ML20033E204
| ML20033E204 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 02/27/1990 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20033E205 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9003090371 | |
| Download: ML20033E204 (11) | |
Text
__.
UNITED STATES 1
o,
. [
g.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- r,,
- )-
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20655 a-o
- ...+
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT g
BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION a
RELATING TO SPENT FUEL POOL RERACKING FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NOS. NPF-10 AND'NPF-15 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY o
l' SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA i
i SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT N05. 2 AND 3 l
DOCKET NOS. 50.361 AND 50-362 L'
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1 1.1 Description of-the Proposed Action 1
By letter dated March 10, 1989 and supplemented ~by letters dated April 19, l;
- May 4, May 19, June 1 June 2 September 22, November 2 and November 9, 1989, L
January 18.- February 9, and February 16, 1990, Southern California Edison Company.
L
-et al. (SCE or the licensee) requested amendments to the Technical Specifications (TS) of Facility.0perating License Nos. NPF-10 and NPF-15 for San Onofre.
-Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 2 and 3 (SONGS 2/3). The purpose of the_
requested amendments is to increase the capacity of the fuel storage racks at SONGS 2/3 from 800'to 1542 fuel assembly storage locations and to conduct specific heavy load lifts above the new storage racks that are required for j
o construction and normal fuel pool operations.- The proposed changes would revise TS 3/4.9.7, " Fuel Handling Maching-Spent Fuel Storage' Pool Building;" TS 3/4.9.12, " Fuel Handling-Building Post Accident Cleanup Filter System," new TS s
3/4.9.13 " Spent Fuel Pool Boron Concentration;" TS 5.6.1(b) and 5.6.2, " Fuel Storage Criticality;" TS 5.6.3, " Fuel Storage Drainage;" and TS 5.6.4, " Fuel Storage-Capacity." Also, the proposed changes wou1d revise the associated bases.
The licensee has proposed replacing the existing spent fuel racks, which have-800 storage. locations, with new high density spent fuel racks, with 1542 fuel assembly storage locations at SONGS 2/3. The new racks, would be free standing and use Boraflex neutron absorbing material for criticality control.
A two region design would be used; with 312 storage locations in Region I for storage of all types of SONGS Unit No. I and SONGS 2/3 uranium oxide fuel; and 1230 storage locations in Region 11 for storage of SONGS Unit No. 1 and SONGS 2/3 uranium oxide fuel which either meets specified burnup criteria or is stored in prescribed patterns. Approval of storage of spent fuel produced by 9003090371 900227 ate DR ADOCK 0500 1
c
?
q; y
operation of SONGS Unit No. 1 in either SONGS Unit Nos.:2 or 3 was authorized lune 22, 1988 by Amendments 63 and 52, for each SONGS 2/3 unit through Cycle 11 respectively. This change would extend the full core reserve storage capacity
. operation which is scheduled to begin in 2001 for Unit 2-and 2002 and for Unit 3.
i 1.2. Need for Increased Storage Capacity The staff's Safety Evaluation Report, NUREG-0712, dated February 1981, approved
- storage for 800 fuel assemblies in the spent fuel racks at Units 2 and 3.
With the existing 800 storage locations in the spent feel storage racks, Unit 2 and Unit 3 will each retain their full core reserve storage capacity through Cycle 6.which is scheduled to begin in 1991 and 1992,.respectively. Higher density storage of fuel assemblies expands the capacity of each existing pool rto 1542 ' assemblies, extending the full core reserve capability for Unit 2 and Unit 3 through Cycle 11 operation which is scheduled to begin in 2001 and 2002, respectively.
The proposed plan for installing the new racks fundamentally meets the objective of keeping occupational exposures to a level that is as low as reasonably achievable.
The operations will occur in pool areas as remote as possible from the currently stored spent fuel.
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 provided for. limited away-from-reactor
-storage. and stipulated.that a spent fuel repository would be available by'-
'1998. Since the Act does not require a repository before this date, it is not clear whether there will be any place to ship spent fuel in the early-to-mid-1990's.
Therefore, in the interim, the licensee needs to provide more storage-capacity.
11.3 Alternatives Commercial reprocessing of spent' fuel has not developed as originally anticipated.
In 1975, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission directed its staff to prepare a Generic Environmental Impact' Statement (GEIS) on spent fuel storage.
The Comission directed the staff to analyze alternatives for the handling and storage of spent light water power reactor fuel with particular emphasis on
-developing long-range policy. The GEIS was to consider alternative methods of-spent fuel storage, as well as the possible restriction on termination of the generation of spent fuel through nuclear power shutdown.
A"FinalGenericEnvironmentalImpactStatement(FGEIS)onHandlingandStorage ofS)entLightWaterPowerReactorFuel"'(NUREG-0575)Isthattheenvironmental-Volumes 1-3, was issued by tie NRC in August.1979. The finding of the FGEIS impact costs of interim storage are essentially negligible, regardless of where such spent fuel is stored. A comparison of the impact costs of various alternatives reflects the advantage of continued generation of nuclear power versus its replacement by coal-fired power generation. Continued nuclear-
' generation of. power versus'its replacement by oil-fired generation provides an even greater economic advantage.
In-the bounding case considered in the FGEIS, that of-shutting down the reactor when the existing spent fuel storage capacity is filled, the cost of replacing nuclear stations before the end of their normal
' lifetime makes this alternative uneconomical.
The storage of spent fuel as evaluated in NUREG-0575 is considered to be an interim action, not a final solution to permanent disposal.
L
-l '
One spent fuel storage-alternative considered in-detail in the FGEIS is the expansion of the onsite fuel storage capacity by modification of the existing spent fuel pools. Applications for more than 100 spent fuel pool expansions have been received and have been approved or are under review by the NRC. The
-finding in each case has been that the environmental impact of such increased storage capacity is negligible. However,.since there are variations in storage design and limitations: caused by the spent fuel already stored in some of the pools, the FGEIS reconsnends that. licensing reviews be done on a case-by-case basis to resolve plant-specific concerns.
The continuing validity and site specific applicability of the conclusions in NUREG-0575 have been confirmed in the Environmental Assessments for the Surry and H.B. Robinson Plants independent spent fuel storage installations.
The licensee has considered several alternatives to the proposed action of the spent fuel pool expansion. The staff has evaluated these and certain other alternatives with respect-to the need for proposed action as discussed in Section 1.2 of this assessment. The following alternatives were considered by the staff:
(1) Shipment of spent fuel to a permanent federal fuel storage / disposal facility.
-(2) Shipment of fuel to a reprocessing facility.
(3) Shipment of fuel to another utility or site for storage.
(4) Reduction of spent fuel generation.
(5)' Construction of a new independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFS1).
(6) No action taken.
Each of these alternatives is discussed below.
1.
Shipment of Spent Fuel to a permanent Federal Fuel Storage / Disposal Facility
' Shipment to a permanent federal fuel storage disposal facility is an alternative to increasing the onsite spent fuel storage capacity. The U.S. Department of Energy-(DOE) is developing a repository under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982(HWPA).
However, the f acility. is not likely to be ready to receive spent fuel until the year 2003, at the earliest. The existing SONGS 2/3 spent fuel storage pools will retain full core offload capability through Cycle 6 which is scheduled to be in in 1991 and 1992 for Units 2 and 3, respectively.
Therefore, spent f el acceptance and disposal by DOE is not an alternative to increased onsite pool storage capacity.
As.en interim measure, shipment to a Monitored Retrievable Storage (MRF) facility is another alternative to increasing the onsite spent fuel storage capacity. DOE, under the NWPA, has recently submitted its MRS proposal to
1
'1
>l
.4 Congress. Because Congress has.not authorized-an MRS and because one is not projected to be available before 1998, this alternative does-not meet the near-term storage needs of SONGS 2/3.
Under the NWPA, the federal government has the responsibility to provide not more than 1900 metric tons capacity for the interim storage of spent fuel.
The impacts of storing fuel at a Federal Interim Storage (FIS) facility fall t
within those already assessed by the NRC-in NUREG-0575.
In enacting NWPA, Congress found that the owners and operators of nuclear power stations have the primary responsibility for prov_iding interim storage for spent nuclear i
fuel.
In accordance with the NWPA and 10 CFR Part 53, shipping of spent fuel to an FIS facility is considered a last resort alternative. At this time, the g
licensee cannot take advantage of FIS because existing storage capacity is not maximized. Therefore, the licensee has been diligently pursuing this application for:the spent fuel pool expansion at this time.
2.
Shipment of Fuel to a Reprocessing Facility Reprocessing of spent fuel from SONGS 2/3 is not viable because presently there is no operating commercial reprocessing facility in the United States,-
nor is there the prospect for one in-the foreseeable future.
3.-
Shipment of Fuel to Another Utility or Site for Storage The shipment of spent fuel from SONGS 2/3 to the storage facility of_another utility company could provide short-term relief from the storage capacity l:
problem. However, the NWPA and 10 CFR Part 53 clearly place the responsibility for.the interim storage of spent nuclear fuel with each owner or operator of a nuclear power. plant. Moreover, transshipment of spent fuel _to and its storage at another site would entail potential environmental impacts greater than those associated with the proposed increased storage at SONGS-2/3 site. Therefore, this is not considered a practical or reasonable alternative.
4 Reduction'of Spent Fuel Generation Improved usage of fuel in the reactor and/or operation at a reduced power level would extend the life of the fuel in the reactor, in the case of extended burnup of fuel-assemblies, the fuel cycle would be extended and fewer' offloads would take place.
However, the current storage capacity would still be quickly L
exhausted as discussed in Section 1.2.
Operation at reduced power would not l
make effective use of available resources and would thus result in economic j
penalties.
5.
Construction of A New independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation l L Additional storage capacity could be developed by building a new, independent spent: fuel storage installation (ISFSI), similar either to the existing pool or a-dry storage installation. The NRC staff has generically assessed the
' impacts of the pool alternative and found, as reported in NUREG-0575, that "the storage of-LWR spent fuels in water pools has an insignificant impact on the environment." A generic assessment for the dry storage alternative has not been-made by the staff. However, assessments for the dry cask ISFSI at the t
t.
Surry, Power Station and the dry modular concrete ISFSI at the H.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant Unit 2 and the Oconee Nuclear Station resulted in' findings of no significant impact.
While these alternatives are environmentally-acceptable, such a new storage facility, either at SONGS 2/3 or at a location offsite, would require new s
site _-specific' design and construction, including equipment for the transfer of.
spent' fuel.
NRC review, evaluation and licensing of_- such a facility would 1
airo be required.- It is not likely that this entire effort would be completed
+
in' time to meet the need for additional capacity as discussed above.
Further-more, such construction would not utilize the existing expansion capability of e
the existing pool and thus would waste resources.
6.
No Action Taken If. no action were taken, i.e., the spent-fuel pool storage capacity remains at 800 locations,- the storage capacity would become exhausted in the very near
. future and SONGS 2/3 would have to be shut down.
Such termination of 4
operations would result in no further generation of spent fuel, thereby eliminating the need for increased spent fuel storage capacity. The impacts of termineting the= generation of spent fuel by ceasing the operation of-existing nuclear power plants (i.e., ceasing generation of electric power) when their spent fuel pools become filled was evaluated in NUREG-0575 and
.found.to be undesirable. This' alternative would be a waste of an available resource, SONGS 2/3 itself, and is not considered viable.
- In summary, the only long-term alternative that could provide an alternative solution to the licensee's spent fuel storage capacity-problem is the construction of a-new independent spent fuel storage installation at the SONGS 2/3 site or at a location away from the site.
Construction of such an additional spent fuel storage facility could provide-long-term increased storage capacity for SONGS 2/3. However, it is not likely that this alternative could be implemented--in a timely manner to meet the need for
' additional capacity-for SONGS 2/3. 'Further, this alternative would waste resources.
1.4 Fu'el' Reprocessing History Currently,- spent fuel is not being reprocessed on a commercial basis in the United; States. TheNuclearFuelServices(NFS)plantatWestValley,NewYork,
'was shut down in 1972 for alterations and expansion.
In September 1976, NFS informed the Commission that it was 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) Morris Operation (formerly Midwest Recovery Plant) in j
Morris, Illinois, is in a decommissioned condition.
In 1977, President Carter issued a policy statement on commercial reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, which effectively eliminated reprocessing as part of the relatively near-term nuclear fuel cycle.
L
s,.
n 4
1
- l} i.' -
- 6'-
Although no plants-are licensed for reprocessing fuel, the storage pools at Morris and at West Valley are-licensed to store spent fuel. The storage pool j
L,
'atWestValley-isnotfull,butthelicensee(thecurrentlicenseeisNewYork Energy.Research and Development Authority) is presently-not accepting any additional spent fuel for storage, even from those power generating facilities Lthat-had contractual arrangements with West Valley.
(In fact, spent fuel is being; removed from NFS and returned to its owners). On May 4, 1982, the license held by GE for spent' fuel storage activities at its Morris operation was renewed for another 20 years; however, GE is committed to accept only limited quantities of additional spent fuel for storage at-this facility from Cooper and San Onofre Unit 1.
2.0 RADI0 ACTIVE WASTES-L San Onofre Units 2 and 3 contain radioactive weste treatment systems designed L
to collect and process the gaseous, liquid, and solid waste that might contain radioactive material.- The radioactive waste. treatment systems are evaluated in the Final Environmental Statement (FES) dated April 1981. There will be.no-change in the waste treatment systems described in the FES because of the proposed spent. fuel pool (SFp) rerack.
2.1 Radioactive Material Released to the Atmosphere With respect to releases of gaseous materials to the atmosphere, the only radioactive < gas of significance that could be attributable to storing additional spent: fuel assemblies for a longer period of the time is noble gas radionuclide Krypton-85 (Kr-85).
Experience has demonstrated that af ter spent fuel has decayed 4 to~6 months, there is no longer a significant release ofi fission products, including Kr-85, from stored spent fuel containing cladding defects. To determine.the average annual release of Kr-85, we assumed that all of.the Kr-85 released from any defective fuel. discharged to the SFP would be' released prior to the next refueling. : Enlarging the storage capacity of the SFP has no effect on the calculated average annual quantities of Kr-85 released to the atmosphere each year. There may be some small change in the
-calculated' quantities due to a change in the fuel burnup; this is expected to be a small fraction of the calculated annual quantities. However, for the purpose of estimating potential radiation doses to the members of the public.
.due to the proposed increased storage of spent fuel assemblies, the-NRC staff conservatively assumed an additional releases of 125 Ci/ year of Kr-85 (US NRC 1985).
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 since the Iodine-131 inventory in the fuel will decay to negligible levels
~
between refuelings.
C Most of the tritium in the SFP water results from activation of boron and lithium in the primary coolant and this will not be affected by the proposed changes. ' A relatively small amount of tritium is contributed during reactor operation by fissioning of reactor fuel and subsequent diffusion of tritium
y l[
L1e :
1 7
through the fuel and' fuel cladding.
Tritium release from the fuel essentially-occurs while the fuel is hot, that is, during operations, and to a limited extent, shortly.after shutdown. Thus, expanding the SFP capacity will not significantly increase the tritium activity in the SFP.-
Storing additional spent fuel assemblies is not expected to increase the bulk water temperature during normal refueling above the value used in the design i
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 modifications from that previously evaluated. Most airborne releases of tritium and iodine result from evaporation of reactor coolant, which contains tritium and:1odine in higher concentrations than the SFP. Therefore, even if-there were a higher evaporation rate from the SFP, the increase in tritium and iodine _ releases 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 which was previously evaluated in the FES.
2.2 ~ Solid Radioactive Wastes The concentration of radionuclides in the pool water is controlled by the SFP cleanup system and by decay of short-lived isotopes. -The activity is highest l
during refueling operations when reactor coolant water is introduced into the pool, and decreases as the pool water is processed through the SFP cooling and cleanup system._ The increase, if any, of radioactivity due to the proposed nodification should be minor because of the capability of the cooling and cleanup system to_ continuously remove radioactivity in the SFP water to accept-
-able levels.
~
We do not expect any significant increase in the amount of solid waste generated from the SFP cleanup due to the proposed modification. The expected increase
- in total waste volume shipped from the SONGS 2/3 site would be minimal and would not have any significant additional environmental impact.
2.3 Radioactive Material Released to Receiving Waters There should.not be a significant increase in t_he liquid release of radionuclides from the' plant as a result of the modifications.
It is expected that neither the flow rate nor the radionuclide concentration of the floor cleanup water will change as a result of these modifications. The SFP demineralizer removes soluble radioactive materials from the SFP water. The amount of radioactivity on.the SFP demineralizer resin may-increase slightly due to the additional spent fuel in the pool, but the soluble radioactive material should be retained on the resins.
After processing, the amount of radioactivity released to the environment as a result of'the modification would be negligible.
3.0 RADIOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 1The occupational exposure for the proposed modification of both fuel pools is estimated by the licensee to be 47 person-rems, which is less than the average annual total occupational dose at San Onofre 2/3. The 47 person-rem radiation dose will not affect the licensee's ability to maintain individual occupational doses within the limits of 10 CFR Part 20, and is as low as is reasonably
m,' '
1
,1
' T.' ' ' - i 7 -
_.8-achievable.
Normal-radiation control procedures (NUREG-0800, US NRC 1981) and i
" Regulatory Guide 8.8 (US NRC 1978) will preclude any significant occupational L
radiation exposures, i
Thus, we conclude that the proposed storage of spent. fuel in the modified SFP will not result in any significant increase in doses received by workers.
4.0 NON-RADIOLOGICAL IMPACT The new spent fuel racks will be fabricated by Westinghouse and will be e
shipped by truck to the San Onofre. site for installation in the pool. This is not expected to impact terrestrial resources not previously disturbed during
-the original construction.
l
=The only nonradiological effluent affected by the SFP expansion is the additional waste. heat rejected from the plant. The total increase in heat s
- 1oad rejected to the environment-will be an insignificant amount compared to the current total
- heat load from.all plant sources to. the environment. No
~ impact on aquatic biota is anticipated. Thus, the increase-in rejected heat
[
willlhave' negligible. impact on the environment.
L
.The licensee has not proposed any change in the use or discharge of chemicals in conjunction'with the expansion of-the fuel pool.
The proposed fuel pool expansion will not require any change to the NPDES permit.
L Therefore, the staff concludes that the non-radiological environmental impacts p
of' expanding the: spent pool will'be insignificant.
y 5.0: ACCIDENT CONSIDERATIONS The staff,.in its related Safety Evaluation to-be published at a later date,.
- m' has addressed both the safety and environmental aspects of a fuel handling accident, an event that bounds the potential adverse consequences of an accident ~ attributable to operation of a spent fuel pool with high density racks.
l A fuel handling accident may be viewed as a " reasonably foreseeable"' design basis event ~which the pool'and its associated structures, systems, and components (including the racks) are designed and constructed to prevent. The environmental impacts of the accident were found not to be significant.
l The staff has considered accidents whose consequences might exceed a fuel l
handling accident, that is beyond design basis events. An accident investigated by the NRC involves a structural failure of SFP resulting in loss of all L
contained cooling water, followed by fuel heatup and a zircaloy cladding fire.
The details of this severe accident are discussed in NUREG/CR-4982, entitled
" Severe Accidents in-Spent Fuel Pools in Support of Generic Issue 82."
Subsequently, the staff issued NUREG/CR-5176, entitled " Seismic Failure and Cask Drop Analysis of the Spent Fuel-Pools at Two Representative Nuclear Power l
l.
Plants." This report considers the structural integrity of the SFP and the pool response to the circumstances considered. More recently the staff issued NUREG/CR-5281, "Value/ Impact Analyses of Accident Preventive and Mitigative Options for Spent Fuel Pools" and NUREG-1353, " Regulatory Analysis for the l'
Resolution of Generic Issue 82: Beyond Design Basis Accidents in Spent Fuel l
l.
g 6
".': 7 -.'
,, 9,,
o 1
O Pools.".In NUREG-1353, the' staff concluded, on the bases of the information presented and analyzed in the other three documents in the-series, that Generic Issue 82 concerning the possibility of Zircaloy cladding fires in y
spent fuel pools was resolved and required no further study.
The staff believes that the probability of such an accident occurring at San Onofre 2/3 is extremely low.
This belief is based upon the Comission's L
requirements for the design and construction of spent fuel pools and their
- contents (e.g., racks).and adherence to approved industry codes and standards..
e R
For example, in the San Onofre 2/3 case, the pool is an integral part of the L
foundation mat and walls.are comprised of reinforced concrete. The spent fuel: storage racks are Seismic Category I and thus required to remain fun-l ctional during and after a safe shutdown earthquake. The cooling water system L
is extremely reliable; in the highly unlikely event of a total cooling system ll failure, makeup water sources are available. These are but a few of the l-considerations used by the staff in assessing the adequacy of the rerack.
L The staff acknowledges that if'the severe accidents occurred as described above,'the environmental impacts could be significant; however, these events R
- are highly unlikely and are not reasonably foreseeable, in light of the design of. the spent fuel pool.' system and racks. Therefore further discussion of severe accidents is not warranted, and the staff con,cludes that an Environmental Inipact Statement need not be prepared.
6.0-SUMMAR1 The Final Generic Environmental-Impact Statement-(FGEIS) on Handling and Storage of Spent Light Water Power Reactor Fuel concluded that the cost of the various alternatives = reflects the advantage of continued generation of nuclear power with the accompanying spent fuel storage..Because of the differences in SFP designs,1the FGEIS recomended environmental evaluation of SFP expansions on a case-by-case basis.
The occupational radiation dose for the proJosed operation of the expanded fuel pool _is estimated by the staff to be less t1an the total. annual occupational radiation exposure for a facility of this type. The small increase in radiation in radiation dose should not affect the licensee's ability to maintain individ-ual occupational doses at SONGS 2/3 within the. limits of 10 CFR Part 20, and as low as is reasonably achievable. Furthermore, the non-radiological impacts of.
expanding the spent fuel pool will be insignificant, and none of the alter-natives are practical or reasonable.
6.1 Alternative-Use of Resources This. action does not involve the use of resources not previously considered in connection with the Nuclear Regulatory Comission's Final Environmental State-ment, dated April 1981.
6.2 Agencies and persons Consulted The NRC staff reviewed the licensee's request. No other agencies or persons were consulted.
ex
- Lr.'
10 7.01 BASIS AND CONCLUSIONS FOR NOT PREPARING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT The staff has' reviewed the proposed s)ent fuel pool modification to SONGS 2/3 relative to the requirements set fort 1-in 10 CFR Part 51. Based upon the environmental assessment, the staff has concluded that there are no significant radiological or non-radiological impacts associated with.the proposed-action and that the pro)osed license amendment will not have significant effect on the quality of tie human environment. Therefore, the Commission has determined, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.31, not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed amendment.
8.0 REFERENCE,S,
- 1.,
Letter-from SCE to NRC dated March 10, 1989.
~2.
Letter from SCE to NRC dated April 19, 1989.
3.-
Letter from SCE to NRC dated _May 4, 1989.
4.
Letter from SCE to NRC dated May 19, 1989.
5.
Letter from SCE to NRC dated June 1, 1989.
- 6. -
Letter'from SCE to NRC dated June 2, 1989.
7.
Letter from SCE to NRC dated September 22, 1989.
8; Letter from-SCE to NRC-dated November 2, 1989.
9.'
Letter from SCE to NRC dated November 9, 1989.
10.
Letter from SCE to NRC dated January 18, 1990.
- 11. Letter from SCE to NRC dated February 9,1990,
- 12. -Letter-from SCE to NRC dated Februay 16, 1990..
- 13. USNRC,NUREG-05","FinalGenericEnvironmentalImpactStatement(FGEIS) on Handling and storage of Spent Light Water Power Reactor Fuel," Volumes
'l-3, August 1979.
- 14. ' ' USNRC, NUREG-0800, " Standard Review Plan," Section 13, July 1981 (formerly
~
issuedasNUREG-75/087).
15.. USNRC, NUREG/CR-4982, " Severe Accidents in Spent Fuel Pools in Support of Generic Issue 82," July 1987.
- 16. USNRC, NUREG/CR-5176, " Seismic Failure and Cask Drop Analyses of the
. Spent Fuel Pools at Two Representative Nuclear Power Plants," January 1989.
- 17. USNRC, NUREG/CR-5281, "Value/ Impact Analyses of Accident Preventive and Mitigative Options for Spent Fuel Pools," March 1989.
- 18. USNRC, NUREG/CR-1353, " Regulatory Analysis for the Resolution of Generic Issue 82: Beyond Design Basis Accidents in Spent Fuel Pools" April 1989,
- 19. USNRC,~ Regulatory Guide 8.8, Revision 3, "Information Relevant to Ensuring that Occupational Radiation Ex)osures at Nuclear Power Stations will be as Low as is Reasonably Achieva >1e," June 1978.
- 20..USNRC, " Environmental Assessment Related to the Construction and Operation of the Surry Dry Cask Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation," 1985, 21.- USNRC, " Environmental Assessment Related to the Construction and Operation of the H.B. Robinson Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation," 1986.
- 22. USNRC. " Environmental Assessment Related to the Construction and Operation of the Oconee Nuc' lear Station Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation,"
1988.
Principal Contributors: Lawrence.E. Kokajko and Amy E. Almond Dated: February 27, 1990 l
i L