ML20148A970
| ML20148A970 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Calvert Cliffs  |
| Issue date: | 01/04/1978 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20148A955 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8001160162 | |
| Download: ML20148A970 (21) | |
Text
.
Q CEgyb,.
"5 UNITED STATES I
..[b
- % NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISS10rv WASHINGTON, o. C. 20555
{, y.;k k o;
,. Ij - . ;
N . 'g- .A ]
- j}
m*
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ~ APPRAISAL BY THE OFFICE'0F NUCLEAR REACIOR REGULATION ~ ~%
- SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NOS, 27 AND.12 TO. .. ., c.i LICENSE'NOS. DPR;53'AND'DPR-69' ,
RELATING '70 ' MODIFICATION '0F THE SPENT 'FUEt ' POOL T5.
...=T
~ BALTIMORE 'G AS '& ' ELECTRIC 'COM PANY a g :ii;:{
.. . f
. CALVERT* CLIFFS NUCLEAR' POWER' PLANT UNIT'HOS['T AND .7 2 4
~
=E
~ '
DOCKET'NdS.50-317'AND50.-318
. .~ .
e es Eng
1.0 DESCRIPTION
OF P?.0 POSED ' ACTION : .!!a
~::
By letters dated August 5,1977, and September 7,1977, Baltimore Gas and ##k Electric Company (BG&E) proposed to change the spent fuel pool (SFP) 15 sto'r ace design for Calvert Cliffs Nuclear' Power Plant Unit Nos. I and 2 (CCNPi') from the design which was reviewed and approved in the operatin license review an,d described in the Final Safety Analysis Report (F5AR)g . .
.2 3
- The proposed change consists of increasing the existing spent fuel storage F 3l capacity for both units from 410 fuel assemblies to 1056 fuel as sublies. y fig In response to our questions, BG&E submitted supplemental information,by letters te g dated October 7 and 19,1977 November 1, 4,16 and 17,1977, and December 7,1977, hq
... m The modification evaluated in this environmental impact appraisal is the proposal by the licensee to replace the existino spent fuel storage racks with closer spaced racks. The rack spacing would be changed from :
13 inches center-to-cantar spacing to 13x12.5 inches center-to-center . . .
spacing of the individual spent fuel tubes.. .i
.0 2.0 NEED FOR INCREASED STCRAGE CAPACITY - .
The CCNPP Unit Nos.1 and 2 achieved initial criticality on October 7,1974, i $j and November 30, 1976, respectively. CCNPP Unit No.1 was shut down on : ?."
December 31, 1976, for a scheduled refueling and maintenance outage, at which _.. ?
time 72 fuel assemblies were replaced. The refueling schedule for Unit No.1 ' 1 shows next refueling in January 1978 and yearly thereafter. The first ==f' refueling for Unit No. 2 is scheduled for September 1978. Following this Unit No. 2 refueling cutage there will not be space to offload either entire reactor core should this be necessary or cesirable because of opera-
- fonal considerhtions. Likewise, following the second refueling of Unit No. 2 in late 1979, the existirq fuel pool storage cacacity will be used up completely, a,i l
9002602 l
! i 8 00 3160 /6 e .,
a -
- ..z.. .
, j, *
. .= = ,
^
i
~
[
f
- g. .
>. 7 The proposed modification would extend the spent fuel storage capability ,
of the pool through 1982 and leave room for a complete core discharge. L.
In our evaluation, we considered the impacts which may result from storing E an additional 646 spent fuel assemblies in the SFP for an additional i.
,in.
six years. t The proposed modification would not alter the external physical geometry L j of the spent fuel pool or involve significant modifications to the SFP E.2,
~
cooling or purification systems. The proposed modification does not -. /
affect in any manner the quantity of uranium fuel utilized in the reactor over the anticipated operating life of the facility and thus in no way .
affects the generation of spent uranium fuel by the facility. The rate F{
of spent fuel generation and the total quantity of spent fuel generated
~
p#
, during the anticipated operating lifetime of the facility remains (
'p
' unchanged as a result of the proposed expansion. The modification will '5 increase the number of spent fuel assemblies that could be stored in the i SFP and the length of time that some of the fuel assemblies could be [.;
stored in the pool. On the basis of the evaluation discussed herein, we have concluded that the storage capacity of the Calvert Cliffs SFP
[
should be increased. .g i
380 FUEL REPROCESSING HISTORY .
t :
Currently, spent fuel is not being reprocessed on.a commercial Basis in R the United States. The Nuclear Fuel Services (NFS) plant at West Valley, [35 New York, was shut down in 1972, for alterations and expansions; on L September 22, 1976, NFS infonned the Commission that they were withdrawing i L
from the nuclear fuel reprocessing business. The Allied-General Nuclear '
Services (AGNS) proposed plant in Barnwell, Sou.th Carolina, is not licensed .
to operate. The General Electric Cocpany's (GE) Midwest Fuel Recovery plant in Morris, Illinois, now referred to as Morris Operation (MO), is l
- in a decommissioned condition. Although no plants are licensed for j . reprocessing fuel, the storage pool at Morris Illinois, and the
storage pool at West Valley, New York (on land owned by the State of b
New York and leased to NFS through 1980), are licensed to store spent fuel . The storage pool at West Valley is not full but NFS is presently 5 l
l not accepting any additional spent fuel for storage, even from those id E:
! ' power generating facilities that had contractural arrangements with NFS.
Construction of the AGNS fuel'riceiving and storage' station has been completed. 7 r
AGNS has applied for, but has not been granted, a license to receive and store irradiated fuel assemblies in the storage cool at Barnwell prior to .
a decision on the licensing action relating to the reprocessing facil,ity.
I A fourth plant, the Exxon plant pro:: sed for construction in Tennessee, is currently under license review. ;
- 1..
~ ' 9
. 99026133 e,.
p mgasi I
q;:.:
g
.. :m: : ~:
1.
4.0 THE PLANT
- The CCNPP units are described in the Final Environmental Statement (FES),
issued by the Commission in April 1973, related to the section on operation E:._
4 """
of the facilities. Each unit is a Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) which -
produces 2700 megawatts themal (MWt) and has a gross electrical output of 835 megawatts (MWe). Pertinent descriptions of principal features
..$ -g "1" of the plant as it currently exists are summarized below to aid the reader .~
in following the evaluations in subsequent sections of this appraisal. .
4.1 Fuel Inventory ,-
~I.
Each CCNPP reactor contains 217 fuel assemblies. The fuel assemblies are y #
a cluster of 176 fuel rods or sealed tubes arranged in a 14 by 14 array.
The weight of the fuel, as UO2, is approximately 207,200 pounds. About h-one-third of the assemblies are removed from the reactor and replaced with =ms new fuel each year. Present scheduling is for the refueling outage to be =5
~~
in the first few months for Unit No. 1 and the last few months of each year for Unit No. 2. d ??
id Purpose of Spent Fuel Pool E :
..2 4 . .
>[- The SFP at CCNPP was designed to store spent fuel assemblies prior to ::3 shipment to a reprocessing facility (these a'ssemblies are transf.rred from the reactor core to the SFP dur.ing a core refuelino) or to allow -
for inspection and/or modification to core internals. The latter may require the removal and storage of up to a full core. The 3ssemblies . . .. . . . .
are initf illy intensely radioactive due to their fission product content F"
~
and have a high thennal output. They are stored in the SFP to allow for ._'
radioactive and thermal decay. .
The major portien of decay occurs during the 150-day period following [
t removal from the reactor core. After this period, the assemblies may be withdrawn and placed into a he'avily shielded fuel cask for offsite shipment. Em Space permitting, the assembifes may be stored for an additional period .
allowing continued fission product decay and thermal cooling prior to ~ ~"5
- s shipment.
4.2.1 Spent Fuel Pool Cooling System ,
The spent fuel pool for CCNPP is provided with a cooling loop which removes i
decay heat frem fuel stored in the SFP. The cooling system for the SFP .q has two pumps and two heat exchangers. These are cross-connected so tha: (
any combinatien of a pump and heat exchanger can be used to cool the SFP i for either Uni: Nos. 1 or 2. There is also additional cooling available R y
from valving the shutdown cooling system of either unit to the SFP coolir.g Each SFP cooling pump is designed to pump 1390 galiens of water ;j system.
l
..l 6 i M 90026134 W n
l l I
G n
M
.=- ==.
lg
+
per minute. With both pumps and heat exchangers in operation the spent fuel -I cooling system is designed to remove 20x10 6 BTU /hr while maintaining the fuel h!
pool outlet water temperature at 127'F with 95'F service water cooling t- H the heat exchangers. The shutdgwn cooling system when connected to the tl SFP is designed to remove 27x100 BTU /hr while maintaining the fuel pool b outlet temperature at 130*F with 95'F service water cooling the heat j r:
H) exchanger. After the SFP modification, the maximum possible total heat load including uncertainties will be 17.3x10 STU/hr, within the capacity H of the SFP Cooling System. Our Safety Evaluation finds the maximum possible - i-temperatures of 127'F and 155'F, for both SFP loops operating and single failure E
.q
.> leaving one'SFP loop operating, respectively, to be acceptable. .
{
4.2.2 Soent Fuel pool Purification System Yh
. =.
The SFP purificatian loop ' consists of a cartridge filter, a mixed bed Ly demineralizer and the required piping, valves and instrumentation. _. )
The SFP cooling system pumps draw water from the pool or the refueling '
cavity. A fraction of this flow is passed through the SFP purification -
loop. The watet is returned to the pool or the refueling cavity.
Because we expect only a small increase. in radioactivity released to .i ..j the pool water as a result of the proposed modification as discussed i!
in Section 5.3.1, we conclude the spent fuel pool filtering system is E adequate 'for'the proposed modification and will k'eep the concentrations of radioactivity in the pool water to acceptably low levels. ,
% 3
. m 4.3 Radioactive Wastes 9..l The plant contains was'te treatment systems designed to collect and process :
the gaseous, liquid and solid waste that might contain radioactive material .
from both units. The waste treatment systems are evaluated in the Final *l Environmental Statement (FES; for both units dated April 1973. There will . ,
be no change in the waste treatment systems described in Section III.3.2 i of the FES because of the proposed modification. [) l E
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF pR0p0 SED ACTION i 5.1 Land use i
[
The proposed modification will not alter the external physical geometry of 4 k
j l
the SFP at CCNPP. No additional commitment of land is required.
p:
The SFP was designed to store spent fuel assemblies under water for a E:
period of time to allow shorter-lived radioactive isotopes to decay and E to reduce the themal heat output. The Commission has never set a li-it &
cn how long spent fuel assemblies c:uld be stored onsite. The lonter the fuel assemblies decay, the less radioactivity they centain. The proc: sed modification will not change the basic land use of the S.r.:. The ; col was l
designed to store the spent fuel assemblies feca five 1/2 :: es W 0 h l yl I assemblies) for both units. The modification would crevice storage for The pool. was fourteen 1/3 cores (1056 assemblies) from the two units. l intended to store spent fuel . This use will remain unchar.ged by tr.e j proposed modification.
Hi J, 90026135
~
.L_ -. . . :q
~7y
, .: . . q u
5.2 Water Use +=r' There d11 be no significant change in plant water usage as a result of .3 the proposed modification. As discussed subsequently, storing additional Ed
-i J
- spent fuel in the SFP will increase the heat load on the SFP cooling system, which:is transferred to the service water system and to the plant salt _.{
water system. The modification will not change the flow rate within these .J5 cooling systems. Since the temperature of the SFP water during normal F.I!
refueling operations will remain below 127'F presented in the FSAR and 'ETd evaluated in the FES, the rate of evaporation and thus the need for makeup ==<
H '
water will 'not be significantly changed by the proposed modification.. =Est z=iG 5.3 Radiolooical - = :1
. The' potential offsite radiologicai environmental impacts associated with 2
~
. the expansion of the SFP storage capacity were evaluated and detennined '5%
to be environmentally insignificant as addressed below. . . .jip
=m 5.3.1 Source of Radioactive Nuclides Eg
- iig The additional spent fuel which would be :;tored due to the expansion is -
fuel which has decayed at least three years. During the storage of the -
spent fuel under water, bothivolatile and nonvolatile radioactive nuclides 9 may be released to the water from the surface of the assemblies or from i defects in the fuel cladding. Most of the material released from the surface =*
of the assemblies consists of activated corrosion products such 4 Co-58,' ..%
Co-60, Fe-59 and Mn-54 which are not volatile. The radionuclides that Ei.5 might be released to the water through defects in the cladding, such'as hiEiE Cs-134, CS-137, Sr-89 and Sr-90 are also predominately nonvolatile. The EM primary impact of such nonvolatile radioactive nuclides is their contri- Er~
bution to radiation levels to which workers in and near the SFP would be : Td exposed. The volatile fission product nuclides of most concern that might :7 be released through defects in the fuel cladding are the noble gases (xenon 1 and krypton), tritium and the iodine isotopes.
'.E H.
Experience indicates that there is little radionuclide leakage from Ed Zircaloy-clad spent fuel stored in the pools even after an extended period, y over 10 years. The predominance of radionuclides in the spent fuel pool water appear.to be radionuclides that were present in the reactor coolant }45
. system prior to refueling (which becomes mixed with water in the spent fuel #Es pool during refueling operations) or crud dislodged from the surface of E:n the spent fuel during transfer from the reactor core to the SFP. A recent 17 Battelle Northwest Laboratory (BNWL) report, " Behavior of Spent Nuclear Fuel l in Water Pool Storage" (BNWL-2256 dated Sep;smber 1977), states that 1 radioactivity concentrations may approach a value up to 0.5 uCi/mi during 9I fuel discharge in the SFP. After the refueling, the SFP ion exchange and j filtration units will reduce and maintain the pool water in the range of 10-3 :o 10 ' uCi/ml . i
., . . - 90026136 .
ik i
. {l
, m:.
y_ _ _ -. _
u.. , .. .
.=. .
r
, 5 b !'[
- 5
'{
N. 1 5.3.2 Effect of Fuel Failures on the SFP .
h
!? l In handling defective fuel, the BNWL study found that the vast majority : I of failed fuel does not require special handling and is stored in the same manner as intact fuel . Two aspects of the defective fuel account -!
for its favorable storage characteristics._ First, when a fuel rod perforates in-reactor, the radioactive gas inventory is released to the ...
d reactor primary coolant. Therefore, upon discharge, little additional ~
jE gas release occurs. Only if the failure occurs by mechanical damage i 1n' in the basin are radioactive gases released in detectable amounts, and this type of damage is extremely rare. In addition, most of the gaseous '
fission products have short half-lives. and decay to in'significant levels. -
The second favorable aspec't is the icart character of the uranium oxide
. pellets in contact with water. This has been demonstrated in laboratory f",
studies and also by casual observations of pellet behavior when broken . l rods are stored in pools. .
Operators at several reactors have discharged, stored, and/or shipped $
relatively large numbers of Zircaloy-clad fuel which developed defects E during reactor exposures, e.g., Ginr.a. Oystar Creek, Nine Mile Point, .
and Dresden Unit Nos. 1 and 2. Seve-al hundred Zircaloy-clad assemblies i..
which developed one or more defects in-reactor are stored in the GE-Morris ik t pool without need for isolation in special cans.. Detailed analysis of
~
E!:
the radioactivity in the pool water indicates that the defects are not
=
continuing to release significant quantities of radioactivity. Nonnal radioactivity concentrations in the Morris pool water are about 3x10-4
~
M
=d pCf/ml which is near the maximum desired concentration for occupational exposure considerations, in bathing and culinary uses. The radioactivity F concentrations rose to 2x10-3 uCt/ml during a month when the water cleanup .
system was removed from service, g. -
Based on the operational reports suimitted by the licensees or discussions ~"
with the operators, there has not been any significant leakage of fission products from spent light water reac:or fuel stored in the Morris Operation I (MO) (formerly Midwest Recovery Plant) at Morris Illinois, or at Nuclear =l.,
Fuel Services' (NFS) storage pool at West Valley, New York. Spent fuel :T has been stored in these two pools 4ich, while it was in a reactor, was E determined to have significant leakage and was therefore removed from the =
core. After storage in the onsite ssent fuel pool, this fuel was later E ~
shipped to either MO or NFS for extended storage. Although the fuel exhibited .significant leakage at rea:::r operating c:nditions, there was : .
no significant leakage from this fuel in the offsite storage facility. j l
l di ! ,
96026137
]
~
= =.[.a
..u.
-l
.I
. . . .. . k BG&E has proposed that the 20 specially constructed cans originally j designed to contain all leakage from failed fuel assemblies be eliminated 3 in the SFP modification. These cans were not installed to meet any known 1. 9 Commission requirements. Based on the lack of any findings that signi- Bj.$
- r" i ficant radionuclides will leak from damaged fuel assemblies, we agree that the specia1 leaking fuel cans may be eliminated from the SFP at CCNPP. sd
=y 5.3.3 Radioactive Material Released to'Atmosehere g a _ ._.
With respect to gaseous releases, the only significant noble gas isotope
. attributable to storing additional assemblies for a longer period of time , EEj"
'would be krypton 85. As discusse.d previously, experience has demonstrated :"j that after spent fuel has decayed 4 to 6 months, there is no significant : 59 release of fission products from defective fuel. However, we have conser- - "S vatively estimated that an addit'ional 90 curies per year of krypton 85 may = di be released for both units when the modified pools are completely filled. EEifd This increase would result in an additional total body dose at the sit- E=El boundary to an individual of less than 0.001 mrem / year. This dose is
- "j insignificant when compared with the approximately 100 mrem / year that ..
- "d
- d an individual receives from natural background radiation. The additional total body dose to the estimated population within a 50-mile radius of "=
lJJ the plant is less than 0.001 mrem / year. This is less than the natural fluctuations in the dose this population would receive from natural -
= l1 .3
) background radiation. Under our conservative assumptions, these' [lEii.j exposures represent an increase of less than 0.5% of the exposur s from .....
[F%
the plant evaluated in the FES for the individual (Table V-5) ud the population (Table V-6). Thus, we conclude that the proposed modification
. ;;j
.::j will not have any significant impact on exposures offsite.
1
=
Assuming that the spent fuel will be stored onsite for several years, =.3 iodine 131 releases from spent fuel assemblies to the SFP water will not H ,
be significantly increased because of the expansion of the fuel storage a capacity since the iodine 131 inventory in the fuel will decay to negligible #
1evels between refuelings for each unit. d Storing additional spent fuel assemblies is not expected to increase the -s bulk water temperature above the 127'F during nomal refuelings used in the ==j EEt design analysis. Since the temperature of the pool water will normally be maintained below 127'F, it is not expected that there will be any M
=sj significant change in evaporation rates or the release' of tritium or fodine as a result of the proposed modification from that previously evaluated. Ed Most airborne releases frca the plant result from leakage of reactor S 5
- coolant which contains tritium and iodine in higher concentrations than the spent fuel pool . Therefore, even if there were a slightly higher D
j evaperation rate from the spent fuei : col, the increase in tritium and iodine released from the plant as a result of the increase in stored d spen: fuel would be small compared aith the amcunt nomally released 1 from the plant and that which was ;reviously evaluated in the FES. If .;
levels of radiciodine become too high, the air can be diverted to charcoal 1 filtars for the removal of radiciodir.e before release to the environment.
s< ,
90026138 3
( a
y - 7
= ,.= ,
i j
. I, 4
F 5,3,4 5'olid Radioactive Wastes .
E,
!Es
. The concentration of radionuclides in the pool is controlled by the f.'.ij cartridge filter and the demineralizer and by decay of short-lived Pi isotopes. The activity is high during refueling operations while reactor .I coolant water is introduced into the pool and decreases as the pool water .
is processed through the filter and demineralizer. The increase of radio-
- activity, if any, should be minor because the additional spent fuel to ' J5 .
be stored is relatively cool, thema11y, and radionuclides in the fuel will have decayed significantly. . - . ,,
~
While we believe that there should not be an increase in solid radwaste due to; the modification, as a conservative estimate, we have asstaned that _
the amount of solid radwaste may be increased by 64 cubic feet of resin !
a year from the demineralizer (2 resin beds / year). .Because Unit No.1 ; ,
has operated for only 2 years and Unit No. 2 has operated for less than one year, we have estimated the annual average amount of solid -
waste shipped from both units from the volume of solid waste shipped from a representative number of pressurized water reactors during 1973 to 1976.
This is 18,300 cubic feet per year for both units. If the storage of additional spent fuel does increase the' amount of solid waste from the SFP purification systems.by about 64 cubic feet pei year, the increase in ,, .
total waste volume shipped would be less than 0.45 and would not have - -
any significant environmental impact. . .;
a In addition to the above, there are also the present spent fuel racks T.
to be removed from the SFP from both units and disposed of. They will be crated and stored on site until they are disposed of as low level a waste or scrap. Averaged over the lifetime of the plant, this will increase the total waste shipped fran the plant by less than 2.5". and I.
would not have any significant environmental impact.
5.3.5 Radioactivity Released to Receivine Waters
- There should not be a significant increase in the lic M release o'f radionuclides from the station as a result of the proposed modification.
The amount of radioactivity on the SFP cartridge filter and demineralizer might slightly increase due to the additional spent fuel in the pool --
but this increase of radioactivity should not be released in liquid t effluents from .the station. :
The cartridge filter removes insoluble radicactive matter from the SFP ,
water. This is periodically removed to the waste discosal area in a -
shielded cask and placed in a shippir.; container. The ir. soluble natter n will be retained on the filter.or renin in the SF? water.
bi p s 90026139
- =
= = -
$~ tf
. _ [:. q c.:.
The resins are periodically flushed with water to the s:ent resin tank. P l The water used to transfer the spent resin is decanted from the tank and returned to the liquid radwaste system for processing. The soluble
- dq t:.(
radioactivity will be retained on the resins. If any activity should
.3
- be transferred from the spent resin to this flush water, it would be -: =
removed by the liquid radwaste system. ,
}
E::. i 5.3.6 Occupational Exposures
.g 7
b We have reviewed the licensee's plan for the removal, disassembly and disposal of 12 low density. racks and the installation of 22 high density .
..~:l.
~
7 racks for both units with respect to occupational radiation exposure. The ~
.c :H occupational radiatien exposure for this operation is estimated by the ':3 5 licensee to be about 6.25 man-rem.' We consider this te be a reasonable d estimate. This operation is expec'ted to be perfor:ed cnly ence during the lifetime of the station and will therefore represent a very small fraction of the total man-rem burden from occupational exposure. [...?
We have estimated the increment in onsite occupational dose resulting from ;=m
~ :. ::i the proposed increase in stored fuel assemblies on the basis of information
?!!!!
supplied by the licensee and by utilizing realistic assumptions for occupancy y ti:nes and for dose rates in the spent fue1~ pool area from radionuclide concentrations in the SFP water. The spent fuel assemblies themselves E5 contribute a negligible amount to dose rates in the pool area because @
) of the depth of water shielding the fuel. The occupational radiation .....;;.:
~==
exposure resulting from the proposed action represents a negligiF e burden. Based on present and projected operations in the spent ruel .
pool area, we estimate that the proposed modification will add less than ....i one percent to the total annual occupational radiation exposure burden at this facility. The small increase in radiation exposure will not affect y:
the licensee's ability to maintain individual occupatienal doses to as ;.
7 ..,;
1:w as is reasonably achievable and within the limits :f 10 CFR 20. Thus, .
we conclude that storing additional fuel in the SFP will nct result in any significant increase in doses received by occupati:nal workers. 1W v: ;
5.3.7 Evaluation of Radiological Impact .
="
As discussed above, the proposed modification does not significantly change the radiological impact evaluated in the FES. ==1
~::e
==
5.4 Kanradiological Effluents s
~
nere will be no change in the chemical or biocidal effluents from the ' .i
- i ar.: as a result of the prepos'ed modification. .] I 7,e :nly potential offsite nonradiolcgical envir cen al it:act that "
c:uld arise frcm th~is proposed actica wculd be actiti:nal cischarge of hea to the at=: sphere and to the Chesapeake Bay. 5:: ring s:ent fuel in e, .
5 l u
~'
90026140
...gma,
_.._ 6se..
d -S. W e a.ammm. a 1
I
t..;..
The SFP heat exchangers are cooled by the servi'ce water system which.in turn is cooled by the salt water system. As discussed in the staff's U.i Safety Evaluation, the maximum incremental heat load resulting from the SFP modification is 2.64x10+6 BTV/hr. Compared with the existing heat -;
load on the plant salt water cooling system, this small additional heat load from the SFP cooling system will be negligible.
5.5 Impacts on the Commu_nity , ,
~
The new storage racks will be fabricated offsite and shipped to the , g .:s plant. No environmental impacts on the environs outside the spent ' 2 -
'.d fuel storage building are expected during removal of the existing racks and installation of the new racks. The impacts within this building are expected to be limited to those nonnally associated with metal working ,
activities. No significant environmental impact on the community is t-expected to result from the fuel rack conversion or from subsequent k-operation with the increased storage of spent fuel in the SFP. 'lj 6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF POSTULATED ACCIDENTS :
Although the new high density racks will' accommodate a larger inventory of spent fuel, we have detennined that the installation and use of the ii racks will not change the radiological consequences of a postulated fuel O 7
> handling accident in the SFP area from those values reported in the FES
- for CCNPP dated April 1973.
Additionally, the NRC staff has under way a generic review of load handling operations in the vicinity of spent fuel pools to determine i.
the likelihood of a heavy load impacting fuel in the pool and, if F necessary, the radiological consequences of such an event. Because i.
CCNPP has the requirement to prohibit the movement of loads in eicess of 1600 pounds over fuel assemblies in the SFP, we have concluded that the likelihood of a heavy load handling accident is sufficiently small that the proposed modification is acceptable and no additional restrictions on load handling operations in the vicinity of the SFP are necessary while our review is under way.
7.0 ALTERNATIVES .
L In regard to this licensing action, the staff has considered the following b alternatives: (1) shipment of spent fuel to a fuel reprocessing facility, E.if6 (2) shipment of spent fuel to a separate fuel storage facility, (3) shipnent of spent fuel to another reactor site, and (4) ceasing operation of the facility. These alternatives are considered in turn.
c,.. c)6026141 i
.=... :. . . . . ::. .-
._____-__.m_____.__ ___
-.7
. ..~
=
o u
a H
m The total construction cost associated with the proposed bodification is estimated to be about $3 million or approximately $4,650 for each of the -
646 fi el assemblies that the increased storage capacity will accommode.te. j]
7.1 Recrecessino of Soent Fuel []
p m:
As discussed earlier, none of the three commercial reprocessing facilities ::
"I in the U. S. is currently operatin The General Electric Company's Midwest Fuel Recovery Plant (MFRP)g.at Morris, Illinois, is in a decom- EE"+
_i.
5 missioned condition. On September 22, 1976, Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc.' '
(NFS) informed the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that they were " withdrawing 9 from the nuclear fuel reprocessing' business." The Allied-General Nuclear :
Services -(AGNS) reprocessing plant received a construction pennit on ..
December 18, 1970. In October 1973, AGNS applied for an. operating license g for the reprocessing facility. C~onstruction of the reprocessing facility is =!
essentially complete, but no operating license has been granted. On July 3, :.;
1974, AGNS applied for a materials license to receive and store up to 400 MTU of spent fuel in the onsite storage pool, on which construction has been _
completed, but hearings with respect to that application have not yet com- it, menced and no license has been granted. .Even if AGNS decides to proceed ::=
with operation of the Barnwell facility in light of the President's policy statement of April 7,1977, the reprocessing plant will not be licensed 5 until the issues. presently being considered in the GESMO proceedings are ,
. completed . .g In 1976 Exxon Nuclear Company, Inc. subnitted an application fo. a !
proposed Nuclear Fuel Recovery and Recycling Center (NFRRC) to be located Z at Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The plant would include a storage pool that could store up to 7,000 MTU in spent fuel. The application for a construction pemit is under review. %,; .
. 2 On April 7,1977, the President issued a statement outlining his policy 1 -
on continued development of nuclear energy in the U. S. The president stated that: "We will defer indefinitely the cornercial reprocessing and recycling of the plutonium produced in the U. S. nuclear power programs, b" From our own experience, we have concluded that a viable and economic nuclear power program can be sustained without such reprocessing and recycling."
::
The licensee had intended to reprocess the spent fuel to recover and S.I.'~
rxycle the uranium and plutonium in the fuel. Due to a change in ,
national policy and circumstances beyond the licensee's control, reproces- E-sing of the spent fuel is not an available option at this time. .
=
l c)4026142
- 8 e k,
~
- i=" ::= ::: :.: .
- - --'7*-
M di f 1 }
g-l 702 Indeoendent Soent Fuel Storace Facility An alternative to expansion of onsite spent fuel pool storage is .the construction of new " independent spent fuel storage insta11atic s" E (ISFSI). Such installations could provide storage space in excess of -[:r 1,000 MTU of spent fuel. This is far greater than the capacities of onsite storage pools. Fuel storage pools at GE Morris and NFS are functioning as ISFSIs although this was not the original design intent.
Likewise, if the receiving and storage station at AGNS is licensed to accept spent fuel, it would be functioning as an ISFSI untfi the separa- l7 tions facility is licensed to operate. The license for the GE facility - '
at Morris, Illinois was amended on December 3,1975, to increase the storage capacity to about 750 MTV;* as of April 1,1977, approximately 259 MTU was stored in the pool in the form of 1,055 assembif es. The-staff has discussed the status of storage space at Morris Operation (M0}
with GE personnel. We have been informed that GE is primarily operating the M0 facility to store either fuel owned by GE (which had bees leased to utilities on an energy basis) or fuel which GE Fad previously contracted to reprocess. We were informed that the present GE policy is ret to =;
accept spent fuel for storage except for that fuel for which GE has a previous commitment.** The NFS facility has capacity for abcat 260 MTU,
[ with approximately 170 MTU presently stored in the pool . The storage pool at West Valley, New York, is on land owned tiy the State of New York and leased to NFS thru 1980. Although the storage pool at ' dest Valley i is not full, si~nce NFS withdrew from the fuel reprocessing hJsiness, f correspondence we have received indicates that they are not at present li M
accepting additional spent fuel for storage even from these rea: tor '
facilities with which they had contracts. The status of the storage pool at AGNS was discussed above.
With respect to construction of rew ISFSIs, Regulatory Guide 3.24 I
" Guidance on the License Application, Siting, Design, and p~ ant Frotecti:n for an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation," issued ir December 1974, recognizes the possible need for ISFSIs and provides recc. mended criteria .
and requirements for water-cooled ISFSIs. pertinent sec-f ons of 10 C.~R parts 19, 20, 30, 40, 51, 70, 71 and 73 would also apply. f ._
bt=
b.
4
'An application for an 1100 MTU capacity additien is panding. : resent <
schedule calls for completion in 1980 if approved.
"~he recuested ))00 MTU additien is needed to .acc: . . eda e previo.s c:=it en- , ,
J and GE has no plans to make space available on a c:=ercial basis.
(:.
~ *
.. e e 90026143
i ( \
l -
=m
- ny
... q
- rj
!The staff has estimated that at least five years would be required for completion of an independent fuel storage facility. This estimate assumes one year for preifminary design; one year for preparation of the t .d-license application, Environmental Report, and licensing review in parallel 9%
with one year for detail design; two and one-half years for construction .. ..J and receipt of an. operating license; and one-half year for plant and - 5"3 equipment testing and startup. !" :;i
=i Industry proposals for independent spent fuel storage facilities are . y scarce to date. In late 1974. E. R. Johnson. Associates, Inc. and e.::.e Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner and Smith, Inc.' issued a series of joint ~.$
proposals to a number of electric utility companies having nuclear .
gj =
plants in operation or contemplated for operation, offering to provide independent storage services for spent nuclear fuel . A paper on this t?
E' proposed project was presented at the American Nuclear Society meeting n
. in November 1975. In 1974, E. R. Johnson Associates estimated their E=a construction cost at approximately $9,000 per spent fuel assembly. pl ~
1:::ji 6 Several licensees have eval'uated construction of a separate independent e" =d spent fuel storage facility and have provided cost estimates. Connecticut .l.". 5 Yankee, for example, estimated that to build an independent facility with 5" =e a storage capacity, ef 1,000 MTU (SWR and/or PWR assemblies) would cost =q approximately $54 million and take itbout 5 years to put into operation. . : :j Commonwealth Edison estimated the construction cost to build a fuel storage
- iB 1 facility at about $10,000 per fuel aksembly. To this would be added 15J costs for maintenance, operation, safeguards, security, interest on '
[j[$
investment, overhead, transportation and other costs. JE{
- . !!!E.1 On December 2,1976, Stone and Webster Corporation submitted a topical 7 report requesting approval for a standard design for an independent spent "[5 fuel storage facility. No specific locations were proposed, although the " "2 .
design is based on location near a nuclear power facility. No estimated i.3 costs for fuel storage were included in the topical report. ?~
On a short-term basis (i.e. , prior to 1983) an independent spent fuel ' . 5.
storage installation does not appear to be a viable alternative based on E f
cost or availability in time to meet the licensee's needs. It is also unlikely that the total environmental impacts of constructing an independent l#.y.$
=""-
facility and shipment of spent fuel would be less than the minor impacts associated with the proposed action. ; i
==e In the long-tem, the U. S. Department of Energy (USD0E) is modifying its =s '"
program for nuclear waste management to include design and evaluation of ',
a retrievable storage facility to increase Government storage at central locations for unreprocessed spent fuel rods. As announced in the President's l
l 90026144 m -M.e4 . , , , ,
se.-*am =d-
m.
, y l
energy policy statement of April' 29,1977, the Government is committed to ... ?
provide a retrievable, long-term storage facility for nuclear wastes by [:lq On October 18, 1577, USDOE announced a new " spent nuclear fuel ;;;lh 1985 policy." USDOE will detemine industry interest in providing interim E.E fuel storage services on a contract basis. If adequate private storage $
services cannot be provided, the Government will provide interim storage -7 It.was announced by USDOE at a public meeting held on facilities.
October 26,1977, that this . interim storage is expected to be available .j in the 1981-1982 time frame.. ,,y If the CCNPP SFP is not modified as proposed, the plant would lose the i ability to discharge a full core in 1978, and would have to shutdown l
about January 1980 since the SFp would be essentially full. The precise i date that interim st'orage would be available is not known at this time with sufficient precision to provide for planning. Should these facilities '
not be available when needed, the plant would be forced to shut down. ,
I Therefore, this does not appear to be a viable alternative especially when considering the impact of plant shutdown as compared with the negligible environmental consequences of the proposed amendments. ,
I' The proposed increase in storage capacitf wt11 allow CCNPP to operate both units until 1985, by which time inter.im storage and the Federal repository for spent fue's are expected to be operable.
m 7 . 3' Storade at Another Reactor ' Site .
Baltimore Gas & Electric Company (BG&E) does not have another nuclear plant other than the Calvert Cliffs Power plant in their system that is operating ]r j
or under construction. According to a survey conducted and documented by the fonner Energy Research and Development Agency, up to 27 of the operating nuclear power plants will lose the ability to refuel during the period i.
1977-1986 withou: additional spent fuel storage peol expansions or access ...
to offsite storage facilities. Thus, the licensee cannot assuredly rely [.:
on any other power facility to provide additional storage capability except i on a short-term emergency basis. If space were available in another reactor
{
facility, the cost would probably be comparable to the cost of storage at a commercial storage facility. ,
7.4 Shutdown of Facility Storage of spent fuel frcra the CCNpp units in the existing racks is possible but only for a short period of time. As discussed above, if expansion of
~
the SFp capacity is not accroved and if an alternate storage facility is not located, SG&E would have to shut down Unit .10. 1 in early 1980 and Unit No. 2 by the end of 1980 due to a lack of s:ent fuel : orage facilities, resulting in the cessation cf at least 1530 Megawatts net electrical energy production.
i'-
96026H5
,'. .'=. .a g:: -
1 6 According to the licensee, the levelized anr.ual' fixed change on invenstment is $121,800,000/yr and on fuel is 57,300,000 for a total of $129,100,000/yr. .
BG&E. states that if a forced shutdown from lack of fuel storage capibili- F
. ties occurred, they would keep the ajority of their 250-man staff over the short tem for possible restart. This size crew would cost about ~'
$10,100,000/yr. These values are based on 1977 dollars.and could be slightly different in 1980 Ell -
If Calvert Clii'fs tenninated operations, replacement power would be .
7.......
derived principally from operation of fossil fuel plants. Monthly ==E
. replacement power would cost an average of $8.3 million with a maximum of $12 million at current rates. . In addition to the cost of replacement .
. power, the real cost could be a p~ower . curtailment and resultant hardships ,
in. the BG&E service area.
- C.:5 7.5 Summary of Alternatives _
In summary, the. alternatives (1) to (3) described above are presently .
L; not available to the licensee or could not be made available in time to meet the licensee's need. Even if available, alternatives (2) and .
(3) do not provide the operating flexibil'ity of the proposed action and are likely to be more expensive than the proposed modification. The s alternative of.. ceasing operation of the f.acility would"-be much more . ,
E
- expensive than:.the proposed action because of the need to prov.ide ..,,.,,,,
replacement power. In addition to the economic advantages of tt. proposed .~~~
action, we have determined that the expansien of the storage capacity of hii ;
~
the spent fuel pool for CCNPP would have a negligible environmental - E impact. Accordingly, deferral or severe restriction of the action herein proposed would result in substantial harm to the pubite interest. :
8.0 EVALUATION OF PROPOSED ACTION 8.1 Unavoicaole Acverse Environmental *meacts 8.l.2 Radiolooical imoacts ...
- s Expansion of the storage capacity cf the SF? will not create any significant additional adverse radiological effects. As discussed in Section 5.3, the lis additional total body dose that might be received by an individual or the if5 estimated population within a 50-mile radius is less than 0.001 mrem /yr and [$
0.001 man-rem /yr, respectively, and is less than the natural fluctuations f.Ti:.2 H
in the dose this population would receive from background radiation. The total dose to workers during removal of the present storage racks and ._ q "E
installation of the new racks is estimated to be about 6 man-rem. Operation of the plant with additional spent hel in the SF? is not expected to increase the occupational radiation enosure by more than one percent of the present total annual eccupa:i:nal ex:osure at this facility. ;
d 90026146 x
q -
1 _s l
l l
- - - " ~
- -l l
S.2 Relationships Between Local Short-Tem Use of Man's Envirom:ent J and the Maintenance and Ennancement of Long-Term Proche:ivity ;j
=.
Expansion of the storage capacity of the SFP, which would permit the 1i plant to continue to operate until 1985 when offsite storage facilities ,
are expected to be available for interim or long-tem stcrage of spent - I fuel will not change the evaluation in the FES. p,
- J 8,3 Irreversible and ' Irretrievable Commitments of'Resotinies 8.3.1 Water, Land and Air Resources j4
. ~ tr ~
[-
.The proposed action will not result in any significant change in the i- =
commitments of water, land and air resources as identified in the FES. i No additional allocation of land would be made; the land area now i used for the SFP would be.used more efficiently by reducing the spacings ir -
between fuel assemblies. ..
.r4 8.3.2 Material Resources ?~
i' Under the proposed modification, the present spent fuel storage racks will r~
be replaced by new racks that will increase the storage capacity of the SFP by 646 spent fuel assemblies. The new spent fuel storage racks consist of type 304 austenitic stainless. steel tubes, 8.875 inches. square by -
approximately 14 feet long with a 3/16 inch. wall thickness. Each -
corage rack consists of a 6x8 array of individual storage tubes, a L, base with four legs, and various bracing and support members. The fuel assemblies sit on bars across the bottom of each storage tube. The .
top of the storage tubes are flared to form a lead-in funnel. Each :
rack is estimated to weigh approximately 20,000 lbs. empty. Eleven of .: .:;
these racks will be used in each section of the SFP, for a total of 22 racks weigung 440,000 lbs.
Thus, the resources to be committed for fabrication cf the new spent fuel storage racks total approximate 1 / 4'0,000 pcunds of stainl ess steel .
The racks do not use a poison material such as boren impregnated stainless steel, 8 4C plates or boral . The amount of stainless steel used annually :
in the U. S. is about 2.82x10ll lbs. The material is readily available in abundant supply. The amount of stainless steel required for fabrication !"
of the new racks is a small amount of this resource consumed annually in {ri r
the United States. We conclude that the amount of material required '
for the new racks at CCNPP is insignificant and does not represent a significant irreversible commitment of material resources. !
4 90026147
==
6 g E:7 oma a
' The longer term storage of spent fuel assemblies withdraws the ur.iurned 215 uranium from the fuel cycle for a longer period of time. I:s usefulness -__
as a resource in the future, however, is not changed. The provision of ~
longer onsite storage does not result in any cumulative effects d:e to plant operation since'the throughput of materials does not change. Thus _ FZ-].
= - -
the same quantity of radioactive material ad11 have been produced when averaged over the life of the plant. This licensing action would not ;....
~~~
constitute a ca:titment of resources that would affect the alternatives ~
available to other nuclear power plants or other actions that might be taken by the industry in the future to alleviate fuel storage problems.
No other resources need be allocated because of design characteristics of . - .
the SFP renain unchanged. =.==
We conclude that the expansion ofe the SFP at the Calvert Cliffs' facilities ))#
'does not constitute a commitment of either material or nomnaterial resources 5?I
,, that would tend to significant1y' foreclose the alternatives available gE:
) with respect to any other individual licensing actions designed to ameliorate 25 a possible shortage of spent fuel storage capacity. ((~
- = 5 8.4 Commission policy Statement ~Recardine Spent Fuel _ Storace E .
On September 16, 1975, the Commission announced (40 F.P 42801) its intent to prepare a generic environmental impact statement..on handling the .., L_;
storage of spent fuel from light. water reactors. In .this notice, the Mcs q
Commission al'so announced its conclusion that it would not be in' the W3$
public interest'to defer all licensing actions intended to amelierate a GEE possible shortage of spent fuel storage capacity pending comple..an of ~ ~ ~Es the generic environmental impact statenent. The statement is expected to be completed by the end of 1977. ;; ;.
p=c The Commission directed that in the consideration of any such prc:osed =
licensing action, among other things, the following five specific factors should be applied, balanced, and weighed in the context cf che required environnental statement or appraisai:
Is it likely that the licensing action here proposed would have a 1.
utility that is independent of the utility of other licensing actions [;;l..
designed to ameliorate a possible shortage of spent fuel capacity? gjp The reactor cores for CCNPP units contain 217 fuel assemblies. ane Ese refueling of the unit, which consists of replacing about 72 fuel assechlies, 55ll is done annually. The SFP was designed on the basis that a fuel cycle would L32
(_.:
e==_
.-ees e.een-90>02614 8 :
, . m W
- g. -
be in existence that would only require storage of Therefore,spent fuel afor about pool p a year prior to shipment to a reprocessing facility, E
- =.:
l storage adequate.
capacity for 410 assemblies (about While not1-2/3 cores) the spent fuel from 2 previous refuelings were in the pool. . =.
required from the standpoint of safety considerations, it is prudent
.1.
l engineering practice to reserve space in the SFp to rec or because of other operational considerations.
f:..
Y .
- [
If 72 fuel assemblies are discharged Theeach' spent year, fuel mustthebeSFP will be full after stored the refueling scheduled for late 1979. ~ If' expansion of i onsite or elsewhere if the facility is to be refueled.the SFP ca ,
not located, the licensee'will have to shut down Unit No.1 in theAs discussedi un spring of 1980 and Unit No. 2 in the late fall. Storage !
alternatives, an alternate storage facility is not now available. ,
onsite is an irtterim solution to allow the plant to continue to operate. i.
The proposed ifcensing action (i.e., installing new rack -
the licensee with additional flexibility. which is desirabk even if .
adequate offsite storage facilities hereaf ter become available to the, licensee. ,
We have concluded that a need for additional spent fuel storage capacity i exists at CCNPP which is independent of the utility of j. o
- 2. Is it likely that the taking of the action here proposed prior to ,
the preparation of th generic statemen; would constitute a commit-would tend to significantly foreclose the :
ment of resources ti :
alternatives availabis 4th respect to any cther licensing actions -
designed to ameliora:- possible shortage of spent fuel storage capacity?
With respect to this propo ed if censing action, wematerial The have considered resources commit-ment of both material anc r.:nmaterial resources. b considered are those to be utilized in the expansion of the SFP. E i
The increased storage capacity of the CCNPP spent fuel pool was consideredE-as a nonmaterial resource and was evaluated relative to proposed similar F
~
licensing actions at other nuclear power plants, fuel reprocessing We have deter:)ined that the proposed expansion facilities and fuel storage facilities.
E! 98026l49 i
~
7 .
l .
. :_ - k.. == \
=
, 19 - :.
E.Z.'.
in the storage capacity of the SFP is only a measure to allow for continued .Z].
operation and to provide operational flexibility at the facility, and will .
not affect similar licensing actions at other nuclear power plants..
Similarly, taking this action would not commit the NRC to repeat this action or a related action in 1984, at which time the modified pool is p.-.
estimated to be full if no fuel is removed.
p::
G g l
We conclude that the expansion of the SFP at the CCNPP, prior to the 4 preparation of the generic statement, does not constitute a commitment of -
either material or nonmaterial resources that would tend to significantly foreclose the alternatives available with respect to any other individual -
licensing actions designed to ameliorate a possible shortage of spent fuel -- -
storage capacity. .
M _
3.
Can the environmental impacts associated with the licensing action here proposed be adequately addressed within the context of the present x_
application without overlooking 'any cumulative environmental impacts? -
. = = =
Potential non-radiological and radiological impacts resulting from the fuel rack conversion and subsequent operation of the expanded SFP at this ~"~
facility were censidered by the staff.
No environmental imapets on the environs outside the spent fuel storage i=e building are expected during removal of the existing racks and install.ation "--
of the new racks. Tne impacts within this building are expected.to be limited to those norm 11y associated with metal working activitir: and
..e to the occupational radiation exposure to the personnel involved. ,
.Q The potential non-radiological environmental impact attributable to the l additional heat load in the SFP was determined to be negligible compared to the existing themal effluents from the facility.
C:.::. .
H:Sii 4 We have considered the potential radiological environmental impacts associ- ~
ated with the expansion of the SFP and have concluded that they would not result in radioactive effluent releases that significantly affect the - . .
quality of the human environment during either nomal operation of the -
expanded SFP or under postulated fuel handling accident conditions, f g--
4 Have the technical issues"which have arisen during the review of this application been resolved within that context?
g_g: - .
This Envircrnental Impact Appraisal and the acccmpanying Safety Evaluation N respond to the questions concerning health, safety and environmental concerns. ;=E
. .;=..;
ym. ..
a e.
>\ti -
90026150 he.
e neen ,,a,s e u _= - - - - - , - - - - , . - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - _ _
,- g M . . y. .
t.w 4
+. . -
- 5. Would a deferral or severe restriction on this licensing action result )
in substantial harm to the public interest? id
!M We have evaluated the alternatives .to the proposed action, including !#
storage of the additional spent fuel offsite and ceasing power generation !=
from the plant when the existing SFP is full. We have determined that .it there are significant economic advantages associated with the proposed jjp action and that expansion of the storage capacity of the SFP will have a , E.E negligible environmental impact. Accordingly, deferral or severe restric- En tion of the action here proposed would result in substantial hann to the T:
. public interest. ~ :- _
g .c g ]1 20 COST-BENEFIT _ BALANCE This section summarizes and compares the cost and the benefits resulting ?
from the proposed modification t'o those that would be derived from the j..
{. ,
selection and implementation of e'ach alternative. The table below g. ,
presents a tabular comparison of these costs and benefits. The benefit that is derived ffrom three of these alternatives is the continued operation ::u of the CCNPP units and production of electrical energy. As shown in the ::p table, the reactor shutdown and subsequent storage of fuel in the reactor ::W vessel results in the cessation of electrical energy production. The E' remaining alternative storage at other nuclear plants, is not possible is.
~'
at this time or in the foreseeable future except on a short term emergency basis. and, therefore, has no associated cost or benefit. -
l
)
From examination of the table, it can be seen that the most cos -effective alternative is the proposed spent fuel pool modification. As evaluated -
in the precedi'ng sections, the environmental impacts associated with the proposed mootfication would not be significantly changed from those j analyzed in the Final Environmental Statement for CCNPp Unit Nos.1 and 2 issued in April 1973. :
- i 10.0 BASIS AND CONCLUSION FOR NOT PREPARING AN EINIRCNMENTAL IEpACT STATEMENT p
- We have reviewed this proposed facility modification relative to the [
requirements set forth in 10 CFR Part 51 and the Council of Environmental Quality's Guidelines, 40 CFR 1500.6 and have applied, weighed, and balanced ;.
the five factors specified by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 40 FR E1 42801. We have determined that the proposed license amendments will not L.. ;
significantly affect the quality of the human environment. Therefore, the staff has found that an environmental impact statement need not be pre- g:. !
I pared, and that pursuant to 10 CFR 51.5(c), the issuance of a negative .
declaration to this effect is. appropriate.
Date: January 4,197 y.
.1 p) \ h 9002615ll' **
.~.
"*"?/. ,y.. ...y.,., .3 l
(
h .E l o.
' - - 21 .
SUMMARY
OF COST-BENEFITS f " .._. .
E Al ternative " Cost Benefit Reprocessing of Spent Fuel None - This alteFnative is not available either.now '
- .i~. .. j.
or in the foreseeable ._;;
futu re. ;;
.. _ = -
Increase storage capacity of Calvert Cliff's SFP $4650/ assembly Continued operation of .
CCNPP and production of
~
electrical energy.
Storage at Independent $10,000/ assembly Continued operation of F Facility ** plus annual costs CCNPP and production of *"W for maintenance, electrical energy. This , T operation, safe- alternative is not avail- . ~ r?
guards, interest on able for several years. :::= =
investment and over- , ,=ii head plus shipping g costs to facility. ,
Storage at Reprocessor's -
Continued operation of CCNPP .= p.g Facility and production of electrical :.< "1 energy. How'ver, this l5===
alternative is not avail- E"--H It is ' uncertain '!!!i="i able now.
whether this alterna- .."
tive will be available . "E==
in the future. =-
=
Storage at Other Nuclear Non,e - This alternative is =
Pl ants not itkely to be -
=-
available. ...
Reactor Shutdown $121,800,000/Yr None - No production of .t.irf-for levelized fixed electrical energy. (.
charge on invest- .__..
ment plus $7,300,000 ,_
/Yr for fuel charges =-
or $129,100,000/Yr plus $10,100,000
/Yr for maintenance and security.
'In orcer to use this alternative, a minimum commitment of seven to ten years of storage is recuirec.
- Costs for interim Goverr. ment storage are expected to be published early in 1975.
9902.6152