ML20004F983
| ML20004F983 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | FitzPatrick  |
| Issue date: | 06/18/1981 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20004F979 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8106260396 | |
| Download: ML20004F983 (18) | |
Text
i-I g ogg fl k,
UNITED STATES y
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
. AsHmoTom o.c.aoses s
w n
- ....f ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPRAISAL BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 55 TO DPR-59 POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK JAMES A. FITZPATRICK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT DOCKET NO. 50-333 i
1.0 Description of Proposed. Action In their submittal of July 26, 1978, assupplementad(a), the Power Authority of the State of New York (the licensee or PASNY) proposed to increase the, total storage capacity of the spent ' fuel pool (SFP) at James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant (JAFNPP) from 760 to 2244 fuel asse211es.
2.0 Need for Increased Storage Capacity
.The JAFNPP SFP was originally designed with the storage capacity of 760 fuel assemblies (.1 1/2 cores). The first refueling of JAFNPP occurred in the spring of 1977, at which time 140 fuel asse211es (1/4 of the reactor core) -
were replaced and stored in the SFP. The JAfNPP refuels on an annual basis.
Therefore, at this rate,140 assemblies per year are discharged from the reactor to the SFP. At this time, there have been 3 refualings at JAFNPP and there are 429 spent fuel assemblies in the SFP. Fuel core offload cap-l ability is not presently possible and after two additional refuelings the l
SFP capacity will not exist to allow further refuelings.
Spent fuel is not currently being processed on a comercial basis in the United States and storsge capactty away from reactor sites is available only on an emergency basis as is discussed in Sections 6.1 and 6.2 of this appraisal.
Based on the above information, there is clearly a need for additional onsite i
SFP storage capacity to assure continued operation of JAFNPP. The expansion l
of the SFP capacity to 2244 assemblies would povide capacity through the l
1992 refueling outage.
3.0 The Facility The JAFNPP is described in section 3.0 of the Final Environmental Statement (FES),
~
issued by the Comission in March 1973. Tfie unit is a Boiling Water Reactor l
(BWR) which produces 2436 megawatts thennal (MWt) and has a gross electrical l
output of 821. megawatts (MWe). Pertinent descriptions of principal features l
of the plant as it currently exists are sumarized below to aid the reader l
in following the evaluations in subsequent sections of this appraisal.
l 8300260M h
i 3.1 Fuel Inventory The JAFNPP reactor contains 560 fuel assenblies. The fuel assembites are arranged in an 8 by 8 array. The weight of the fuel, as UO, is approxi-2 mately 265,000 pounds. About one forth of the assemblies.are removed from the reactor and replaced with new fuel each year. Present scheduling
-is for the refueling outage to be in the fall of each year.
The proposed modification of the SFP would not change the quantity of uranium fuel used.in the reactor over the anticipated operrting life of the facility and would not change the rate at which spent fuel is generated by the facility. The added storage capacity would increase the number of spent fuel assemblies that could be stored in the SFP and the length of
- time that some of the fuel assemblies could be stored in the pool.
3.2 Purpose of the SFP Spent fuel assemblies are intensely radioactive due to their fresh fission produce 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 radioactive and thermal decay prior to shipping them to a repro-cessing 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 ship-ment. Space permitting, the assemblies may be stored for longer periods,
' allowing continued fission product decay and thermal cooling.
3.3 Spent Fuel Pool Cooling and Cleanup Systen_s The SFP cooling and cleanup system consists of two skimmer surge tanks, two
> cleanup recirculating pumps, two heat exchangers, two filter demineralizers
'and the required pipt1g, valves and instrumentation. The pumps draw water I
from the ski-imer tanks and discharge it through the heat exchangers. The water is then passed through the filter-demineralizers or returned directly
{
to the SFP. One filter-demineralizer is used normally but both are used during refueling operations. The Reactor Water Cleanup System filter l
deminealizers may also be used during refueling to reduce the burden on the SF? units.
Because it is expected that only a small increase in radioactivity released to the pool water as a result of the proposed modification as discussed in
.Section 4.1, we conclude that the SFP purification system will keep concen-trations of radioactivity in the pool to levels which have existed prior to the modification.
3.4 Radioactive Wastes The plant"contains waste treatment systems designed to collect and process the gaseous, liquid and solid waste that might contain radioactive material.
l The waste treatment systems are evaluated in Section 3.0 of Final Environmental i
t i
~ _
~_-
~-.
Statement (FES)datedMarch1973. There will be no change in the waste treatment systems described in Section 3.0 of the FES because of the proposed modification.
4.0 Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action 4.1 Land Use The external dimensions of the SFP will not change because of the proposed expansion of its storage capacity; therefore no additional comitment of land is required. The.SFP is intended a score spent fuel assemblies under water for a period of time to allow shorter-lived radioactive isotopes to decay and to reduce their thermal. heat output. This type of use will remain unchanged by the modification by the additional storage capacity would pro-vide for an additional sixteen nonnal refuelings. Thus, the proposed mod-ification would result in more efficient use of the land already designed for spect fuel storage.
4.2 Water Usq There will be no significant change in plant water consumption or use as a result of the prc50 sed 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 component cooling wat.er. system and to the service water system. The modifications will.not change the flow rate within these cooling systems. The temperature of the SFP water, during normal refueling operations with only one SFP cool-ing pump running is expected to remain below 125*F, as compared to the 120'F
-used as the design basis in the FSAR. Therefore, the rate of evaporation and thus the need for makeup water will not be significantly chand by the proposed modifications.
4.3 Nonradiological Effluents There will be no change in the chemical or biocidal effluents from the plant as a result of the proposed modification.
The only potential offsite nonradiological environmental impact that could arise from this proposed action would be additional discharge of heat to Lake Ontario. Storing spent fuel in the SFP for a longer period of time will not add significantly more heat to the SFP water. The SFP heat exchangers are cooled by the rentor building closed loop cooling water system which in turn is cooled by the plant cooling water system. The maximum heat load resulting from the SFP modification is 24X100 BTU /hr. The small additional l
heat load from the SFP cooling system will be negligible since the additional storage capacity will not result in more spent fuel which has recently been placed in the SFP. Rather, it will result in more spent fuel stored for many years. The effect is negligible for older fuel since most thermal decay from the spent fuel occurs within one year; i.e., less than a refueling cycle.
l
. _ _, ~.,
)
f 8
4.4 Radiological s.
4.4.1-Introduction The potential offsite radiological environmental inpacts associated with the expansion of the spent fuel storage capacity were evaluated and determined to be environmentally insignificant as addressed below.
l The additional spent fuel which would be Stored due to the expansion is the oldest fuel which has not been shboed frois the plant. This fuel should have decayed about five. years. During the storage of the spent fuel under water, both volati.le and nonvolatile radioacti.ve nu-clides may be released to the water from the surface of the assemblies l
or from defects in the fuel cladding. Most o'f ths material released l
from the surface of the assemblies consists of activated corrosion products such asPCo-18, Co-60 Fe-59 and Mn-54 which are not volatile.
The radionuclides 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 pre-dominately nonvolatile. The primary impact of such nonvolatile radio-active nuclides is their contribution to radiation levels to which workers in and near the SFP would be exposed. The volatile fission t
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 i ptopes.
Experience indicates that there is little radionuclida leakage from spent fuel stored in pools after the fuel has cooled tor several l
months. The predominance of radionuclides in the spent fuel pool water. appear to be radionuclides that were present in the reactor cool-ant 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. During and after refueling, the spent fuel pool cleanup sys.
tem reduces the radioactivity concentrations considerably. It is theo-rized 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, the spent fuel cools in tha spent fuel pool so that the fuel clad temperature is relatively cool, approxi-nately ISO F.
This substantial temperature reduction should reduce the rate o' release of fission products from the fuel pellets and decrease the ga' pressce in the gap between pellets and clad, thereby tending to rb in the fission products 'with4: the gap.
l l
1 I
4.4.2 Effect of Fuel Failure on the SFP 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 SFP water appears to be radionuclides that were present in the reactor coolant system prior to refueling (which becomes mixed wTth water in the SFP during refueling operations) or crud dislodged from the surface of the spent fuel during transfer from the reactor core to the SFP. During and after refueling, the SFP cleanup system reduc.es the radioactivity concentrations 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, the spent fuel ools in the SFP so that fuel clad tempera-ture is relatively cool, approximately 180'F. This substantial tempera-ture reduction should reduce the rate of release of fission products from the fuel pellets and decrease the gas pressure in the gap between pellets and clad, thereby tending to retain the fission products within the 90.0.
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 and discussions with the operators, there has not been any sign _ificant leakage of fission products from spent Jight water reactor f,uel stored in the Morris Operation (MO) (fomerly Midwest Recovery Plant) at Morris, ' Illinois, or at the Nuclear Fuel Services' (NFS) storage pool at West Valley, New York. Spent fuel has been stored in these two pools which, while it was in a reactor, was determined to have significant leakage and was therefore removed from the core. After i
storage in the onsite SFP, this fuel was later shipped to either MO or NFS for l
extended storage. Althougit the fuel exhibited significant leakage at reactor operating conditions, there was no significant leakage from this fuel in the offsite storage facility..
Expe:ience indicates that there is little radionuclide leakage from Zircaloy-clad spent-fuel-- stored in pools for over a decade. Operators.at several __
reactors have discharged, stored, and/or shipped relatively large numbers of Zircalogy-clad fuel elements which developed defects during reactor exposure, a.g., Ginna, Oyster Creek, Nine Mile Point, and Dresden Units l
Nos.1 and 2.
Based on the operational reports submitted by licensees and discussions with the operators, there has not been any significant leakage
~
~
of fission products from spent reactor fusi stored in -the MO pool or the NFS pool. Several hundred Zircaloy-clad assemblies which developed one or more defects in-reactor are stored in tihe MO pool without need for isolation l
in'special cans. Detailed analysis of the. radioactivity in the pool water indicates that the defects are not continuing to release significant quantities j
of radioactivity.
1 I
,m
e
~
4 A Battelle Northwest Laboratory (BNL) report, " Behavior of Spent Nuclear Fuel in Water Pool Storage" (BNWL-2256 dated September 1977), states that radioactivity concentrations may approach a value up to 0.5 uC1/m1 during fuel discharoe in the SFP. After the refueling, the SFP fon exchange and filtration units will reduce and maintain the pool water in the range of 10-3 to 10-4 pct /al.
In hand *ing defective fuel, the BNL study found that the vast majority of failed fuel does not require special handling and is stored in the same manner as intact fuel. Two aspects of the defective fuel account for its.-
favorable storage characteristics. First, when a fuel rod perforates in '
reactor., the radioactive gas inventory is released to the reactor primary coolant. Therefore, upon discharge, li'ttle additional gas release occurs.
Only if the failure occurs by mechanical damage in the basin are radio-active gases released in detectable amounts, and this type of damage is extremely rare. In addition, most of the gaseous fission products have short half-lives and decay to insignificant levels. The second favorable aspect is the inert character of the uranium oxide pellets in contact wittr This has been detemined in laboratory studies and also by casual water.
observation of pellet behavior when broken rods are stored in pools.
4.4.3 Radioactive Material Released to Atmosphere -
With respect to gaseous releases, the only "significant noble 5as iso-topc attributable to storing additional assemblies for a longer period of time vould be Kryptorw85. As discussed previously, experience has demonstrated that. after spent fuel _has decayed 4 to 6 months, there l
is no significant release of fission products from defected fuel. How-ever, we have conservatively estimated that an additional 99 curies per year of r.rypton-85 may be released from the SFP when the modified pool is completely filled. This increase would result in an additional --
total body dose of less than 0.001 mren/ year to an individual at the site bour.dary. This dose is insignificant when compared to the approxi-cately 100 mrem / year that.an individual receives from natural background radiation. The additional total body dose to the estimated population within a 50-mile radius of the plant is less than 0.005 man-rem / year.
This is small compcred to the fluctuations in the annual dose this popu-lation would receive from natural background radiation. TMs exposure represents an increase of less than 0.1". of the exposure from the plant evaluated in the FES. 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 SFP water will not be significantly increased because of the expansion of the fuel storage capacity s,ince the Iodine-131 inventory in the fuel will de-cay to negligible levelt between refuelings.
I 1
i
._ ~ _ _ _
t l
Storing additional spent fuel assemblies in the pool may increase the bulk water temperature during nomal refuelings above the 125'F used in the The temperature :ney reach 125'F during the third refuel-design analysis.
ing for less than one day and may exceed 125'F during future refuelings.
During the sixteenth refueling, it may be above 125'F for about 14 days.
Therefore, it is not The maximum temperature will be less than 135'F.
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 FES.
i' Most airborne releases from the plant result from leakage of reactor
the SFP. Therefore, even if there were a slightly higher evaporation i
rate from the SFP, the increase in tritium and iodine released fmm the plant as a result of the increase in stored spent fuel would be small l;
compared to the amount normally released from the r, ant and that which was If levels of rao :fodine become too
'previously evaluated in the FES.
high, the air can be diverted to charcoal filters for the removal of radio-l iodine before release to the environment. The plant radiological effluent Technical Specifications, which are not being changed by this action, restrict the total release of gaseous radioactivity from the plant including the SFP.
l 4.4.4 Solid Radioactive Wastes The concentration of radionuclides in the pool is cr,ntrolled by the filter-The ectivity is high
.demineralizer and by decay of short-lived isotopes.
l during refueling operations while reactor coolant water is introduced into the pool and decreases as the pool water is processed through the filter-demineralizer. The increase of radioactivity, if any, should be minor i
because the' additional spent fuel to be stored is relatively cool, ther-mally, and radionuclides in the-fuel will have decayed significantly.
While we believe that there should not be an increase in solid radwaste due to the modification, as a conservative ^ stimate, we have assumed that the amount of solid radwaste may be increased by 50 cubic feet a year from the filter-demineralizer (an additional 10 resis bed / year). The amount of If the solid waste shipped from the site in 1980 was hi,000 cubic feet.
storage of additional spent fuel does increase the amount of' solid waste from the SFP purification systems by about 50 cubic feet per year, the increase in total waste volume shipped would be less than 0.17% and would not have any significant environmental impact.
- o be removed from the SFP because of the pro-
. The present spent fuel r-e posed modification ars contaminated and will be disposed cf as low level The licensee has estimated that less than 7,200 cubic feet solid waste.
of solid waste will be removed from the plant because of the proposed mod-i_
ification. Therefore,,the total waste : hipped from the plant should be L
LL_..,___,_,__,__
8-increased by iess than 1% per year when averaged over the lifetime of the plant. This will not have a significant environmental impact.
4.4.5 Radioactivity Released to Receiving Waters There should not ne a significant increase in't5e liquid release of radionuclides from the plant as a result o'f the proposed modificatien.
The amount of raBioaEtivity on the SFP filter-denineralizer might slightly increase 'due to the additional spent fuel in the pool, but this increase of radioactivity should not be released in liquid efflu-ents fran the plant. The plant radiological effluent technical speci-fications, which are not being changed by this action, restrict the total releases of liquid radioactivity from the plant.
The' filter-demineralizer resins are periodically flushed with water to i
the waste sludge tank. The water used to transfer the spent resin is decanted from the tr.nk and returned to the liquid radweste system for processing. The soluble radioactivity will be retained on the resins.
1 If any activity should be transferred from the spent resin to this flush water, it wculd be recoved by the liquid radwaste system.
Leakage from the SFP would be collected in the reactor building floor drain sumps through the pool leak detection system. The leakage would 1
then be transferred to the liquid radwaste system and processed by the l
system before any water is discharged from the pl. ant. There have not been signs of leakage from the pool.
- 4,4.6 Occupational Radiation Exposures i
We have reviewed the licensee's plans for the renoval and disposal of the low density racks and the installation of the high density racks with respect to occupational radiation exposure. The occupa-tional exposure for the entire. operation is estimated by the licensee l
to be about 6 nan-ren. Me. consider this to be a reasonable-estimate--
l because i t is based on dose rate measurements and occupancy factors for individuals perfonning a specific job during the modification. This operation is expected to be a small fraction of the total man-rem burden from occupational exposure.
l We have estimated the-increment,in onsite occupationaldose resulting from the proposed increase in stwed fuel assemblies on the basis of information supplied by the licensee for occupancy times and dose rates in the SFP The spent fuel assemblies themselves will contribute a negligible area.
amount of 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 present and projected operations in the SFP area, we estimate that the proposed modification should add less than one percent to the total annual occupational radiation i
s r
-._w._-,
.w
.+
..--.----m--_---,.,-,~y
_,,e-,.wy--y,,,,,,
,._,,,ww,..-.,,--.y.
..,,--,,,,-,,.,.-,--..,.,c
-,..,-.3.,,=weer
l -
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.
4.4.7 Impacts of Other Pool Modifications As discussed above, the additional environmental impacts in the vicinity of FitzPatrick resulting fran the proposed audification are very small fractions (less than 1%) o# the impacts evaluated in the FitzPatrick FES.
These additional impacts are too small to be considered anything but lo-cal in character.
James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant is located on the same site as Nine Mile Point-Nuclear Station Unit 1 (NMP-1). By letter dated March 22, 1978, Niagara Mohawk Power. Corporation ~ pr oposed increasing the spent fuel
- storage capacity at NMP-1. Operation of NMP-1 was evaluated in the NMP-1
-Final Environmental Statement dated January 1974.
The impact of any environmental significance at FitzPatrich from the pro-posed SFP modification at.NMP-1 is the additional gaseous effluent from the NMP-1 SFP modification. He hcve conservatively estimated -an addi-tional 12 curies per year of Krypton 85 may be released from NMP-1 when its modified pool is completely filled..This additional Krypton 85 would result in an additional total body dose, that might be received by an in-dividual near FitzPatrick or by the estimated population within a 50 mile radius, of less than.0.0002 orem/ year and 0.0005 man-rem / year, respectively.
Summing the additional exposures resulting from the SFP modifications at both NMP-1 and FitzPatrick shows the additional total body dose that might be received by an individual and by the estimated populatien out to 50 miles is less than.0012 mrem /yr and 0.0055 man-rem /yr, respectively. These sunned exposures are small compared to the fluctuations in the annual dose this population receives from natural background radiation and represents an increase of 1 css than 0.1% of the combined exposures evaluated in the FitzPatrick FES and the NMP-1 FES. These estimates are not sionificant.
Based on the above, vue conclude that an SFP modification at any other facility should not significantly contribute to the environmental impact of FitzPatrick ~and that the FitzPatrick SFP modification should not contribute significantly to the environmental impact of any other facility.
4.4.8 Impacts on the Community The new storage racks were fabricated offsite and shipped to the JAFNPP, where they are stored. Only a few truck or rail shipments would be involved in shipment of these racks and disposal of the present ones. The impacts of dismantling the present racks and installing the new ones will be limited to those nrrmally associated with metal working activities. No significant impact on the community-is-e7pected to result from the fuel rack conversion._. -
or subsequent operation with increased storage of spent fuel in the SFP.
i
- ~. _ _,.., - - _. _
..._...-m.-_..,._.-,,._.
- 1. -
.l i,
- 4.5' Evaluation'of Radiological: Impact-LAs discussed above, the proposed modification does not significantly change--
the: radiological irect evaluated in the FES.
5.0L LEnvironmental Impact of-Postulated Accident's
- 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' aot change the radiological consequences of-a postulated fuel handling accident in the SFP area'from those values reported in the FES.for JAFNPP
. dated March 1973.-
Additionally, the NRC staff has underway a generic review of load handling
_ operations in the vicinity of SFPs to determine the likelihood of a. heavy load impacting ~ fuel in the-pool _ and, if necessary, the radiological con-sequences -of such an event. '. Because the JAFNPP 'has comitted to prohibi,t
.the movement of heavy loads over the: fuel assemblies _in the SFP, we have
' concluded that the _ likelihood of a heavy load handling accident is sufficiently
.small; that,the proposed modification.is-acceptable and = no additional restric-
.tions 'on load-handling operation in.the~ vicinity of-the SFP are necessary
~
wnile our, review is. underway.
6.0-Alternatives
. The' staff has considered the following alternatives -to the ' proposed expansion of the SFP storage capacity at JAFNPP:
(1) reprocessing the spent fuel; (2) shipment-of spent fuel to a' separate fuel storage facility; (3)-shipment C
of spent fuel to another reactor site; (4) wet _ or dry storage onsife; (5) reduced plant operation; and (6) shutdown of facility.' These alternatives s
are discussed below.
16.11 ReprocessingofSpentFuel
. As discussed earlier, none of the three commercial reprocessing facilities in the V.S. is currently operating. The General Electric Company's Midwest Fuel Recovery Plant at Morris, Illinois is in a decommissioned condition.
On September 22,'1976, Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. (NFS) in.ormed the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that they were " withdrawing from the nuclear fuel reprocessing business". The NFS facility is on land owned by the State of New York. 'The lease to NFS expired in 1980. The Allied-General Nuclear Services (AGNS) reprocessing pit.at at Barnwell, South Carolina,- received a
' construction permit on December 18, 1970.
In October 1974, AGNS-applied for an operating license for the reprocessing facility; constructica of the
-reprocessing facility is essentially complete but no operating license has been granted. On July 3,1974, AGNS applied for a materials licenst to receive and store up to 400_ MTU of spent fuel in the onsite storage poc1, on which construction has also been completed but her. rings with respect to this application have not been held and no license has been granted.
t 4
,*r 4
+
,-,,.-,.w.v,me
-y
,.mv..y
.v-.--
.,m--,..,-,e,-.,.%
=a--w,..e-s w-w e- *e N-*---we-<-e-e m va * - * = w e w-*-+be
--'s--arvs1'.e
=* <
'++*4w--&-~~
1 '
. In 1976. Exxon Nuclear Company, Inc. submitted an application for a proposed
. 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, the President issued a statement outlining his. policy on continued development of nuclear energy in the U. S. "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 sus-tained without such reprocessing and recycling".
On December 23, 1977, the NRC terminated the fuel cycle licensing actions involving mixed oxide fuel (GESMO) (Docket Hv. RM-50-5), the AGNS' Barnwell Nuclear Fuel Plant Separation Facility, Uranium Hexafluoride Facility and Plutonium Product Facility (Dockets Nos. 50-332, 70-1327 and 70-1821), the Exxon Nuclear Company Inc. NFRRC (Docket No. 70-1432), and the NFS 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, fabricatinomixed-oxice fuel, and related functions.
Although there are indications that the present Administrations policies on reprocessing and storage of -spent fuel differ substantia 1Ty from those of the previous Administration the staff considers that shipment of spent fuel to such facilities for reprocessing is not a feasible alternative to the proposed expansion of the JAFNPP SFP storage capacitj, especially when considered in the relevant time frama, i.e., in the years 1981-1984 when,the expanded storage l
will be needed. Even given a change in the governments reprocessing policy, the GESMO proceedings must be reopened and-concluded, the licensing of the t
l facilities must take place, the facilities must be constructed and brought l
on line before any fuel could be reprocessed. These things would likely require that' the spent fuel be stored somewhere for.up to another ten ye.ars.
l 6.2 Independent Spent Fuel Storage Facility
- An alternative to expansion of onsite storage is the construction of new l
" independent spent fuel storage installations" (ISFSI). Such installations could provide storage space in excess of 1,000 MTU of spent fuel. This is far greater than the capacities of onsite storage pools. The fuel storage pools at M0 and NFS are functioning as smaller ISFSIs although this was not i
the original design intent. The license for the General Electric (GE) facility was amended on December 3,1975 to increase the storage capacity I
l to about 750 MTU; and, as of March 1, 1981, 316 MTU was stored in the pool i
in the form of 1220 spent fuel assemblies. An application for an 1100 MTU capacity addition is pending. However, by a motion dated November 8,1977 GE requested the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to suspend indefinitely l.
l further proceedings on this application. This motion was granted.
,u L,7 s
a
.p lThe ' staff has' discussed the status of storage space at MO with.GE personnel.
Jde were infonned 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 1which GE has previously contracted to. reprocess. We were Lalso infonned 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 JAFNPP spent fuel. ' Storage of thelJAFNPP.' spent fuel atLthe-existing reprocessing facilities. is not a viable alternative to:
the expansion of the' JAFNPP spent fuel < pools.-
' The NFS; facility has capacity for about 260 MTU, with approximately 170 MTU
. presently. stored in the-pool at West Valley. Although the storage pool is
~
. ot full,iNFS has indicated that.it is not accepting additional spent fuel, n
even'from the reactor facilities with which. is _has reprocessing contracts.
~
J If;the receiving and ' storage station at Barnwell:is eventually licensed to accept spent fuel, as discussed in Section-6.1, it would be functioning as
. an ISFSI until the reprocessing, facilities there are licensed to operate.
.The pool.has~ unused space: for about 400 MTU, but AGNS has' indicated that it does:not wish to operate the' storage facility without reprocessing.
With respect' to construction,of new.ISFSIs, on Octoberf6,1978 the NRC pro-(posed a new Part 72-of its' regulations. specifying procedures and require-ments for the issuance of relevant licenses, along with requirements-for
~ the-siting, de' sign,Loperation and record keeping activities of the facilitles
. (431FR 46309)
In March 1981, the NRC issued for connent a draft regulatory l1
- guide and _value/ impact statement on preparation of a license application for l~
-an;ISFSI. ~ 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 preparation of the license application, environmental L
. report, and licensing review for construction and receipt of an operating
- license;~ and one-half-year for plant and equipment testing and startup.
Industry proposals for additional independent spent fuel storage facilities 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 having nuclear p1 ants in operation or contemplated for 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 Novamber 1975 (ANS Transactions, 1975 Winter Heeting,'Vol. 22 TANSA0 22-1-836,1975).
In 1974, E. R. Johnson Associates estimated the construction cost would be equivalent to approximately
- $9,000 per spent fuel assembly.
1 l
-Several licensees have enaluated construction of an ISFSI and have provided cost estimates.
In 1975, Connecticut Yankee, for example, estimated that an independent facility with a storage capacity of 1,000 MTU -(BWR and/or PWR assemblies) would cost approximately $54 million and take about five years L
.to put into operation. The Commonwealth Edison Company estimated the con-struction cost of an ISFSI in 1975 at about $10,000 per fuel-assemaly. To-L this~would be added the costs for maintenance, operation, safeguards, security, l'
interest in investment, overhead, transportation and other costs. These costs l:..
f1
..n
I J are significantly larger than the estimated cost of the increased storage capacity which will be obtained by expanding the present= reactor pools.
(estimated by tha licensee to be $6,400/ assembly).
For the long tenn, DOE is modifying its program for nuclear waste ~ management-to include design and evaluation of a long term; repository to provide Governmentstorage of unreprocessed spent fuel rods in a retrievable con-dition.
It is estimated that the long term storage facility will start accepting commercial. spent fuel in the time frame of 1995 to 2000. The criteria for acceptance is that the spent fuel must have decayed a minimum of ten years so it can be stored in a dry condition without need for forced air circulation.
DOE has recently revised its policy with respect to the provision by DOE of interim fuel storage facilities. ' DOE has announced a decision to dis-continue its efforts to provide Federal Government-owned or controlled away-from-reactor short term storage facilities. DOE intends to redirect its efforts 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 industry.
Development of such capacity, if it is in the form of independent spent fuel storage instalhtions, would most likely occur in conjunction with development of a reprocessing facility as discussed above and in.Section
-6.1.: Since, as DOE has recently acknowledged, it may take some time for the' reprocessing facilities, we conclude that an independent spent fuel storage installation will not be a feasible alternative to meet the licensee's needs within the time frame of interest, 1981-1984.
The staff does not regard the alternative of storing spent fuel at M0 or Barnwell. as offering a significant environmental advantage over construc-tion and use of an expanded storage facility at JAFNPP. The availability of this alternative is speculative and it also would be considerably more expensive.
Furthermore, constructing a new ISFSI would clearly have a greater environmental impact than the proposed action.
It would require additional land and considerable equipment and structures, whereas install-ing new racks at JAFNPP requires only the small amount of material necessary -
~
to construct the racks and minor personnel exposure during installation.
6.3 Storage 'at Another Reactor Site
-Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation owns and operates the Nine Mile Point (Unit 1) Nuvear Plant. The Nine Mile facility is also a boiling water reactor. However, the fuel handlin] and storage equipment for fuel assem-blies from the two plants are not compatible. Niagara Mohawk is also con-
=
fronted with the similar problem of spent fuel storage capacity. The licensee cannot assuredly rely on other power facilities to provide additional storage capability except on a short term emergency basis.
If space were
~
~
')
T.,
.x
~
14 -
available in another reactor facility, the costs would probably be comparable
'to. the cost of. storage at a comercial storage facility.
(6j4:
Comparison of Alternatives
.In Section 4 of'this environmental impact appraisal the ' incremental environ-mental-impacts of=the proposed expansion of the SFP storage capacity were.
.evaluatedfand were found'to be insignificant. Therefore, none of the alter-natives to this action offers a significant environmental advantage. Further -
more,. alternatives -(1), reprocessing, and -(2), storage ~ at an independent
' spent fuel: storage facility, are not presently lavailable to the licensee and
. are not likely to b ecome available in time to meet the licensee's need.
Alternative (3), shipment to another reactor site, would be a short term emergency solution but would eventually. involve shipment to another temporary storage. facility. Alternatives (4), ~ reducing the plant output, and (5),
?
' shutdown' of-the facility, would both entail -substantial. additional expense
.for replacement electrical energy.
. Table 1; presents a'sumarized comparison of the alternatives, in-the order presented in Subsections '6.1 through 6.5.
Frogn inspection of the table, it Jcan be seen that the most cost effective alternative is the proposed SFP-
-modification, which is included as alternative 6.,
The SFP-modification 1
~
would provide the required storage' capacity, while minimizing en~vironmental
' effects,L capital; cost and resources comitted.- The staff therefore concludes
~
that expansion ofgthe JAFNPP SFP storage capacity is superior to the alterna-tives~available or likely to become available within the necessary time frame.
6.5 LReduced Plant Output Nuclear plants are usually base-loaded because of their lower costs of gener-ating a unit of electricity compared to other thermal power plants on the -
system. Therefore reducing the plant output to reduce spent fuel generation is not an' economical use of the resources available. The total production
. costs remain essentially constant, irrespective of plant output. Consequently,
'the unit. cost'of electricity is increased proportionately at a reduced plant-output.
If the plant is forced to'substant.ially reduce output because of 1 spent fuel storage restriction, the. licensee would be required to purchase replacement power or operate its higher cost fossil-fired units, if available, without any accompanying environmental advantage. The cost of electricity L
-would therefore be increased without any likely reduction of environmental E
impact.
6.6 Shutdown'of Facility Storage of spent fuel from JAFNPP in the existing racks is possible but-only. for a short period of time. As discussed above,-if expansion of the SFP capacity is not approved and if an alternate storage facility is not
. located, the' licensee would have to shut down the unit in :1982 due to a lack-t.
of spent fuel storage facilities, resulting in the cessation of at least 821 l
Mwe net electrical-energy. produ'ction.
l'o i
i,, -
.....,-,,~...,.m.s._
. ~.. _, c n. _... ;, n !., _
.m,_;.,_.._4_._...._.....
..._,s--..,~.
.,_....r;--._a.---
y
+
- l H
15 -
l SThe incremental' cost for providing replacement power if both units were shutdown would be approximately $140. million per year. -This would be the -
cost of. increased use:of coal-fired and oil-fired generating facilities and. the purchase of some replacement power from other utilities. This
_does not reflect that the licensee's investment would be idle and that JJAFNPP would have to be maintained in standby or decomissioned.
?7.0 Evaluation of Proposed ' Action 7.1 Unavoidable Adverse Environment 1 Impacts 7.1.1 Radiological Impacts-As discussed;in:Section 4.0, expansion of the storage capacity of the SFP -
- will not_ create any significant additional radiological effects. The additional total body dose that might be received by an individual or the
, estimated l population within.a 50-mile radius is less than 0.001 mrem /yr and 0.005 man-rem /yr, respectively. These. exposures are small compared to the' fluctuations:in' the annual dose this population receives from background
. radiation. The-population. exposure represents an increase of less than 0.1%
of the exposures from the plant evaluated in the FES. The occupational radiation exposure of workers during removal of the present: storage racks andl installation:of.the new racks is estimated by the licensee to be about
- 6. man-rem.~ This is a.small' fraction of the total man-rem burden from Loccupational exposure at the plant. Operatton of the plant with additional spent fuel _in the.SFP is not-expected to increase the occupational radiation exposure by more than one percent of the present total annua 1' occupational exposure at:this facility.
t l-
-7.2 1 Relationships Between Local Short Tem Use of Man's Environment ~ and the L
. Maintenance and Enhancemeht -of Long Term Productivity Expansion of the SFP storage capacity would permit more efficient use of the land 'already comitted to this purpose. There would be no other significant
- changes from the evaluation in the FES.
L: 7.3 Irreversible and Irretrievable Comitments of Resources -
17.3.1
' Water, Land and Air Resources The proposed action will not result in any significant change in the comit-
- ments of water, land and air resources as identified in the FES. No additional allocation of land would be made; the land area now used for the SFP would be used more efficiently by reducing the spacings betwsen fuel assemblies.
L l
I '.-
. ~ n.
~..a
. m.._..___. _..,._..
~
. TABLE 1 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES Alternative Cost' Benefit 1.
Reprocessing of
>$10,000/ assembly Continued production of elec-Spent Fuel
'trical energy by JAFNPP. This alternative is not available either now or in the foreseeable future.
~ 2a. Storage at Repro-
$3,000 to $6,000/
Continued production of elec-cessor's facility.
assembly per yr* plus trical energy by JAFNPP. This shipping costs of alternative is not available
$12,0C0 per assembly.
now or in the foreseeable future.
2b. Storage at a new
$20,000-$40,000/ assembly Continued production of elec-
. Independent plus operating and trans-trical energy by JAFNPP. This Facility.
portation costs, and en-
- alternative could not be avail-vironmental impacts.
able in time to meet the related to development present storage needs of the of a new facility JAFNPP.
3.
Storage'at Other Costs of shipment to other Continued production of elec-Nuclear Plants'
' facility plus. cost for trical energy. However, this subsequent shipment to an alternative is unlikely to be ISFSI; increased environ-avail'able.
mental costs of extra shipping and handling.
4.
Reduction in Plant See below for replacement Continued production of elec-Output.
electricity costs. Amount trical energy by JAFNPP, but of replacement required at much higher unit cost.
l would be equi valent to The generation of replacement at least 50% reduction electricity elsewhere would in rated output for JAFNPP probr'ly. create no less impact.
l l.
.*Since NFS and M0 are not accepting fuel for storage, the cost range reflects prices that were. quoted in 1972 to 1974.
L
~
TABLE 1 COMPARIS0N OF ALTERNATIVES:
Alternative Cost Benefit 5.~ Reactor Shutdown Increased electric pro-Environmental impacts asso-
' duction-expenses are.
ciated with plant operation estimated to be appro,-
would. cease but the genera-imately $140 million/yr tion of. replacement electricity lif JAFNPP is shut down, elsewhere would probably create plus the costs'of main--
no less impact.
tenance and security of the plant.
- 6.
Increased Storage-
$6,400/added assembly Continued prcduction of Capacity of JAFNPP storage space electri.al energy by JAFNPP.
SFP O
i l
l l
l
.~
18 -
7.3.2 Material Resources 5 lb The proposed modification will require the utilization of about 2.6X10 of aluminum and 4X134 lb of baron carbide. The amount of aluminum and boron 10 and 106 lb respec-carbide used anually in the United States is about 10 Tile quantities required for the racks is a small amount of these tively.
No resources consumed annually in the United States and is insignificant.
other significant material resources will be required because the design of the fuel pool will remain unchanged.
8.0 Benefit-Cost Balance This section summarizes and compares the cost and the benefits resulting from the proposed modification to those that would be derived from the selection and implementation of each alternative. Table 1 presents a The first three alter-tabular comparison of these costs and benefits.
natives are not possible at this time or in the foreseeable future except Alternatives 4 and 5 have higher cost on a short term emergency basis.
and no less environmental impacts than that of increasing storage capacity of JAFNPP.
From examination of the table, it can be seen that the most cost-effective As evaluated in alternative i,s.the proposed spent fuel pool modification.
the preceding sections, the environmental impacts associated with the pro-posed modification would not be significantly changed from those analyzed in the Finai Environmental Statement for JAFNPP issued in March 1973.
Basis and Conclusion for Not Preparing an Environmental Impact Statement 9.0 l
We have reviewed this proposed facility modification relative to the require-1 ments set forth in 10 CFR Part 51. We have determined 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 Final Environmental Statement for JAFNPP Therefore, the staff has found that an environmental l
impact statement need not be prepared, and that pursuant to 10 CFR 51 dated March 1973.
the issuance of a negative declaration to this effect is appropriate.
l Dated: June 18, 1981 L
i l
i i
G
--+-e.,
es
--e
,,.~,,..-,-y
,e~-
=
--e-
,w---
.-uew-w,,w,y.p e
g e-+
-- =
-e,a
,-re
,- - +-
e
-e-
,,w
~
7590-01 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKET NO. 50-333 POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NOTICE OF ISSUANCE'0F AMENDMENT TO FACIl.ITY OPERATING LICENSE AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION _
The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission (the Comission) has issued Amendment No.55. to Facility Operating License No. DPR-59, issued to the Power Authority of the State of New York (the Licensee), which revised the Technical Specifications for operation of the James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear
- Power Plant (the facilityl located in Oswego County, New York. The amendment is effective as of_ the date of issuance.
This amendment will allow an increase in the spent fuel storage
~
capability up to a maximum of 2244 fuel assemblies by use of high density spent fuel racks.
The application for the amendment complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Comission's rules and regulations. The Comission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Comission's rules and regulations
. in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment. Notice l
of Consideration of Proposed -Modification to Facilities Spent FueLStorage
~ Pool in connection with this action was published in the Federal Register on-September 12,1978 (43FR40580). No request for a hearing or petition for leave.to intervene was filed following notice of the proposed action.
The Comission has prepared an environmental impact appraisal of tha i
l l
action being authorized and has concluded that an environmental impact f
statement for this particular act. ion is not warranted because there will be l
l
g: gn-7590 '
- 2. -.
no'significant environmental impact attributable to the' action other than that which has already been predic' ted and described in the Comission's Final Environment'al, Statement for the facility..
For further. details with: respect to' this action, see (1) the application
~
- for. amendment-dated July 26,.1978, as supplemented by: letters-dated May 15,
~ June.22,1 September 25, Octcber 10, and November 29 -1979.- April 1,. April 31, and October 31,1980, '(2) ' Amendment No; 55 to License No. DPR-59, (3). the Comission's concurrently issued Safety Evaluation,- and (4) the Comission's concurrently issued Environmental Impact Appraisal.: 'All of these items:are
' available for public inspection at the Comission's Public Document Room.
' 1717 H Street, NW., Washington, D. C., and at the Penfield Library. State University College at Oswego, Oswego, New York 13126. A. single copy of items -(2)', (3),"and (4) may be obtained upon requast addressed to the U. S.
Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, D. C.
20555, Attention:
Director, Division of Licensing.
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this.18th day of June 1981.
I FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0tNISSION L
o, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #2 Division of Licensing
(-
1 l
t r
L
.--,a.
..-.-,,.-.----...-..,.n....~
,....- -...-,~,.
...~.-.....~. ---,---.-.....~....--.