ML20237K412

Staff Exhibit S-2,consisting of 860521 Environ Assessment Re Expansion of Spent Fuel Pools for Licenses DPR-80 & DPR-82. No EIS Necessary

ML20237K412
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	06/17/1987
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
References
OLA-S-002, OLA-S-2, NUDOCS 8709040336
Download: ML20237K412 (17)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:..] YkC Jb-2 75 32 3 04 A 6 /7/P 7 %li]y~D S' ~- Z '87 /E 26 P4 :11 Environmental Assessment By The Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Relating to the Expansion of Spent Fuel Pools Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82 Pacific Gas and Electric Company Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. I and 2 Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323 i 8709040336 070617 PDR ADOCA 05000275 C PDR , fr R g 6x, 2

^ 3 ' K ggtAR F!CatATOM MM" go cL7f-OL4 ' official hh N'- I -{ )s 1 la the mah 8, 9 (\\ 4 yp-h~~~yT. y pocket N6 W4 ~;~ s t i 7 / / s totN1) TIED / s, t/-. s w'- itetivro _-. Appticant - Jt)LCIED _- !\\I laterveur - ] o { i ' l ~; uce ff' - Jut ~ C ' '~ ~ hhkM _.. + Mhti f ~ 'kNE ) s g yyy g .a n.,.a - \\ m s., ~ \\ y s \\, .n he p.. >6 k,, i v-g -f g y \\ 4 t. h, 4 i %* g. i ?' (. \\ \\ 6 k V \\ s - r;

• (-

.y d

1. I 6

4 R 6 I V, r O g t 4 4 \\ W. k. 5 \\3 t ( y l l 4 N, 5 \\4 ( v. ,p s ( F L 4, L i \\ o b 4 b k N a \\., i s., a \\ \\.' L k ( \\ t. j ,,\\; ..A

2. TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

l l 1.1 Description of Proposed Action 1.2 Need for Increased Storage Capacity i 1.3 Alternatives 1.4 Fuel Reprocessing History. 2.0 RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE 2.1 Radioactive Material Released to the Atmosphere 2.2 Solid Radioactive Waste 2.$ Radioactive Waste Released to Receiving Waters 3.0 RADIOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 3.1 Public Radiation Exposure 3.2 Occupational Exposure 3.3 Conclusions 4.0 NON-RADIOLOGICAL IMPACT 5.0

SUMMARY

S.I Alternative Use of Resources 5.2 Agencies and Persons Consu,1ted 6.0 BASIS AND CONCLUSION FOR NOT PREPARING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STAT

7.0 REFERENCES

a l i j I . i l J +

~ l \\ l

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Description of Proposed Action ( By letter of October 30, 1985, the Pacific Gas and Electric. Company (PGAE or the licensee) requested an amendment to Facility Operating Licenses DPR-80 and 1 DPR-82 for the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, respectively j to allow the expansion of the capacity of the spent fuel the increased storage of spent fuel in the pools (Ref.1) pool for each unit and i A detailed dese,ription and analysis of the proposed expansion of the spent fuel pools was submitted in a letter of Septe'mber 19,1985 (Ref. 2) and further infomation was provided in a letter dated January 28, 1986 (Ref. 3). The spent fuel pools l and storage racks for Unit I and Unit 2 are of the same design and this i assessment applies equally to both units. The amendmants would authorize t'he licensee to increase the capacity from the current 270 fuel essemblies to the proposed capacity for 1324 fuel assemblies for each pool. The proposed expansion is to be achieved by removing the current spent fuel racks from each pool and replacing them with new racks (i.e., reracking) in 'which the cells for the spent fuel assemblies are more l closely spaced (i.e., high density racks). The proposed expansion will utilize i a combination of poisoned and unpoisoned racks in a two-region arrangement for each pool. 1.2 Need For Increased Storage Capacity 1 When the licensee submitted the application for operating licenses for Unit I and Unit 2 of the Diablo Canyon Plant the spent feel pool (SFP) design for each unit provided the capacity to hold 270 fuel assemblies (Ref. 4), which is sufficient for one normal refueling of 76 assemblies and reserve capacity to ^ receive one full core of 193 assemblies, in accordance with the Standard Review Plan Section 9.1.2, Spent Fuel Storage (Ref. 16) guidelines of At that time it was expected that spent fuel would be removed from the site. l With retaining the capability for a full core offload the current capacity for "one and one-third core Will be exhausted prior to the second refueling, currently scheduled for March and September 1988 for Units 1 and 2, respectively. l Without retaining the full core capability the capacity will be exhausted prior to the fifth refueling, currently scheduled for September 1992 and March 1993 i' for Units I and 2, respectively. Since these dates 9re earlier than the date when a federal repository is expected to be available to receive spent fuel from the Diablo Canyon Plant, which is 1998 in accordance with Public Law 97-425, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. Section 302 (a)(5) (Ref. 5), the proposed expansion of each of the two spent fuel pools is needed for the continued operation of both units. The proposed expansion of each SFP will afford adequate storage capacity, including the full core offload capability, until approximately the year 2007. This provides a margin in storage capability beyond the currently projected date for availability of the permanent federal repository. Furthermore, as

• O

E discussed in Section 3.2, the proposed rack installation at this time will be in a dry and uncontaminated condition. The installation of spent fuel storage racks at a later time will have to be performed under water and in the presence of

pent fuel.

1.3 Alternatives Comercial reprocessing of spent fuel has not developed as had been originally anticipated. In 1975 the Nuclear Regulatory Comission directed the staff to prepare a Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS, the Statement) on spent fuel storage. The Comission directed the staff to analyze alternatives for the handling and storage of spent light water power reactor fuel with parti-cular emphasis on developing long range policy. The Statement was to consider alternative methods of spent fuel storage as well as the possible restriction or tennination of the generation of spent fuel through nuclear pcwer plans shutdown. A final " Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Handling and Storage of Spent Light Water Power Reactor Fuel" (NUREG-057S'), Volumes 1-3 (the FGEIS) was issued by the NRC in. August 1979 (Ref. 6). 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 versus its replacement by coal-fired power generation. Continued nuclear generation of power versus its replacement by oil-fired generation provide's an even greater economic advantage. In the bounding case considered in the FGEIS, that of shutting down the reactor when the existing spent fuel storage capacity is filled, the cost of replacing nuclear stations before the end of their normal lifetime makes this alternative uneconomical. The storage of spent fuel as evaluated in NUREG-OS75 is considered to be an interim action, not a final solution to pennanent disposal. I One spent fuel storage alternative considered in detail in the FGEIS is the expansion of onsite fuel storage capacity by modification of the existing spent fuel pools. Applications for more than one hundred spent fuel pool expansions l have been received and h' ave been approved or are under review by the NRC. The finding in each case has been that the environmental impact of such increased storage capacity is negligible. However, since there tre variations in storage designs and limitations caused by the spent fuel already stored in some of the pools, the FGEIS recomends that licensin basis to resolve plant-specific cencerns.g reviews be done on a case-by-case The licensee has considered several alternatives to the proposed action of the spent fuel PLol expansion (Ref. 2). The staff has evaluated these and certain i other alternatives with respect to the need for the proposed action as discussed in Section 1.2 of this assessment. The following alternatives were considered: (1) Shipment of spent fuel to a permanent fuel storage / disposal facility. 1 O

(2) Shipment of fuel to a reprocessing facility. (3) Shipment of fuel to another utility for storage. (4) Reduction of spent fuel generation. (5) Construction of a new independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI). (6) No action taken. Each of these alternatives is discussed below.

1. Shipment of Spent Fuel to a Federal Fuel Storage / Disposal Facility Shipment to a permanent federal fuel storage disposal facility is the preferred alternative'to increasing the onsite spent fuel storage capacity.

The licensee has made contractur.1 arrangements whereby spent nuclear fuel and/ nuclear waste will be accepted and disposed of by the U. S. Depar,or high level tment of Energy (DOE). DOE is developing a depository under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) of 1982 (Ref.'5). However, the facility is not likely to be ready to receive spent fuel until 1998 at the ea liest. Therefore, this alternative does not meet the near-term storage needs of Pacific Gas and Electric Company i for the Diablo Canyon Plant. Under NWPA the federal government has the responsibility to provide not more than 1900 metric tons capacity for the interim storage of spent fuel. The impacts of storing fuel at a Federal Interim Storage (FIS) facility fall within those already assessed by the NRC in NUPEG-0575. Jn passing the NWPA, Congress found that the owners and operators' of nuclear power stations have the primary responsibility for providing interim storage of spent nuclear fuel. In accordance with the NWPA and 10 CFR Part 53, shipping of spent fuel to a FIS facility is considered a last resort alternative. Therefore, since Pacific Gas and Electric Company has been diligently pursuing this application for the SFP expansion at this time, the alternative of shipment of spent fuel to a FIS is not considered reasonable.- r

2. Shipment of Fuel to a Reprocessing Facility Reprocessing of spent fuel from the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant is not viable because there is presently no operat'ing connercial reprocessing facility in the United States, nor is there the prospect for one in the foreseeable future.

3. Shipment of Fuel to Another Utility For Storage The shipment of spent fuel from the Diablo Canyon Plect to the storage facility of.another utility company could provide short-term relief to the Diablo Canyon storage capacity problem.

However, the NWPA and 10 CFR Part 53 clearly place the responsibility for the interim storage of spent nuclear fuel with each owner or operator of nuclear power plant. Moreover, transshipment of spent 3

f fuel to and its storage at another site would entail potential environmental impacts greater than those associated with the proposed increased storage at the Diablo Canyon site. Therefore, this is not considered a practical or reasonable alternative.

4. Reduced Spent Fuel Generation Improved usage of fuel in the reactor of each unit and/or operation at a reduced power level would extend the life of the fuel in the reactors.

In the case of extended burnup of fuel assemblies the fuel cycle would be extended and fewer offloads would take place. However, the current, storage capacity would still be exhausted prior to 1998 as discussed in Section 1.2. Operation at reduced power would not make effective use of available resources, thus causing economic penalties.

5. Construction of A New Independent Spent Fuel Storace Installation Additional storage capacity could be developed by building a new, independent i

spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI), either similar to the existing pools for the two units or a dry cask storage installation. The NRC staff has generically assessed the impacts of the pool alternative and found, as reported in NUREG-0575, that "the storage of LWR spent fuels in water pools has an insignificant impact on the environment" (Ref. 6). A generic assessment for the dry cask alternative has not been made by the staff. However, an assessment of the proposed dry cask. ISFSI for the Surry Power Station resulted in a Finding of No Significant Impact (Ref.15). While these alternatives are environmentally acceptable, such new storage facility, either on the Diablo Canyon site or at a location offsite, would require a new, site specific design and construction, including equipment for the transfer of spent fuel. It also would require NRC review, evaluation and licensing of such facility. It is not likely that this entire effort could be completed in time to meet the need for additional capacity as discussed in Section 1.2. Furthemore, such construc-tion will not utilize the existing expansion capabilities of the existing pools and thus would be wasteful of resources.

6. No Action Taken If no action were taken, i.e., the spent fuel pool storage capacity for each unit remains at 270 locations, the storage capacity would become exhausted as discussed in Section 1.2 and each uni.t would have to be shut down. This stop in operations would result in no further generation of spent fuel thereby eliminating the need for increased spent fuel storage capacity.

The impacts of terminating the generation of spent fuel by ceasing the operation of existing nuclear power plants (i.e., ceasing generation of electric power) when their spent fuel pools become filled was evaluated in NURFG-0575 (Ref. 6) and found to be undesirable. This alternative would be a waste of an available resource, the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant itself, and is not considered viable. In summary, the only alternative which could pr' ovide an alternative solution to the Pacific Gas and Electric Company spent fuel storage capacity problem is the construction of a new independent spent fuel storage installation at the Diablo

Canyon site or at a location away from the site. Construction of such an additional spent fuel storage facility could provide long-tem increased storage capacity for Pacific Gas and Electric Company. However, this alternative cannot be implemented ih a timely manner to meet the need for i additional capacity for both units of the Diablo Canyon Plant. 1.4 Fuel Reprocessing History Currently spent fuel is not being reprocessed on a comercial basis in the United States. The Nuclear Fuel Services (NFS) plant at West Valley, New York, was shut dcwn in 1972 for alterations and expansion. In September 1976. NFS infomed the Comission that it was withdrawing from the nuclear fuel reprocessing business. The Allied General Nuclear Services (AGNS) prop,osed plant in Barnwell, South Carolina, is not lic2nsed to operate. The General Electric Company (GE) Norris Operation (fomerly Midwest Recovery Plant) in i Morris, Illinois, is in a decommissioned condition. On April 17, 1977, President Carter issued a policy statement on commercial reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel which effectively eifminated reprocessing as part of the relatively near-tem nuclear fuel cycle. Although no plants are licensed for reprocessing fuel, the storage pools at Morris and at West Valley are licenud to store spent fuel. The storage pool i at West Valley is not full; but the licensee (current licensee is New York Energy Research and Developme'nt Auuhority) is presently not accepting any additional spent fuel for storage, even from those power generating facilities that had contractual arrangements with West Valley. (In fact, spent fuel is being cemoved from NFS and returned to various utilities). On May 4, 1982, the J licer.,e held by GE for spent fuel storage activities at its Morris operation was renewed for another 20 years; however, GE is comitted to eccept only limited quantities of additional spent fuel for storage'at this facility from ~_- Cooper and San Onofre Unit 1. 2.0 RADIOACTIVE WASTES The Diablo Canyon Plant includes a separate radioactive waste treatmerit system for each of the two units, designed to collect and process the gaseous, liquid, and solid waste that might contain radioactive material. The radioactive waste treatment systems were evaluated by the staff in the Final Environmental Statement (Ref. 8) and.the Safety Evaluation Repor.t (SER) and its supplements (Ref. 7). The proposed reracking of the spent fuel. pools will not involve any change in the waste treatment systems as described in the FES. 2.1 Radioactive Material Released to the Atmosphere With respect to the release of gaseous radioactive materials to the atmosphere, the only radioactive gas of significance which could be attributed to storing additional spent fuel assemblies and for a longer period of time would be the noble gas radionuclides Krypton-85 (Kr-85) which has a half-life of 10.8 years. Experience has demonstrated that after spent fuel has been moved from the reactor to the SFP and has been stored for 4 to 6 months, gaseous fission. n

) products, including Kr-85, have been released from the stored spent fuel containing c1'dding defects. The release of gaseous fission products, a including Kr-85, form non-defective' fuel elements is insignificant in comparison with the overall releases from routine. plant operations. To detennine the average annual release of Kr-85, the staff assumed that all Kr-85 from the defective fuel (i.e. 0.12 percent, based on NUREG-0017, Ref.18) will be released to the SFP prior to the next refueling. Therefore, enlarging the storage capacity of the spent fuel pools has only a negligible effect on the calculated average annual quantities of Kr-85 released to the atmosphere each year. For the purpose of estimating potential radiation doses to the members of the public due to the storage of spent fuel assemblies in both pools, the NRC staff calculated a release of 187 curies per year (Ci/yr) of Kr-85 in accordance with the assumptions of Regulatory Guide 1.109 (Ref.10). There may be some small change in the calculated quantities due to a change in the fuel burnup; this is expected to be a small fraction of the calculated annual quantities. The expansion of the fuel storage capacity will not significantly increase the Iodine-131 (1-131) releases from the spent fuel assemblies to the SFP environment since the I-131, with a half-life of 8 days, will decay to negligible levels shortly after refueling. Tritium is produced during reactor operation as a result of activation of boron and lithium in the primary' coolant which can enter the SFP during refueling operations via the transfer canal. This will not be affected by the proposed spent fuel pool expansion. A relatively small amount of tritium is also generated during reactor operation by fissioning of reactor fuel and subsequent diffusion of tritium through the fuel and the fuel cladding. Tritium release from the spent fuel essentially occurs while the fuel is hot, that is, during operations and, to a limited extent', shortly after shutdown. Thus, expanding the SFP capacity will not significantly increase the tritium activity in the ~ SFP. Releases of tritium and fodine from the spent fuel pool water increases with the SFP water temperature. Storing additional spent fuel assemblies will not significantly increase the bulk water temperature during normal refuelings above the value used in the design analysis. Therefore, it is not expected that there will be any significant change in the annual release of tritium or iodine as a result of the 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 l I concentrations than the SFP. Therefore, even if there were a higher evaporation rate from the SFP, the increase in tritium and iodine released from the plant, as a result of the increase in stored sperit fuel, would be small compared to the amount normally released from the plant and that which was previously evaluated in the FES. Furthermore, in accordance with the Technical Specifications (TS) the SFP exhaust system must be operating and discharging through both HEPA and charcoal filters whenever spent fuel is stored in the SFP and either fuel is being moved or other loads are being carried over the SFP. In addhion, the plant radiological effluent Technical Specifications, which will not change as a 6-Lu

result of the increased spent fuel storage, limit the total releases of gaseous activity. In surmary, the release of gaseous radioactive material to the atmosphere is not expected to increase significantly. 2.2 Solid Radioactive Wastes The. concentration of radionuclides in the pool water is controlled by the SFP cleanup system and by decay of short-lived isotopes. The activity is highest during refueling operations when reactor coolant water is introduced into the pool, and decreases as the pool water is processed through the SFP cleanup system. The increase of radioactivity, if any, due to the proposed increased storage of spent fuel, will be' minor because of the capability of the cleanup system to continuously remove radionuclides from the SFP water to acceptable levels. The expected increase in total waste volume shipped from both units will be less than 1%, and will not have any significant additiona" environmental impact. Therefore, the s<taff does not expect any significant increase in the amount of solid waste generated from the SFP cleanup systems due to the proposed reracking. The present spent fuel racks have not been exposed to spent fuel storage, and the racks are not contaminated or only nominally contaminated as discussed in Section 3.2 of this assessment. The racks can therefore be disposed of as nonradioactive wastes. This will not increase the average or total volumes of radioactive waste shipped from the Diablo Canyon site, and thus will not have any significant additional environmental impact. 2.3 Radioactive Material Released to Receiving Wateg The SFP cooling and cleanup systems' operate as a closed system. Only water originating from cleanup of SFP floors and resin sluice water need be considered as potential sources of radioactivity. The flow rate and the radionuclides concentration of the floor cleanup water are not expected to change as a result of the proposed reracking. The SFP demineralized resin removes soluble radioactive materials from SFP water. These resins are periodically sluiced with water to the spent resin storage tank. The amount of radioactivity on the SFP demineralized resin may increase slightly due to any additional operations associated with spent fuel in the pool, but the soluble radioactive material.is retained on the resins. Radioactive material that might be transferred from the spent resin to the sluice water will be effectively removed by the liquid radwaste system. After processing in the liquid radwaste system, the amount of radioactivity release j to the environment as a result of the proposed modif' cation would be negligible. The staff concludes that there will.not be a significant increase in the liquid release of radionuclides from the plant as a result of the proposed spent fuel pool expansion. ~7-i 4

= 3.0 RADIOLOGICALIMPACTASSESSM5NT This section provides the staff's estimates of the impact on the public from the proposed spent fuel pool expansion. Major sources of radioactivity and. principal environmental pathways were considered in preparing this section. The section also provides the staff's evaluation of the estimates of the additional radiological impacts on the plant workers from the proposed operation of the expanded Diablo Canyon spent fuel pools. 3.1 Public Radiation Exposure The principal source of radiation doses to individual members of the general public is exposure to Kr-85 releases from the spent fuel pools during storage of spent fuel. The staff has estimated the doses to individual members of the public as well as the population as a whole in the area surrounding the Diablo Canyon Plant by conservatively assuming a release of 187 Ci/yr of Kr-85 due to the pr,oposed increased storage of spent fuel assemblies and using the calculations methods presented in Regulatory Guide 1.109 (Ref. 10). The staff estimated the total body and organ doses for the direct radiation exposure pathway from the Kr-85 plume shine for individual members of the general public of all ages at the worst site boundary location, 0.5 miles northwest of the plant, resulting from the assumed additional release of airborne Kr-85. It was conservatively assumed that the individual members of the public oc:upy the site boundary under the worst atmospheric dispersion characteristics continuously for gne entire year. An atmospheric dispersion factor, X/Q, of 8.8 x 10' sec/m (Ref. 8) was used in these estimates. The additional total body dose that might be received from the assumed release of Kr-85 by an individual at the worst site boundary location is less than 0.1 mrem per year. The estimated total body dose for the entire population within a 50 mile radius of the plant is less than 0.1 person-rem per year. These doses are small compared to the fluctuations in the annual dose this population receives from exposure to background radiation. The population dose due to the SFP expansion represents an increase of less than 0.1 percent of the population ~ ~ dose evaluated in the FES for the release of noble gases from the normal operation of the Diablo Canyon Plant. 1 By comparison, every year the population of about 269,0D0 persons (Ref.14) will receive a cumulative total body dose of more that 29,600 person-rem from natural background radiation of about 0.11 rem per year per person (Ref.11). i Thus, the additional total body dose to the population from the SFP modification is estimated to be less than 0.0001 % of the annual dose due to natural background. On this basis, the staff concludes that the dose due to individuals in unrestricted areas and to the entire population within 50 miles .due to.the assumed additional airborne Kr-85 released annually from the SFP 1 expansion modification will not be environmentally significant. - R -_-_.____.m.-_ -..__-_-___._---_-_-.--._--_-___--__.-.-_-_-------O

t l In sumary, the estimated doses due to exposure of individuals and the entire population to radioactive materials associated with the proposed spent fuel pool expansion are not significant. l i 3.2 Occupational Exposure i The occupational exposure for the proposed operation of the expanded SFP's is estimated by the licensee to be less than 2.4 person-rem per year for both l units based on the licensee's detailed breakdown of occupational dose for each j phase of the operation. This dose is less than 1% of the average annual occupational dose of 800 person-rem anticipated for all operations for both i uni ts. The small increase in radiation dose does not affect the licensee's I ability to maintain individual occupational doses within the limits of 10 CFR 20, and is as low as reasonably achievable. Normal radiation control procedures (Ref. 12) and utilization of Regulatory Guide 8.8 guidance (Ref. 13) j should preclude any significant occupational radiation exposures. 4 A full core of new fuel, i.e.,193 assemblies, was stored wet in the Unit 1 pool (i.e. under water) from March 1976 to May 1981 and dry from May 1981 until fuel loading in November 1983. Similarly, a full core was stored dry in the Unit 2 pool from May.1977 until fuel loading in May 1985. Contamination and l radiation levels due to new fuel storage are insignificant and would result in no measurable dose tc, workers. Spent fuel has not been stored in either of the two pools as of this time. Since the reracking will be perfortned in an essentially radiologically clean l area (i.e. uncontaminated, dry pools), no significant doses will be realized for workers involved due to the reracking itself. i I Based on present and projected operations in the spent fuel pool area, the I staff estimates that the proposed operation of the SFP should add only a small I fraction to the total annual occupational radiation dose at this facility. Thus, the staff concludes that the proposed storage of spent fuel in the j reracked SFP's will not resul.t in any significant increase in doses received by workers. I l 3.3 Conclusions Based on.its review of the proposed reracking of the spent fuel pool at Diablo Canyon Units I and 2, the staff concludes that: 1 (1) The estimated additional radiation ' dose to the general public is I (a) much less than the dose incurred during normal operation of the l Diablo Canyon facility; and I (b) very small in comparison to the dose that members of the general i public receive each year from exposure to natural background radiation. l 9 e A

j i ~ l (2) The licensee has taken appropriate steps to ensure that the occupational ) dose will be maintained as low as reasonably achievable and within the. limits of 10 CFR Part 20. The total occa etional dose estimated to be j associated with the proposed operation o the reracked fuel pools is 2.4 person-rem, which is less than 1% of the average annual total occupational dose anticipated at Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2, or similar operating pressu? Jzed water reactors. 1 On the basis of the foregoing evaluation, it is concluded that there will be no significant additional environmental radiological impact attributable to the proposed reracking modification to increase the spent fuel storage capacity at Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2. l 4. NON-RADIOLOGICAL. IMPACT The licensee has not made a final decision regarding the disposition of the i current spent fuel storage racks. The disposal will not require any unusual processing or handling and thus will not involve,any environmental impact. The new spent fuel racks are fabricated by the Joseph Oat Corporation in Camden, New Jersey..They are shipped by truck directly to the Diablo Canyon Plant for installation in the pools. This is not expected to impact terrestrial resources not previously disturbed during the original construction. The only non-radiological effluent affected by the spent fuel pool expansion is the waste heat rejected via the closed loop spent fuel pool cooling system, the closed loop component cooling water system and the a'uxiliary saltwater system to the Pacific Ocean. In general, the decay heat from spent fuel after 4 years of storage is less than 2 percent of the decay heat of freshly discharged spent fuel at the time of the initial transfer from the reactor to the pool. Spent fuel assemblies freshly unloaded into the pool constitute the major heat source to the fuel pool. ) The licensee has calculated the normal maximum decay heat load to the spent fuel pool, which is the heat load associated with the last normal discharge of 76 spent fuel assemblies into the pool, based on 100 hour decay in the reactor prior to initiation of the off-loading operations, in accordance with the ~ Technical Specifications, and 19 hours to comple This normal { maximumdecayheatloadincrepsesfrom1.35x10}etheoperations. Btu / hour (Ref. 17) for the current capacity to 2.28 x 10 Stu/ hour for the expanded pool. The maximum abnormal heat load, that is the heat load associated with one full-core discharge, based on 100 hour decay prior to discharge and 48 hours to complete 7 the operations, increases from 3.78 x 10 Btu / hour (Ref.17) to 4.38 x 10 Stu/ hour. The waste heat load from both units for the normal and abnormal i offloadconditionsisinsignificantwhengomparedtothetotalplantwasteheat J loadfromthemaincondengers(15.25x10 Btu / hour) and the component cooling water systems (5.176 x 10 Btu / hour) to the Pacific Ocean. The increase in i plant total waste heat due to the additional and extended storage of spent fuel l assemblies is less than 0.1%.

• The increase in waste heat from the additional stcrage of spent fuel will have j

a negligible effect on the Pacific Ocean water temperature near the discharge. J No impact on aquatic boita is anticipated. The licensee has not proposed any i change in thf use or discharge' of chemicals in conjunction with the expansion of the fuel pools. 1 The staff concludes that the additional waste heat luad from the additional and extended storage of spent fuel assemblies is insignificant. There are no other non-radiological discharges, j i 5.0

SUMMARY

l The Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement (FGEIS) on Handling and Storage of Spent Light Water Power Reactor Fuel (Ref. 6) concluded that the cost of the various alternatives reflects the advantage of continued generation of nuclear power with the accompanying spent fuel storage. Because of the differences in SFP designs' the FGEIS recommended environmental evaluation as of j SFP expansions on a case-by-case basis. For the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant the expansion of the storage capacity of the. SFPs will not create any significant additional radiological effects or measurable non-radiological environmental impacts. The additional whole body i dose that might'be received by an individ sl at the site boundary is less than 0.1 millirem per year; the estimated dose to the population within a 50-mile radius is estimated to be less than 0.1 person-rem per year. These doses are small compared to the fluctuations in the annual dose this population receives from exposure to background radiation. The occupational radiation dose for the proposed operation of the expanded spent fuel pools is estimated by the licansee to be less than 2.4 person-rem per year for both units. This is less than 1% of the average. annual occupational dose. The small increase in radiation dose should not affect the licensee's ability to maintain individual occupational dose at Diablo Canyon Units I and 2 within the limits of 10 CFR Part 20, and as low as reasonably achievable. The only non-radiological effluent affected by the SFP expansion is the waste heat rejected to the Pacific Ocean. The increase in total. plant wast'e heat is less than 0.1%. Thus, there is no significant environmental impact attributable to the waste heat from the plant due to the SFP expansion. 5.1 Alternative Use of Resources This action does not' involve the use of resources not previously considered in connection with the Nuclear Regulatory Comission's Final Environmental Statement (Ref. 8), dated May 1973, related to the Diablo Canyon Plant. 5.2 Aoencies and Persons Consulted I The NRC staff reviewed the licensee's request. Other agencies or persons were not consulted. - II - I

• .s 6.0 BASIS AND CONCLUSIONS FOR NOT PREPARING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT The staff has reviewed the proposed spent fuel pool modifications to the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 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 amendments will not have a significant effect on'the quality 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 anendments. Dated: May 21,1986 Principal Contributors: D. Cleary Engineering Issues Branch, DSR0 R. Samworth Facility Operations Branch, PWR-A H. Schierling Project Directorate f3, PWR-A R. Serbu Plant Systems Branch, PWR-A 9 e 't I -r-i O i i i l ) l 1 l 12 - j a 9 A

7.0 REFERENCES

~ 1. PG&E Letter No. DCL-85-333, October 30, 1985 from D. A. Brand (PG&E) tb H. R. Denton (NRC)

Subject:

License Amendment Request 85-13. Reracking of Spent Fuel Pools. 2. PG&E Letter No. DCL-85-306, September. 19, 1985 from J. D. Shiffer (PG&E) to G. W. Knighton (NRC),

Subject:

Report on "Reracking of Spent Fuel Pools for Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2." 3. PG&E Letter No. DCL-86 bl9, January 28, 1986 from J. D. Shiffer (PG&E)' to 3 i S. A. Varga (NRC),

Subject:

Spent Fuel Pool Reracking - Additional l Information. ) 4. PG&E Letter from F. T. Searls to Director, Directorate of Licensing, I U.S. Atomic Energy Comission, Application for Class 104b Licenses for Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, including submittal of Finai Safety Anaiysis Report, dated September 28, 1973. 5. Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 Section 302(a)(5), Public Law 97-425, 6. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Report NUREG-0575, " Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Handling and Storage of Spent Light Water Power Reactor Fuei," Volumes I, 2 and 3, August 1979. 7. U.S. Atomic Energy Comissien, " Safety Evaluation of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2," NUREG-0675, October 1974 and Supplements No. I through 33, as applicable., 8. U.S. Atomic Energy Comission, " Final Environmental Statement Related to the Nuclear Generating Station Diablo Canyon, Units 1 and 2," May 1973. 1 i 9. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Report NUREG-0713. " Occupational Radiation Exposure at Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors," Volume 5, "1983 Annual Report", March 1985. \\ 10. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory. Commission, Regulatory Guide 1.109 " Calculation of Annual Doses to Man from Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluating Compliance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix 1," Rev.1, October 1, 1977. ) '11. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,1972, ORP-SID-72-1, "hatural Radiation Exposure in the United States, " June 1972. 12. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Report NUREG-0800, " Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants," i Rev. 1. July 1981, Section 12, " Radiation Protection." 13. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Regulatory Guide 8.8, "Infconation Relevant to Ensuring that Occupational Radiation Exposures at Nuclear - 4

Power Stations Will be as low as is Reasonably Achievable." Rev. 3. June 1978. 14. PG&E Letter No. DCL-85-308, September 20, 1985 from J. D. Shiffer (PG&E) to H. R. Denton (NRC),

Subject:

FSAR Update'Rev. 1. 15. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Letter from L. Rouse (NRC) to L. Stewart (Virginia Electric and Power Company), dated April. 12, 1985, transmitting " Environmental Assessment Related to the Construction and Operation of the Surry Dry Cask Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation."

16. Same as Reference 12. Section,9.1.2, " Spent Fuel Storage."

17. PG&E Letter No. DCL-85-369, December 20, 1985 from J. D. Shiffer (PG&E) to l

S. A. Yarga (NRC),

Subject:

Reracking of Spent Fuel Pools - Peak Decay l Neat Loads and Water Temperatures. ~ s 18. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Report NUREG-0017. " Calculation o.f Releases of Radiative Materials in Gases and Liquid Effluents from Pressurized Water Reactors (PWR-GALE Code)". 4 -Y". e .e 9 8 9 0. 4 _ _ __m__ _ _. _.. _ - _.. - _ - _ _ _ _ _. - _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ - _ _ _ _}}