ML20087A667
| ML20087A667 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 01/06/1992 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20087A669 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9201090268 | |
| Download: ML20087A667 (10) | |
Text
..
pa *%e,
/
NUCLEAR HEGULATORY COMMISSION h,
k W ASHINGTON D. C. 70%$
s s.,
/
UNITED STATr$ NUCLEAR REGUt ATORY COMMISSION GPU NUClfAR CORPORATION PETROP011 TAN EDIS0ll COPPANY JERSEY CENTPAt POWER i l1 Gilt COMPAt!Y PENNSYLVAt:1A ELECTRIC COMPANY DOCKET P0.00-289 FNVIRONMENTAt tSSFSS!'ENT
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Description of Proposed Amendment By letter dated November 14, 1990, as supplemented June 6 June 14 and September 18, 1991, GPUNuclearCorporation(GPUNorthelicensee), requested an amendment to the Technical Specifications (TS) appended to f acility Operating License No. DPR-50 for the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (TH1-1).
The amendment would increase the combined number of spent fuel storage locations in spent fuel o001 A from 749 to 1494. The increase in spent fuel pool capacity would be accomplished by removing the existing storage racks and replacing them high-density fuel racks. The new racks are not double-tiered, with free-standingither the fuel pool floor or pool floor plates.
and will rest on e 1.2 Need for increased Storage Capacity TM1-1 has two spent fuel pools (SFPs) which, at the present time, contain interconnected spent fuel storage racks with a total capacity of 749 storage cells, tecause all spent fuel generated so far from operation of the fecility has been stored on-site in these pools, the SFPs are approaching their maximum storage capacity. After the completion of the present fuel cycle (Cycle 9),
the SFPs will no longer have full-core offload storage capability. This will 6
occur in late 1993. Therefore, to preclude this situation, the licensee will install high density spent fuel storage racks in SFP "A."
The proposed reracking would meet the objective of keeping radiation exposure as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA). Shielding from the spent fuel assemblies will be assured by maintainin the water level in the pool at or above a minimtm level. Protective cloth.ng and respirators will se worn as required by the Radiation Work Permit. The station radiation protection staff will closely monitor and control all aspects of the work.
9201090268 920106
{
PDR ADOCK 05000289 i
P PDR
t-2 1.3 Alternatives Comercial reprocessing of spent fuel has not developed as originally anticipated.
In 1975, the Comission directred the staff to perform o Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) on spent fuel storage. The Cornmission directed the staff to evaluate alternatives for the handling and storage of spent light water power reactor fuel with particuler empha31s on developing long-range policy. The GEIS was to consider alternative methods of spent fuel storage as well as the possible restrictions on terrnination of the generation of spent fuel through reactor shutdown.
A " Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement (FGEIS) on Hardling and Storage of Spent Light Water Power Peactor Fuel" (NUREG-0575, Volumes 1-3) was issued by the Comission in August 1979. The finding of the FGEIS is that the environ-mental costs of interim storage ate essentially negligible, regardless of where such spent fuel is stored. A comp *-ison of the impact costs of various alterna-tives reflects the advantage of continued generation of nuclear power versus its replacement by coal-fired power generation. Continued generation of nuclear power versus its replacement by oil-fired generation provides an even greater economic advantage, in the bounding case considered in the FGE15, 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.
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. Over 100 applications for spent fuel pool expansion have either been aaproved or are under consideration by the Commission.
The finding in each case has beer, that the environmental impact of such increased storage capacity is negligible. Since there are variations in storage design and limi-tations caused by spent fuel already in storage, however, the FGEIS recomends that licensing reviews be done on a case-by-case basis, so as to resolve plant-specific concerns.
The continuing validity and site-specific applicibility of the conclusions in NUREG-0575 have been confirmed in the Environmental Assessments for the Surry and H.B. Robinson plants' independent spnt fuel storage installations.
The licensee has considered several 01ternatives to the, proposed action of the spent fuel pool expansion, including fuel consolidation and dry cask storage.
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 followir,g alternatives were considered by the staff:
l (1) Shipment of 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.
3 (4)Reductionofspentfuelgeneration.
~
(5) Construction of a new independent spent fuel storage installation.
(6)Noactiontaken.
Each of these alternatives is discussed below.
(1).S.h.irFrM. P!. f u e,1, tp, a, pprpapp n,t re,de ra,1, fn,1. S,tp ra g e /o i,sas a_1, r a c i 11 ty Shipment of fuel to a permanent Federal fuel storage disposal focility 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 (NWPA). The facility, however, is not likely to be able to receive spent fuel until approximately 2010 at the earliest. The existing TMI-1 spent fuel storage pool will lose full core offload capability in 1993.
Therefore, spent fuel acceptance and disposal by DOE is not an alternative to increased onsite pool storage capacity.
As an...lerim measure, shipment to a Monitored Retrievable Storage (MRS) facility is another elternative to increasing the onsite spent fuel storage capacity.
DOE, under the NWPA, has recently submitted its VRS proposal to Congress. Because Congress has not athoriried an MRS, and because one is not projected to be avail-able before 1998, this alternative does not meet the near-term storage needs of TMI-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 inpacts of storing spent fuel at a Federal Interim Storage (FIS) facility fall within these already assessed by the Commission in NUREG-0575, in enacting NWPA, Congress found that the owners and operators of nuclear power stations have the primary responsibility for providing interim storage fer spent nuclear 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 licensee cannot take advantage of FIS because existing storage capacity is not maximized.
(2) Shipment of Fuel to a Reprocessing, Facility.
Reprocessing of spent fuel from TM1-1 is not viable because there is no operating commercial reprocessing facility in the United States, nor is there the prospect of one in the fore L able future.
- (3) Shipment of Fuel to Another Utility,or Site for Storage r
t The shipment of fuel from TMI-1 to the storage facility of another utility would provide short-term relief from the storage problem. The NWPA and 10 CFR l
Part 53, however, clearly place the responsibility for the interim storage of l
spent nuclear fuel with each owner or operator of a nuclear power plant.
The shipment of the fuel to another site is not an acceptable alternative since the only other nuclear power plant operated by the licensee is Oyster Creek, l
which also has a spent. fuel storege problem of its own.
i-I -
4 (4) ff!P.c,t,ipp,p,f,, Spent Fuel G,ene, y son Irnproved 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 tale piace. Through increasing the enrichruent of the fuel, the licensee i
is already working toward extended fuel cycles. As discussed in item 1, however, full offload capability will be lost in the near future. Operations at reduced power would not make effective use of available resources, and would cause unnecessary economic hardship on the licensee and its customers. Therefore, reduction of the amount of spent nuclear fuel generated is not a practical alternative for TM1-1.
(5) C o n s t ru c,t,i on, o f a N ew I nd ep e n d e n,t, $p,e n,t, [ up 1, S t o r ap,e, l p s t a l l a t,i pn,,(l S[S i l l
1 Additional storage capacity could be developed by building a new ISFSt. This f acility could be either a pool, similar to the existing facility, or a dry i
storage area. The staff has generically assessed the Irnpacts of the pool alter.
native and found, as reported in NUREG-0575, that the storage of ssent light water reactor fuel in water pools has an insignificant irnpact on tie environment.
The staff has not made a generic assasstrent of the dry storage area; however, assessments for the dry cask ISFSI at the Surry power Station and the dry modular concrete ISFSI at the H.B. Robinson Steam Electric plant and the Oconee Nuclear Station resulted in findings of no significant impact.
While thest alternatives are environmentally acceptable, such a new storage facility, either at TM1-1 or offsite would require new site-specific engineer-inganddesign, including-equipmentforthetransferofspentfuel. Commission review, evaluation, and licensing of such a fecility would also be required.
It is not likely that this entire effort would be com needforadditionalcapacityas-discussedinitem(1)pletedintimetomeetthe Furthermore, such construction would not use the existing expansion capacity of the existing pool, and thus wos1d waste resources.
(6) No Action T_aken if no action were-taken, the storage capacity would become exhausted in the
-near future and THI-1 would have to shut down. This alternative is considered a waste of an available resource, TMl-1 itself, and is not considered viable.
SUMMARY
OF ALTERNATIVES The only viable long-term alternative solution to the licensee's spent fuel storage problem is the construction of an ISFSl; _however, it is not likely that the construction of such a facility could be_ completed in a timely manner.
Furthermore, construction of such a facility would be a waste of available resources, costing the licensee 4-6 times the cost (dollars /KgU) of the proposed reracking.
l l
+:
5-1.4 fuel Reprocessing History Currently, commercial fuel is not being reprocessed in the United States. The fluclear fuel Services (fifS) plant at West Valley, thw York, was shut down in 1972 for alterations and expansion.
In Septenber 1976 i:FS informed the Coneiission that it was withdrawing from the nuclear fuel reprocessing t'usiness.
The proposed Allied General fluclear Services (AGlis) plant in Barnwell, South Carolina, is not yet licensed to operate.
The General Electric Company (GE)
Morris operation in Morris, Illinois, has been deconnissioned, in 1977, president Carter issued a policy statement on coreerciel reprocessing of spent nuclear futi that effectively eliminated reprocessing as part of the near-term nuclear fuel cycle.
Although no plants are licensed for reprocessing fuel, the storage pools at Morris and West Valley are licensed to store spent fuel. The storage pool at West Valley is not full, but the licensee is not 3resently accepting any addi-tional spent fuel for storage.
On May 4, 1982, t,e 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 The TM1-1 design contains waste treatment systems designed 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 EnvironmentalStatement(FES)datedDecember1972. The proposed rerack will not involve any change in the waste treatment systems described in the FES.
2.1 Radioactive Material Released to the Atmosphere With resptet 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 time is the radionuclide Krypton-85 (Kr-85).
Experience has demcnstrated that af ter spent fuel has decayed 4 to 6 months, there is no longer a significant release of fission products, including Kr-85, from stored spent fuel containing cladding defects. To determine the average annual release of Kr-85, it was assumed that all of the Kr-85 released from eny defective fuel discharged to the spent fuel pool would be released before the next refueling. Enlarging the storage capacity of the spent fuel pool has no i
effect on the calculated average annual quantities of Kr-85 released to the atmosphere. There may be some small change in the calculated quantities due to a change in fuel burnup; however, this is expected to be a small fraction of the calculated annual quantities. To account for this potential increase, the L
staff conservatively assumed an additional release of 125 curios / year of Kr-85.
I Historically, actual Kr-85 releases have been a small fraction of that assumed in the TM1-1 FES.
For example, the FES estimates release of 705 curies / year; actual release during 1990 was less than 1.0 curies.
_ _. lodine 131 releases from spent fuel assenblies to the spent fuel pool water will not increase significantly since lodine-131 will decay to negligible levels between refuelings.
Most of the tritium in the spent fuel pool water results from activatdon 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 the tritium through the fuel and cladding. Tritium releases from the fuel assemblies occur mainly during reactor operations and, to 6 limited extent, shortly after shutdown. Thus, expanding the spent fuel pool capacity will not incrcase the tritium activity in the pool.
Storing additional spent fuel assemblies is not expected to increase the bulk water temperature during normal refueling above the value used in the design analysis. Therefore, it is not expected that there will be any significant change in the annuel release of tritium or iodine as a result of the proposed modifications from that previously evaluated in the FES. Most airborne releases of tritium and iodine result from evaporation of reactor coolant, which contains tritium and iodine in higher concentrstions than the spent fuel pool. Therefore, even if there were a higher evaporation rate from the spent fuel pool, the re-sulting tritiun and iodine releases would be small in comparison to the amount already evaluated in the FES. The s)ent fuel pool exhaust system must be operat-ing end discharging through both hig,-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) and charcoal filters whenever spent fuel is stored in the pool, whenever fuel is being moved, and whenever loads are being carried over the pool, i
2.2 Solid padioactive Wastes Currently, less than 10 cubic feet of solio radioactive waste per year is generated by the spent fuel pool cleanup system. No significant increase in volume of solid radioactive wastes is expected aa, a result of the expansion of the capacity of the spent fuel pool.
There are eight spent fuel acks (weighing approximately 32,000 pounds) that will be Tnoved from the $1ent fuel aool and be disposed of. The licensee intends to decontaminate tie old racks to the extent possible to minimize the amount of $o11d radioactive waste generated by the rerack project. That portion of the racks that is not able to be decontaminated will be packaged, shipped to a processing facility for volume reduction (to about 10% of their original volume), and sent to a licensed radioactive waste burial site. The racts will be decontaminated at the Alaron facility near Mars, Pennsylvania and will be disposed of at the Barnwell, South Carolina waste disposal facility.
l 1
-7
~
it is not expected that either the rerack or the disposal of the existing spent fuel storage racks will have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.
2.3 Radioactive Material Released to Receiving Waters There should not be a significant increase in the liquid release of radionuclides from the plant as a result of the modifications. The spent fuel pcol cooling and cleanup systems operate as a closed system. The spent fuel pool deminera-liter resin removes soluble radioactive materials from the spent fuel pool water.
These resins are periodically replaced (i.e., annually) and disposed of as solid radioactive waste. The amount of activity in the resin may increase L
slightly due to the increased amount of spent fuel in the pools however, the amount of radioactivity released to the environment as a result of the proposed change would be negligible.
3.0 PA010 LOGICAL IPPACT ASSESSMENT Operating experience shows dose rates of less than 1 mrem / hour at the edge of and above the center of the pools regardless of the quantity of fuel stored.
ThesedoseratesmaytemporarilyIncreasetoabout3 mrem /hrduringrefueling operations. This is not expected to change with the proposed reracking because radiation levels above the pool are due primarily to activity in the water which experience shows will return to an equilibrium.value. Storedspentluel is so well shielded by the water in the pool that dose rates at the top of the pool from this source are negligible. Additionally, there has been no crud built up along the sides of the pool. Should crud buildup ever be detected it could easily be washed down. Furthermore,thewaterlevelinthespentfuel pool will be kept as high as possible in order to maintain exposure levels as low as is reasonably achievable. Therefore increased exposure due to this source is considered negligible. There is no noticeable concentration of airborne activity in the area of-the spent fuel pool. The spent fuel pool ventilation system maintains a continuous sweep of air across the top of the spent fuel pools and cask loading pit. Additionally, a continuous exhaust flow is maintained from the enclosed top portion of the pools when the top enclosing shields are in place. The exhaust flow is directed to the main auyiliary butiding filter system where it is passed through roughing, HEPA and charcoal filters before being discharged to the plant vent. The proposed reracking is not expected to increase this activity. Therefore, the staff concludes that the proposed spent fuel pool expansion will not result in any significant long-term increases in doses received by workers.
The total occupational exposure to plant workers as a result of the reracking operation is estimated to be 5-10 serson-rem, assuming dose rates between 2.5 i
l mrem /hr to 5 mrem /hr for most of tie operation. The effort is estimated to l
involve above 2000 person hours of work and it is not anticipated that divers j
will be needed to complete-the operation. The reracking operation will utilize detailed procedures prepared with full consideration of-At. ARA principles. Similar operations have been performed at a nurber of other facilities in the past and there is every reason to believe that reracking can 4
be safely and efficiently accomplished at TMI-1, with minimum radiation exposure to personnel,
8-4.0 14DyfAD10LOGICALIMPACT The only nonradiological effluent affected by the spent fuel pool expansion is the additional spent fuel waste heat rejected from the plant. The total increase in heat load rejected to the environment will be sna11 in comparison to the amount of total heat currently being released, lio impact on aquatic life is expec+ed. Thus, the increase in rejected heat will have a negligible ef fect on the environnent.
The licensee has not proposed any change in the use or discharge of chemicals in conjunction with the expansion of the spent fuel pool. The proposed expan-sion will not require any change to the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit.
Therefore, the staff concludes that the nonradiological envirormental impacts of expanding the spent fuel pool will be insignificant.
5.0 S E y t f E, AC C I D t h,1,,0yt4 S I D EJ AT I ON S The staff, in its related Safety Evaluation to be issued at a later date, has addressed both the safety and environmental aspects of a fuel handling accident. A fuel handling accident bounds the potential consequences of an accident attributable to operation of a spent fuel pool with high density racks. 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 rocks) are designed and constructed to prevent.
The environn. ental impacts of the accident were found not to be significant.
The staff has considered accidents whose consequences might exceed a fuel handling accident, that is, beyond design basis events. An accident evaluated by the staff involves a structural f ailure of the spent fuel pool resulting in loss of all 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 Fools in Support of Generic issue 82." Subsequently, the staff issued HUREG/CR-5176, entitled
" Seismic Failure and Cask Drop Analysis of the Spent Fuel Pools at Two Represen-tative Nuclear Power Plants." This report considers the structural integrity of the spent fuel pool and the pool response to the circumstances considered.
More recently, the staff issued NUREG/CR-5?81, "Value/ impact Analysis of Accident Preventive and Hitigativo Options for Spent fuel Ponis" and NUREG-1353
" Regulatory Analysis for the Resolution of Generic issue 82: Beyond Design Basis Accidents in Spent fuel Pools." In NUREG-1353, the staff concluded that Generic Issue 82 concerning the possibility of Zircaloy. cladding fires in spent fuel pools was resolved and required no further study.
The staff believes that the probability of severe structual damage occurring at THI-1 is extremely low. This belief is based upon the Commissica's requirements for the design and construction of spent fuel pools and their con-tents, and on the licensee's adherence to approved industry codes and standards, for example, in the THI-l case the pool is an integral part of the auxiliary building which is designed to Seismic Category I standards. The spent fuel storage racks are Seismic Category 1 and, thus, are required to remain functional
b 9
during and after a safe shutdown earthquake.
The cooling water system is extremely reliable, in the unlikely event of a total loss of the cooling system, makeup water sources are available.
The staff acknowledges that if the severe accidents occurred as above the environmental impacts could be significant, however, these events are unlikely and are not reasonably forescent.le in light of the design of the spent fuel pool and racks.
Therefore, further discussion of severe accidents is not warranted, and the staff concludes that an environnental impact statement need not be prepared.
6.0
SUMMARY
The FGEls on Handling and Storage of Spent Light Water 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 r, pent fuel pool designs, the FGEIS reconnended environmental evaluation of spent fuel pool expansions on a case-by-case basis.
The occupational radiation dose for the proposed operation of the expanded spent fuel pool is extremely small compared to the annual occupational exposure for a facility of this type. The small increase in radiation dWe should not affect the licensee's ability to maintain individual occupational doses at TM1-1 within the limits of 10 CFR part 20, and as is low as reasonably achievable.
Furthermore the nonradiological impacts of expanding the spent fuel pool will beinsignifIcant,andnoneofthealternativesarepracticalorreasonable.
6.1 Alternative Use of Resources
-This action does not hvolve the use of resources not previously considered in connection with the Commission's Final Environmental Statement, dated December 1972 in connection with TNI.1.
'6.2 Agencies and persons Consulted The staff reviewed the licensee's request.
No other agencies or persons were consulted.
7.0 BAsisANDC0NCLUS10HS,{0R,N,0Lp! epa 31pG,AN,ENy130NMENTA11MPACLSTATEMENT The staff has reviewed the proposed s)ent fuel pool modification to TM1-1 relative to the requirements set forti in 10 CFR part 51.
<ased upon the i'
environmental-assessment, the staff has concluded that there are no significant radiological or nonradiological impacts associated with the proposed action and that the proposed license amendment will not have a significant effect on the l
l
~
t 10 -
quality of the human environtnent. Therefore, the Conrnission has determined pursuantto10CFR51.31,nottoprepareanenvironmentalimpactstatementfor the proposed amendment.-
principal Contributors:
G. Wunder R. Hernan Datet-January 6. 1992 4q
..