ML20054G050

Eia Supporting Amends 79 & 73 to Licenses DPR-29 & DPR-30, Respectively

ML20054G050
Person / Time
Site:	Quad Cities
Issue date:	04/09/1982
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20054G048	List: ML20054G047 ML20054G049 ML20054G050 ML20054G051
References
NUDOCS 8206210023
Download: ML20054G050 (18)

Text

a g

u u.

1 o uc p

a

.4

'S UNITED STATES

[S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS'SION 3

lf,?md4... F WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555

\\ Wi 4.....-

o ElWIRONMENTAL IMPACT' APPRAISAL BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATIO RELATING TO THE liODIFICATION OF THE SPENT FUEL STORAGE POOL FACILITf OPERATING LICENSE N05. DPR-29 AND DPR-30 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY AND IOWA-ILLINOIS GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY QUAD CITIES STATION UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 s

DOCKET NOS. 50-254 AND 50-265

'r.

APRIL 9,1982

~,

• e 4

~

• ~

g.

9 S

W p

eyel" ' ' $

e N

8206210023 820609 PDR ADOCK 05000254 p

PDR

,3 4

2 1

1.0 Introduction and Discussion The combined spent fuel storage capacity of the two nuclear units at Quad Cities Station was originally 2280 fuel assemblies, or storage for 13/5 cores f' rem each of the two units.

This

~

licensed capability was later increased to 2920 ' assemblies, although_ little or no actual increase in installed storage capacity was made.

This limited storage capability was in' 2N keeping with the expectation g'enerally held in the industry that 5

spent fuel would be kept onsite for a period'of D to 5 years and

~

then shipped offsite for )r.eprocessing and recycling of the fqel.

Reprocessing of spent fuel did nof develop as ha'd-been anticipa'ted,

.. ~

however, and in Septe5ber,1975, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, the Commission) directed the NRC staff (the staff) to prepare a Generic \\ Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS, th'e Statement)

~

on spent fuel storage. The Commission-directed the staff to analyze -alternatives for the handking and storage of spent light water power reactor fuel with particul.ar emphasis on developing long range policy:

The Statement would consider alternative

, methods of spent fuel storage as well as the possible restriction or termination of the generation of spent fuel through nuclear power' plant shutdown.

A Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Handling and Storage

~

of Spent Light Water power Reactor Fuel (NUREG-0575), Volumes 1-3 (the FGEIS) w;ar-is3ted-by the NRC in August,1979.

In the FGEIS, consistent 6

?

e

=

1 f

3 r

with the long range policy, the storage of spent fuel is considered to be interim storage, to be used until the issue of permanent disposal is resolved.

.and impiemented.

p One spent fuel storage alternative considered in de, tail in the FGEIS is.the expansion of onsite fuel storage capacity by modification of th'e existing spent fuel pools. Applications for fifty such spent fuel capacity -

increases have been reviewed and approved. The finding in each case has

~

been that the environmental impact of such ' increased storage capacity is negligib'le.

However, since there are variations in storage pool designs and limitations caused b,yithe spent fuel already stored in s ms of the pools',

. the FGTIS i eccr:nends thE'11censiBg reviews be done on a case-by-case basis to resolve plant specific. concerns.

In addition to the alternative of increasing the storage capacity s.

4 of the existing spent fuel pools, other spent fuel storage alternatives.are discussed in detail in the FGEIS.

The finding of the FGEIS is that the environmental impact co,sts of interim storage-are essentially negligible, regardless of where such spent fuel is stored.

A comparison of the imp'act-costs of the various' Ualternatives reflect the advantage of continued generation of nuclear power versus its replacement by coal fired power generation.

In the -bounding case considered in the FGEIS, that of shutting down the reactor when the spent fuel storage capacity is filled, the cost of replacing nuclear stations before the end of their normal lifetime makes this alternative"Jneconomical.

9

+

t

,e ot gg 4

)

This' Environmental Impact Appraisal (EIA)~ addresses the environmental concerns related only to expansion of the Quad Cities Station spent fuel storage pools.

Additional discussion of the alternatives to increasing the storage capacity of existing spent fuel pools is contained in the FGEIS.

1.1 Description of the proposed Action By application dated March 26, 1981, and s'upplemented by letters dated June 24, July 24, August 10, August 26, Octob'er 19, 5

Novcmber 2, December 8,1981; January 27 and March 12, 1982, j

Cecmonwealth Edison proposed an amendment that would allow an

'. M, increase in the lic4.nsed storage capacity of the two. spen.t fuel c

pools frcm 2,92,0 to 7,570 fuel asserablies. The storage capability would be increased by replacing the existing racks with new, more compact, neutron absorbing racks. This would prov9de storage for spent fuel generated at Quad Cities for the-

~

next 20 years.

~

The envirorraental impacts of Quad Cities Station, as designed, were considered ip the NRC's Final Environmental Statement (FES) issued '

September,1972, relative to the continuation of construction and

\\

operation of the Station.

The licensee was later authorized to increase the sto; age capacity from 2280 to 2920 bundles. The-environmental impact of this action was considered in an environmental impect appraisal issued with our authorization e - ~. y e

0 m

t g

for this action in January,1978.

'In this EIA we have evaluated any additional environmental impacts which' c

are attributable to the currently proposed increase in the SFP storage capacity for the Station.

1.2 Need for Increased Storace Capacity Spent, fuel storage pools are pfovided for each'of the two nuclear generating units at the Quad Cities Station.

The Station now has a combined licensed

• fuel storage capacity of 2920 spaces. Of this number, 2280 spaces are provided by racks already installed.

Of the installed racds' 1716 spaces are occupied by spent.fuil and 564'

~

spaces are empty.

For the Unit i refuel outage now scheduled for'

.. ~

fail,1982, the full core of 724 assemblies needs to be removed and

~

stcred temporarily 1,n order to safely and with minimum personnei

~

expobre perform needed inspections and modifications. The 564 empty spaces in the racks now installed obviously will not accommodate. - -

the full Unit 1 core. Therefore, additional space is needed in the irr.ediate future if Unit 1 is to refuel' and continue to operate j

o'n schedul e.

,1.3 ' Fuel Reorocessino His' tory Currently, spent fuel is not being reprocessed on a co=nercial basis in the United States. The Nuclear Fuel Services (NFS) plant at West I'

Valley, New York, was shutdown in 1972 for alterations and expansion; in September,1976, NFS infor;:ed the Commission that it was l

withdrawjn.g.,fr.om the nuclear fuel reprocessing business.

The Allied l

G e

{

e..

y 6

General Nuclear Services (AGNS) proposed plant in Barnwell, South Carolina, is not licensed to operate.

O The General Electric Ccmpany's (GE) Morris Operation (MO) in Morris, Illinois is in a decommissioned condition. Although no plants are licensed for reprocessing fuel, the, storage pool'at Morris, Illinois and the stora'ge pool at West Valley, New York are licensed to store spent fuel. The storage pool at%syVall,ey.is not full, but NFS is regently not accepting any additional spent fuel for storage, even from those power generating facilities that had; contractual arrangersents with NFS.

GE is also

~

not accepting any additiona1' spent fuel for storage at the Morris Operation.

2.0 The Facility The Srinciple features of the spent fuel storage and handling at Quad

]

Cities Station as they relate to'this acti6n are described here as an... :

aid in following the evaluations in subsequent sections of thi's environmental impact appraisal...

~

2.1 The Spent Fuel Pool (SFR)

~

Spent fuel assea311es are intensely radioactive due to their fresh fission product :entent when initially removed from the core; also,.

they'have a high thermal output. The SFp was designed for storage,

of these assemblies to allow for radioactive ano thermal decay prjor to shipping them to a reprocessing facility. The major portjon_of,,. decay occurs in the first 150 days following removal i

e

7 frca the reactor core.

After this period, the spent fuel assemblies may be withdrawn and placed in heavily shielded casks

~~

for shipent.

Space permitting, the assemblies may be stor'ed for longer periods, allowing continued fission product decay and ther=al cooling.

i 2.2 SFP Cooline System

?

The SFP cooling system for each unit at the Quad Cities

. Station consists o two pumps and two heat exchangers.

Each pump is pounds p'r hour), and each heat.

designe.d to 'punip 700 gp (350,000 e

6 exchanger is designed to transfer 3.5x10 BTU /hr from 1,25 F fuel pool sater to 70 F cootMg water,,which flows through the shell. side.of the heat exchanger..

~

Heat is transferred from the spent fuel pool cooling system to' the reactor building closed cooling water system. The r.e' actor building closed cooling n

water system, in turn, transfers heat to the service water system. The service water system is a once-through cooling systen in f

which strained water from the Mississippi River is supplied from pumps in the intake structure and returned to the river after removing heat' from a number o'f syste:s, including the reactor building closed cooling water system.

2.3 Radioactive Wastes The plant contains waste treatment systems designed to collect. and i

(

process the gaseous, liquid and solid waste that might contain l

radioactive material.

The waste treatment systems are evaluated in

=.

=

~.

n

,y 2

8 the NRC's Final Environmental Statement (FES) dated September,1972.

There will be no change in the waste treatment systems: described in Section III.D.2 of the FES because of the proposed modification.

2.4 Scent Fuel Pool Cleanuo' System The SFP cleanup system is part of the pool cooling system..It consists of a demineralizer wi,th inlet and out'let filters, and the required piping, valves, and instrumentation.

There is also a separate skimmer system to remove surfacp dust and debris from the SFP.

This cleanup systen is similar to'such systems at other -

nuclear plants which maintain concentrations of radioactivity in-

<l t-he pool witer atlicceptabl,y. low levels.

3.0. Environmental Imoacts of the Proposed Action 3.1 Nonradiological

% he nonradiological environmental impacts of Quad Cities Station, as T

designed, were ' considered i'n the FES ' issued September,1972.

Incr.easirig the number of assenblies stored in the existing fuel pools will not.

cause any new nonradiological environmental impacts not previously considbred. The amounts of waste heat enitted by each of the units l

as a result of the proposed increased spent fuel storage capacity wi.ll-s increase slightly (less than one percent), 'but will result in.no

'raeasurable increase in impacts upon the environment.

j 3.2 Radiological Consecuences of the Procosed Action 3.2.1 Introduction

, The potential offsite radiological environmental impact associated l

with the expansion of spent fuel storage capacity at Quad Cities Station has been evaluated.

i

.=

g

)

During the storage of the spent fuel' under water, both volatile and non-volatile radioactive nuclides may be released to the water frem the surface of the assemblies or frcm defects in the fuel cladding.

Most of the material released from the surface of the,

assemblies consists of ' activated corrosion products such as Coi58, Co-60, Fe-59 and Mn-54, which are not volatile.

The radionuclides that might be released to the' water through'.defec'ts ih' the 'cl'addinh,]

~

such as Cs-134, Cs-137, Sr-89 and Sr-90, are also 'p'redomfnantly non-volatile at the tenperature.conditichs that exist in pool storage.

Tiie primary impact of such non-volatile radioactive nuclides is their contribution of fa[iation levels to which workers in a'nd near the SFP-

=

~-

would be. exposed.

The volatile fission product nuclides of most concern that might. be released through defects in the fuel cladding are the noble gases (xenon and krypton), tritium and the iodin'e isotopes.

s 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 pool water appear to be radionuclides that were present in the reactor ccolant systen prior to refueling (which becomes mixed ~ ith water w

in the spent fuel pool during refueling operations), or crud dislodged from the surface of the spent fuel during transfer from.

reactor core-to the SFP.

During and after refueling, the spent fuel pool cleanup system reduces the radioactivity concentrations con-sid era bl y.

c.

G e

l

, e ei

'y 10 A f.ew weeks after refueling, the spent fuel cools in the pool so that the

~

0 fuel cladding tenperature is relatively cool,,approximately 180 F.

'This I

substantial temperature reduction reduces the rate of release of fission products from the fue,1 pellets, and. decreases the gas pressure in the gap between pellets and cladding, thereby tending to retain the' fission products

~

within the gap.

In addition, most of the gaseous fission p'roducts have short half-lives and decay to insignificant levels within a few months.. Based on operational reports submitted by licensees ~, and discussions with storage facility operdtors, there has not s

been any significant leakage of fission products from spent light water reac,toEifuel stored in the Morris Operatidn (MO)

(formerly Midwest Recovery Plant) at Morris, Illinois, or at Nuclear Fuel Services' (NFS) storage pool at ' West Valley, New York. Spent fuel has been stored in these two pools which, whW e it was in a reactor, was determined to have significant leakage and was therefore removed from tha core. After storage e

in the onsite spent fuel pool, this fuel was later shipped to either.

MO..or NFS for extended storage.. Although the fuel exhibited signifi-cant leaka'ge at reactor, operating conditions, there was no significant

~

\\.

leakage from this fuel in the offsite storage facility.

l 3.2.2 Radioactive Material Released to the Atmosobere With respect to releases of gaseous materials to the atmosphere, the only radioactive gas of significance which could be attributable to storing additional fuel assemblies for a long.er O

4

~

11

)

i period of time' would be the noble gas radionuclide Krypton.-85 (Kr-85).

As disedssed previously, experience has demonstrated that, after spent fuel has decayed 4 to 6 months, there is no P

lenger a significant release of fission products, including Kr-85, from stored fuel containing cladding defects.

For the simplest and most conservative case, we assumed that all of the Kr-85 that is going to leak from defective fuel will do so in the 18 month interval between refuelings.

In other words, all of x

the Kr-85 available for release is assumed to come out of the fuel before the riest batch of fuel enters the pool.

Obr.

Malculations show t' hat the expected release of Kr-85 fiom a 200 fuel assemSly refueling ir approximately 46 Ci each 12

~

months. As far as potential dose to offsite populations is congrned, this is actually the worst case, since each refueling would generate a new batch of Kr-85 to be released.

Since all of the Kr-85 available for release has already left the defected fuel

.=

before the next b'atch enters, the annual releases remain appr'oximately the same. The enlarged capacity of the pool has no effect on the total amount of Kr-85 released to the atmosphere each year.

s

~

Thus, we conclude l

' hat the p'roposed modifications will. not have any significant impact l

on exposures offsite.

c Similarly, Iodine-131 released from stored spent fuel to the pool' water will not significant1j increase because of the expansion of the-fuel stor-age capacity,'since the Iodine-131 inventory in the fuel will decay to negligible levels between refuelings for each' unit.'

l

~

8) g I

Storing additional spent fuel assemblies is not expected to increase the bulk water temperature during normal refuelings'

~

above the 150 F used in the design analysis.

Therefore, it is not expected that there will be any significant change in the annual release of tritium or iodine as a result of the propo, sed modifications from that previously evaluated in the FES. Most

, airborne releases of tritium and iodine result from evaporation of reactor coolarit, which contains tritium and iodine in higher

concentrations than the pool water fTherefore, even if there were a higher evaporation rate from the spent fuel pool, the increase in Y.

triti.um and.'.iddine released frca the plant as a result of the increase 5 stored spent fuel would. be small compared to the amount n6rmally released from.the plant and that which was previously evaluated in the Charcoal filters are available for, the removal of radiciodine FES.

I from the atmosphere before release to the environment. 'In addition.

~

~

~

the station radiologi, cal effluent Technical Specifications, which aie#

not being changed by this action, limit the total releases of gaseous j

activity.

Based on the foregoing c' nsiderations, implenentation of the proposed o

s.

increased spent fuel storage capability wi.11 not res' ult in significantly increased amounts of radioactivity being released to the atmospher'e.

l 3.2.2 Solid 5adioactive Wastes The concentration of radionuclides in the pool water is controlled by the filters and the demineralizer and by decaf of short-lived isstopes.

I

_:..'The level of activity is highest during refueling operations, when reactor coolant water'is introduced in'o the pool., and decreases as

13 the pool water is processed through the filters and deminer.alizer.

o

, The increase of radioactivity in the pool water, if any, due to the proposed modification, should be minor because of the capability of the cleanup system to continuously remove radioactivity in the. water

'to acceptabl.e l evel s.

~

The 1,icensee does not expect any significant increase in the:

amount of solid waste generated from the spent fuel pool -

cleanup systems due to the proposed modification. While we agree with the licensee's conclusion, as a conservative estimate we

. y, e

have assumed that 'the amount of solid radwaste may be ' increased by an' additional two resin beds a year, or 160 cubic feet of solid saste, due to the increased operation of the spent fuel pool cleanup system.

the annual average volume, per unit, of solid wastes shipped from the '

Quae Cities Station'during 1980 through 1981 was 30,000 cubic feet, so that the 160 cubic feet per unit per year would increase the total' waste volume to be shipped offsite by less than 1%.

This would have no significant additional envircr$ ental impact.

The present spent fuel racks t'o be removed from the SFp'because of s

the proposed codification are contaminated and might be ' dis. posed of-as low level solid waste. We have estimated that approximately 7000 cubic feet of solid radwaste will be removed frem the plant because of the proposed modification. Averaged over the lifetime of the plant, this would increase the total waste volume shipped from the facility by TesUIiin ~3%, which we find is not a significant addition.al environmental impact.

~

'u

,i 14

)

3.2.4 Radioactive Material Released to.Receivino Waters There should not be a sign.ificant increase in'the liquid release o.f radionuclides from the plant as a result of the proposed mod'ification.

Since the SFP cooling 'and cleanup system operates as a clos.ed system, only water originating from clennup of SFP floors and resin, sluice water need be considered as potential sources'of radioactivity.

It is expected.that the change in the quantity and. activity.of the floor cleanup water as a result of this modifkcation will be insignificant. The p

y SFP demineralizer resin removes soluble radioactive material from the pool water.

These,?' resins are periodically sluiced with water t'o the.

.~ r

' spent resin storage tank. "The amount of ' radioactivity on the.'deminer-alizer resin m)y increase slightly due to the additional spent fuel in' o

the pool, but the soluble radioactive material should be retained on

~

tI1eyresins, to be shipped offsite and buried in sealed drums' as solid waste at a licensed burial facility.'

Leakage of water from the SFP, if any, would be detected by the pool low' level alarm, the flow glass'in the drain line and the level

~

detector on the skimmer surge tank. This water would be transferred to the liquid radwaste sys' ten for processing and reuse or release to receiving waters.

Based on the foregoing considerations, there will not be a significant increase in radioactivity released to receiving waters as a result of the proposed increase in spent fuel storage capacity.

-.a.,

e D

e

~

.. ~.

15 3.2.5 Occupational Radiation Exposures We have reviewed the licensee's plans for the removal and disposal of the icw density racks, and the installation of the high density racks, 5

with respect to occupational radiation exposure. The occupational exposure for the operation is estimated by the licensee to'be bout 18 to 39 man-rem, based on the licensee's detailed breakdown of exposure -

to each individual performing specific jobs 'for each phase of the operation.

This exposure is a small fraction of the total annual man-rem from occupational exposure for all plant operations.

We have estimated.'tbe increase in onsite occupational Eose

resulting from the propos6d increase in stored fuel as.semblies

'~

on the basis of measured dose rates in the SFP area, and from

~radionuclide concentrations in the SFP water and from the SFP -

asspblies.

The spent fuel assenblies themselves will contribute a

~

negligible amount to dose rates in the pool area because of the depth of water shielding the fuel.

Based on present and projected operations in the spent fuei pool area, we estimate that the proposed I

1 l

modification should add only a small fraction to the total annual i

occupational radiation exposure burden at this facility. Thus, we v

conclude that storing additional spent fuel in the SFP will not result in any significant increase in doses received by workers.

3.2.6 Radiolacical Imoacts to the Poculation The proposed increase of the storage capacity of the SFP will rot create any significant additional radiological effects

.e

I

]

9 16

)

to the population. The additional total body dose that might b'e

~

received by an individual at the site boundary, and by the estimated population within a 50-mile radius, is less than 0.10 mrem /yr and 0.001 man-rea/yr, ' espectively. These r

doses are small compared to the fluctuations in the annual dose this population receives from background _ radiatior..

The population dose represents an increase of l'ess than-

• 0.01 percent of tiie dose previously evaluated in the FES foN

~

j Quad Cities, Station. We find this to.be an insignificant increase in dose to the population resulting from.the proposed action.

y.

3.3 Environmental Impact of Spent Fuel Handling Accidents.~ '

Although the new high density racks will; accommodate a farger inventory of spent fuel, we have determined that the installation and use of the racks will not change the radiological consequences of k postulated spent fuel handling accident, and a fuel shipp.ing cask.

drop accident, in the SFP area, from those values previously

.3 ieported in the Quad Cities FES, based on the following considerations.

The heaviest identified load with this modification is a 16 x 16.. rack e'

weighing ~ 161/2 tons, whereas the main hoist on the reactor building crane ~

is rated at 125 tons.

From a previous review we had concluded that the overhead crane load handling system and the spent fuel cask handling Technical Specifications meet cur requirements and are acceptable for handling spent fuel casks weighing up to 100 tons.

Spent fuel casks are of course not peraitted over spent fuel stored in the pool. The only items transported over spent fuel, are other fuel assemblies, pool canal gates, 4

i 17 and a fuel channel measuring device, none of which approach this we'ight capacity of 125 t6ns. We have concluded then that the likelihood of a heavy load handling accident is sufficiently small that the propos'ed modifications are acceptable, and no additional restr.ictions on 1oad-

. handling operations in the vicinity of the SFP 'are required.

4.0 Summary The findings contained in the Final Generic Environmental Statement on Handling and Storage of Spent Light Water Power _ Reactor _Euel, (the.

~~

g F'GEIS) issued by the NRC in August,1979, were that the environmental impact of interim, storage of spent fuel was negligible *, and the cost, of t'he various aTternatives reflect the advantage of continued generation of ' nuclear power with the accompanying spent fuel storage.

~ Because of the differences in spent fuel pool designs, the FGEIS Feaggamended licensing spent fuel pool expansions on a ca:e-by-case basis.

Expansion of the spent fuel storage capacity at Quad Cities

~

Station does not significantly change the radiological impact evaluated by the'NRC in the FES issued in September,1972. As discussed in Section 3.2.6 of this EIA, the additional total body -

dose that might be, received by an individual at the ' site boundary

's or the estimated population within a 50-mile radius is less than 0.10 arem/yr and 0.001 man-rem /yr.

respectively, and is less than the natural fluctuations in the dose this population would receive frem background radiation.

The occupational exposure for the mcdifications of the SFPs is estimated by the licensee to be 18

~.~.y to 39 manrem.

This is conservative.

Operation of the. plant with additional spent fuel in th'e SFP is not expected 'to increase the

~

't.

18 occupational radiation exposure by more than one percent of the total annual occupational exposure at the two' units. :

5.0 Basis and Conclusion for Not Precaring an Environmental Imoact Statement We have reviewed the proposed modifications relative to the requirements set forth in 10 CFR Part 51 a'nd the Council of Environmental Quality's Guidelines, 40 CFR 1500.6. We have detennined, based on this' i

assessment, that th'e propose-d-tirense a'merydments-vil-1-.nci significantly affect the quality of the human environment.

v sherefore,, the C,omm.ission has determined that an envi oraental 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.

D 8

4 F

\\

l

(

l l

I l

1

.=

sum - hamp de $

e G

e 9

O

--