ML20147D320

Environ Impact Appraisal for Amend#52 to Facil Oper Lic# DPR-46 Concludes That Increase in Storage Capacity for Spent Fuel Pool Will Not Affect Quality of Human Environ

ML20147D320
Person / Time
Site:	Cooper
Issue date:	09/29/1978
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20147D231	List: ML20147D227 ML20147D297 ML20147D310 ML20147D320 ML20147D330
References
TAC-06962, TAC-6962, NUDOCS 7810140021
Download: ML20147D320 (32)

Text

- - ._

[

3# '

• UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j .kM) $ WASHINGTON, D. C. 20665 t...y/ ..

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPRAISAL BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATING TO INCREASE IN STORAGE CAPACITY FOR SPENT FUEL POOL FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. OPR-46 NEBRA3XA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT C00PIR NUCLEAR, STATION 3CKETNO.50-298 1.0 Description of Proposed Action In their submittals of July 22 and November 30, 1977, the Nebraska -

Public Power District (the licensee) proposed to increase the total storage capacity of the spent fuel pool (SFP) at Cooper Nuclear Station from 740 to 2366 fuel assemblies.

The modification evaluated in this environmental impact appraisal is the proposal by the licensee to achieve increased storage capacity by replacing the existing spent fuel storage racks with closer spaced racks.

The rack spacing would be changed from 11.9 x 6.6 inches center-to-center spacing to 6 9/16 inches center-to-center spacing of the individual spent fuel cavities.

2.0 Need for Increased Storage Capacity Cooper Nuclear Station comenced power operation in early 1974 Since -

that time there have been three refueling outages during which a total of 284 spent fuel assemblies have been discharged from the reactor.

No spent fuel has been shipped from the site. There are several reasons for the current need.to increase the spent fuel storage capacity.

The current normal storage capacity of the SFP is 740 fuel assemblies.

With 284 assemblies presently stored in the pool, there is only storage space for an additional 456 assemblies. A full core for Cooper Nuclear Station consists of 548 assemblies. Thus, Cooper does not have room in the SFP with the present storage capacity to off-load a full core.

7 8 i # I 4-@@ %l -

l

\

1 1

.l

~ '

l f

~ Aside from the insnediate need for increased storage capacity to off-

. load a full core, increased storage capacity is' also required for  ;

4 continued operation of the plant. Under the current fuel management 4 plan, approximately 1/5 of the core (about 112 fuel assemblies) is l replaced each year. . With the present storage capacity of the SFP, _the l pool will be essentially full after the next four refuelings (i.e.', i after the refueling tentatively- scheduled for 1982). If an increase  !

in storage ' capacity for the Cooper Nuclear Station SFP 'is not approved, .

operation could continue until 1983, at which time the core would no  ;

longer have sufficient reactivity to continue operation'and insufficient spent fuel pool: space would be available to permit a refueling operation.

Consequently Cooper Nuclear Station would have. to be shutdown.

Another important consideration is the' amount of open storage capacity that would be required to permit removal and replacement of the existing racks. The 284 spent fuel assemblies that are'in the pool at this time -

take up less than forty percent of the original storage area. Thus it will be possible to remove all of the spent fuel assemblies from more than half of the pool area prior to the removal of the old racks. This .

should be sufficient space so that it will not be necessary to move  !

any of the rack components over spent fuel assemblies, thereby avoiding the risk of pessible radioactive release in case of.the accidental dropping of new fuel rack components. ,

l Upon completion of the rack modification, the new storage capacity-of'2366 fuel assemblies will accommodate the spent. fuel from regular refueling, through the year 1991, while stil1 allowing for discharge of a full core. Additional regular refuelings could continue through the year 1996 without the capability for discharge of a full core..

In this environmental evaluation, we have considered the impacts which may result.from storing up to an additional 1626 spent fuel assemblies in the Cooper Nuclear Station SFP on the basis that the spent fuel that is now in the SFP (the spent fuel transferred to the pool in 1976, 1977 and 1978) and the spent fuel to be stored in the pool'from future refuelings.

will remain in the Cooper Nuclear Station SFP through the year 2000.

The proposed modification would not alter the external physical geometry of the. spent fuel pool or involve significant modifications to the SFP 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 affect the generation of spent uranium fuel by the facility.

The rate of spent fuel generation and the total quantity of spent fuel generated during the anticipated operating lifetime of the facility  ;

remains unchanged as a result of the proposed expansion. The modifica-tion will increase the number of spent fuel assemblies that could be stored in the 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 Cooper Nuclear Station spent fuel pool should be increased.

3.0 Fuel Reprocessing History ,

Currently, spent fuel is not being reprocessed on a commercial basis in the United States. The Nuclear Fuel Services (NFS) plant at West Valley, New York, was shut down in 1972 for alterations and expansions; e on September 22, 1977, NFS informed the Commission that they were withdrawing from the nuclear fuel reprocessing business. The Allied- -

General Nuclear Services (AGNS) proposed plant in Barnwell, South Carolina is not licensed to operate. The General Electric Company's (GE) Midwest Fuel Recovery Plant in Morris, Illinois, now referred to as Morris Operation (MO), is in a deconinissioned condition. Although no plants are licensed for reprocessing fuel, the storage pool at Morris, Illinois, and the storage pool at West Valley, New York (on land owned by the State of 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 not accepting any additional spent fuel for storage, even from those power generating facilities that had contractual arrangements with NFS. Construction of the AGNS receiving and storage station has been completed. AGNS has applied for - but has not been granted - a license i to receive and store irradiated fuel assemblies in the storage pool at Barnwell. Further proceedings on this licensing action have not been scheduled. An application has been received from the Exxon Corporation for construction of a proposed spent fuel storage and reprocessing facility in Tennessee; licensing review of this application is suspended.  !

l 4.0 The Plant The Cooper Nuclear Station (plant) is described in the Final Environmental Statement.(FES) related to operation of the facility issued by the Commission in February 1973. The plant has a single boiling water reactor, manufactured by the General Electric Company, which generates steam at 1000 psig to drive the turbine-generator.- The reactor has a rating of 2381 megawatts thermal (Mwt), corresponding to a net elec-trical output of'801 megawatts electrical (Mwe). Pertinent descriptions 4

i l

' of principal features of the Plant as it currently exists are sumarized

- below to aid the reader in following the evaluations in subsequent sections of this appraisal.

4.1 Fuel Inventory The reactor core, which contains 548 fuel assemblies, is refueled each year, with about one-fifth of the core (about 112 fuel assemblies) replaced during each refueling period. The assemblies now in use were manufactured by General Electric Corporation.

4.2 Plant _

Plant water usage is described in Section V.B of the FES. Cooling water is drawn from the Missouri River, passed through the condensor cooling system and returned to the river by a discharge canal. Under design plant operating conditions, water is pumped into the plant from the Missouri River at the rate of about 631,000 gpm and subsequently discha'eged to the river at about 180F above ambient. Heat rejection from the spent fuel pool cooling water is discussed in Section 2.2 of the Safety Evaluation accompanying this Environmental Impact Appraisal. The envion-mental impact of heat rejection is discussed in Section 5.3 of this report.

The fuel pool cooling system cools the fuel storage pool by transferring the spent fuel decay heat through a heat exchanger to the reactor building closed cooling water system, and ultimately to the Missouri River. Water purity and clarity in the storage pool is maintained by filtering and demineralizing the pool water through a filter-demineralizer. The heat exchangers in the residual heat removal system are used in conjunction with the fuel pool cooling and demineralizer system to supplement pool cooling in the event that additional cooling becomes necessary.

4.3 Radioactive Wastes The plant contains waste treatment systens designed to collect and process the gaseous, licuid and solid waste that might contain radioactive material. The waste treatment systems are evaluated in the Final Environmentt.1 Statement (FES) dated February 1973. There will be no caange in the waste treatment systems described in Section III.C.2 of the FES because of the proposed modification.

4.4 Purpose of-SFP The SFP at Cooper Nuclear Station was designed to store spent fuel assemblies prior to shipment tc a reprocessing facility. These assemblies may be transferred from the reactor core to the SFP during a core refueling, or to allow for. inspection, repair and/or modification to core internals. The latter may require the removal and storage of .,

up to a full core. The assemblies are initially intensely radioactive due to their fission product content and have a high thermal output.

They are stored in the SFP to allow for radioactive and thermal decay.

The major portion of decay occurs during the first 150-day period following removal from the reactor _ core. After this period, the assemblies may be withdrawn and placed into a heavily shielded fuel cask for offsite shipment. Space pemitting, the assembTies may be stored for an additional period allcwing continued fission product decay and thermal cooling prior to shipment. , _ _

4.5 Spent Fuel fool Purification System The SFP purification loop consists of two 475 com circu .

lating pumps, two filter-demineralizers and the reouired piping, valves and instrumentation. The SFP coolina system ,

~

pumps draw water from the pool. This flow is oassed throuch the filter-denineralizers. The water is then returned to the pool.-

Because we expect only a small increase in radioactivity re-leased to the pool water as a result of the proposed modifi-cation as discussed in Section 5.4.1 we conclude the SFP purification system is adequate for the proposed modi-fication and will keep the concentrations of ~ radioactivity in the pool water to acceptably low levels. r 5.0 Environmental Imoacts of Prcoosed Action ,

5.1 Land Use ,

The proposed modification will not alter the external physical geometry of the SFP. The SFP is entirely contained within the existing reactor building structure. No additional ec=nitment of land is required. The S?? was oesigned to store spent fuel assemolies under water for a period of time to allcw shorter-lived radioactive isotopes to decay and to reduce their thermal heat cutout. The Commission has never et a limit on hcw long spent fuel assemolies -

co.uld be stcred onsite. The langer the fuel assemblies decay, tr.e .

- i,--. r-,=.e- -e,ye er - -Ww -,r ac , vu--e +-nv'w'c. e ' -, e-~mree s -ryewv m-- --

- less radioactivity they contain. The proposed modification will not

." chance the basic land use of the SFP. The pool was designed to store the spent fuel assemblies from up to six normal refuelings. The modification would provide storage for up to twenty one normal refuelings.

The pool was intended to store spent fuel. This use will remain unchanged by the proposed modification. The proposed modification will make more efficient use of the land already designated for spent fuel storage.

5.2 Water Use There will be no significant change in plant water usage as a result of the proposed modification. As discussed subsequently, storing additional ~ spent fuel in the SFP will increase tne heat load on the SFP cooling system, which is transferred to the Reactor Building Closed Cooling Water System and- thence to the plant General Service Water System. The modification will not change the flow rate within these cooling systems. As discussed in Section X-5.5, of the Cooper Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), and the licensee's letter of November 30, ~

1977, the SFP cooling system was designed so that for a normal refueling cycle the fuel pool cooling system was capable of mafotaining the bulk pool temperature below 1500F. For maximum possib'c neat load, (i.e., the decay heat of a full core at the end of a full cycle plus the decay heat from fuel discharged at previous refuelings), the fuel pool cooling system in conjunction with the Residual Heat Removal (RHR) system must be capable of maintaining the bulk pool temperature below 1500F.

For this maximum possible heat load, it is assumed that tha storage rack assemblies are fully loaded after the full core is inserted. This design basis will not be changed by the proposed modification. As discussed subsequently, and in the acccmpanying staff Safety Evaluation, we conclude that the SFP cooling systems are adequate to maintain the temperature of the pool water below 1500F, and thus no sicnificant change in evapora-tion rates. The increased storage will add a small but relatively insignificant amount of heat to the pool water. The increase in water makeup attributable to the modification because of increased evaporation from the pool will be undetectable in the total plant makeup water i requirement.

5.3 Heat Rejection l

The increased storage will slightly increase the rate of heat load from the fuel. This ihcrease will be insignificant particularly compared :: tne heat rejectad fr:m the secencary system heat cycle at the main c:ncenser and fur ner Oces not c:nstitute a net increase of effect on tne environmen because this. neat loss wculd cc:ur regarclass of the location wnere the s:ent" fuel is s:: red.

' ' ^

./

1 We find that the maximum incremental heat load in the Cooper spent fuel' pool that will be added by increasing the number of fuel assemblies stored in the pool from 740 to 2366 will be 2 x 106 Btu /hr. Cooper dissipates about 5.7 x 109 Btu /hr at normal full load operation with

-negligible thermal ~ impact on the Missouri River. The incremental heat

• load from the SFP will have a negligible incremental' impact and is so low that it-could'not be. differentiated in thermal plume measurements.

5.4 Radiological 5.4.1 Introduction The potential-offsite radiological environmental inoacts associated.with the expansion of the spent fuel storage capacity were evaluated and determined to be environ -

mentally insignificant as addressed below. -

The additional spent fuel which;would be stored due to the ~

expansion is fuel which has decayed at least six years.

During the storage of the spent fuel under water, both volatile and. nonvolatile, radioactive nuclides may be re-leased to'the water from the surface of.the assemblies or from defects in the fuel cladding. Most of the material

• released fron the surface of the assemblies consists of activated corrosion products 'such as Co-58, Co-60, Fe and Mn-54 which are not volatile. The radionuclides that might be. released .to the water throuch defects in ttie cladding, such as Cs-134, Cs-137, Sr-89 and Sr-90 "

are also predominately nonvolatile. The~ primary impact ,

of such nonvolatile radioactive nuclides-is their contri- ~

bution to radiation levels to which workers in and near 4

the SFP would be exposed. The. volatile fission product nuclides of most concern that might be released throuch defects in the fuel cladding are the noble gases (xenon and krypton), tritium and the iodine isotopes. .

Experience indicates that there is little radionuclide leakage from spent fuel stored in pools after the fuel has cooled for several months. The predominance of radio-nuclides in the spent fuel pool. water apoear to be radio-nuclides that were present in the reactor coolant systen

' prior to refueling (which becomes nixed with water in the spent fuel pool during refueling operations) or crud .

dislodged from the surface of the spent fuel durine transfer fron the reactor core to the SFp. During and '

after refueling, the spent fuel nool cleanup system re-l

f. O a

,. . . . . - . . - . , ,m, , . - . - - . - , - . . ~ , n. , .,-n- - . , , . .

e ,.

4 e  ;

< duces the radioactivity concentrations considerably. It is theorized

. that most failed fuel contains small, pinhole-like perforations in the fuel cladding at the reactor operating condition of approximately

'8000F, A,few weeks after refueling, the spent fuel cools in the spent

. fuel pool so that fuel clad temperature is relatively cool, approxi-mately 1800F. ~This substantial temperature reduction should reduce the rate of release of fission products from the fuel pellets and decrease the gas pressure in the gap between pellets and clad, thereby tending to retain the fission products within the gap. In addition, most of the gaseous fission products have short half-lives and decay to insignificant levels within a few months. Based on the operational reports submitted by the licensees or diecu:siens with the operators, there has not been any significant leaksge of fission products from spent. light water reactor fuel stored is the Morris Operation (formerly Midwest Recovery Plant) at Morris, Illinois, or at NFS storage pool at West Valley, New York. Spent fuel has been stored in these two pools which, while it was in a reactor, was determined to have signifi-cant leakage and was therefore removed from the core. After storage in the onsite spent fuel. pool, this fuel was later shipped to ~

either M0 or NFS for extended storage. Although the fuel exhibited significant leakage at reactor operatino conditions, there was no '

significant leakage from this fuel in the offsite storage facility.

5.4.2 Radioactive Material Released to Atmosphere With respect to gaseous releases, the only significant noble gas isotope attributable to storing additional assemblies for a loncer neriod of time would be Kryoton- ,

85. As discussed previously, experience has demonstrated that after spent fuel'has decayed 4 to 6 months, there is-no significant release of fission products from defective fuel. However, we have conservatively estimated that an additional 100 curies oer vear of Krypton-85 -

may be released when the modified pool

'is completely filled. This increase would result in an additional total body dose at the site boundary to an individual of'less than 0.001 mrem / year. This dose is insignificant when compared to the approximately i 100 mrem / year that an individual receives from

- natural background radiation. The additional total body dose to the estimated Dopulation within a 50-mile radius of the plant is less than 0.001 man-ren/ year. .

l This is less than tne natural fluctuations in the dose ,

this population would receive fren natural backaround radiation. Under our conservative assunntions, these J exposures represent an increase of less than 0.l* of the l exposures from the plant evaluated in the FES for the q.

l 1

//'

B

. .g. .

individual (Table' V-4T and the population (Table V-5). Thus, we conclude that the proposed modification will not have any significant impact on exposures offsite.

Assumingthattheispentfuelwillbestoredonsiteforseveral years, Iodine-131 releases from spent fuel assemblies. to .the -  :

SFP' water will not be;significantly increased ~ because of- tnc expansion of the fuel storage capacity since the Iodine-131 i inventory in the fuel .will; decay to negligible levels between '

refuelings. ,

Storing additional l spent. fuel assemblies after the modified' pool is 155.fu11.'may increase the bulk water temperature dur- . ,

ing normal'refuelings above the 125 F used in the. design ' analysis. '

i When the modified ' pool is. full, the pool water temperature may.

reach a peak: temperature of 138'F. and may be at some temperature J 4

above 125'F for up to 28 days. This is- based on conservative- -

upperbound calculatiens made; by the staff. Because of the con-servatism in these calculations, it1is expected.that there.will not be any significant change in the annual release ofl tritium or iodine as a result of.the proposed modification from that previously. evaluated. - -

l Most airborne releases from the plant result from leakace of -  !

. - . . reactor coolant which contains tritium sad iodine in higher concen-trations than the spent fuel pool. Therefore,'even if there were '

a slightly higher evaporation rate frem the spent fuel pool, the increase in tritium and iodine released from the olant as a result of the increase in stored spent fuel would be small:comoared to.

.the amount normally released from the olant and that which was

. 'previously evaluated in the FES. If levels of .radiciodine cecone too high, the air can be diverted to charcoal filters fon the j removal of' radiciodine before release to the environment. In addition, the station Technical Specifications limit the releases-of gaseous activity from the entire facility, including the spent fuel pool, which are not changed by this action.

5.4.3 Solid Radioactiv,e Wastes ,

' The concentration of radionuclides in the pool is controlled j

by the filter-deminerali:ers and by. decay of short-lived isotopes. .The. activity is high during refueling operations ,

while reactor coolant water is introduced into the pool and de-creases as the pool water is processed through the filter and domineralizer. The increase of radioactivity, if any, should i l

be minor because the additional scent fuel to be stored is rela- l tively cool, thermally, and radionuclides in the fuel will. have j decayed significantly.

l l

i

. _. ._ . - __ _ __. . _ . . . _ _ _ . . _ . . _ . - _ .. ~. ._..._J

While we believe that there should not be an increase ih solid radwaste due to the modification, as a conservative ,

estimate we have assumed that the amount of solid radwaste may be increased by 48 cubic feet of resin a year from the demineralizer (twelve additional resin beds / year). The annual average amount of solid waste shipped from Cocoer during ,

1974 to 1976 is 11,400 cubic feet per year. If the storace of additional spent fuel does increase the amount of solid waste

• from the SFP purification systems by about 48 cubic feet per year, the increase in total waste volume shipped would be less than 0.5% and would not have any significant environmental impact.

[he present spent fuel racks to be removed from the SFP are '

contaminated and will be disposed of as low level waste. It has ,

been estimated by the licensee that about 5800 ft of solid radwaste will be removed frem SFP because of the proposed modi-fication. Therefore, the total waste shipped from the plant will be increased by less than 2% per year when averaced over the lifetime of the plant. This wil1~ not have any significant environmental impact.

- 1 5.4.4 Radioactivity Released to Receivina Waters i There should not be a significant increase in the licuid release of radionuclides from the station as a result of the proposed modi ficatier.. The amount of radioactivity on the SFP ffiter-demineralizer micht slightly increase due to the additional spent fuel in the pool but this increase of radioactivity should not be released in liquid effluents from the station. i The filter medium resins are periodically flushed with water t to the condensate phase secarator. tank. The water used to .

, transfer the spent resin is decanted from the tank and returned to the liquid radwaste system for processina. The soluble radio-activity will be retained on the resins. If any activity should be transferred frcm the spent resin to this flush water, it would be removed by the liquid radwaste system.

4+

- , .., - -. ..,-e. .,

a 5.4.5 Occupational Exposures We have reviewed the licensee's plan for the removal, crating and disposal of the low density racks ~and the installation of the high density racks with respect to occupational radiation exposure. The occupational ex-posure for this operation is estimated by the licensee to be about 5 man-rem. We consider this to be a reason-able estimate. This operation'is expected to be performed only once during the lifetime of the station and will .

therefore be a small fraction of the total man-rem burden from occupational exposure. .

We have estimated the increment in onsite occupational dose

' resulting from the proposed increase in stored fuel assem-blies on the basis of information supplied by the. licensee and by. utilizing relevant assumptions for occupancy times and for dose rates in the spent fuel pool area from radio-nuclide con'centrations in the SFP water. The spent fuel assemblies themselves 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 negliof ble burden. Based on present and projected coerations in the l spent fuel pool area, we estimate that the proposed modifica-tion should add less than one percent to the total annual occupational radiation exposure burden at this f acility.

Thus, we conclude that storing additional fuel in the SFP will not result in any significant increase in doses re-ceived by occupational workers.

5.4.6 Evaluation of Radiolocical Imoact As discussed above, the proposed modification does not  :

.significantly change the radiolootcal impact evaluated in the FES. .

5.5 Nonradiolocical Effluents There will be no change in the chemical or biocidal effluents from the plant as a result of the proposed modification, j The only potential offsite nonradiological envirenmental imoact that could arise from this proposed action would be additional

l

. i l

1

- 12 -- ,

l

~

I

. discharge of heat to the atmosphere and to the Missouri River. .

Storing spent fuel. in the SFP for a longer period of time will' add-more heat to the SFP water. The spent fuel pool heat exchangers .

are cooled by the. reactor building cooling water system which in l turn is cooled by'the plant general service water system. . An

.l evaluation of the augmented spent fuel storage facility'was made to determine the effects of the increased heat generation on the plant cooling water systems, and ultimately, on the environment.

As discussed in the staff's Safety Evaluation, the maximum incre .

e

- mental heat load that'will be added by use of the proposed rack modification is that from unloading a full core which would fill the pool. The maximum calculated heat generation rate in this case would be about 2 X 100 Btu /hr.  ;

The total heat. load on the environment from Cooper used in the evaluation in the FES was 5.7 X 109 ' Btu /hr. The incremental

~ heat load attributable to the proposed modification would be ~

about 'O.04% of the tota 11 heat rejection rate. Compareo to the. "

existing heat load, which was evaluated in the FES and has been '

evaluated by continuing environmental monitoring programs, the '

additional thermal impact from the proposed modification will be negligible.  ;

i 5.6 Impacts on'the Community The new storage racks will~be fabricated offsite and shipped to the plant. No environmental impacts on the environs outside the-spent 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 tnose normally associated with metal working activities and fuel handling operations. No significant environmental imcact on the ecmmunity is expected to result frem the fuel rack conversion or frem

~

subsequent operation with the increased storage of spent fuel in the SFF. ,

5.7 Transportation and Handling i

Delivery of material for the new high density storage racks .

^

and disposal of the existing racks for off-site burial will involve truck and/or rail transportation activity. The number of such shipments will: be less than would be required to ship the L

l p

~ '

E spent fuel offsite at this time. By-deferring offsite shipment of spent fuel,, a' number of factors can be considered that will ,

reduce the overall environmental imoact: More fuel might be leaded 1per shipping cask, reducing the number of miles in trans-port; a lighter shipping cask may be used, reducing the tonnage in transport, the reduced radiation level of spent fuel will further reduce the already minimal environmental impact of spent fuel shipments wnich' art covered by the Final Environmental S tatement. .

~

6.0 Environmental Ig act o Q eftulated Accidents Although ,the new hich _ aensity racks will accommodate a larger '

inventory of spent fuel, we. have determined that the installa-tion and use of the racks will not change the radiological consequences of a postulated fuel handling accident in the SFP area from those values reported in the FES for Cooper dated February .1973. ,

Additionally, the NRC staff has under.way a generic review of load handling operations in the vicinity of spent fuel pools .

to determine the likelihood of a heavy load impacting fuel in the pool and,'if necessary, the radiological consequences of such an event. Because Cooper will. have reouirements to pro-hibit the movement of loads in excess of the combined weight- ,

of a fuel assembly and control rod 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 nee-essary while our review is under way. Additionally, no shielded cask movement will be permitted on the refuelino '

deck prior to the completion of the cask drop analysis review.

7. O Alternativoc >

In regard to this licensing action, the NRC staff has considered .

the following alternatives: (1) shipment of spent fuel to a  :

fuel reprocessing facility, (2) shipment of spent fuel to a sep-crate fuel storage facility, (3) shipment of spent fuel to another i

reactor site, and (4) ceasing operation of the facility. These j alternatives are considered in turn.-  ;

l I

l l

. _ _ . _ . _ . _ , _ . . .. _ _ _ . , . , - - , _ _._.~.__,._ _,__ _ _ _,.

?

I The total installed capital cost of the proposed high density fuel storage racks, which will eventually be installed in the SFP, is estimated to be $2,300,000 including all labor, materials, engineering, overhead,. and allowance for funds during construction.

l Plant operating costs will not be affected by the modifications.

This equates to about $1400 for each of the additional 1626 stor-age spaces that would be provided by the proposed modification.

It was originally intended that spent fuel. from Cooper would be shipped to the Morris Operations facility owned by General Electric for reprocessing. Contractual arrangements for reprocessing spent fuel from Cooper at Morris were never completed. General Electric has'since withdrawn from the reprocessing business and operates' the Morris facility as an independent spent fuel storage instal-lation. No contract presently exists between Nebraska Public Power District and any existing or planned facility capable of storing spent fuel.

Reprocessinq of Spent Fuel 7.1 As discussed earlier, none of the three commercial reprocessing facilities in 'the U. S. is currently operating.. The General Electric Company's Midwest Fuel Recovery Plant at Morris, l Illinois is in a decomissioned condition. On September 22, 1976, Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. (NFS) it: formed the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that they were " withdrawing from the nuclear fuel re-processing business." The Allied-General Nuclear Services (AGNS) reprocessing plant received a construction permit on December 18, 1970.

In October 1973, AGNS applied for an operating license for the reprocessing facility; construction 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 also been completed but hearings with' respact to this application have not yet commenced'and no license has been granted.

In 1976, Exxon Nuclear Company, Inc. submitted an application for a proposed Nuclear Fuel Recovery and Recycling Center (NFRRC) to be located at Oak. Ridge, Tennessee. The plant m uld include a storage pool that could store up to. 7,000 MTU in spent fuel.

The application for the construction permit is under review.

~

On April.7, 1977, the President issued a statement tutlining his policy on continued development of nuclear energy in the U. S.

The President stated that: "We will defer indefinitely the com-

. mercial reprocessing and recycling of the plutonium produced in the U. S. nuclear power programs. From our own. experience, we.

have concluded that a viable and economic nuclear power program can be sustained without such reprocessing and recycling."

- .. - .. . .-. _ ~- .- . _ -

a .,

7

.' On December 23, 1977, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced that it would order the termination of the now-pending fuel cycle licensing actions. involving GESMO.

'(Docket No. RM-50-5), Barnwell Nuclear' Fuel Plant and Plutonium Product Facility (Docket no.- 50-332, 70-1327 and.

70-1821), the Exxon Nuclear Company, Inc, Nuclear Fuel.

Recovery and Recycling Center (Docket No. 50-564), the Westinghouse Electric Corporation Recycle. Fuels Plant (Docket No.- 70-1432), and the Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc.  !

West Valley Reprocessing Plant (Docket No. 50-201). . The  ;

Commission also announced that it would not at this time consider any other applications for comercial facilities for reprocessing spent fuel,; fabricating mixed-oxide fuel, and related functions; At this time, any considerations of these or comparable facilities has been deferred for. the ,

indefinite future. Accordingly, the Staff considers that shipment of. spent fuel to such facilities for reprocessing ,

is not a reasonable alternative to the proposed expansion ^

of the Cooper SFP especially when considered in the relevant time frame - i.e. . .from now until 1982 - when expanded capacity at Cooper will be needed.  ;

The licensee had intended to' reprocess the spent fuel to recover and recycle the uranium and plutonium in the fuel. Due to a change in national' policy and circumstances beyond the licensee's control, reprocessing of the spent fuel is not an available option at this time.

7.2 Independent Spent Fuel Storage Facility An alternative to expansion of onsite SFP storage is the con-struction of new " independent spent fuel storage installations" (ISFSI). Such installations could provide storage space in excess of 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 until the reprocessing 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 MTU:* as of November .1,1977 295 MTU was stored in the pool in the form of over 1,000 assemblies. -

l l *An application for'an 1100 MTU capacity addition is pending.

Present schedule calls for completion in 1980 if approved. How-ever by motion dated November 8,1977 GE requested the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to suspend indefinitely further pro-ceeding on this application. This motion was granted.

_ . - _ - . _ _ . . _ . _ ~ - _ . _ . . . _ _. ._ _ -. ..._.- _ . _. _ . _ . _ ., _ _. _ _

The staff has discussed the status of storage space at M0 with GE personnel . We have been informed that GE is primarily operating the MO facility to store either fuel owned by GE (which had been leased to utilities on an energy basis) or. fuel which GE had previously contracted to reprocess. We were informed that the present GE policy is not to accept spent fuel _for storage except for that fuel for which GE has a previous commitment. The NFS facility has capacity for about 260 MTU, with approximately 170 MTU presently stored in the pool. The storage pool at West Valley, New York, is on land owned by the State of New York and leased to NFS through 1980. Although the storage pool at West Valley is not full, since NFS withdrew from the fuel reprocessing business, correspondence we have received indicates that they are not at present accepting additional spent fuel for storage even from the reactor facilities with which they had contracts. The status of the storage pool at AGNS was discussed above. -

With respect to construction of new ISFSIs, Regulatory Guide 3.24,

" Guidance on the License Application, Siting, Design, and plant Protection for an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation,"

issued in December 1974, recognizes the possible aeed for ISFSIs and provides recommended criteria and requirements for water-cooled ISFSIs. Pertinent sections of 10 CFR Parts 19, 20, 30, 40, 51, 70, 71 and 73 would also apply.

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 preliminary design; one year for preparation of the license application, Environmental Report, and licensing review in parallel with one year for detail design; two and one-half years for construction and receipt of an operating license; and one-half year for plant and equipment testing and startup.

Industry proposals for independent spent fuel storage facilities are scarce to date. In late 1974, E. R. Johnson Associates, Inc.

and Merrill Lynch, pierce, Fenner and Smith, Inc. issued a series of joint proposals to a number of electric utility companies having nuclear plants in operation or contemplated for operation, offering to provide independent storage services for spent nuclear fuel. A paper on this proposed project was presented at the Americal Nuclear Society meeting on November 1975 (ANS Trans-actions,1975 Winter Meeting, Vol . 22, TANSA0 22-1-836,1975).

In 1974 E. R. Johnson Associates estimated their construction cost at about $20 million.

l

- 4 Several licensees. have evaluated construction of a separate independent spent fuel' storage facility and have provided cost-estimates. In 1975, Connecticut Yankee, for example, estimated that to build an independent facility with a. storage capacity ,

of 1,000 MTU (BWR and/or pWR assemblies) would cost approximately. .

$54 million and take about five years to put into operation.

Commonwealth Edison estimated the construction cost to build a

- fuel storage facility at about $10,000 per fuel assembly. To  ;

.s

' this.would be added the costs for maintenance, operation, safe-guards, security,. interest on investnent, overhead, transportation

-t and other costs.

a On December 2,1976, Stone and Webster Corporation submitted a topical report requesting approval for a standard action for an independent spent fuel storage facility. No-specific locations were proposed, although the design is based on location near a <

nuclear pmver facility. No estimated costs for fuel storage '1 were included in the topical . report. ,

The licensee has evaluated the storage of spent fuel at an ISFSI t and concluded that it would involve large capital costs in comparison to the proposed modification.

The licensee's investigation indicated that the costs associated with interim storage are vague and probably under-estimated  ;

at this time, but one recently published estimate is $7 to $10 per kg per year (

Reference:

Colby, L. J, Fuel Reprocessing in ,

the United States - A Review of Problems and Some Solutions, Article in Nuclear News, Jan.1976). Based on this estimate and assuming approxinately 190 kg of uranium in each fuel assembly, .

the licensee concluded the.cest would be $1330 to $1900 per year.  !

for each fuel assently. In discussions with other utilities,  :

the licensee learned that the cost of BWR spent fuel storage l space at an offsite interim storage facility is currently estimated ]

to be approximately $1500/ year per fuel assembly. This rate is in obvious agreement with the published figures. .

The licensee states that neither of the two above estimates include $

shipping costs nor labor charges. The paper by L. J. Colby i estimates shipping costs to be $10 to $20 per kg per year (i.e. l

.$1900 to $3800 per year for each Cooper fuel assembly. The spent )

fuel racks designed for Cooper were estimated to cost $1078 per fuel assembly.

1 1

1 I

+- 9 g er y --w++-- y t, w nwe c-y- p

~

On a short-term basis (i.e., prior to 1983) an independent spent fuel storage installation does not appear to be a viable alternative based on cost or availability in time to meet the licensee's needs.

In addition, constructing an ISFSI would have a greatar environmental impact than the proposed action. A new or expanded fr.ility would require additional land use and constructing conside' ab e equipment and structures, whereas installing new racks at Coc;er requires only the small amount of material necessary to construct the r3cks and the modest personnel exposure during installation.

In the long-term, the U. S. Department of Energy (USDOE) is modifying its program for nuclear waste management to include design and evaluation of a retrievable . storage facility to provide Government ,

storage at central locations for unreprocessed spent fuel rods.

The pilot ' plant is expected to be completed by late 1985 or 1986.

It is estimated that the long-term storage facility will start accepting coninercial spent fuel about 1990. The design is based on ~

storing the spent fuel in a retrievable condition for a minimum of 25 years. The criteria for acceptance is expected to be that the spent fuel must have decayed a minimum of ten years so it can be stored in dry condition without need for forced air circulation. As an interim alternative to the long term retrievable storage facility, on October 18, 1977, USDOE announced a new " spent nuclear fuel policy".

USDOE will determine industry interest in providing interim fuel storage services on a contract basis. If adeouate private storage services cannot be provided, the Government will provide interim fuel storage facilities. It was announced by USDOE at a public meeting held on October 26, 1977, that this interim storage is expected to be available in the 1981-1982 time frame. USDOE thru their Savannah River Operations Office is preparing a conceptual design for a possible spent fuel storage pool of about 5000 MTU capacity. DOE has requested, but has not received, Congressional 1 authorization for design and construction of an interim spent fuel storage facility. Based on our discussions with USDOE personnel, it appears that the earliest such a pool could be licensed to accept spent fuel would be about 1983. The interim facility (s) would be designed for storage of the spent fuel under water. US00E stated that it was their intent to not accept any spen *. fuel that had not decayed a minigtum of five (5) years.

y , ---

, - - , -,w.r' r- '

w

(r As indicated in the President's energy policy statement of April 29, 1977, the preferred solution to the spent fuel storage program is to have the nuclear. power plants store their spent fuel on-site until the government'1ong term storage facility is operable, which is now estimated to be about 1990. For those nuclear power plants that cannot store the spent fuel on-site until the pennanent long-term storage facility is available, USDOE intends to provide. limited interim storage facilities.

The Cooper. Nuclear Station does not now.have space in the SFP to discharge a full core. Even without' offloading the full core, the SFP will be essentially full. after the refueling scheduled for 1982.

Unless the storage capacity.of the SFP or_ alternate storage space is found offsite, Cooper would have to shutdown in 1983. However, neither the licensee nor the staff have been able to identify any offsite storage facilities'that would be available except on a .

short term emergency basis.

The staff concludes that even if offsite storage facilities are available, it is more economical to store spent fuel onsite and that there are no environmental benefits associated with offsite storage compared to the proposed action.

7.3 Storace at Another Reactor Sit.e_

Storage of spent fuel at another reactor facility would be physically possible but is not considered a realistic alternative. Most operating reactors in the United States are experiencing shortages in spent fuel storage capacity and could not efficiently provide storage space for other plants. Nebraska Public Power District j does not have another nuclear power plant in its system and would have to make arrangements with another utility to obtain any  ;

storage space which might be available. Furthermore, no current power plants are licensed to receive spent fuel' from offsite. I Storage of Cooper spent fuel at another reactor facility is, therefore, not considered a viable alternative.

I l

l 1

. .. . .. . . - . . - - .. - _ . -- - - . . ~ , . . - -

According to a survey conducted and documented by the former Energy Research and Development Administration, up to 27 of the operating nuclear power plants will lose the ability to refuel during the period 1977-1986 without additional spent fuel storage pool expansions or access to offsite storage facilities.

Thus, the licensee cannot assuredly rely on any other power facility to provide additional storage capability except on a short-term emergency basis. If space were available in another reactor facility, it is unlikly that the cost would be less than storage onsite as proposed.

7.4 Shutdown of Facility Cooper Nuclear Station does not presently have sufficient space in the SFP to offload the full core. The Cooper. Nuclear Station is rated at 801 MW electrical output. This constitutes 32". of NPPD's generating capacity. NPPD experiences their peak loads during the summer and winter.

During the spring and fall months the replacement power costs would be approximately $260,000/ day. During the summer and winter months the costs would be $390,000/ day. The cost was arrived at in the following manner:

778MWe x 0.7 c.f. x 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> x 1,000 KWh/MWh = 13,000,000 KWh/ day

$.020/KWh x 13,000,000 KWh/ day = $260,000/ day The only difference for the summer and winter months is that the above formula would use $.03/KWh. The seasonal difference in cost

/KWh is due to the fact that in the spring and fall NPPD would be able to get ccal-fired electricity while in the summer and winter a large share of that would be from oil-fired generating units.

a. Generally, replacement power is not available within the NPPD system during the sumer and winter seasons but is during spring and fall seasons. On a short tem basis, NPPD has been able to buy power within the MAPP system and has had to go outside the MAPP system only for long term purchases.

b. Other costs in addition to replacement power include the payment of debt service of approximately $100,000/ day, O&M costs of

$16,000/ day and insurance costs of approximately $5,000/ day.

7.5 Summary of Alternatives In summary, the alternatives (1) to (3) described above are presently 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) are likely to be more expensive than the proposed modification and do not offer any advantages in terms of environmental impacts. The alternative of ceasing operation of the facility would be much more expensive than the proposed action because of the need to provide replacement power. In addition to the economic advantages of the' proposed action, we have determined that the expansion of the storage capacity of the spent fuel pool for Cooper Nuclear Station would have a negligible environmental impact.

Accordingly, deferral or severe restriction of the proposed action would result in substantial harm to the public interest.

The proposed modifications accomplish the design objective of -

providing the required storage capacity while at the same time making more efficient use of the existing facilities at Cooper Nuclear Station and minimizing costs of capital, environmental effects , and resources comitted. None of the alternatives available presently would provide the storage capacity required to support continued operation of Cooper Nuclear Station and none result in lower overall costs. The only. alternative presently available is a plant shutdown, which is economically not viable.

Offsite storage alternatives, should they become available, would require relatively high capital expenditures. Environmental costs and resources committed for the preposed modifications are minimal and in general would result regardless of where the spent fuel would be stored. The proposed modifications have advantages in several areas such as land use and increased time for decay prior to shipment.

8.0 . Evaluation of Proposed Action 8.1 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts 3.1.1 Physical Impacts As discussed above, expansion of the storage capacity of the SFP would not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts on the land, water, air or biota of the area. l 1

l l

i

- 22 -

~

8.1.2 Radiological Impacts ,

Expansion of the storage capacity of the SFP will not create any significant additional radiological effects. As discussed-in Section 5.4, the additional' total body dose that might be received by an individual or the 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 in the dose this population would receive -from background radiation.

The total occupational exposure of workers during removal of the present storage racks and installation of the new racks is: '

estimated by the licensee to be about 5 man-rem. This is a small fraction of the total annual man-rem burden from occupational '

exposure at the station. Operation of the ~ plant with additional spent fuel in the SFP is not expected to increase the occupational radiation exposure by more than one percent of the present total annual occupational exposure at this facility. ,

8.2 Relationships Between Local Short-Term Use cf Man's Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity Expansion of the storage capacity of the SFP, which would permit ,

the plant to continue to operate until 1991 when offsite storage facilities are expected to be available for interim or long-term storage of spent fuel, will not change the evaluation in the FES.

8.3 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 8.3.1 Water, Land and Air Resources The proposed-action will not result in any significant change in the commitments of water, land and air resources as identified in the FES. No additional allocation of land would be made; the i land area now used for the SFP would be used more efficiently by l reducing the spacings between fuel assemblies. l 8.3.2 Material Resources l The Boral poison curtain spent fuel storage design for the l j

Cooper Nuclear Staticn consists of an arrangement of 13 storage racks constructed-out of 6061-T6 aluminum and located in the spent fuel pool.

l 4

w-,.o- - , . .,. . - + , - . - . . + -

..n-- , - . -- - , ~,n.v. . , , , , - ,. - ,,, ~--~ n.-.,. n - n.v.- -n, ,~ . , - - - ~ ,, ,- m ,,v , .- - <

- ~. - _ .

. U Each rack holds 182 fuel assemblies in a 13 x 14 cell array with a. 6-9/16" pitch. The individual rack design consists.of.

upper and lower " egg crate" grid structures which retain the square aluminum storage cans and the non-structural Boral~ poison sheets

-(0.177" thick) . positioned between rows of cans in.one direction  ;

only. . Exterior structure and cross-bracing are provided to hold -

the upper 'and icwer grids together and to accomodate the handling loads that may occur during shipping and installation.

- The upper grid consists of welded aluminum plate of 11/16" and.1" thickness by 15" width. .The 7-3/4" deep lower grid is made~of welded 1/4" aluminum plate and is constructed such that a 3" deep horizontal flow channel exists in one direction at the base of the. rack. The outer lower grid members are 1-1/4" . thick plate I to add lateral bending stiffness. Aluminum plates of 1" thickness with one 4"' orifice per cell location are welded to the lower. grid and serve to support the cans and fuel assemblies while adding lateral ridigity to the grid structure. The vertical stiffness -

of the base grid is increased by 3" aluminum channels welded to the grid.

The 13 storage racks sit on and are horizontally braced against a sub-base structure designed to clear existing hold-down bolts attached to the floor of the fuel pool. The sub-base is made of stainless steel box beams and sits approximately 1".above the-pool floor on adjustable pads.

Horizontal movement of the racks and sub-base is restricted by -

means of adjustable support components and structures bearing on '

the pool wall at the upper grid and sub-base levels, and by inter-rack bumpers at the upper grid.  ;

The sub-bases and seismic bracing are fabricated from 300-series stainless steel. The storage racks are fabricated from aluminum:

6061-T6 for structural ccmponents and 6063-T5 for.the square cells. ,

Boral poison curtains are a product of Brooks and Perkins consisting 7 of a boron carbide (B4C) and aluminum core, which is then clad by 1100-alloy aluminum sheets. The edge of each Boral curtain is ,

seal welded along its entire length to prevent spent fuel pool '

water from contacting the B4C core. The core material, however,

-is inert in this type of pool, and therefore, even if the outer seal is broken, there'will be no deterioration of the core material.

No welding will be made to the Boral curtains by the fuel rack fabricator. To demonstrate the structural integrity of the Boral over long periods of time in the pool environment, control samples f of the material will be placed in the pool at readily accessible locations to permit easy removal. Periodically these samples will be removed and visually inspected to verify that no'significant deterioration is occurring.

P

+..--n.,_ .,,_m.m._,,,. _., , . . _ _ .

= .e I

~

Materials of construction used in the new spent fuel racks are similar to those currently used in the Cooper spent fuel pool, in which aluminum racks have been in contact with either the stainless steel structural members (e.g., seismic bracing) or the stainless steel poo' floor liner. Past experience at Cooper Station and other BWR spent fuel pools using high purity water indicates that there is no significant deterioration, general corrosion or galvanic corrosion of the materials involved. Consequently, no significant deterioration and/or corrosion is anticipated for the new spent fuel racks.

The irreversible commitnent of matertals used to construct the proposed storage racks is compared to the annual consumption of these materials in the United States as follows:

Amount Consumed Annual US Material in Racks (lbs) Consumption (lbs) ll Stainless Steel 5,000 10 6

Baron Carbide 50,000 10 10 Aluminum 150,000 10 The material required is seen to be insignificant with respect to the annual V. S. consumption and does not represent a significant irreversible commitment of material resources. In any event, an equivalent amount of these or similar materials would be required wherever the fuel is stored.

The longer term storage of spent fuel assemblies withdraws the unburned uranium from the fuel cycle for a longer period of time.

Its usefulness as a resource in the future, however, is not changed.

The prevision of longer onsite storage does not result in any cumulative effects due to plant operation since the throughput of materials does not change. Thus, the same~ quantity of radioactive material will have been produced when averaged over the life of the plant. This licensing action would not constitute a commitment 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 allecated because the design characteristics of the SFP remain unchanged.

, - v -

• O D

^

We conclude .that the expansion of the SFP at the Cooper Nuclear Power Station 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.

8.4 Commission policy Statement Regarding Soent Fuel Storace On September 16, 1975, the Commission announced (40FR42801) its intent to prepare a generic environmental impact statement on handling the storage of spent fuel from light water reactors.

In this notice, the Commission also announced its conclusion that it would not be in the public interest to defer all licensing actions intended to ameliorate a possible shortage of spent fuel storage capacity pending completion of the generic environmental impact statement. The draft statement was issued for connent on '

March 17,1978, (Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Handling and Storage of Spent Light Water Power Reactor Fuel" NUREG-0404, March 1978).

The Commission directed that in the consideration of any such proposed licensing action, among other things, the following five specific factors should be applied, balanced, and weighed in the context of the required environmental statement or appraisal:

1. Is it likely that the licensing action proposed here would have a utility that is independent of the utility of other licensing actions designed to ameliorate a possible shortage of spent fuel capacity? -

A reactor core for Cooper Nuclear Staticn contains 548 fuel assemblies. Typically, the reactor is refueled annually. Each refueling replaces about 1/5 of the core (about 112 assemblies).

The SFP was designed on the basis that a fuel cycle would be in existence that would only require storage of spent fuel for a year or two prior to shipment to a reprocessing facility. Initially, sufficient racks were installed to store 740 spent fuel assemblies (1 1/3 cores), which was a typical design basis for BWRs in the late sixties and early seventies. When Cooper Nuclear Station was  ;

designed, a SFP storage capacity for 1 1/3 cores was considered adequate. This provided for complete unloading of the reactor .

even if the spent fuel from a previous refueling.were in the pool.

While not required from the standpoint of safety consideration:, '

it is a desirable engineering practice to reserve space in the SFP to receive an entire reactor core, should this be necessary to insoect or repai, core internals or because of other operational considerations. This is the situation *which presently confronts tne licensee as discussed in Section 2.0. ,

,,, , .- , , , , ,- , . , , . , , - , , - . , -. ,.v .-., , . ,

If the proposed expansion in storage capacity of the SFP is not approved, the existing storage racks will only accommodate four more refuelings (i.e. , those scheduled for the spring of 1979, 1980, 1981 and 1982). After 1982 the spent fuel must be stored onsite or elsewhere if the facility is to be refueled. If expansion of the i SFP capacity is not approved or if an alternate storage facility is not located, the licensee will have to shutdown Cooper Nuclear Station about mid 1983. As discussed under alternatives, an alternate storage facility is not now available. Storage onsite is an interim solution to allow the plant to continue to operate.

The proposed licensing action (i.e., installing new racks of a design that permits storing more assemblies in the same space) would provide the licensee with additional flexiblity which is desirable even if adequate offsite storage facilities hereafter become available to the licensee.

We have concluded that a need for additional spent fuel storage capacity exists at Cooper Nuclear Station which is independent of the utility of other licensing actions designed to ameliorate a possible shortage of spent fuel capacity.

2. Is it likely that the taking of the action here proposed prior to the preparation of the generic statement would constitute a commitment of resources that would tend to significantly fore-close the hiternatives available with respect to any other licensing actions designed to ameliorate a possible shortage of spent fuel storage capacity?

With respect to this proposed licensing action, we hava considered commitment of both material and nonmaterial resources. The material resources considered are those to be utilized in the expansion of the SFP. The nonmaterial resources are primarily the labor and talent needed to accomplish the proposed modification.

The increased storage capacity of the Cooper Nuclear Station spent fuel pool was also considered as a nonmaterial resource and was-

[

evaluated relative to proposed similar licensing actions at other nuclear power plants, fuel reprocessing facilities and fuel storage facilities. We have determined that the proposed expansion in the storage capacity of the SFP is only a measure to allow for continued operation and to provide operational flexibility at i

the facility, and will not affect similar licensing actions at ,

other nuclear power plants. Similarly, taking this action would i

I not commit the NRC to repeat this action or a related action in 1996, at which time the modified pool is estimated to be full  !

l if no fuel is removed.  !

l l l l

? .. - -

j 27 -

l ^

Preparation of the generic . statement was initiated in 'the fall of 1975. .The draft statement, NUREG-0404 was issued in March' 1978. We conclude that the expansion of the SFP at Cooper Nuclear.

- Station, prior to the preparation of the generic statement,- does.

not constitute a commitment of either material or nonmaterial.

resources that would tend to significantly foreclose the alter-natives available with. respect to any other individual licensing '

actions. designed to ameliorate a possible shortage of spent fuel storage capacity.

3. Can the environmental impacts associated with' the licensing ,

action.herc. proposed be adeouately' addressed within the context of the present' application.without overlooking any

' cumulative environmental impacts? -

Potential nonradiological and' radiological impacts resulting from '

' the fuel rack conversion and subsequent operation of the expanded .

~

SFP at this facility were considered by the staff. ' l.

' No environmental . impacts on the environs outside the spent 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 normally associated with metal working activities and to the occupational radiation exposure to the ' personnel involved.

The potential nonradiological environmental impact. attributable

- to-the additional heat load in the SFP was determined to be negligible compared to the existing thermal effluents from the

• facility.

We have considered the potential radiological environmental -

impacts associated 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 normal operation of the expanded SFP-or under postulated fuel handling accident conditions.

4. Have the technical issues ~ which have arisen during the review of this application been resolved?

This. Environmental Impact Appraisal and the accompanying Safety Evaluation respond to the questions concerning health, safety and environmental concerns. All technical issues which have arisen in connection with this application have been resolved ~

E with the. licensee.

P I

-.,J.r

,.,...r,,--,m., _-,m, ,,.._...._..~,,,,,,mic~,.. . . , . , , , . . ~ , , , , . . . , . . , . .~m._.,d,~,_~m

l

. 1 i

I

)

5. Would a deferral or severe restriction on this licensing action result in substantial harm to the public interest?

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 there are significant economic advantages associated with the proposed action and that expansion of the storage capacity of the SFP will have a negligible environmental impact. Accordingly, deferral or severe restriction of the action here proposed would not be in the public interest.

9.0 Benefit-Cort Balance This section sd=arizes and compares the costs and the benefits resulting from the proposed modification to those that would be .

derived from the selection and implementation of each alternative.

The table below presents a tabular comparison of these costs and .:

benefits. -The benefit.that is derived from three of these alterna-tives is the continued operation of Cooper Nuclear Station and production of electrical energy. As shown in the table, the reactcr shutdown and subsequent storage of fuel in the reactor' vessel results in the cessation of electrical energy production. While this would have the " benefit" of eliminating thermal, chemical and radiological releases from Cooper Nuclear Station, these effTuents have been eval-uated in the FES and it has been determined that the environmental impacts of these releases are not significant. Therefore, there would be no significant environmental benefit in their cessation.

The remaining alternative, storage at other nuclear plants, is not possible at this time or in the foreseeable future except on a short '

term emergency basis.

From the examination of the table,-it can be seen that the most cost-- -

effective. alternative is the proposed spent fuel pool modification.

As evaluated-in the preceding sections, the environmental impacts

~

associated with the proposed modification would not be significantly changed from those analyzed in the Final Environmental Statement relcted to operation of the Cooper Nuclear Station issued by the Commission in February 1973. .

10.0 Basis and Conclusion for Not Preparing an Environmental Impact Statement We have reviewed this proposed facility modification relative to the requirements set forth in 10 CFR Part 51 and the Council on Environmental Quality's Guidelines, 40 CFR 1500.6. We have deter - ,

- mined that the proposed license amendment will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment. Therefore, the staff e has found that an environmental imcact statement need not be prepared, and that pursuant to.10 CFR 51.5(c), the issuance of a negative "

declaration to this effect is appropriate.

St#1 MARY OF COST-BENEFITS Alternative Cost Benefit Reprocessing of Spent Fuel Continued operation of Cooper Nuclear Station and production of electrical energy. This alternative is not available either now or in the foreseeable

. future.

Increase storage capaciv.- < $1400/assemMy- Continued operation.of.

of Cooper Nuclear Cooper Nuclear Station and Station production of electrical energy.

Storage of' Independent $1900 - 3800 Continued operation of

• Facility assembly / year Cooper Nuclear Station.

and production of electrical ~ ,

energy. .This alternative is not available for several years.

Storage at Reprocessor's $3000 to $5000/ Continued operation of -

Facility assembly plus Cooper Nuclear Station and shipping costs.to production of electrical -

facility and annual energy. However, this .

costs

• alternative is not avail- '

able now. It is. uncertain ,

whether this alternative will be available'in the '

future.

Storage of Other Nuclear Comparable to stor- Continued operation of Plants age at Cooper Nuclear Cooper Nuclear Station and Station production of electrical energy. However, this alternative is not available. ,

Reactor Shutdown Replacement power . None - No production of I costs are estimated electrical energy. i to be $250,000 to

$390,000/ day plus costs for maintenance -

security, insurance, and carrying charges on, investment

• In order to use this alternative a minimum comitment of seven to ten years of storage =is required. Costs based on estimates obtained by other BWR licensees.

_g