ML19352B016
| ML19352B016 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 05/15/1981 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19352B014 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8106020565 | |
| Download: ML19352B016 (21) | |
Text
.
I i
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPRAISAL BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATING 10 THE MODIFICATION OF THE SPENT FUEL STORAGE POOL FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0. DPR-6 CONSUMERS PCWER COMPANY BIG ROCK POINT PLANT DOCKET NO. 50-155 I
f DATE: May 15,1981 t
81 o Ohb..
1.0 Description of Proposed Action By letter dated April 23, 1979, as supplemented an June 26, October 1, October 19, 0:tober 25, December 28, 1979, January 7. January 16, February 1, June 20, August 11 August 14, and December 5,1980, Consumers Power Company (CPC) (the ifcensee) requested an amendment to Facility Operating License No. DPR-6 for the Big Rock Point Plant.
The amendment would authorize an increase in the storage capacity of the spent fuel pool (SFP) from 193 to 441 fuel assemblies at the Big Rock Point Plant.
This Environmental Impact Appraisal relates to the proposed licensing action of amending the Facility Operating License No. Of R-6 for the Big Rock Point Plant so pennit modification of the storage capacity of the SFP.
2.0 Need for Inc.reased Storage Capacity The Big Rock Point SFP currently contains storage racks for 193 spent fuel assemblies. A full core for Big Rock Point consists of 84 fuel assemblies. The licensee stated that the number of unoccupied spent fuel storage locations would accomodate a full core offload only until the 1981 refueling outage. Big Rock Point is on a 12-month refueling cycle with approximately 22 fuel assemblies discharged during each refueling outage.
The proposed modification would extend the spent fuel storage capability of the pool and leave room for a full core discharge until 1990.
In our evaluation, we considered the impacts which may result from storing an additional 248 spent fuel assemblies in the Big Rock Point SFP.
The proposed modification would not alter the external physical geometry of the spent fuel pool. The proposed modification would not affect in any manner the quantity of uranium fuel consumed by the reactor over its anticipated operating life and thus in no way would affect that amount of spent fuel discharged from the reactor.
The rate of spent fuel discharged and the total quantity discharged during the anticipated operating lifetime of Big Rock Point would be unchanged as a result of the proposed expansion. The modification would increase the number of these spent fuel assemblies that could be stored in the SFP at one time and the storage time of some. t
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 in 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's (GE) Morris Operation (MO) in Morris, Illinois is in a decommissioned condition. Although no plants are Ifcensed for reprocessing fuel, the storage pool at Morris, Illinois and the storage pool at West Valley, New York are licensed to store spent fuel. The storage pool at West Valley is not full but NFS is presently net accepting any additional spent fuel for storage.
Construction of the AGNS 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 in the storage pool at Barnwell prior to a decision on the licensing action relating to the separation facility.
4.0 The Facility The Big Rock Point Plant has a boiling water reactor with a licensed thermal core power of 240 MWth. The design net electrical output is 72 megawatts (MWe). Pertinent descriptions of principle features of the Big Rock Point Plant as it currently exists are summarized to aid the reader in following tne cvaluations in subsequent sections of this appraisal.
4.1 SFP Cooling System The spent fuel pool cooling system at the Big Rock Point Plant consists of two pumps ang two heat exchangers. Each pump is designed to pump 250 gpm fl.25X10 pounds per hour), and each heat exch-anger is designed to transfer 3.0X106 GTU/hr from 119'F fuel pool water to 70*F cooling water which flows through the shell side of the heat exchanger.
Heat is transferred from the spent fuel pool cooling system to the closed-loop reactor cooling water system. The reactor cooling water system, in turn, transfers heat to the service water system.
The service water system is a once-through cooling system in which strained water from Lake Michigan is supplied from pumps in the i
intake structure and returned to the lake after removing heat from a number of systems including the reactor cooling water system. 1
4.2 Radioactive Waste The Big Rock Point Plant contains waste treatment systems designed to collect and process the gaseous, ifquid, and solid waste that might contain radioactive material. The waste treatment systems are evaluated with respect to the requirements of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 in the Annex to this Environmental Impact Appraisal.
There will be no change in the waste treatment systems described in the Annex because of the proposed modification.
4.3 Purpose of the SFP Spent fuel assemblies are intensely radioactive due to their fresh fission product content when initially removed from the core and they have a high thermal output. The SFP was designed for storage of these assemblies to allow for radisactive and thermal decay prior to shipping them to a reprocessing facility. The major portion of decay occurs in the first 150 days following removal from the reactor core. After this period, the spent fuel assemblies may be withdrawn and placed in heavily shielded casks for shipment. Space permitting, the assemblies may be stored for longer periods, allowing continued fission product decay and thermal cooling.
4.4 Spent Fuel Pool Purification System The spent fuel pool purification system consists of the pool sock filter precoated with diatomaceous earth and the radwaste system demineralizer and the required piping, valves and instrumentation.
Cleanup of the pool is provided by a continuous flow through the pool filter and, during periods of high pool radioactivity, through the demineralizer.
Because we expect only a small increase in radioactivity to be released to the pool water as a result of the proposed modification as discussed in Section 5.3 of this Environmental Impact Appraisal, we conclude that the spent fuel pool purification system is adequate for the proposed modification and will keep concentrations of radioactivity in the pool water to acceptably low levels.,
l l
l
O e
5.0 Environmental Impacts of Proposed Action 5.1 1.and Use The external dimensions of the SFP will not change because of the proposed expansion of its storage capacity; the:efore, no additional commitment of iand is required. The SFP was designed to store spent fuel assemblies under water for a period of time to allow shorter lived radioactive isotopes to decay and to reduce the associated thermal heat output. The Commission has never set a Ifmit on how long spent fuel assembifes could be stored onsite.
The longer the fuel assemblies decay, the less radioactivity they contain. The proposed modifications will not change the basic land use of the SFP. The SFP was designed to store 193 spent fuel assembifes. The proposed modifications would provide storage for 441 spent fuel assemblies. The SFP was intended to store spent fuel. This use will remain unchanged by the proposed modifications.
5.2 Water Use The e will be no significant change in plant water consumption or use as a result of the proposed modifications. As discussed subsequently, storing additional spent fuel in the SFP will slightly increase the heat load on the SFP cooling system. This heat is transferred in turn to the reactor cooling water system and to the service water system.
the flow rate within these cooling Systems.The modifications will not change The temperature of the SFP water during normal refueling operations and with only one SFP pump running is expected to remain below 93*F as compared to the 95'F used as the design oasis. Therefore, the evaporation and thus the need for makeup water will not be increased above the design basis.
5.3 Radiological 5.3.1 Introduction The potential offsite radiological environmental impacts associated with the expansion of the spent fuel storage capacity were evaluated and determined to be environmentally insignificant as addressed below.
The additional spent fuel which would be stored due to the expansion is the oldest fuel which has not been shipped from the plant.
This fuel should have decayed more than three years. During the storage of the spent fuel under 4-l i
I
c.
i water, both volatile and nonvolatile radioactive nuclides may be released tc the water from the surface of the assemblies or from defects in the fuel cladding. Most i
of the material released from the surface of the assem-blies consists of activated corrosion products such as Co-58, Co-60, Fe-59 and Mn-54 which are not volatile.
The radienuclides that might be released to the water through defects in the cladding, such as Cs-134, Cs-137, Sr-89 and Sr-90, are also predominately nonvolatile.
The primary impact of such nonvolatile radioactive nuclides is their contribution to radiation levels to which workers near the SFP would be exposed. The volatile fission
[
product nuclides of most concern that might be released throLgh defects in the fuel cladding are the noble gases (xenon and krypton), tritium and the iodine isotopes.
f 4
As indicated above, we are concerned here only with such releases from the stored spent fuel as would occur after at least three years of storage. Experience at the Morris L
Operation and Nuclear Fuel Servicas indicates that there is little radionuclide leakage from spent fuel stored in i
pools after the fuel has cooled for several months. The predominant radionuclides in the spent fuel pool water appear 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 SFP. In the case of Big Rock Point, there is no di"ect I
mixing of rea:'or coulant water and SFP Water; only the i
water in the fuel transfer cask is available to mix with the SFP water. During and after refueling, the spent fuel pool cleanup system reduces the radioactivity con-centrations considerably.
It is theorized that most failed fuel contains small, pinhole-like perforations in the fuel cladding at the reactor operating condition
)
of approximately 800*F. A few weeks after refueling, i
the spent fuel cools in the spent fuel pool so that fuel clad temperature is relatively cool; approximately 180*F.
i t l i
r This substantial temperature reduction should reduce the rate of release of fission products from the fuel pellets and decrease the gas pressure in the gap between pellets and clad, thereby tending to retain the fission p:oducts 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 information supplied to the NRC stafi, there has not been any significant leakage of fission products for spent light water reactor fuel stored in the Morris Operation (formerly Midwest Recovery Plant) at Morris, Illinois, or at Nuclear Fuel Services' storage pool at West Valley, New York. Spent fuel has been stored in these two pools which, while it was in a reactor, was determined to have significant leakage.
After storage in the onsite spent fuel pool, this fuel was later shipped to either MJ or NFS for extended storage.
Although the fuel exhibited significant leakage at r2 actor operating conditions, there was not significant leakage from this fuel in the offsite storage facility.
5.3.2 Radioactive Material Released to the Atmosphere With respect to gaseous releases, the only significant noble gas isotope attributable to storing additional assemblies for a longer period of time would be V,rypton-85.
As discussed previously, experience has demonstrated that after spent fuel has decayed 4 to 6 months, there is no significant release of fission products from defective fuel. However, we have conservatively estimated that an additional 5 curies per year of Krypton-85 may be released from tLe SFP when the modified pool is completely filled. This increase would rcsult in an additional total body dose of less than C.0001 mrem / year to an individual at the site boundary. This dose is insignificant when compared to the approximately 100 mrem / year that an individual receives from natural background radiation and small compared to the fluctuation in the annual dose that an individual would receive from natural background radiation. )
This exposure represents an increase of less than 0.1%
of the exposure from the plant as shown in our evaluation of the Big Rock Point Plant waste treatment systems with respect to the requirements of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 dated May 1981. The additional total body dose to the estimated population within a 50-mile radius of the plant is less than 0.0001 man-rem / year. This is small compared to the fluctuations in the annual dose this population would receive from natural background radiation.
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 assem-blies to the SFP water will not be significantly increased 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 should not increase the bulk water temperature during normal refuel-ings above the temperature used in the design analysis.
Tnerefore, it is not expected that there will be any significant change in the annual release of tritium or iodine because of increased evaporation as a resuttibf the proposed modification. M5st airborne releases from the plant 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 higher evaporation rate from the spent fuel pool, the resulting increase in tritium and iodine released from the plant would be small compared to the amount normally released from the plant without the modifications as evaluated in the NRC sthTf's evaluation of the Big Rock Point Plant waste treatment systems with respect to the requirements of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 dated May 1981.
In addition, the plant radiological Technical Specifications, which will not be changed by this action, restrict the total gaseous release of radioactivity including those from the SFP.
0 1
5.3.3 Solid D.adioactive Wastes The concentration of radionuclides in the pool is con-trolled by the filter and ion exchanger and by decay of short-lived isotopes. The activity is high during refuel-ing operations while reactor coolant water is introduced into the pool and decreases as the pool water is processed through the filter and ion exchanger. 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 helieve that there should not be an increase in solid radwaste due to the modification, as a conser-vative estimate, we have assumed that the amount of solid radwaste may be increasad by 6 cubic feet a year from the plant. The annual average amount of solid waste shipped from the plant between 1976 and 1979 was about 2000 cubic feet per year.
I: the storage of additional spent fuel does increase the amount of solid waste from the SFP purification system by about 6 cubic feet per year, the increase in total waste volume shipped would be less than 0.5% and would not have any significant environmental impact.
The present failed fuel rack to be removed from the SFP is contaminated. The licensee is not planning to dis-pose of the failed fuel rack which will be removed from the pool during the pool modifict. tion. This rack will be decontaminated and stored in en appropriate manner on site. The licensee has estimated that the volume of contaminated material to be shipped from the plant because of the pool modification is less than that expected for a typical refueling outage or about 6 cubic feet. This waste would primarily result from replacement i
of the pool sock filter. i
- - - +,
l This will be disposed of as low level wastes at a licensed burial site.
If the licensee should dispose of the failed fuel rack, about 300 cubic feet of solid radwaste will be removed from the SFP because of the proposed modification.
This assumes that the rack will not be cut into small pieces. Therefore, the total waste shipped from the plant would be increased by less than 0.5% per year when averaged over the lifetime of the plant. This additional low level waste will not have any significant environmental impact.
5.3.4 Radioactivity Released to Receiving Waters There should not be a significant increase in the liquid release of radionuclides from the plant as a result of the proposed modification. The amount of radioactivity on the SFP filter and radwaste demineralizer might increase slightly due to the additional sp:nt fuel in the pool, but this increase of radioactivity should not be released in liquid effluents from the plant. The plant radiological effluent Technical Specifications, which are not being changed by this action, restrict the total liquid releases of radioactivity from the plant.
The SFP filter removes insoluble radioactive matter from the SFP water. This is periodically removed to the waste disposal area and placed in a shippina container.
The insoluble matter will be retained on the fiiter or remain in the SFP water. The radwaste system demineralizer is used to clean up the SFP water; however, the soluble radioactivity should be retained on the resins.
Leakage from the SFP, if c9y, is collected in the Reactor Building Sump. This water is transferred to the liquid radwaste system and is processed by the system before any water is discharged from the plant. Visual obser-vation can be made to determine if there are leaks in the SFP liner. The licensee has also stated that remote indicating SFP water level instrumentation will be in-5talled prior to the installation of the new spent fuel storage. racks. To date, no water leakage from the SFP has been observed.
i i
9 l
i 4
---.,y-
5.3.5 Occupational Radiation Exposures The NRC staff has reviewed the Itcensee's plans for the removal and storage of the failed fuel rack and the installation of the high density racks with respect to occupational radiation exposure. The occupational exposure for the entire operation is estimated by the licensee to be about 23 man-rem. This is based on realistic dose rates and occupancy factors for individuals per-forming a specific job during the pool modification. This exposure is a small fraction of the total annual man-rem burden from occupational exposure.
The NRC staff has estimated the increment in onsite occupational dose resulting from the proposed increase in stored fuel assemblie; on the basis of information supplied by the licensee for dose rates in the spent fuel pool area from radionuclide concentrations in the SFP water and from the spent fuel assemblies.
The spent fuel assemblies themselves will contribute a negligible amount to dose rates in the pool area because of the depth of the water shielding the fuel. Consequently, the occupational radiation exposure resulting from the additional spent fuel in the pool represents a negligible burden. Based on present and projected operations in the spent fuel pool area, we estimate that the pro-posed modifications should add only a small fraction to the total annual occupational radiation exposure burden at this facility.
Thus, we conclude that storing additional fuel in the SFP will not result in any significant increase in doses received by occupational workers.
5.3.6 [ valuation of Radiological Impact As discussed above, the proposed modification does not significantly change the radiological impacts evaluated in the Annex to this Environmental Impact Appraisal which presents the NRC staff's evaluation of the Big Rock Point waste treatment systems with respect to the requirements of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
The radiological impacts discussed abova take into account mixed oxide fuel at the Big Rock Point Plant. This it based on the discussions in Sections 4.3 and 5.1 of Chapter IV, Section C, NUREG-0002, (Final Generic Environmental.-
O Statement on the Use of Recycled. Plutonium in Mixed 0xide Fuel in Light Water Cooled Reactors), and Section 1.4.5, Appendix B of NUREG-0575 (Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Handling and Storage of Spent Light Water Power Reactor Fuel). The former reference discusses (1) the differences between nuclide inventories of the GESMO model and BWR's fueled only with U0, and (2) the p
radioactive source tenns for mixed oxide and UO fuels.
The latter reference states that there are no u nique requirements for handling or storing mixed oxide fuel compared to standard uranium fuel assemblies.
5.4 Nonradiological Effluents There will be no additional chemical discharge as the result of the proposed modification. However, the plant thermal dis-charge will be increased somewhat by the proposed modification.
As discussed in Section 3.2.1 of the NRC staff's Safety Evaluation regarding the proposed SFP e;;pansion, the maximum incremental heat load that could be added by increasing the riuiBer of sgent fuel assemblies in the pool from 193 to 441, is 0.17X 10 BTU /hr. This is a 3% increase in peak heat loads i
from the present to the modified pool. This additional heat load would be discharged to Lake Michigan via heat exchangers in the SFP cooling system and the reactor cooling water system.
The total heat gejected by the main condenser to Lage Michigan is about 5 X 10 BTV/hr. The increase of 0.17 X 10 BTU /hr discussed above is less than 0.04% of the thermal discharge i
from the main condenser. We conclude that the increase in heat load from the SFP cooling system will be negligible.
5.5 Impacts on the Community The new storage racks will be fabricated offsite and shipped to the facility. No environmental impacts on the environs outside of containment are expected during removal of the failed fuel rack and installation of the new racks. The impacts within containment are expected to be limited to those typically associated with normal metal working activities.
t No environmental impact on the community is expected to result i
from the modification or from the subsequent operation with the increased storage of spent fuel in the SFP.
i I l l
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 the worst fuel handling accident in the SFP area as discussed in Section' 3.5.1.1 of the Safety Evaluation relating to the proposed SFP modification.
In addition, as discussed in Section 3.4.1.1 of the NRC staff's Safety Evaluation regarding the proposed SFP expar.ston, the NRC staff has completed its generic review of load handling operations in the vicinity of spent fuel pools. Based on the discussion in Section 3.4.1.1 of the above cited Safety Evaluation, we conclude that the likelihood of any other heavy load handling accident is sufficiently small that the proposed modification is acceptable and no additional restrictions on load handling operations in the vicinity of the spent fuel pool, ether than those discussed in our Safety Evaluation, are necessary until final implementation of the guidelines of NUREG-0612, " Control of Heavy Loads at Nuclear Power Plants -
Resolution of TAP A-36."
7.0 Alternatives With respect to the Big Rock Point SFP, 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 Install &Uons (ISFSI)
(4) Offsite storage in SFP's of other reactors (5) Shutdown of facility.
7.1 Increase the Storage Capacity of the SFP, as Proposed The licensee estimated the costs of various alternatives in a report entitled " Consumers Power Company Big Rock Point Plant Spent Fuel Rack Addition Environmental Impact Evaluation" that was attached to CPC's letter dated April 23, 1979. The licensee's estimated cost of the proposed Big Rock Doint spent fuel pool modification was $6000 per storage location in 1979 dollars. The licensee stated that the cost includes engineering, contingencies, financing, and other peripheral costs. The estimated costs of each of the alternatives considered are discussed in the following sections, where applicable, and summarized in Table 7.0 4
1 7.2 Reprocessing of Spent Fuel As discussed earlier, none of the three commercial reprocessing facilities in the U. S. is currently operating. The Morris Operation (MO) is in a decanmissioned 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 complete). On July 3,1974, AGNS applied for a materials license to receive and store up to 400 metric tons of uranium (MTU) in spent fuel in the completed onsite storage pool.
Hearings with respect to this application have not been held and no license has been granted.
In 1976. Exxon Nuclear Company, Inc. submitted an application for a oroposed Nuclear Fuel Recovery and Recycling Center (NFRRC) to be located at Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The plant would include a storage pool that could store up to 7,000 MTU in spent fuel.
However, licensing review of this application was discontinued in 1977 as discussed below.
On April 7,1977, President Carter issued a statement outlining his policy on continued development of nuclear energy in the U. S.
President Carter 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 pro-gram can be sustained without such reprocessing and recycling."
On December 30, 1977 NRC ordered (42 FR 65334) the termination of the pending fuel cycle licensing actions involving GESMO (Docket No. RM-50-5), Barnwell Nuclcz.c Fuel Plant Separations Facility, Uranium Hexafluoride Facility, and Plutonium Product Facility (Docket No. 50-332, 70-1327 and 70-1821), Exxon's NFRRC (Docket No. 50-564), the Westinghouse Electric Corporation Recycle Fuel Plants (Docket No. 70-1432), and the Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. West Valley Reprocessing Plant (Docket No. 50-201). -
The Commission also announced that it would not at this time consider any other applications for commercial facilities for reprocessing spent fuel, fabricating mixed-oxide fuel, and 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 expansien of the Big Rock Point SFP. Accordingly, no estimate of cost is considered appropriate.
7.3 Storage at Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation An alternative to expansion of onsite SFP storage is the con-struction of new " independent spent fuel storage installations" (ISFSI). Such installations could provide storage space in ex-cess of 1,000 MTU of spent fuel. This is far greater than the capacities of onsite storage pools. The fuel storage pools at MO and NFS are functioning as smaller ISFSIs although this was not the original design intent. The license for the General Electric (GE) facility was amended on December 3,1975 to increase the storage capacity to about 750 MTU; and, as of August 30, 1978, 310 MTU was stored in the pool in the fonn of 1196 spent fuel assemblies. An application for an 1100 MTU capacity addition is pending and the schedule called for com-pletion in 1980 if approved. However, by a motion dated November 8,1977, GE requested the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to suspend indefinitely further proceedings on this application.
This motion was granted.
With regard to the status of storage space at MO, we have been informed that GE is primarily operating the M0 facility to store either fuel owned by GE (which had been leased to utilities on an energy basis) or fuel which GE has previously contracted to reprocess. We were also informed that the present GE policy is not to accept spent fuel for storage except fuel for which GE has a previous commitment. There is no such commitment for Big Rock Point spent fuel. Storage of the Big Rock Point spent fuel at the existing reprocessing facilities is not a viable alter-native to the expansion of the Big Rock Point spent fuel pool.
1 The NFS facility has capacity for about 260 MTU, with approx-imately 170 MTU presently stored in the pool at West Valley.
Although the storage pool is not full, NFS has indicated that it is not accepting additional spent fuel, even from the reactor facilities with which it had reprocessing contracts.
We also considered under this alternative the construction of new ISFSIs. The staff has estimated that at least five years would be required for completion of an ISFSI. This estimate assumes one year for preliminary design; one year for prepara-tion of the license application, environmental report, and ifcensing review in parallel with one year for detail design; two and one-half years for construction and receipt of an operating license; and one-half year for plant and equipment testing and startup.
Industry proposal for ISFSIs are scarce to date.
In late 1974, E. R. Johnson Associates, Inc. and Meril Lynch, Pierce Fenner and Smith, '.nc. issued a series of jnint proposals to a number of electric utility companies with naclear 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).
I 1974, E. ?. Johnson Associates estimated construction costs would approximate $9000 per spent fuel assembly.
Several licensees have evaluated construction of a separate ISFSI. The Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company, for example, estimated that an ISFSI with a capacity of 1,000 MTV would cost approximately $54 million and take about 5 years to construct and have ready for operation. The commonwealth Edison Company estimated the construction costs of an ISFSI at about
$19,000 per spent fuel assembly; to this would be added costs for maintenance, operation, safeguards, security, interest on investment, overhead, transportation and other costs.
i l i l
l N
On December 2,1976, Stone and Webster Engineering Corporatfor.
submitted a Topical Report requesting NRC approval for a standard design ISFSI 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 con-ceptual design are acceptable.
Based on the above facts, on a short-term basis (i.e., prior to 1986), an ISFSI 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 Big Rock Point modification. This is based on the fact that offsite transportation would be involved and a structere, pool, and supporting systems would have to be erected and installed for an ISFSI, whereas for the Big Rock Point modification, only new storage racks are involved.
For the long term, DOE is modifying its program for nuclear waste management to include design and evaluation of a long term repository to provide Government storage of unreprocessed spent fuel rods in a retrievable condition.
It is estimated that the long term storage facility will start accepting commercial spent fuel in the time frame of 1995 to 2000. The criterion for acceptance is that the spent fuel must have decayed a minimum of ten years so it can be stored in dry condition without need for forced air circulation.
DOE has recently revised its policy with re',pect to the provision by DOE of interim fuel storage facilities. By letter dated March 27, 1981, addressed to the Presiding Officer for the ongoing Waste Confidence Rulemaking proceeding, DOE indicated that it had reached a decision to discontinue its efforts to provide Federal government - owned or controlled away-from-reactor storage facilities. DOE intends to redirect its effort to support the development of alternative means to be employed by utilities to further increase spent fuel storage capabilities. This leaves the task of developing interim storage capacity to private i ndu stry. We conclude that Government - sponsored interim storage is not a visble alternative to the proposed SFP modification. _,
7.4 Offsite Storage in SFP's of Other Reactors The only other nuclear facilities owned by the licensee are the Palisades Plant which is operating and the Midland plant which is under construction.
The Palisades and Midland facilities are pressurized water reactors whereas the Big Rock Point reactor is a boiling water reactor. The fuel assenblies for these plants are different. Palisades has been operating since 1971 and is also confronted with the problem of spent fuel storage capacity. An amendment authorizing increased spent f,uel storage at Palisades was issued in June 1977.
The licensee's April 23, 1979 submittal considered storage of Big Rock Point fuel at Midland as an alternative; however, additional storage racks would be required to hold this spent fuel at Midland. Also, additional costs would be incurred in shipping the fuel to Midland.
Such an alternative, if followed would impact on the limited storage capacity at Midland.
We conclude that the cost of storing Big Rock Point fuel at Midland would be greater than the cost of the proposed expansion of SFP storage at the Big Rock Point Plant.
7.5 Shutdown of Facility Upon filling the SFP as presently designed, there would be no ability to reload the core for the next operating cycle.
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 power and tne cost of maintaining the facility in a standby condition.
The licensee estimated that the levelized annual expense of this alternative is estimated to be roughly $12 million (1978 dollars) with no revenue.
This cost is far in excess of the cost associated with the proposed modification, i.e. $6000 per storage locaticn.
7.6 Comparison of Alternatives In sumnary, alternatives (2) and (3) above are not available to the licensee or could not be made available in time to meet the licensee's needs.
Alternative (4) would preempt storage space needed by another facility and would be more expensive than the proposed modification. Alternative (5), the shutdown of Big Rock Point, would be much more expensive than th! proposed action because of the costs of (1) providing rep icement power and (2) the cott of maintaining the facility in a standby condition.
We have also detennined that the expansion of the storage capacity of the SFP for the Big Rock Point Plant would have a negligible environmental impact. Accordingly, considering the economic advantages of the proposed action, the NRC staff concludes that the expansion of the Big Rock Point SFP storage capacity is superior to the other alternatives available or likely to become available within the necessary time frame.
8.0 Evaluation of Proposed Action 8.1 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts 8.1.1 Radiological Impacts Expansion of the storage capacity of the SFP will not create any significant additional radiological effects. As discussed in Section 5.3, the additional total body dose that might be received by an individual at the site boundary or by the estimated population within a 50-mile radius is less than 0.0001 mrem /yr and 0.0001 man-rem /yr, respectively, and is less than the natural fluctuations in the dose this population would receive from background radiation. The occupational exposure of workers during removal of the failed fuel rack and installation of the new racks is estimated to be 23 man-rem. This is a small fraction of the total annual man-rem burden from occupational exposure.
It is expected that operation of Big Rock Point with additional aged spent fuel in the SFP will not result in any significant increase in doses received by occupational workers.
8.2 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 8.2.1 Water, Land and Air Resources The proposed action will not result in any significant change in the commitment of water, land and air resources.
No additional allocation of land would be made. The land area now used for the SFP would se used more efficiently by adopting the proposed action.
8.2.2 Material Resources In order to carry out the proposed modification, the licensee will require racks fabricated of stataless steel.
The construction of the new racks will require the commit-ment of 63,000 pounds of stainless steel. The amount of stainless 2.82 X 10){ teel used annually in the U. S. is about pounds. Thus, the amount of stainless steel -
O e
- s e
required for fabrication of the new racks is a small fraction of this resource consumed annually in the U. S.
We conclude that the amount of stainless steel required for t5e racks for the proposed modification is insignificant and does not represent an irreversible commitment of natural resources. We also conclude that trere are no unresolved conflicts in alternative uses of available resources associated with the fabrication of the new stainless steel racks.
9.0 Basis and Conclusion for not Preparing an Environmental Impact Statement The NRC staff has reviewed this proposed facility modification relative to the requirements set forth in 10 CFR Part 51 of the Commission's regulations. The staff has determined, based on this assessment, that the proposed license amendment will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment. Therefore, the Commission has determined 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:
i i.
~
,,m,.
e TABLE 7.0 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES Al ternative Cost (1) Increase Storage Capacity
$6,000 per assembly of Big Rock Point SFP (2) Reprocessing of Spent Fuel N/A (3) Storage at ISFSI*
$9,000 to $10,000 per assembly (4) Offsite Storage in SFP's Installation of racks of other Reactors required plus transporation to other reactors. Cost greater than Alternative (1).
(5) Reactor Shutdown
$12 million (1978 dollars) levelized annual expense.
a/s This alternative could not be available in time to meet the storage needs of Big Rock Point.
.