.
This amount of solid waste shipped from the two Zion units is larger than the annual amount of solid radwaste shipped on the average from two pressurized water reactors (PWRs).
The estimated annual amount of solid waste shipped, on the average, from two pressurized water reactors during 1974 to 1976 is about 20,000 cubic feet per year.
If the storage of additional spent fuel does increase the amount of solid waste from the spent fuel pool purification systems by about 30 cubic feet per year, the increase in total waste volume shipped from Zion Units 1 and 2 would be less than 0.2 percent of that shipped per year, on the average, from two pressurized water reactors.
This will not have any significant environmental impact.
The present spent fuel racks to be removed from the spent fuel pool are contaminated and will be disposed of as low-level waste.
The present racks will be crated intact and shipped to a licensed burial site.
The licensee has estimated that about 17,000 cubic feet of solid radwaste will be removed from the spent fuel pool because of the proposed modification.
Therefore, the total waste shipped from the plant, when averaged over the lifetime of the plants, will be increased by about 2 percent of that shipped per year, on the average, from two pressurized water reactors.
This will not have any significant environmental impact.
5.3.4 Radioactivity Released to Receivino Waters There should not be a significant increase in the liquic release of radionuclides from the plant as a result of the proposed mocification.
The amount of radioactivity on the spent fuel pool fiite-and demine-rali:er might slightly increase due to the additional spent fuel in the pool, but this increase of radioactivity should ac ce released in licuid effluents from the station.
5-4
The cartridge filter removes insoluble radioactive matter from the spent fuel pool water.
This is periodically removed to the waste disposal area in a shielded cask and placed in a shipping container.
The insoluble matter wil! be retained on the filter.
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 spent fuel pool is collected in the reactor building floor drain sumps.
This water is transferred to the liquid radwaste system and is processed by the system before any water is discharged to Lake Michigan.
There is presently about 50 gallons per day of leakage from the pool.
This measured leakage rate has remained unchanged since the initial test period, the preoperational test period at Zion Station before it went into commercial operation.
This leakage is of small magnitude compared to other waste volume flow rates handled by the liquid radwaste system.
- 5. 3. 5
-Occucational 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 low density racks will be crated intact and shipped to a licensed burial site.
The occupational exposure for the entire operation is estimated by the licensee to be about 2 to 5 man-rem for both units. We consider this to be a reasonable estimate.
This operation is expected t'o be a small fraction of the total man rem burden from occupational exposure at the station.
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 and by utilizing relevant assump-tions for occupancy times and for dose rates in the spent fuel pool area from radionuclide concentrations in the spent fuel pool water.
The spent fuel assemblies themselves contribute a negligible amount to dose rates in the pool area because of the depth of water shielding the fuel.
The occupational radiation exposure resulting from the proposed action represents a negligible burden.
Based on pres'ent and crojected operations in the spent fuel pool area, we estimate that the proposed modification should add less than 1 percent to the total annual occupational radiation exposure burden at this facility.
- Thus, we conclude that storing additional fuel in the spent fuel pool will not result in any significant increase in doses received oy occupational orkers.
5-5
5.3.6 Iraacts of Other Pool Modifications As discussed above, the additional radiological environmental impacts in the vicinity of Zion Units 1 and 2 resulting from the proposed modification are very small fractions (less than 1 percent) of the impacts evaluated in the Zion Units 1 and 2 Final Environmental Statement.
These additional impacts are too small to be considered anything but local in character.
Based on the above, we conclude that a spent fuel pool modification at any other facility should not significantly contribute to the environ-mental impact of the Zion Nuclear Power Station, and that the Zion Units 1 and 2 spent fuel pool modification should not contribute significantly to the environmental impact of any other facility.
5.3.7 Evaluation'of Radiolooical Impact As discussed above, the proposed modification does not significantly change the radiological impact evaluated in the Final Environmental Statement.
5.3.8 Nonradiolooical 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 868 assemblies.
Prior discharges contribute little to the total heat load.
This heat load is to be discharged to Lake Michigan via heat exchangers in the spent fuel pool cooling system and the component cooling water system.-
With the proposed modification, an additional maximum heat load cbufd 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 5.4 x 108 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 peak heat load resulting from a full core offload would be 41.4 x 106 Btu per hour for the modified spent' fuel
- pool as compared to 36.0 x 108 Btu per hour for the existing rack design.
The total station thermal discharge to Lake Michigan without the proposed modification is approximately 15.0 x 109 Stu per hour.
With tre proposed modification, it would be increased by no more than 5.4 x 106 Btu per hour, which is less than 0.0" percent of the enimated total thermal discharge to Lake Michigan.
This would not have a significant environmental impact.
5-6
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 aro 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 inventory of spent fuel, we have determined that the installation and use of the racks will not change the radiological consequences of a postulated fuel handling accident in the spent fuel pool rea from those values reported in the Final Environmental Statement fce Zion Units 1 and 2 dated December 1972.
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 neces.:ary, the radiological consequences of such an event.
As discussed in the staff's Safety Evaluation for the proposed modifi-cation, Zion Units 1 and 2 will be required to prohibit heavy loads greater than the weight of a fuel assembly to be transported over spent fuel in the SFP and tht those handling tools lighter than a fuel assembly will not be carried at a height greater than 2 feet over the storage racks, the nominal transport height of a fuel assembly.
In view of the above, we have concluded that the likelihood of a heavy load handling accident is sufficiently small that the proposed modifi-cation is acceptable and no additional restrictions on load handling operations in the vicinity of the spent fuel pool are necessary while our review is underway.
6.
7.0 ALTERNATIVES With respect to the Zion Station 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).
(6) Conservation measures.
7.1 Increase the Storace Capacity of the Soent Fuel Pool, as Proposed The total estimated installed capital cost of the proposed Zion Station new storage racks is about $5,112,000.
Of this amount, about $2,112,000 is for the new fuel storage tubes, $2,000,000 is for the fuel rack fabrication, $750,000 is for installation costs (including removal and disposal of existing racks), and $250,000 is for engineering costs.
This equates to about $4,000 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 Reprocessino of Spent Fuel As discussed earlier, none of the three commercial reprocessing facilities in the United States is currently operating.
The Morris Operation (MO) is in a decommissioned condition.
On September 22, 1976, Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. (NFS), informed the Nuclear Regulatory 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 comf ete).
On July 3, 1974, AGNS applied for l
a materials license to recei i and store up to 400 metric tonnes of uranium (MTU) in spent fuel in 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 the 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.
7-1
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:
"We 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 concluded that a viable and economic nuclear power program can be sustained without such reprocessing and recycling."
On December 30, 1977, the NRC ordered (42 FR 65334) the termination of the pending 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 Reproces-sing Plant (Docket No. 50-201).
The Commission also announced that it would not at this time consider any other applicatic.is for commercial facilities 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 Zion Station spent fuel pool.
Accordingly, no estimate of cost is considered appropriate.
7.3 Storage at Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations An alternative to expansion of onsite spent fuel p~ool 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 greater than the capacities of onsite storage pools such as at Zion.
Fuel storage pools at M0 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 M0 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 discussed the status of M0 with GE personnel and have been informed
- 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 informed that the NE letter to NRC dated May 27, 1977.
7-2
present GE policy is not to store spent fuel unless GE has creviously committed to do so.*
There is no such commitment for Zion.
The NFS facility has capacity for about 260 metric tonnes of uranium, with approximately 170 metric tonnes of uranium presently stored in the pool.
The storage puol 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 M0, NFS and AGNS facilities are not available to Zion Station as independent spent fuel storage installations.
We also considered under this alternative the construction of new independent spent fuel storage installations.
" Guidance on the License Application, Siting, Design, and Plant Protection 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 installations.
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 constr.uct an independent spent fuel storage installation.
We assumed 1 year for preliminary design,1 year in which to prepare the license application and environmental report, to obtain approval for construction licensing and to finalize the design, 2 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 ins'tallations 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, TANSA0 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. independent spent fuel storage installation.
The Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company, for example, estimated that an independent spent fuel storage
- An application for a 1,100 metric tonnes of uranium capacity addition is pending.
Present schedu'e calls for completion in 1980 if acproved.
However, by motion dated November 8,1977, General Electric Company requested the Atonic Safety and Licensing Board to suspend indefinitely further proceedings on this application.
This motion was granted.
7-3
installation with a capacity of 1,000 metric tonnes of uranium would cost approximately $54 million and take about 5 years to construct and have ready for operation.
The licensee, Commonwealth Edison Corpany, estimated the construction costs of an independent spent fuel storage installation at about $10,000 per spent fuel assembly; to this would be added costs for maintenance, operation, safeguards, security, interest on investment, overhead, transportation and other costs.
On December 2, 1976, Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation submitted a topical report requesting NRC approval for a standard design independ-ent spent fuel storage installation intended for siting near nuclear power facilities.
Based on discussions with Stone & Webster, we estimated that the present day cost for such a fuel storage installation 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 licensee'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 Zion modification.
This is based on the fact that offsite transportation would be involved and a structure, pool, and supporting systems would have to be erect ~d and e
installed for an independent spent fuel storage installation, whereas for the Zion 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 canhot be provided, 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 Zion Station spent fuel pool as presently de' signed would lose the ability to discharge a full core after the 1981 refuelings and would have to shut down instead of refueling in 1983, since the spent fuel pool would then be essentially full.
The lack of a precise date that such Gavernment-sponsored interim storage would be available makes this an unreliable alternative to consider for Zion Station.
Should such storage not be available when needed, Zion Station as presently designed would be forced to shut down.
7.4 Offsite Storage in Spent Fuel Pools of Other Reactors The other operating nuclear facilities owned by the licensee are Dresden Units 1, 2 and 3, and Quad Cities Units 1 and 2.
Since each of these is a boiling water reactor (BWR) rather than a pressurized water reactor (PWR) facility like Zion Station Units 1 and 2, the 7-4
dissimilarities in fuel designs would require that the fuel racks at these facilities be replaced with racAs capable of accepting the Zion pressurized water reactor fuel.
Such an alternative, if followed, would then impact on the limited storage capacity presently provided in these other plants.
In addition to the other operating facilities, the licensee has been granted construction permits for the Byron and Braidwood pressurized water reactor facilities.
It is not probable that these plants would be in a position to accept fuel from Zion Station before the unmodified Zion spent fuel pool would be full.
According to a survey conducted and documented by the Energy Research and Development Agency, up to 46 percent of the operating nuclear 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 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 reactor site is not a realistic alternative at this time, or in the foreseeable future.
7.5 Shutdown of Facility Upon filling the Zion spent fuel pool as presently designed, there would be no ability to reload either unit after the 1982 refueling outages.
After the cycles following the 1982 refueling, Zion Units 1 and 2 would be forced to shut down in 1983 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 a shutdown of Zion Units 1 and 2 (rated at 1040 megawatts net electrical output each) would result in replacement power costs alone of $400,000 per day.
This is based on the differential costs of producing energy from Zion Station as com-pared to production from other available unite in and out of the Commonwealth Edison Company system.
We also have reviewed the differential costs of not operating Zion Units 1 and 2 and, although our estimates are somewnat less than the licensee's (acout $240,000 per day or $7,200,000 pe< month), the costs involved would still be far in excess of the ccsts associated with the orccosed acdification, i.e., 54,000 per assembly.
7-5
7.6 Conservatien Measures and Extended Operatina Cycles Although there is no certainty that there are realistic alternatives at this time to the proposed action, the licensee has investigated energy conservation measures and extended operating cycles for Zion Units 1 and 2.
Since Zion Units 1 and 2, along with the other Commonwealth Edison Company nuclear units, are the most economical to operate, they are therefore usually base loaded, i.e., operated at er,entially 100 percent of design power.
If the Zion units were preferent, ally operated at a reduced power level, the cost of power from less aconomical units would result in a higher cost per kilowatt-houc co the consumer.
This is essentially a variation on the alternative to shut dcwn the Zion facility.
Assuming that a reduced loading of Zion Units 1 and 2 could extend the operating cycle of each by a factor of 2, spent fuel would be discharged to the spent fuel pool at 1/2 the rate of the present schedule.
The increased differential costs to the consumer would be immediate (53.6 million per month based on our figures).
The potential benefit would be to extend the time period before shutdown wonld be required.
Since there would be approximately 322 spaces available at that time that would be filled at an approximate rate of 64 assemblies (instead of 128) per year, the plants could run for an additional 2 to 3 years (to 1985 or 1986) during which time the differenti.al fuel costs could reach $85 to $130 million.
At the present time, there is no basis to support any reduction in power demand.
Therefore, this is not' considered to be a realistic alternative.
On March 7,1979, we issued license amendments for Zion Units 1 and 2 which allow the placement of four fuel assemblies, which have been exposed to the normal three fuel cycles, into Zion Unit 2 for a maximum of two additional fuel cycles.
This limited authorization is intended, during the next two years, to gain operating experience for a possible future extended burnup program by the Department of Energy to improve uranium fuel utilization in the United States.
The extended burnup of these four assemblies will reduce slightly, but not significantly the number of fuel assemblies discharged to the Zion spent fuel pool and, after the two additional cycles, the licensee will return to a normal fuel cycle for Zion Unit 2.
Although extended burnup may at some time in the future be shown acceptable on a wide scale, this is not a realistic option at this time.
7.7 Summary of Alternatives In summary, alternatives (2) and (3), above, are ei:her cresently not available to the licensee or could not be made available 'n time to reet the licensee's needs.
Alternative (3) would be co e e> ensive than the precosed modification.
Alternative (4) woLid peerot storage 7-6
space needed by another facility.
Alternative (4) may also have addi-tional, although acceptable, impacts.
Alternative (5), the shutdown of Zion Units 1 and 2, would be much more expensive than the prcposed action because of the need to provide replacement pcwer.
Conservatism is not predictably available.
Even if available, potential alternative (6), conservatism through recuced load cemard, would not be economically attractive because the Zion Station uni s are among the licensee's most economical units to operate. The otrer part of alterna-tive (6), operation of Zion Station fuel assemblies to higher burnup, and thus achieve longer fuel cycles, will require considerable time to evaluate and therefore is not available as an alternative at this time.
We have also determined that the expansion of the storage capacities of the spent fuel pool for the Zion Station would have a negligible environmental impact.
Accordingly, considering the economic advantages of the proposed action, deferral or severe restriction of the action here proposed would result in substantial harm to the public interest.
e 7-7
TABLE 7.0 StJf41ARY OF COST VS. BENEFITS Alternatives Cost Benefits (1)
Increase storage capacity of
$4,000 per assembly Continued operation of Zion units and Zion Station spent fuel pool production of electrical energy (2) Reprocessin!; of spent fuel Not applicable None; this alternative is not available either now or in the foreseeable future 7
(3) Storage at an independent
$9,000 to $10,000 This alternative may not be available spent fuel storage per assembly when needed; if available, it would allow to installation continued operation and production of electrical energy at Zion Station (4) OfIsite sLorage in spent fuel None (before 1985); this is not available pool, of other reactors on a sliort-term basis (i.e., bef ore about 1985)
(5) Shut <fown of racility
$7.2 million per month None; no production of electrical energy (6) Conserval. ion measures Reduced power demand
$3.6 million per month
- Present spent fuel pool capacity would (assuming extension of last longer.
operating cycle by a factor of 2)
TABLE 7.0 SUW1ARY OF COST VS. BENEFITS Would stretch out refueling; would require Undetermined at this lleller use of fuel in each assembly time-involves evaluation somewhat fewer assemblies for a given results of extended amount of power--but not yet approved burnup tests of limited number of fuel assemblies and, possibly, fuel assembly design modifications.
7' to e
9 e
o
8.0 EVALUATION OF PROPOSED ACTION 8.1 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Imoacts 8.1.1 Raalological Imoacts
~
As discussed in Section 5.3, expansion of the storage capacity of the spent fuel pool will not create any significant additional radiological effects.
The additional total body dose that might be received by an individual or the estimated population within a 50 mile radius is less than 0.0002 mrem per year and 0.008 man-rem per year, respectively.
These exposures are small compared to the fluctuations in the annual dose this population receives from background radiation and represent an increase of less than 0.2 percent of the exposures from the plant evaluated in the Final Environmental Statement.
The total occupational exposure of workers during removal of the present storage racks and installation of the new racks is estimated by the licensee to be about 2 to 5 man-rem for both units.
This is a small fraction of the total man-rem burden from occupational exposure at the station.
Operation of the plant with additional spent fuel in the spent fuel pool is not expected to increase the occupational radiation exposure by more than 1 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 Maintenanca and Enhancement of Lono-Term Productivity Expansion of the storage capacity of the spent fueT pool will not change the evaluation of long-term use of the land as described'in the Final Environmental Statement for Zion Units 1 and 2.
In the short term, the proposed modification would permit the expected benefits (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 Zion Units 1 and 2.No additional allocation 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 procosed would constitute a ccmmitment of resources that would tend to significsnti;. foreclose the alternatives available with respect to any other 'nci'cidual licensing 8-1
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 generic environmental statement.
The added spent fuel pool capacity proposed for Zion Station will not significantly affect the need for the total additional storage space presently planned at reprocessing 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, aluminum, boron and carbide.
These materials are readily available in abundant supply.
In the context of this criterion, we conclude that the amount of material (aluminum, stainless steel, boron and carbon) required for the racks for Zion Units 1 and 2 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 constitute 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 character-istics of the spent fuel pool remain unchanged.
8.4 Commission Policy Statement Recarding Soent Fuel Storage On September 16, 1975, the Commission announced (40 FR 42801) its intent to p.epare 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 direc'ted 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 environmental 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?
8-2
The reactor core for each Zion unit contain: 193 fuel assemblies.
The projected schedule for refueling the Zion units is provided in the February 3,1978 report by the licensee's consultant, Nuclear Services Corporation.
The facilities are scheduled to be refueled at approximately 12-month intervals with about 64 fuel assemblies generally scheduled to be replaced at each refueling.
With the present spent fuel storage racks, there will not be sufficient room to store an additional normal discharge of spent fuel after the 1982 refueling.
If expansion of the storage capacity of the. spent fuel pool is not approved, or if an alter-nate storage facility for the spent fuel is not located, the Zion units will have to shut down in 1983.
The proposed licensing action (i.e., approve installing new racks of a design that permits storing more assemblies in the same space) would allow Zion 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 Zion 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 commitment of resources that would tend to significantly foreclose 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 considered commitment of both material and nonmaterial resources.
The material resources considered are those to be usqd in the expansion of the spent fuel pool.
The increased storage capacity of the Zion Station spent fuel pool was considered as a nonmaterial resource and was evaluated relative to proposed similar licensing actions within a 3-to 4-month period (the time we estimate necessary to complete the generic environmental statement) at other nuclear power plants, fuel reprocessing facilitier and fuel stcrage facilities.
We nave determined that the proposed expansion in the storage capacity of the spent fuel pool is only a measure to allow for continued.
operation and to provide operational flexibilit.y at the facilities, 8-3
and will not foreclose similar licensing actions at other nuclear power plants.
Similarly, taking this action would not commit the NRC to repeat this action or a related action in 1992, 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 Zion Station, prior to the preparation of the generic statement, does not constitute a commitment of either material or nonmaterial resources that would tend to significantly foreclose the alterna-tives 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 rr.iological 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 no environmental impacts on the environs outside the spent fuel storage building during removal of the existing noncontaminated racks and installation of the new racks. 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 pools and have concluded that they would not result in radioactive 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?
8-4
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 f'uel pool will have a negligible environmental impact.
Therefore, it 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 Zion Units 1 and 2 do not face certain shutdown until 1983, there are other f actors which weigh in favor of issuing the proposed amendments now.
Following the 1982 refuelings, the existing spent fuel pool will not have sufficient room to accommodate a full core (193 assemblies) should this be necessary to effect repairs, for example, to return the unit to service.
Therefore, after this point Zion 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 COST-BENEFIT BALANCE This section summarizes and compares the cost and the benefits resulting from the proposed modification to those thct 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 Zion Units 1 and 2 or other production of demanded electrical energy.
The remaining alternatives (i.e., reprocessing of the spent fuel, storage at other nuclear plants, and conservation measures) are not possible at this. time or in the foreseeable future except on a short-term emergency basis.
From examination of the table, it can be seen that the most cost-effective 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 Environmental Statement for Zion Units 1 and 2 issued in December 1972.
O e
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 deternined that the proposed license amendment will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment and that there will be no significant environmental impact attributable to the proposed action other than that which has already been predicted and described in the Commission's Final Environ-mental Statement for the facility dated December 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: March 29, 1979 S
w 10-1