[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 9 (Thursday, January 13, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2201-2203]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-804]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-346]
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company; Davis-Besse Nuclear Power
Station, Unit 1, Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant
Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is
considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License NPF-
3, issued to FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (the licensee), for
operation of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 (DBNPS),
located in Ottawa County, Ohio.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action will expand the present spent fuel storage
capability by 289 storage locations by allowing the use of spent fuel
racks in the cask pit area adjacent to the spent fuel pool (SFP). The
cask pit is accessible from the SFP through a gated opening in the wall
dividing the two pool areas. The modification will be achieved by two
separate activities. In support of the twelfth refueling outage
(12RFO), currently scheduled for April 2000, the licensee has installed
two rack modules in the cask pit, containing a total of 153 storage
locations. Later, during Cycle 13, the licensee plans to install two
additional rack modules in the cask pit containing 136 additional
storage locations. The licensee's long-term plans include submitting a
request for a complete re-racking of the SFP. The four rack modules in
the cask pit, which will be used to support shuffling of spent fuel
during the re-racking, will be relocated into the SFP. The design of
the new high density spent fuel storage racks incorporates Boral as a
neutron absorber in the cell walls to allow for more dense storage of
spent fuel.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's
application for amendment dated May 21, 1999, as supplemented by
submittal dated December 1, 1999.
The Need for the Proposed Action
An increase in spent fuel storage capacity is needed to reestablish
full core off-load capability. The licensee currently has insufficient
storage capacity in the SFP to fully off-load the reactor core (177
fuel assemblies). The current spent fuel storage capacity in the SFP is
735 fuel assemblies and there are only 114 empty storage locations
available. The licensee needs to conduct a full core off-load in order
to perform reactor vessel Inservice Inspection activities during the
twelfth refueling outage (12RFO) which is currently scheduled to begin
in April 2000. The licensee's long-term plans include submitting a
license amendment request to permit a complete re-racking of the SFP
with higher density fuel storage racks.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
Radioactive Waste Treatment
DBNPS uses waste treatment systems designed to collect and process
gaseous, liquid, and solid waste that might contain radioactive
material. These radioactive waste treatment systems were evaluated in
the Final Environmental Statement (FES) dated October 1975. The
proposed SFP expansion will not involve any change in the waste
treatment systems described in the FES.
Gaseous Radioactive Wastes
The storage of additional spent fuel assemblies in the SFP is not
expected to affect the release of radioactive gases from the pool.
Gaseous fission products such as Krypton-85 and Iodine-131 are produced
by the fuel in the core during reactor operation. A small percentage of
these fission gases is released to the reactor coolant from the small
number of fuel assemblies that are expected to develop leaks during
reactor operation. During refueling operations, some of these fission
products enter the pool and are subsequently released into the air.
Since the frequency of refueling (and therefore the number of freshly
off-loaded spent fuel assemblies stored in the SFP at any one time)
will not increase, there will be no increase in the amounts of these
types of fission products released to the atmosphere as a result of the
increased SFP storage capacity.
The increased heat load on the pool from the storage of additional
spent fuel assemblies will potentially result in an increase in the
pool's evaporation rate. However, this increased evaporation rate is
not expected to result in an increase in the amount of gaseous tritium
released from the pool. The overall release of radioactive gases from
DBNPS will remain a small fraction of the limits of 10 CFR 20.1301.
Solid Radioactive Wastes
Spent resins are generated by the processing of SFP water through
the pool's purification system. The spent fuel pool cooling and cleanup
system at DBNPS currently generates
[[Page 2202]]
approximately 50 cubic feet of solid radioactive waste annually. The
necessity for pool filtration resin replacement is determined primarily
by the need for water clarity, and the resin is normally changed about
once every 18 months. The additional number of fuel assemblies in
storage is not expected to significantly affect the resin replacement
frequency. Therefore, the staff does not expect that the additional
fuel storage provided by the new rack modules will result in a
significant change in the generation of solid radwaste at DBNPS.
Liquid Radioactive Waste
The release of radioactive liquids will not be affected directly as
a result of the modifications. The SFP ion exchanger resins remove
soluble radioactive materials from the SFP water. When the resins are
changed out, the small amount of resin sluice water which is released
is processed by the radwaste system. As stated above, the staff does
not expect that the additional fuel storage provided by the new rack
modules will result in a significant change in the generation of solid
radwaste at DBNPS. The volume of SFP water processed for discharge is
also not expected to be significantly changed. Therefore, the staff
expects that the amount of radioactive liquid released to the
environment as a result of the proposed SFP expansion will be
negligible.
Occupational Dose Consideration
Radiation Protection personnel at DBNPS will constantly monitor the
doses to the workers during the SFP expansion operation. Operating
experience has shown that area radiation dose rates originate primarily
from radionuclides in the pool water. During refueling and other fuel
movement operations, pool water concentrations might be expected to
increase slightly due to crud deposits spalling from fuel assemblies
and due to activities carried into the pool from the primary system.
Should dose rates above and around the cask pit perimeter increase,
this change would be identified by routine surveillances. Where there
is a potential for significant airborne activity, continuous air
monitors will be in operation. Personnel will wear protective clothing
as required and, if necessary, respiratory protective equipment. If it
becomes necessary to utilize divers for the operation, the licensee
will equip each diver with appropriate personal dosimetry. The total
occupational dose to plant workers as a result of this SFP expansion is
estimated to be between 1.85 and 4.0 person-rems. This dose estimate is
comparable to doses for SFP re-racking modifications at other nuclear
plants. The planned activities will follow detailed procedures prepared
with full consideration of ALARA (as low as is reasonably achievable)
principles.
On the basis of its review of the licensee's proposal, the staff
concludes that the SFP expansion operation can be performed in a manner
that will ensure that doses to workers will be maintained ALARA. The
estimated dose of 1.85 to 4.0 person-rem to perform the modification is
a small fraction of the annual collective dose accrued at DBNPS.
Accident Considerations
In its application, the licensee evaluated the possible
consequences of a fuel handling accident to determine the thyroid and
whole-body doses at the site's Exclusion Area Boundary, Low Population
Zone, and in the DBNPS Control Room. The proposed cask pit storage
racks will not affect any of the assumptions or inputs used in
evaluating the dose consequences of a fuel handling accident and,
therefore, will not result in an increase in the doses from a
postulated fuel handling accident.
The licensee proposes to place restrictions on the spent fuel that
will be stored in the cask pit racks. The restrictions stipulate that
the spent fuel must have been removed from the reactor vessel for at
least three years. The length of the decay period was determined by the
licensee to address onsite ALARA and thermal-hydraulics considerations.
The licensee will establish administrative controls to ensure the three
year age limitation will not be violated.
The staff reviewed the licensee's analysis of a fuel handling
accident and performed confirmatory calculations to check the
acceptability of the licensee's doses. The staff's calculations
confirmed that the offsite doses from a fuel handling accident meet the
acceptance criteria and that the licensee's calculations are
acceptable. The results of the staff's calculations are presented in
the Safety Evaluation to be issued with the license amendment.
An accidental cask drop into the pool continues to be unlikely as
none of the features preventing such a drop (e.g., design and
maintenance of the main hoist, the controlled cask movement path, and
the hydraulic guide cylinder cask drop protection system) are affected
by the proposed action. The licensee also found that the consequences
of a loss of SFP cooling were acceptable in that ample time would be
available for the operators to reestablish cooling before the onset of
pool boiling. Evaluation of a design basis seismic event indicated the
new racks would remain safe and impact-free, the structural capability
of the pool would not be exceeded, and the reactor building and crane
structure would continue to retain necessary safety margins. Thus,
these potential accidents have no environmental consequences.
The proposed action will not significantly increase the probability
or consequences of accidents, no changes are being made in the types of
any effluents that may be released offsite, and there is no significant
increase in occupational or public radiation exposure. Therefore, there
are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with
the proposed action.
With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed
action does not involve any historic sites. It does not affect
nonradiological plant effluents and has no other environmental impact.
Therefore, there are no significant nonradiological environmental
impacts associated with the proposed action.
Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Shipping Fuel to a Permanent Federal Fuel Storage/Disposal Facility
Shipment of spent fuel to a high-level radioactive storage facility
is an alternative to increasing the onsite spent fuel storage capacity.
However, the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) high-level radioactive
waste repository is not expected to begin receiving spent fuel until
approximately 2010, at the earliest. In October 1996, the
Administration did commit DOE to begin storing waste at a centralized
location by January 31, 1998. However, no location has been identified
and an interim federal storage facility has yet to be identified in
advance of a decision on a permanent repository. Therefore, shipping
spent fuel to the DOE repository is not considered an alternative to
increased onsite spent fuel storage capacity at this time.
Shipping Fuel to a Reprocessing Facility
Reprocessing of spent fuel from DBNPS is not a viable alternative
since there are no operating commercial reprocessing facilities in the
United States. Therefore, spent fuel would have to be shipped to an
overseas facility for reprocessing. However, this approach
[[Page 2203]]
has never been used and it would require approval by the Department of
State as well as other entities. Additionally, the cost of spent fuel
reprocessing is not offset by the salvage value of the residual
uranium; reprocessing represents an added cost.
Shipping Fuel to Another Utility or Site or to Another FirstEnergy
Facility
The shipment of fuel to another utility or transferring DBNPS fuel
to another FirstEnergy facility (i.e., Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit
1, or Beaver Valley Power Station, Units 1 & 2) for storage would
provide short-term relief from the storage problem at DBNPS. The
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and 10 CFR Part 53, however, clearly
place the responsibility for the interim storage of spent fuel with
each owner or operator of a nuclear plant. The other FirstEnergy spent
fuel pools have been designed with capacity to accommodate their own
needs and, therefore, transferring spent fuel from DBNPS to another
FirstEnergy pool would create fuel storage capacity problems for these
other facilities. The shipment of fuel to another site or transferring
it to another FirstEnergy facility is not an acceptable alternative
because of increased fuel handling risks and additional occupational
radiation exposure, as well as the fact that no additional storage
capacity would be created.
Alternatives Creating Additional Storage Capacity
Alternative technologies that would create additional storage
capacity include rod consolidation, dry cask storage, and constructing
a new pool. Rod consolidation involves disassembling the spent fuel
assemblies and storing the fuel rods from two or more assemblies into a
stainless steel canister that can be stored in the spent fuel racks.
Industry experience with rod consolidation is currently limited,
primarily due to concerns for potential gap activity release due to rod
breakage, the potential for increased fuel cladding corrosion due to
some of the protective oxide layer being scraped off, and because the
prolonged consolidation activity could interfere with ongoing plant
operations.
Dry cask storage is a method of transferring spent fuel, after
storage in the pool for several years, to high capacity casks with
passive heat dissipation features. After loading, the casks are stored
outdoors on a seismically qualified concrete pad. In the early 1990s,
the licensee made the decision to reclaim some of the DBNPS SFP storage
using a dry fuel storage system. In January 1996, 72 spent fuel
assemblies were loaded into three Dry Shielded Canisters and were
placed in dry fuel storage utilizing the certified Nutech Horizontal
Modular Storage (NUHOMS) system, in accordance with 10 CFR 72.214,
Certificate Number 1004. However, changes within the dry spent fuel
storage industry have caused cost increases. In addition, the
contracted supplier of the NUHOMS system voluntarily stopped
fabrication activities and was unable to provide additional storage
systems within an acceptable schedule. Further use of this technology
was re-evaluated and determined not to be the best choice for future
storage expansion at DBNPS. Based upon economics, schedule, and risk
management, the licensee concluded that dry cask storage was not a
viable alternative at DBNPS.
The alternative of constructing and licensing a new fuel pool is
not practical because such an effort would require about 10 years to
complete and would be the most expensive alternative.
The alternative technologies that could create additional storage
capacity involve additional fuel handling with an attendant opportunity
for a fuel handling accident, involve higher cumulative dose to workers
effecting the fuel transfers, require additional security measures, are
significantly more expensive, and would not result in a significant
improvement in environmental impacts compared to the proposed re-
racking modifications.
Reduction of Spent Fuel Generation
Generally, improved usage of the fuel or operation at a reduced
power level would be an alternative that would decrease the amount of
fuel being stored in the pool and thus, increase the amount of time
before full core off-load capacity is lost. With extended burnup of
fuel assemblies, the fuel cycle would be extended and fewer off-loads
would be necessary. This is not an alternative for resolving the loss
of full core off-load capability that will occur as a result of the
DBNPS refueling outage scheduled to begin in April 2000, because the
spent fuel to be transferred to the pool for storage has now almost
completed its operating history in the core. DBNPS has been operating
on the basis of 24-month refueling cycles, with core designs and fuel
management schemes optimized accordingly. Operating the plant at a
reduced power level would not make effective use of available
resources, and would cause unnecessary economic hardship on the
licensee and its customers. Therefore, reducing the amount of spent
fuel generated by increasing burnup further or reducing power is not
considered a practical alternative.
The No-Action Alternative
As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered
denial of the proposed action (i.e., the ``no-action'' alternative).
Denial of the application would result in no change in current
environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action
and the alternative action are similar.
Alternative Use of Resources
This action does not involve the use of any resources not
previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for DBNPS.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on December 14, 1999, the
staff consulted with the Ohio State official, Carol O'Claire, of the
Ohio Emergency Management Agency, regarding the environmental impact of
the proposed action. The State official had no comments.
Finding of No Significant Impact
On the basis of the environmental assessment, the NRC concludes
that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the
quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined
not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed
action.
For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the
licensee's letter dated May 21, 1999, as supplemented by letter dated
December 1, 1999, which are available for public inspection at the
Commission's Public Document Room, The Gelman Building, 2120 L Street,
NW., Washington, DC. Publicly available records will be accessible
electronically from the ADAMS Public Library component on the NRC Web
site, http://www.nrc.gov (the Electronic Reading Room).
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day of January 2000.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Anthony J. Mendiola,
Chief, Section 2, Project Directorate III, Division of Licensing
Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 00-804 Filed 1-12-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P