ML20056E056
| ML20056E056 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fort Calhoun  |
| Issue date: | 07/29/1993 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20056E055 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9308190271 | |
| Download: ML20056E056 (5) | |
Text
'
ocg
.7 ,bt UNITED STATES _ !
. [ kIf ; j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 2056&D001 j
- 4yv g4 ]! ;
..... 1 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT f
BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION f RELATING TO THE EXPANSICN OF THE SPENT FUEL POOL !
FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. OPR-40 !
OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT
{
FORT CALHOUN STATION. UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. 50-285
[
1.0 INTRODUCTION
i 1.1 Description of Proposed Action :
By letter dated December 7,1992, as supplemented oy etters dated March 19, !
April ?8, and May 14, 1993, Omaha Public Power Tstria.t (0 PPD, or the l licensee) requested an amendment to the Technic'i Specifications (TS) appended '
to Facil m Operating License No. DPR-40 for Fcrt C6houn Station, Unit 1 :
(Fort Calhoun). The amendment would increase ti,e spent fuel pool (SFP) rack l storage capacity from 729 to 1083 fuel assemblies. The increased capacity !
would be achieved by removing the existing storage racks and replacing them i with free-standing, high density fuel racks installed in a Discrete Zone, Two i Region storage system.
1.2 Need for Increased Storace Capacity i The present Fort Calhoun SFP storage racks are licensed to store 729 fuel assemblies and, in fact, currently store 529 assemblies. The reactor core holds 133 fuel assemblies. Thus, in order to maintain full core off-load capability, 596 storage cells (729 minus 133) are available for normal offload storage. Based on the licensee's projected refueling schedule and anticipated number of fuel assemblies that will be transferred into the SFP at each refueling, the licensee estimates that Fort Calhoun will lose full-core discharge capacity after the 1995 refueling. Therefore, to preclude this situation, the licensee will reconfigure the SFP by installing high-density spent fuel storage racks.
The' licensee currently has no contractual agreements with any reprocessing facility. There are no operating or planned fuel reprocessing familities available in the U.S. Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, spent fuel can be removed and disposed of at a government facility; however, such a Monitored Retrievable Storage Facility does not currently exist.and is not expected to be in service until 1998 at the earliest.
4 9308190271 DR 930729 i ADOCK 05000285 I PDR
l
~
1.3 Alternatives Commercial reprocessing of spent fuel has not developed as originally anticipated. In 1975, the Commission directed the staff to prepare a Generic
- Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) on spent fuel storage. The Commission directed the staff to evaluate 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 restrictions on termination of the generation of spent fuel through reactor shutdown.
A " Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement (FGEIS) on Handling and Storage of Spent Light Water Power Reactor Fuel" (NUREG-0575, Volumes 1-3) was issued by the Commission in August 1979. The finding of the FGEIS is that the environmental 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 over replacement by coal-fired power generation. The economic advantage of continued generation of nuclear power over replacement l by oil-fired power generation is even greater. In the bounding case considered in the FGEIS, that of shutting down the reactor when the existing ,
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. One spent fuel i storage alternative considered in detail in the FGEIS is the expansion of the t onsite fuel storage capacity by modification of the existing SFPs. Over 100 applications for spent fuel expansion have either been approved or are under consideration by the Commission. The finding in each case has been that the environmental impact of such increased storage is negligible. Since there are variations in storage design and limitations caused by spent fuel alreaJy ,
in storage, the FGEIS recommends that licensing reviews be done on a case-by- j
, case basis, so as to resolve any plant-specific concerns.
The licensee has considered several alternatives to the proposed action of the SFP expansion. The staff has evaluated these and certain other alternatives with respect to the need for the proposed actions as discussed in Section 1.2
! of this assessment. The following alternatives were considered by the staff and are discussed below:
(1) Shipment of Spent Fuel to a Permanent Federal Fuel Storage / Disposal Facility Shipment of fuel to a permanent Federal fuel storage / disposal :
facility is a preferred 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 (NWPA). However, the facility is not likely to be able to receive spent fuel until approximately 2010 at the earliest.
l i
)
1 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 spent fuel at a Federal Interim Storage (FIS) facility fall within those already- '
assessed by the Commission in NUREG-0575. In enacting the NWPA,
- Congress found that the owners and operators of nuclear power ?
stations have the primary responsibility for providing interim "
storage for spent nuclear fuel. In accordance with the NWPA and l 10 CFR Part 53, shipping of spent fuel to an FIS facility is- -l considered a last-resort alternative. . At this time, the licensee !
cannot take advantage of FIS because existing storage capacity is not yet maximized. '
i (2) Shipment of Fuel to a Reprocessing Facility Reprocessing of spent fuel from Fort Calhoun is not viable because !
there is no operating commercial reprocessing facility in the .!
United States, nor is there the prospect for one becoming ;
operational in the foreseeable future. l (3) Shipment of Fuel to Another Utility or Site for Storage The shipment of fuel .from Fort Calhoun to the storage facility of ;
another utility would provide short-term relief from the storage !
problem. However, the NWPA and 10 CFR Part 53 clearly place the 1 responsibility.for interim storage of spent nuclear fuel with each ,
owner or operator of a nuclear power plant. The shipment of spent fuel to another site is not an acceptable alternative since the licensee does not own or control any facility where it could 'f transfer spent fuel. ;
i (4) Reduction of Spent Fuel Generation !
Improved usage of fuel in the reactor and/or operation at a reduced l'
- power level would extend the life of fuel in the reactor. In the case of extended burnup of fuel assemblies, the fuel cycle would be extended and fewer off-loads would- take place. Through increasing the enrichment of the fuel, the licensee is already work'ing towards extended fuel cycles. However, the current. storage capacity would ,
still be exhausted in the near future, as discussed in Section 1.2. i Operating at reduced power would not be an effective use of j available resources and.would create undue economic disadvantages -l for the licensee and its customers. Therefore, this is not a ~
practical alternative for Fort Calhoun. l (5) Construction of a New Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation. !
Additional storage capacity could be developed by building a new, !
independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI), similar either ,
to the existing SFP or a dry storage facility. The staff has j .
1 1
'I l
generically assessed the impacts of the pool alternative and found, !
as reported in NUREG-0575, that the storage of spent light water reactor fuel in water pools has an insignificant impact on the i environment. The staff has not made.a generic assessment of the :
dry storage alternative. However, assessments of several proposals, including those for the dry cask ISFSI at the Surry l 4
Nuclear Power Station and the dry modular concrete ISFSIs at both the H. B. Robinson Electric Plant and the Oconee Nuclear Station, ,
resulted in findings of no significant impact. Subsequent to these ;
licensing actions, the NRC promulgated a final rule that permits ;
the onsite storage of spent fuel in NRC-approved dry storage casks j under a general license. Several cask designs have been approved !
by the staff pursuant to this rule.
i.
While these alternatives are environmentally acceptable, such a new !
storage facility, either at Fort Calhoun or offsite, would require ;
new site-specific design and construction, including equipment for. .}
transferring spent fuel. It is not likely that such an effort i could be completed in time to meet the need for additional storage !
capacity as discussed in Section 1.2. Furthermore, such !
construction would not make effective use of the available expansion volume of the existing pool and would be a waste of available resources.
t 4
(6) No Action Taken If no action were taken,Lthe storage capacity would become ;
exhausted in the near future and Fort Calhoun would have to shut i down. This would be a waste of an available resource and is not '
considered viable. It would also place a heavy financial burden on- ;
the customers served by the licensee and cannot be justified. l 2.0 RADI0 ACTIVE WASTES i Fort Calhoun contains radioactive waste treatment systems designed to collect I 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 August 1972. There will be i no change in the waste treatment systems described in the FES because of the !
proposed SFP expansion.
1 2.1 Radioactive Material Released to the Atmosohere l i total releases and release rates of gaseous activity are' limited by facility !
TS and will be measured in accordance with OPPD's Radiation Monitoring !
Program, which also requires that releases be continuously monitored to assure !
- that releases are maintained as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA) and !
within the limits of 10 CFR Part 20. .,
1
't i
1_-
i t
t With respect to releases of gaseous radioactive materials to the atmosphere, j the only radioactive gas of significance which could be. attributable to storing-additional spent fuel assemblies onsite- for a longer time is. the ,
radionuclide Krypton-85 (Kr-85). Average annual releases of Kr-85 are estimated by assuming that all of.the Kr-85 released from any defective fuel l assembly stored in the SFP will be released prior to the next refueling. . '
Enlarging the s".orage capacity of the SFP would have no effect on the calculated average quantities of Kr-85 released to the atmosphere each year.
- Consequently, calculated annual doses to an individual would likewise be unchanged as a result of the proposed modification to the SFP. ;
i Iodine-131 releases from spent fuel assemblies to the SFP water will not '
' increase appreciably since Iodine-131 will decay to negligible levels between refuelings.
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. 1 A relatively small amount of tritium is contributed during reactor i operation by fissioning of reactor fuel and subsequent diffusion of the -
tritium through the fuel and cladding. Tritium releases from the fuel :
assemblies occur mainly during reactor operations and, to a limited extent, l shortly after shutdown. Therefore, increasing the SFP capacity will not increase the tritium activity in the SFP. ,
2.2 Solid Radioactive Wastes '
The only solid radioactive waste associated with opention of the spent fuel ;
pool purification system is in the filterg and demigeralizers, which have {
solid waste volumes per changeout of 5 ft and 45 ft ,- respectively. The
. necessity.for resin replacement is determined primarily by the requirement for !
water clarity, and the resin is normally changed about once per operating j cycle. No signif.icant increase in the volume of solid radioactive wastes is :
expected with the expanded storage capacity. During reracking operations, a small amount of additional resins may be generated by the pool cleanup' system on a one-time basis.
The existing spent fuel storage racks will be released as low-level.
radioactive waste. The spent fuel storage racks will be required to:be stored temporarily onsite due to the uncertainty of operation of the Central States Compact low-level radioactive waste facility. .The old spent-fuel racks will be stored onsite if OPPD is. denied access to an existing low-level radioactive facility (Hanford, WA; Barnwell, SC; or Beatty, NV). Fort Calhoun has the capacity. to store spent fuel storage racks on site on a temporary basis, ;
i 2.3 Radioactive Material Released to Receivina Waters It is not expected that there will be a significant increase in the liquid
-release of radionuclides from the plant as a result of the proposed modifications. The SFP cooling and cleanup systems operate as closed systems.
The SFP demineralizer resin removes soluble radioactive materials from the SFP l
1 l
water. These resins are periodically replaced and disposed of as solid radioactive waste. The amount of activity in the resin may increase slightly due to the increased amount of spent fuel in the pool; however, the amount of radioactivity released to the environment as a result of the proposed change '
would be negligible.
3.0 RADIOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT This section contains the staff's estimates of the impacts on the public from the proposed SFP expansion. This section also contains the staff's evaluation '
of the estimates of the additional radiological impacts on the plant workers from the proposed operation of the modified SFP.
3.1 Public Radiation Exposure '
Sections 2.1 and 2.3 indicated that releases to the atmosphere and receiving waters would not be significant and would be well within regulatory limits.
Consequently, the estimateo increase in doses due to exposure of individuals ,
and the population to radioactive material associated with the SFP expansion vill not be significant, i.e., will be within regulatory limits.
2.2 Occupational Exoosure The collective occupational dose for the proposed podification of the SFP is estimated by the licensee to be about 5 to 10 person-rem (no dive operations).
The licensee denoted the activities expected to be performed during the reracking process including the removal, washing (hydrolasing), and decontamination of existing racks, removing underwater appurtenances, installing new racks, and preparing old racks for storage and shipment. The reracking is to be accomplished with detailed procedures in place that take into consideration ALARA principles. Similar operations have been performed at a number of other facilities and there is every reason to believe that the SFP modification can be accomplished safely and efficiently with minimum radiation exposure to personnel.
The estimated c,ccupational exposure for the reracking is a small fraction of the average occupational exposure for the Fort Calhoun site. The small increase in collective radiation dose should not affect the licensee's ability to maintain individual occupational doses within the limits of 10 CFR Part 20 and ALARA. The licensee has committed to using the guidance contained in Appendix A to draft Regulatory Guide DG-8006, " Control of Access to High and i Very High Radiation Areas in Nuclear Power Plants, Appendix A," to ensure procedures are in place and followed for radiation protection of divers.
Instituting this guidance as well as normal radiation control procedures t
should preclude any significant occupational exposure. Therefore, we conclude that the proposed storage of additional fuel in the modified SFP will not result in any significant increase in doses received by workers.
1 4.0 FON-RADIOLOGICAL IMPACT The only non-radiological effluent affected by the SFP expansion is the additional waste heat rejected from the plant. The total increase in heat load rejected to the environment will be insignificant compared to the current total heat load from all plant sources to the environment. Thus, the increase in rejected heat will have a negligible affect on the environment.
The licensee has not proposed any change in the use or discharge of chemicals in conjunction with the SFP modification. The proposed reracking project will not require any change to the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit. Therefore, the staff concludes that the non-radiological environmental impact of expanding the c.apacity of the SFP will be insignificant.
5.0 ACCIDENT ASSESSMENT C.1 Accident Considerationl The staff, in its Safety Evaluation Report (SLR) issued August 9, 1972, addressed the safety and environmental aspects of a fuel-handling accident.
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 spent fuel storage racks) are designed and constructed to prevent. The environmental impacts of the accident were found not to be significant.
The staff has reviewed the accidental fission product releases that could occur at Fort Calhoun in conjunction with the proposed expansion of the spent fuel pool storage capacity. The staff finds that neither the reracking operations nor the increased capacity of spent fuel storage will affect the calculated consequences of postulated accidents. Likewise, the proposed rack addition does not create the possibility of a new type of accident not previously analyzed. The radiological consequences resulting from postulated accidents have been previously analyzed and found acceptable.
5.2 Radiolooical Assessment of Potential Accidents Although no onsite fuel-handling accidents having significant offsite radiological consequences have ever occurred, such accidents must be postulated and their potential environmental consequences must be analyzed.
Potential environmental consequences of such postulated accidents may be realistically bounded by extrapolation of results obtained from conservative estimates.
Offsite dose consequences are conservatively estimated for plant-siting purposes and for performing design and operation reviews. The combination of assumptions used for these conservative dose estimates assure that calculations of doses for such accidents result in dose estimates that are unrealistically high. As a result, safe plant siting, design, and operation
are enhanced because the doses so. calculated would exceed regulatory limits without the adoption of plant safety features and/or operational controls.
The principal regulatory dose limits for safety reviews are set forth in 10 CFR Part 100, " Reactor Site Criteria." For safety reviews, the limiting -
' dose is set at 25. rem to the whole body and 300 rem to the thyroid from iodine exposure. For reactor safety reviews such as those performed to evaluate consequences from fuel handling accidents, doses to the thyroid .from inhalation of accident-released iodine are controlling.
By increasing the spent fuel storage capacity at the Fort Calhoun facility, the accidents considered and evaluated previously are still bounding and do not require reevaluation. Therefore, the environmental consequences of postulated accidents meet our criteria and are, therefore, acceptable.
6.0
SUMMARY
The FGEIS on handling and storage of spent light water power reactor fuel concluded that the cost of various alternatives reflects the advantage ~ of continued generation of nuclear power with the accompanying spent fuel storage. Because of the differences in SFP designs, the FGEI5 recommended environmental evaluation of SFP expansions on a case-by-case basis.
For Fort Calhoun, the expansion of the storage capacity of the SFP will not create any significant additional radiological effects or measurable non-radiological environmental impacts. The small increase in radiation dose should not affect the licensee's ability to maintain individual occupational doses at Fort Calhoun within the limits of 10 CFR Part 20 and ALARA. The only:
non-radiological effluent affected by.the SFP expansion is additional waste heat rejected. The increase in total waste heat is insignificant. Thus, there is no significant environmental impact attributable to the waste heat from the plant due to SFP expansion.
6.1 Alternative Use of Resources This action does not involve the use of resources not previously considered in connection with the Commission's Final Environmental Statement, dated August 1972, in connection with the Fort Calhoun Station, Unit 1.
- 6.2- Aaencies and Persons Consulted The staff consulted with the State of Nebraska regarding the environmental imnpact of the. proposed action.
7.0 BASIS AND CONCLUSIONS FOR NOT PREPARING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT The staff has reviewed the proposed SFP modification to Fort Calhoun relative.
to the requirements set forth 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 proposed license amendment will not have a significant impact on the' quality
P of the human environment. Therefore, the Commission has determined, pursuant >
to 10 CFR 51.31, not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed amendment. .
Principal Contributor: S. Bloom Date: July 29, 1993 p
L I
l l
l i
i I
a 1
-]
i