ML19253B988
| ML19253B988 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 12/19/1977 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19253B981 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7911020526 | |
| Download: ML19253B988 (29) | |
Text
.
EllVIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPPAISAL BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGilLATION
' SUPPORTING AMENCMENT NO. 34 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-50 tiETROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, JEPSEY CENTRAL POWER AtlD LIGHT COMPANY, PENNSYLVANI A ELECTRICJ0fPANY THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATI0'l, Uti!T No.1 DOCKET NO. 50-289 s
1505 039 4911020 6 2 6
TABLE OF CONTENTS Pace
~
I 1.0 Description of Proposed Action.......
4...............
I 2.0 Need for Increased Storage tapacity............
2 3.0 Fu e l R e p ro c e s s i n g H i s t o ry.................................
3 4.0 The Plant............................
3 4.1 F u e l I n v e n t o ry.......................................
4 4.2 Plant Cooling Water Systems..
4 4.3 Radioactive Wastes..............
4 4.4 Purpose of the Spent Fuel Pool......................
4.5 Spent Fuel Pool Cooling and Purification System......
5 5.0 Environmental Impacts of Proposed Action.
7 5.1 Land Use,.......................
7 5.2 Water Use.................
7 5.3 Radiological...................
8 5.3.1 I n t ro d u c t i o n...................................
8 5.3.2 Radioactive Material Released to Atmosphere....
9 5.3.3 Solid Radioactive Wastes......................
10 5.3.4 Radioactivity Released to Receiving Waters.....
12 12 5.3.5 Occupational Exposures......................
5.3.6 Evaluation of Radiological Impact..............
13 5.4 Nonradiological Effluents.............................
13 5.5 Impacts on the Conmunity...................
13 6.0 Environmental Imoact of Postulated Accidents..............
14 7.0 Al t e r n a t i v e s..............................................
14 7.1 Reprocessing of Spent Fuel......
15 7.2 Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installatior...
16 7.3 Storage at Another Reactor.................
19 7.4 Shutdown of Facility.....
20 7.5 Summary of Alternatives..
21 1505 040
Table of Centents (continued)
Page 8.0 Evaluation of Proposed Action....'.......
22 8.1 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts...............
22 22 8.1.1 Physical Impacts...............
8.1.2 Radiological Impacts....................
22 8.2 Relationship Between Local Short-Term Use of Man's Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement o f Lo ng-Te rm P rod uc ti v i ty.............................
2 2 22 8.3 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources.
23 8.3 i Water, Land and Air Resources..
8.3.2 Ma t e ri al Re s ourc e s.............................
2 3 8.4 Commission Policy Statement Regarding Spent Fuel Storage. 23 9.0 B e ne f i t - Co s t Bal a nc e.....................................
2 6 29 10.0 Bssis und Conclusion........................................
1505 041
_1_
l.0 Description of Prooosed Action In their submittal of February 3,1977, 'supplem.ented by a letter dated May 24, 1977, Metropolitan Edison Company (FFC) requested an amendment to Facility Operating cicense No. OPR-50 for the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit No. 1 (TMI-1) to increase the storage capacity of the "B" spent fuel pool (SFP) at this facility.
The modification evaluated in this environmental impact appraisal is the proposal by MEC to replace the spent fuel storage racks originally provided for this pool with closer spaced racks to increase the storage capacity of the "B" spent fuel pool from 174 to 496 fuel assemblies. This would increase the total storage capacity of the "A" and "B" SFPs from 430 assemblies to 752 assemblies.
2.0 Need for increased Storace Caoacity TMI-l received its operating license, DPR-50, ia April 1974. At present there are 104 fuel asremblies stored in the "A" spent fuel pool. These are the assemblies discharged during the first and second refueling outages in March 1976 and March 1977.
The currently unused storage capacity of the "A" SFP is 152 assemblies.
Based on normal operation in the future, approxi-mately 52 assemblies will be added to the SFP each year.
Thus, in the absence of off-site fuel shipments, the "A" SFP would be full by the Spring of 1980, and the "B" SFP, with the presently authorized storage capacity of 174, would be substantially full (incapable of accommodating the assemblies discharged from a normal refueling) af ter 1983.
In addition to providing for storage of spent fuel, it is prudent engineering practice to maintain sufficient reserve space in the SFP to off-load a full core should it be necessary to inspect or repair core internals. Since a full core consists of 177 fuel assemblies, it can be seen from the above that there is insufficient capacity remaining in the "A" SFP at this time to accommodate a full core off-load. There is, however, sufficient authorized capacity to accommodate a full core off-load if the "B" SFP is also utilized.
This capability, nevertheless, will be eliminated in about three years (1980) based on the cresently authorized storage capacity and norcal refuelina schedules. Uith the proposed increase in capacity of the "B" SFP, however, the capability for a full-core off load will be extended for about six additional years (1986).
s.
1505 042
. The basic need for the proposed increase in on-site spent fuel storage capacity stems from the current unavailability of of f-site storage for TMI-l spent fuel and the expectation that several years will be required before the necessary storage capacity can be made available. This situation is discussed further in Sections 3.0 and 7.0.
'The proposed modification will not alter the external physical geometry of the spent fuel pool or require additional modifications to the SFP cooling or purification systems.
Tne proposed modification does not affect in any manner the quantity of uranium fuel utilized in the reactor over the anticipated operating life of the facility and thus in no way affects the generation of spent uranium fuel by the facility.
The rate 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 modification will increase the number of spent fuel assemblies stored in the SFP and the length of time that some of the fuel assemblies will be stored in the pool.
3.0 Fuel Reorocessing 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 expan-sions; on September 22, 1976, 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 decommissioned 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 thrcuch 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 arrangement.s with NFS.
Construction of the AGNS fuel receiving and storage station has been completed.
AGNS has applied for--but nas not been granted--a license to receive and store irradiated fuel assemblies in the storage pool at Barnwell prior to a decision on the licensing action relating to the reprocessing facility.
1505 043
. On April 7,1977, the President issued a statement cutlining his The pclicy on continued development of nuclear energy in the U. S.
"We will defer indefinitely the commercial President stated that:
reprocessing and recycling of the plutonium produced in the U. S.
Frem our own experience, we have concluded nuclear power programs.
that a viable and economic nuclear power program can be sustained without such reprocessing and recycling."
MEC had originally planned to ship the TMI-l spent fuel to a reprocessing facility to reparate the fissionable material As discussed in more detail in Section 7.0, for recycling.
" Alternatives", reprocessing of spent fuel is not an available alternative in the foreseeable future.
4.0 The Plant The Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1 is described in the Final Environmental Statement (Ft.5) issued by the Commission in Dece-ber 1972 TMI-l utilizes a pressurized water reactor (PWR) rith a licensed thermal power of 2535 megawatts (MWt) to produce a net power output of about 800 electrical megawatts (MWe)
T.ie fuel storage facilities for Units 1 and 2 of the station are not shared.
Descriptions of pertinent features of TMI-l as it currently exists are sumarized below.
4.1 Fuel Inventory The TMI-l reactor contains 177 fuel assemblies.
A fuel assembly consists of a 15x15 array of Zircaloy tubes approximately 13 feet long, fixed at either end by stainless steel upper and lower end fittings and supported at intermediate points along its length by Inconel spacer grids. The overall dimensions of the fuel assembly are about 8 5 inches square by about 165.6 inches long. Of the 225 tubes in the 15x15 array, 208 contain fue'. 16 are guide tubes for control rod assemblies, axial power shaping rod assemblies, or orifice assemblies (depending on core location) and one tube is a guide tube for incore instrumentation.
Each fuel tube contains a stack of' uranium dioxide pellets approximately 12 feet high.
The ends cf the fuel tubes are sealed with pluas and the tubes are evacuated and back-filled with helium. About one-third of the fuel assemblies are removed from the reactor and replaced with new fuel each year.
s 1505 044
4 4.2 Plant Cooling Water Svstems TMI-l employs hyperbolic natural draft cooling towers to provide closed cycle cooling for the condenser.
Blowdown from this closed system is diluted by combinino it in a coolino cond with the discharge from the river water systems.
The river water systems consist of the river water cortions of the Nuclear Services Cooling Water System, the Secondary Services Cooling Water System, the Decay Heat Services Cooling System, the Reactor Building Emergency Cooling System and the Screen House V:ntilation Cooling System. Of these systems, all but the last ultimately discharge to a cooling pond where cooling is supriemented by operation of a mechanical draf t cooling tower as necessary to meet thermal discharge limits.
The cooled water is then discharged to the river.
The Screen House Ventilation Cooling System is a minor low capacity system that discharges directly back to the river.
The open cycle river water portion of the Nuclear Services Coolino Water System provides cooling for the Nuclear Services Closed Cycle Cooling Water Systern This closed cycle system then provides cooling by means of heat exchangers to the various nuclecr services including the reactor coolant pump air and oil coolers, the reactor coolant pump seal return cooler, the reactor building cooling unit fan motor coolers, the waste evaporetor condensers and distillate coolers, the waste gas compressors and the spent fuel pool coolers.
4.3 Radioactive Wastes The station contains waste treatment systems designed to collect and process the gaseaus, liquid and solid waste that might contain radio-active material.
The waste treatment systems are evaluated in the FES dated Cecember 1972.
There will be no change in the waste treat-ment systems described in Section III.D.2 of the FES because of the proposed modification.
.4 Pun ose 0: 5:P The SFP at TMI-l was desicred to store spent fue' assectes prior to shipment to a reprocessing facility.
Tnese assemblies may be transferred from the reactor core to the SFP during a core refueling, or to allow for inspection and/cr modification to core internals.
Ine lat*er 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 hign thermal output.
They are stored in the.SFP to allow for radioactive and thermal decay.
1505 045
The major portion of decay occurs during the 150-day period 'ollowing removal from the reactor core.
Af ter this period, the assemblies may be withdrawn and placed into a heavily shielded fuel cask for offsite shipment. Space permitting, the assemblies may be stored for an additional period allowing continued fission product decay and thermal cooling prior to shipment.
4.5 SFP Coolina and Purification System The TMI-l A and B spent fuei pools are provided with a cooling loop which removes decay heat from fuel sto.ed in the SFP and a purifica-tion loop to permit unrestricted access to the SFP area and to provide optical clarity of the SFP water.
The Spent Fuel Cooling System was designed to limit the SFP water temperature to about 1350F during normal refueling operations and to about 1500F during full c ce discharge situatior.s,150 hours0.00174 days <br />0.0417 hours <br />2.480159e-4 weeks <br />5.7075e-5 months <br /> after reacter shutdown.
The cooling system is described in Section 9.4 of the FSAR.
Cleanup of pool water is accomplished by diverting part of the flow in the Spent Fuel Cooling System to the primary coolant chain of the Radioactive Liquid Waste Disposal System (RLWDS). The primary coolant chain, or SFP purification system, consists of two precoat filters, two demineralizers, one evaporator and the required piping, valves and instrumentation. The Borated Water Recirculation Pump transfers water from the SFPs and the refueling cavity to the RLWDS. The water from the pool or the refueling cavity passes through the filter and/or the demineralizer and then is returned to the pool -or the refueling cavity.
Spent fuel has been stored in the Three liile Island Unit 1 "A"
SFP.
MEC has, therefore, experience with this purification system.
The radioactivity levels in the vicinity of the pool, which result primarily from the radioactivity in the pool water, are acceptably small and represent typical radiation levels in the vicinity of the SFP at other nuclear power plants. The primary curification medium has been the precoat filters; however, mixed-bed demineralizers and an evaporator are available if they are needed.
The precoat filters have been backwashed about once a month, and the purification system is operated for three to four montns a year. The normal flow into the primary coolant chain of the RLWDS from the SFP is 150 gpm although the design flow rate of the pump is 180 gpn.
o_
1505 046
. Radioactivity enters the pool water by introduction of reactor coolant water into the pool during ref. eling, by the removal of u
crud from the surf ace of the spent fuel assemblies during handling of the assemblies and by the leakage of fission products from within the spent fuel assemblies. The rate of introduction of reactor coolant water into the pool will not change as a result of the proposed mcdification because the modific.ation dces not include a change in the refuelinc schedule.
Altheuch the proposed modifi-cation will increase the total number of assemblies that can be stored in the pool, we do not expect a significant increase in the number of times assemblies are handled before shipment offsite.
Therefore, because any significant removal of crud from the surface of the assembly would occur during the initial fuel handling when the assembly is transferred from the core to the SFP, there should not be a significant increase in crud introduced to the pool water due to the proposed modification.
Experience with spent fuel stored at the Morris Operation (for~erly the Midwest Fuel Recovery Plant)(Morris, Illinois) and at Nuclear Fuel Services (West Valley, New York) has indicated that there is little or no leakage of radioactivity from spent fuel which has cooled several months; therefore, there should not be a significant increase in leakage activity from spent fuel to the pool because of the proposed modification.
Because we expect only a small increase in radioactivity released to the pool water as a result of the proposed modification, we conclude that the TMI-l purification system is adequate for the proposed modification. However, if the actual release of radio-activity proves to be greater, MEC can:
1.
Increase the system flow rate from 150 gpr' to 180 gpm; 2.
Operate the system for periods greater than 4 months per year; 3.
Backwash the precoat filters more frequently than has been done; and 4.
Use the demineralizers, and the evaporator in the RLHDS.
On the basis cf the above, we conclude the spent fuel pool cleanuo system is adequate for the proposed rodification and will keep the concentrations of radioactivity in the pool water to acceptably low l evel s.
1505 047
. 5.0 Environmental Imoacts of Proposed Action 5.1 Land U:e The proposed modification involves a change in the storace arrangement Therefore, within an existing SFP within an existing building.
the modification would not affect the quantity or quality of present land use.
5.2 Water Use The principal quantity of water consumed as a result of spent fuel storage is that lost by evaporation from the mechanical draft cooling towers which reject all or a portian of the waste heat to the The quantity of water consumed in cooling stored atmosphere.
spent fuel, however, is only a small fraction of the _ total water necessarily consumed by the plant.
As stated in Section V.8.1 of the FES, the total water consumed as a result of operation of both units of the Three Mile Island fluclear Station is estimated to be about 20,800 gpm.
The bulk of this consumption arises frcm evaporation and drift associated with operation of the natural draft and mechanical draft cooling towers which reject waste heat to the atmosphere. The major portion of this waste heat is that which cannot be effectively used in the gerieration of electricity.
This amounts to about two-thirds of the themal power of Units I By contrast, the thermal load presented and 2, or about 3500 MPt.
by the "A" and "B" SFPs of Unit 1 if filled to presently authorized capacity with spent fuel with an average decay period of one year is less than 6 MWt.
Since cost of the fuel stored in the pool would have a decay period greater than one year, the water usage associated with cooling of stored spent fuel would be less than 0.2", of the total water ucage.
Increasing the total Unit 1 storage capacity from 430 assemblies to 752 assemblies, as proposed by MEC, would not increase the thermal load croportionately.
This is because the effect of increased storage capacity is to allow longer tem storage and hence, further radioactive decay of the stored fuel, llevertheless, even if it is assumed that all of the stored fuel has a decay period of one year, the increase in water usage attributable to the increased storage capacity would be less than 0.15:
While there are periods immediately following refueling or following a full core off-load when the water usage wculd be somewhat higher due to the temp,orarily greater themal load, these are necessary transient conditions that t. ave been discussed in Section 4.5 and which have only a minor effect en the incremental long tem water usage.
1505 048
Based on the above, we conclude that the proposed increase in
- pent fuel storage capacity will not have a significant effect on the water usage by the Three Mile Island fluclear Station.
5.3 Radiological 5.3.1 Introduction The potential offsite radiological environmental impacts associated with the expansion of the spent fuel storage capacity were evaluated and determined to be environmentally insignificant as addressed below.
The proposed expanded spent fuel storage capacity will allow storage of spent fuel generated in the next 12 years without shipment offsite. The additional spent fuel which would be stored due to the expansion is fuel which has decayed at least eight years.
During the stocage of the spent fuel under water, bota volatile and nonvolatile radioactive nuclides may be released to the water from the surf ace of the assemblies or from defects in the fuel cladding. Most of the material released from the surface of the assemblies consists of activated corrosion products such as Co-58, Co-60, Fe-59 and Mn-54 which are not volatile. The radionuclides that might be released to the water through defects in the cladding, such as Cs-134, Cs-137, Sr-89 and Sr-90, are also predominately nonvolatile. The primary inpact of such nonvolatile radioactive nuclides is their contribution to radiation levels to wnich workers in and near the SFP would be exposed. The volatile fission product nuclides of most concern that might be released through 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 predominant radionuclides in spent fuel pool water appear to be those that were present in the reactor coolant system prior to refueling (which becomes mixed with water in the spent fuel pool during refueling operations) or crud dislodged from the surface of the spent fuel during transfer from the reactor core to the SFP.
During and af ter refueling, the spent fuel pool purifica-tion system reduces the radioactivity concentrations considerably.
It is theorized that most f ailed fuel centains soll, pinhole-like perforations in the fuel cladding at reactor operating conditiene of approximately 8000F.
A few weeks after refueling, the spent fuel 1505 049
.g.
Cools in the 5:ent fuel pool so that tne fuel red temperature is relatively cool, approximately ISO F.
This substantial temce-ature reduction should recuce the rate of release of fission procucts fr:-
the fuel pellets and ce:rease the gas pressure in the gap tet-een pellets and clad, thereby tending to retain.ne fissien peccucts within nc claccing.
In acditien, most of the gasaous fission crocucts b:.ve short half-li.95 and ce:ay to insigni'icant le nis witnin a fe-Based on the operational reports submitted by licensees months.
and discussions with operators, there has not been any significant leakage of fission procucts frem : cent ligrt -ater reactor fuel ste ec in the Morris Operation (PC) (fermerly Mic.est Fuel Recovery. Plant) at Morris, Illinois, or at Nuclear Fuel Services' (NFS) storage po:1 at West Valley, New Ynck.
Spent fuel has t;een storec in these two ;ccis which, while it was in a reactor, was cetermined to have significar.:
After stcrage in leakage and was, therefore, removec frer the core.
to eitner M the onsite spent fuel pcci, this fuel was later shicoe:
A!thougn tne fuel exnicited sigm ficant or NFS for extencec storage.
leakage at reactor cperating conditions, there -as no significant leakage from tnis fuel in tne effsite storage facility.
5.3.2 Radioactive baterial Released to Atmosphere _
With respect to gaseous releases, short-lived noble gases in the spent fuel will decay to negligible amounts af ter a year of storage.
Thereft,re, the only significant noble gas isotope remaining in the SFP and attributable to storage of additicnal assemblies for a longer period of time would be Krypton-85. We have assumed tnat 0.12% of all fuel rods have cladding defects which permit the escane This is the average failed fuel fractico of fission product cases.
clad fuel for pressurized water reectors given in for zircaloy As discussed previously, experience has demonstrated NUREG 0017.
that after spent fuel has decayed 4 to 6 months, there is no significant release of fission products from defected fuel.
However, to bound any potential releases, we assumed that the fission product gases escape on a relatively linear basis with time.
On this basis, we have conservatively estimated that an additional 22 curies per year of Kryoton-85 may be released from the SFP when the modified pool is completely filled. The fuel storage pool area is continuously ventilated an<.' the exhaust air is norrally released if the from the auxiliary and fuel ht.ndling building vent, facility were to release an arditional 22 curies per year of Kr-F as a result of the proposed modification the increased release wculd result in an additional total body dose at the site boundary (east-This southeast) to an individual of less than 0.001 meen/ year.
dose is insignificant when compared to the approximately 100 mren/
year that an individual receives from natural bacLground radiation.
1505 050
, The additional total body dose to the estimated pooulation within a 50-mile radius of tha plant is less than 0.001 nan-ren./ year.
This is less than the natural fluctuations in the dose this population would receive from natural background radiation.
Under our conservative assumptions, these exposures represent an increase of less than 0.5*' of the exposures from the plant evaluated in the FES for the individual (Table 14', and the
- opulation (Table 15). Thus, we conclude that the proposed modification will not have any significant impact on radiation levels or expcsures offsite.
Assuming that the spent fuel will te st: red onsite fer severa' years, iccine-131 releases from spent fuel assem ;ies to tne 5 ?
water will not ce significantly in:rease: because of the ex03-si:r of the fuel stora;e ca acity since tre iccine-131 inven. y in tne fuel will de ay : negligi le levels tet-ee' each annua. re'.ciing.
The iodines are re:cved free the SF
- a.er ey tne SF: cleanu: syster or thrcugn de:ay as a result of tneir relatively snart half lives.
Storing additional spent fuel asseelies is not exce:te: te in:rease the bulk -Eter te:cerature accve tre 135*: use: in tne cesign analysis curing n real refue'.ir.;s (removal
- a: cut 1/3 : re ea:-
yea-Since tne te ce-ature of the p:01 wate will ncr aii) ce maintaine celow 135'F, it is not ex ected tnat trere wi'i ce any significan change in evaporation rates anc the re' ease of tritic:
or iodine as a esult of the -:::se:
.00 'i:sti:t frem inat previcusly evalcated.
Most airecrne releases fr:m tre :: ant resu M from leakage of rea: tor ceciant wr.icn c:r.ains triticn a : i: ire in higher concent ations tha-tne s:ent Nei Occi Treref: e. ever if there we-e a siigntly nig e-es a:c-a-'er. ra.e '-en tr.e s:en.
fuel pool, the increase in triti e are iou ' release: f :: tne plant as a result of the increase i, store: sce-t fue' -cuid 0+
small cer:a e: i: tne ancun*. nc-ma'i> reiease: frc
.re
'an-a.:
that wnien was previ:usly evaluatec in Section III.D.2.a of the FES.
~
5.3.3 Solid Radioactive uastes Operating experience at TMI-l has demonstrated that the crp Ourifi-cation system is effective in maintaining water purity and low concentrations of radionuclides. The concentration of radionuclide; in the pool is controlled by filters in the SFP purification system and by decay of short-lived isotopes. The activity is hiah durinn refueling operations while reactor coolant water is introduced into the pool and decreases as the pool water is pmcessed through the filters. The additicnal raiioactivity that may be released to the SFP water by storing more spent fuel 1505 051
, assemblies in the pool nay result in more frequent replacement of the filters or an increased amount of radioactivity accumulated The increase of radioactivity, if any, on the filters or both.
should be minor because the additional spent fuel to be stored is relatively cool, thermally, and radienuclides in the fuel will have decayed significantly.
The precoat filters and the de-inerali:ers in the Radioactive Licuic Waste Dispcsal System ( %WDS) are used tc cleanco,ater frcm tne uel Transfer Canai, tne Eora.ec Water Storage c
Containment Builcinc anc :ne Reactor C olant Biese Tark in Tank, the primary cc:lant, The frecuency of bacr. ashing tre addition to tne Scent Fue' Pool.
precoat anc reolacing the demineralizer resin cecause of the processing water from tne above 6 systems is 15 tim filtee The voltme of waste of the ceminerali:er resin in tne purificatic ft.
system is 35 cu.The demineralizer resin and the fi'ters are removec fr:r. tre cu. ft.
The precoat filters are remcved fecm service site as solid waste.
The when the pressure drop across the filter beccmes excessive.
deminerali:er resins are removed frca service wnen the factor falls below MEC does not the housing reacnes a precetermined lev'1. solid was e frca tne prcoose expect an increase
.1 based on operating experience to date which shows the fuel pon1 introduces a negligible amount of waste to the ':U!DS.
While wo agree with MEC's conclusion that there should not be an increase in solid radwaste due to the -cdification, we have nevertheless conservatively assumed that the arrount of solid radwaste may be increased by an addii.'onal eight precoat filter changes a year or an additional demineralizer The annual average volume of solid waste resin bed a year.
If shipped from TMI-l from 1974 to 1976 was 12,500 cubic feet.
the storage of additional spent fuel does increase the amour.t of solid waste from the SFP purification systems by about 36 cubic feet per year, the increase in total waste voltme shipped and would not have any significant additional would be.less than it environmental imoact.
There will be no material removed f rem the Scent Fuel Pools because e'
the prcposed m0cification.
The fuel racks of the "B" Scent cel Pui, which is the cool to be mocifiec,are stered in er caen field next t; Since these racks are uncontaminatec, iney ili re.ain in TMI-1.
storage until a use for tna aluminum is founc or tney will ::e cispor 3c of as scrap metal.
1505 052
5.3.4 Radioactivity Released to Receivinc Waters There should not be a sienificant increase in the licuid release c' radionuclides frem tne station as a result of the proposec ecci'icati:n The amount of racioactivity on the primary coolant chain filters and demineralizer resins might slightly increase due to the additional spent fuel in tne pool but tnis ingrease of racicactivity should not be released in licuic ef fluer.ts from the station.
The prec:a filters remove insolutie and sciutie racicactive matter frcm tne SFP watem The filter prec at is periodically flushec fr m its heusing to tre used precoat ank Of the solic waste dis;0 sal system-The raci0act1.ity will be retainec un tne filter er remain in the flurh water whicn is returned to tne liquid rac aste system for processing.
The resins are periodically flushed with water to the spent resin tant of the solid waste discosal system and are not regenerated.
Tne -ater used to transfer the spent resin is decanted from the tank and ret.rnec to the liquia radaaste system for processing.
Tne soluble racicactivit;.
Will be retainec on the resins which are ceaatered anc solicifiec.
If any activity shuuld be transferred from tne spent resin or filter precoat to tnis flush water, it woulc be removec by tne licuia racaaste system.
After processing in the racwaste system. there should net te a significant increase in the amount of radioactivity relcised to ne environment in liquid ef fluents as a result of the croposed mcdifica.i:n.
The spent resins and 'ilte-preccat are finally placed in shiccing containers or 55 gallon crums and solidified before snipment offsite to a burial site.
5.3.5 Occ up a t_1 cya l E po_s u res_
We have reviewed MEC's plan for removal, disassembly and disposal of the old racks anc the installation of the re* ra (s i h t
respect to occucational raciati0n ex00sure.
Inere ail' :e nc 00:.;2-tional ex csure associatec with the remesal c' tne c'.: rac(5 te:ause these racks were removed tno years Defere plant starte:.
MEC estimated an exposure of 0.15 man-rem during the installation of the new racks. MEC stated this estimate was based on actual fuel pool surveys and conservative rack installation recuirements.
Ee:2ze the "B" spent fuel pcoi has never contained spent fuel we consider tnis to be a reascnable estimate.
+-
1505 053
. We have estimated the increment in ensite cccu ational cese resulti,;
fuel asterolier :n tnc tasis O' from the pecposed increase in store:
infornhtien su;olied by MEC and by utilizing realistic assump-tions for oc:urancy times and for dose rates in the s;ent fuel pcolThe s:en. f.ei area from radicnuclide concentratiens in the $F3 water.cosa ate; m assemblies them.se bes centribute a negligible am:un; ::snielaing tne f,el.
~ ne the pool area because of tne depth cf water occupational raciatien ex sure resulting from :ne ;ro:csed acticn Based on present and projectac 0:e' t-represents a negligible burden.tions in the spent f;al pcci area, we estim ficatien will ado less than one percent to tre t0:al annual ccca:a-Tne s-al Mcreate tional radiati:n ex:osure burden at this f acility.in radiation exposu individual occupational doses to as low as is reasonably achievable Thus, we cenclude that s:cring a:: 1-end within limits of 10 CFR 20.
tional fuel in the SFP will net result in any significant increase in deses received by occupational workers.
5.3.6 Evaluation of Radiological bract As discussed above, the pre;osed modificaticn d:es not significantly change the radiological impact evaluated in :ne FES.
5.4 Nonradioloaical Effluents There will be no chanoe in the chemical or biocidal effluents from the plant as a result'of the proposed modification. The only offsite nonradiological environmental imoact resulting from this proposed action would be an additional discharge of heat to the As noted in Secticn 5.2, atmosphere or to the Susquehanna River.
however, the incremental thermal load to the atmosphere which would result fron the proposed modification is less than about 0.151 of of the the combined thermal load for Units 1 and 2, or about 0.3' thermal load for Unit 1.
Because of the small siae of this incre-mental heat load, and the availability of mechanical draft cooling towers if needed this additional heat discharge wovid not affect the ability of TMI-l to meet its thermal ef fluent linitations.
Accordingly, on the basis of the foregoing we conclude that the incremental environmental imoact of nonradiological effluents as a result of the proposed modification is not significant.
5.5 Impacts on the Community The new storage racks will be fabricated o#fsite and shipped to the plant. No environmental imoacts on the environs outside the spent fuel storage building are ex;ected during installation of tne new racks. The impacts within this building are expected to be limiteJ 1505 054
, to those normally associated with metal working activities.
No significant environmental impact on the community is expected to result from the fuel rack conversion or from subsequent operaticn with the increased storage of spent fuel in the SFP.
6.0 Environmental Imoact of Postulated Accidents Although the proposed high density racks will accomodate a larger inventory of spent fuel, we have determined that the installation and use of the rrcks will not change the radiological consequences of a postulated fuel handling accident from those values reported in the FES for TMI-l dated December 1972.
Adaitionally, tne NRC sthff has underway 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 such an event can occur.the radiological consequences of such an event.
Because TMI-l will have technical specification requirements to prohibit the movement of loads in excess of 3000 pounds over stcred spent fuel, we have concluded that the likelihood of a heavy load handling accident is sufficiently small that the acceptability of the proposed modification is not affected.
In addition, spent fuel shipping casks will not be permitted in the Unit 1 Refueling Building prior to our completion of the cask drop analysis review.
7.0 Alternatives Alternatives to the proposed modification which have been considered by the NRC staff include the following: (1) shipment of scent fuel to a fuel reprocessing facility, (2) shipment of spent fuel to separate fuel storage facility, (3) shiprent of spent fuel to ar.other reactor site and (4) tenninating operation of TMI-1.
Each of these alternatives is considered below.
The total cost of the proposed modification is estimated to be about
$920,000 in 1976 dollars, or approximately S2850 for each of the 322 additional fuel assemblics that the increased storage capacity will accommodate, It should be noted that, as discussed herein, TMI-l could continue to operate for a few years with its presently authorized fuel storage capacity without being required to shutdown because of a lack of such storage capacity. MEC desires to make the o
1505 055
. modification at this time, however, because the "E" SFP does not now and has not previously cor.tained irradiated fuel.
Therefere, the modification can be made in a dry pocl that is still uncontaminated. This means that the modification can be done more efficiently and with less radiation exposure of personnel than would be the case if the mcdification were dcne while the "B" SFP contained irradiated fuel cr af ter it had providct tempcrary storage for irradiated icel.
In addition, the original "0" SP ttcrte racks can be used or dir.>osed of as ordinary salvage material at this time rather tnar, be disposed of as radio-active solid waste after they have been usid.
MEC desires that this modification be made at the earliest practicable date.
This is because if a situation requiring unloading of the entire core were to arise unexpectedly prior to the modification, some fuel would have to be stored in the "B" SFP and the benefits of an uncontaninated poo) would be lost.
In addition, if the modification were deferred until after refueling in 1930, the nodificatior would have to be perfonned in a pool already containing irradiated fuel.
Based on the above considerations we agree with MEC that the proposed modification, if approved, should be implemented at the earliest practicable date.
7.1 Reprocessina of Scent Fuel As discussed earlier, none of the three comnercial reprocessing facilities in the U. S. tre currently operating. The General Electric Ccepany's Midwest Fuel Recovery Plant (fiFP.P) at l' orris, Illinois is in a decommissioned condition. On September 22, 1976, Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. (NFS) informed the Nuclear Regulatory Commission tnat they were "withdrawinn from the nuclear fuel reprocessing business." The Allied General Muclear Services (AMS) reprocessing plant received a construction permit on December 15,197C.
Construction of the reprocessing facility is essentially corpiete, tm no operating license has been granted.
On July 3,1974, AGNS applied for a materials license to receive and store up to 400 MTV of spent fuel in the onsite storage pool, cn which construction has also been corcleted, but hearings with respect to that application hwe not yet correr and no license has been granted.
In the light of the President's policy staten. ant of April 7,1977, the future of operitons at the Barnwell facility are not clear.
However, even if AGM shoald decide to oro-ceed with operation of the Barnwell facility, th' reprocessing plant will not be licensed until the is.ues presently being considered in the GESM0 proceedines are resolveu and the GES!'O proceedings are completed.
1505 056
. In 1976, Exxon Nuclear Company, Inc. submitted an application for a proposed Nuclear Fuel Recovery and Recycling Center (NFRIC) to be located at Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Tbe plant would include a storage pool that could store up to 7,000 MTU in spent fuel.
The As with the cpolication for a construction permit is under review.
Barn.: ell facility, the Presidential policy statement of April 7, 1977, rakes the future of this project unclear.
f cordinsly, in view of the change in national policy and circum-stances be. yond MEC's control, reprocessing of the spent fuel is not an ava:lable option at this time.
7.2 Independent Scent Fuel Storage Installation An alternative to expansion of onsite spect fuel pool storage is the construction of new " independent spent fuel storace installations" (ISFSI).
Such installations could provide storage space in excess of 1,000 MTV 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 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 separations facility was licensed to operate.
The license for the GE facility at Morris, Ill. was anended on December 3,1975 to increase the storage capacity to about 750 MTU.
As of April 1,1977, approximately 259 MTU was stored in the pool in the form of 1,055 assemblies. The NRC staff has discussed the status of storage space at l'arris Operations (MO) with GE personnel.
We have been infomed that GE is primarily operating the MO facility tc stcre either fuel owned by GE (which had been leased to utilities on an energy basis) or fuel We were informed which GE had previousiy contracted to reprocess.
that the present GE policy is not to accept spent fuel for storage The NFS except for that fuel for which GE has a previous commitment.
facility has capacity for about 2A0 MTU, with approximately 170 MTU presently stored in the pool.
The storage pool at West Valley, Ne.
York is on land owned by the State of New York and leased to NFS throuch 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 t% se reactor facilities with which~
they had contracts.
n 1505 057
c
. 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 Stnrage Installation,"
issued in December 1974, recognizes the possible need for ISFSIs and provides recommended criteria and requirements for water-cooled 15FSIs.
Pertinent sections of 10 CFR Parts 19, 20, 30, 40, 51, 70, 71 and 73 would also apply.
We have estimated that at least five years would be recuired for comple' tion 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 revies 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 testir.g and startup.
A few industry nronosals for construction nf indeoendent scent fuel storage facilities have been made 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 near operation, offering to provide independent storage services for spent nuclear fuel. A paper on this proposed project was presented at the American Nuclear Society meeting in November 1975.
In 1974, E. R. Johnson Associates estimated the construction cost at approximately $9,000 per spent fuel assembly.
Several licensees have evaluated construction of a separate independent spent fuel storage facility and have provided cost estimates.
Connecticut Yankee, for-example, estimated that to build an independent facility with a storage capacity of 1,000 tiTU (BWR and/or PWR assemblies) would cost approximately $54 millicn and take about 5 years to put into operation. This would correspond to about $25,000 per TMI-l fuel assembly. MEC similarly has provided an estimate of the costs of a MEC-owned ISFSI.
In this case the costs range from $19,000 to $30,000 per assembly for storage capacities of 200 to 550 MTU.
Commonwealth Edison estimated ths construction cost to build a fuel storage facility at about $10,000 per fuel assembly. To this would be added costs for maintenance, operation, safeguards, security, interest on investment, overhead, transportation and other costs.
o-1505 058
On December 2,1976, Stone an1 Webster Corporation submitted a tcpical report requesting approval for a standard design for an independent spent fuel storage facility.
No specific locations were proposed, although the design is based on location near a nuclear power facility.
No estimated costs for fuel storage were included in the topical report.
On October 18, 1477, the Department of Energy announced that the Government was preparing to accept and take title to used, or spent, nuclear reactor fuel from utilities en payment of a one time storage fee. The announcement furthe, noted that to implement this policy the Government would need both interim and permanent spent fuel storage capability and, to this end, the Department e
of Energy would begin immediate discussions with private industry to determine whether suitable interim fuel storage services could be provided to the Government on a contract basis.
Based on this announcement it' appears that positive steps to increase off-site spent fuel storage capacity and to make the capacity available to all utilities will be initiated in the near future.
As noted above, however, the staff estimates that at least five years would be required to complete an ISFSI and place it in operation.
Based on initiation of such a project in 1978, the resulting facility might thereby be available by 1933.
Therefore, on a short term basis (i.e., prior to 1983) an ir.jepen-dent spent fuel storage installation is not a viable alternative based on cost or availability in time to meet HEC's needs.
It is also unlikely that the total environmental impacts of constructinc an independent facility and shipment of spent fuel would be less than the minor impacts associated with the proposed action.
In the long term, the Department of Energy will in:lement its program for storage of spent fuel.
As announced in the President's energy policy statement of April 29, 1977, the Government is committed to provide a storage f acility for nuclear wastes by 1985. The propose' increase in storage capacity will allow TMI-I to operate until '. 36 with full core offload capability, by which time the Federal storage facility is expected to be operable.
o-1505 059
7.3 Storace et Another Reactor General Public Utilities Corporation,' owner of MEC, is preparing to place Three tiile Island Unit No. 2 (TMI-2) into operation in the near future. Althouch the TMI-2 SFPs are separate from the TMI-l pools, they are located in the same building and cooled spent fuel could be transferred from one unit to the other throuch use of an appropriately shielded cask.
Such an operation could be used to maintain, for a period of time, a full core offload The same oi ration, however, would also capability for Unit 1.
1 hasten the time when (barring shipment of spent fuel off-site)
Unit 2 would encounter storage problems.
Specifically, we have estimated, based on a normal refueling schedule, that if no Unit 1 spent fuel were transferred to the Unit 2 SFPs, Tf11-2 could maintain a full core offload capability through the refueling in 1984.
On the other hand, based on the preser.tly authorized Unit 1 storage capacity, if Unit 1 spent fuel were transferred to Unit 2 as necessary to maintain a full core offload capability for Unit 1, TMI-2 could maintain the same capability only through the refueling of 1982. A single full core offload capability (to be used by either unit) could be naintained for an additional one to two years if inter-unit transfers of spent fuel were used as needed.
It was previously noted that the staff has estimated that at least five years will be required to place an ISFSI into operation.
From the above schedule considerations it is seen that even if such a project were initiated in 1978 and completed on schedule, off site storage would not be available until after the time each of the units reached the point where each could still just maintain individual full core offload capabilities.
Further, any significant delay in completion of such a facility could jeopardize this capability for both units and possibly require termination of operation until other storage arrangements could be effected.
In this regard, the proposed increase in storage capacity for TMI-l would significantly lessen the probability that oceration of Units 1 or 2 would be affected by the delayed availatility of off-site storage.
Specifically, the storage capability of Unit 1
2 would remain unchanged (full core offload capability unt:
about 1984) and the full core officad capability for Unit I could be extended to about 1986.
In addition, this could be accomplished without requiring the extra handling of spent fuel incident to inter-unit transfers.
o 1505 060
General Public Utilities Corporation has also considered the shipment of excess TMI-l spent fuel to the Oyster Creek Reactor SFP.
Oyster Creek is a boiling water reactor (BWR) operated by the Jersey Central Power and Light Company subsidiary of General Public Utilities. Oyster Creek was granted permission in 1977 to increase its spent fuel storage capacity. With this increase Oyster Creek now has the capacity,to accumulate its own spent fuel until 1984 while retaining a full core offload capability.
As with TMI-2, however, shipment of TMI-l fuel to Oyster Creek would provide only a temporary solution for TMI-l fuel storage and would reduce the time until Oyster Creek could again encounter spent fuel storage problems.
In addition, a portion of the' spent fuel storage racks at Oyster Creek would require modification in order to accommodate the fuel from TMI-1.
According to a survey conducted and documented by the Energy Research and Development Administration, up to 46 percent of the operating nuclear power plants will lose the ability te refuel during the period 1975-1984 without additional spent fuel storage pool expansions or access to offsite storage facilities.
Thus, MEC cannot assuredly rely on other power facilities to provide addi-tional storage capability except on a short-term emergency basis.
If space were available in another reactor facility, the cost would probably be comparable to the cost of storage at a commercial storage facility.
In view of the foregoing we conclude that transfer of TMI-l spent fuel to TMI-2, Oyster Creek or any other reactor provides only a temporary solution for TM.1-1 and depending on the timely availability of other offsite storage capacity, could ultimately adversely affect the capability of TMI-l and/or the receiving facility to continue operation. On the other hand, the increase in storage capacity propos'd for TMI-l significantly improves its ability to continue operation until offsite storage facilities are available and reduces the probability of impacting the storage capabilities of other units.
7.4 Shutdown of Facility There are two conditions when lack of fuel storage capacity would require reactor shutdown: (1) when it was necessary for repair or inspection purposes to fully unload the core and there was insufficient storage capacity for the full core (177 assemblies',
or (2) the reactor required refueling o continue operation but
,s _
1505 061
9 all storage locations were filled.
Although neither of these conditions apply at the present time, the conditions could develop in the future.
Specifically, based on the presently authorized fuel storage capacity and a normal refueling schedule (with no transfer of spent fuel from TMI-1) the condition of loss of full core offload capability would cccur following refueling in 1980; and the condition of complete loading of the SFPs would occur in about 1983.
We have estimated that if TMI-l were required to shutdown due to a lack of fuel storage capacity, the replacement cost of eneroy would be approximately $77 million per year.
This estimate is based on a Unit Capacity Factor of 70.95 which is the reported cumulative Unit Capacity Factor for TMI-l as of September 1,1977.
The above costs represent only the costs of repir. cement power and certain fixed costs.
If the facility were to be pemanently shutdown, additional costs for security monitoring and decommissioning would also be incurred.
In addition, from the point of view of natural resources, such a shutdown would result in the consumption of approximately 7.7 million additional barrels of fuel oil per year.
7.5 Summary of Alternatives The suitability of the various alternatives to the proposed modification are summarized as follows: (1) Reprocessing of soent fuel is not an available option at this time; (2) Because an ISFSI is unlikely to be available for acceptance of spent fuel pricr to 1983 and because with normal operation TMI-l would substantially fill its authorized stor ge capacity by 1985, shipment of spent fuel to an ISFSI is a n arginally viable alternative which could be foreclosed if there were ctan modest schedule slippaces in comple-tion of the ISFSI.
In addition, the cost of providing storage space at an ISFSI is much higher than the cost of increasing the capacity at TMI-1.
Further, the proposed increased caoacity at TMI-1 will provide allowance for slippace in the construction schedule of an ISFSI, (3) Transfer of TMI-l fuel to the storage facility of another reactor would provide short-term relief to TMI-l but could create or aggravate fuel storage problems for the receiving facility; and (4) Plant shutdov;n, when required, would be an exceedingly expensive alternative to providing the requested additional storage capacity and would require the provisico c' replacement power.
In tially, at least, this replacement power would probably be provided by currently available cii-fired units.
In contrast to,these alternatives, the proposed increase in spent 1505 062
. fuel storage capacity at TMI-1, has a minimal environmental impact, involves cemparatively moderate additi.onal expense and orovides on-site storage capacity for a period consistent with the expected availability of off-site storage at an ISFSI.
8.0 Evaluation of Prcposed Action 8.1 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts 8.1.1 Physical Impacts As discussed above, expansion of the storage capacity of the SFP would not result in any significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts on the land, water, air or biota of the area.
8.l.2 Radiolocical Impac s Expansion of the storage capacity of the SFp will nct crea:e any signif-icant additional adverse radiological effects.
As discussed in Section 5.3, the additional total cody dose that mign: be received :y an individual or the estimated ::ulation witnin a 50 mile radius is less than 0.001 mrem /yr and 0.001 man-rem /yr, res:c::ively, an: is less than the natural fluc:ations in the dose this pocalation wcult reca;.e from background radiation.
The total cose to workers durinc remeva!
the present storage racks and installation of :ne new racks'is esti-mated to be about 0.15 man-rem. Ocerati:n of the plant wi n ad:i:icnal spent fuel in tne SFp is not ex:ected to increase the cccu:aticr.a' radiation er;;osure by more than one percent of tne present total anr.ual occupational exposure at tnis facility.
8.2 Relationships Between Local Short-Term Use of Man's Environtrent and the Maintenance and (nhancement of Lono-Term Productivity Expansion of the storage capacity of the SFP, which will permit TMI-l to continue to operate with full core of fload capability until 1926, will not change the evaluation of long-term uses of the land in the FES.
In the short term, the proposed modification would permit the expected benefits (i.e., production of electrical energy) to continue.
8.3 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources o
1505 063
. 8.3.1 Water, Land and Air Resources The proposed action will not result in a'ny significant change in the commitments of water, land and air resources as identified No additional allocation of land would be made, the land in the FES.
area now used for the SFP would be used more efficiently by reducing the spacings between fuel assemblies.
8.3.2 Material Resources _
In their submittal of February 3,1977 MEC stated that the construc-tion of the proposed storage racks would involve a commitment of 350,000 pounds of stainless steel. According to the Department of Comurce, the amount of stainless steel produced in the U. S.
in 1976 was 3,368,000,000 pounds. The commitment of natural resources to the production of the storage racks is thus seen to.not represent a significant irreversible commitment of material resources.
The longer term storage of spent 'uel 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 provision 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 alterna-tives available to other nuclear power plants or other actions that might be taken by the industry in the future to alleviate fuel storage problems.
No other resources need be allocated because the cther design characteristics of the SFP remain unchanged.
We conclude that the expansion of the SFP storage capacity at "MI-l does not constitute a cornitment of either matericl or nonmaterial resources thct 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 Reaarding Soent Fuel Storace On September 16, 1975, the Commission announced (40 F. R. 42801) its intent to prepare a generic environmentai imoact statement on hancling In this notice, the storage of spent fuel from light water reactors.
the Commission also announced its conclusion that it would not be in the public interest to defer all licensing actions intended to amelio-rate a possible shortage of spent fuel storage capacity pending ccmpie-tion of the generic environmental impact statement.
The draft state-ment is expected to be completed soon.
1505 064
The Commission directed that in the consideration of any such proposed licensing action, among other things, the following five specific factors should be applied, balanctd, and weighed in the context of the reqcired environmental statement or appraisal.
1.
Is it likely that the licensing action here proposed would have a utility that is independent of the utility of other licensing actions designed to ameliorate a possible shortage of spent fuel capacity?
The reactor core for TFI-l contains 177 fuel assemblies.
The facility is normally refueled annually, with about 52 fuel assemblies being replaced.
The spent fuel pool was designed on the basis that a fuel cycle would be in existence that would only require storage of spent fuel for a. rear or two prior to shipment to a reprocessing facility. Therefore, a pool storage capacity for 430 assemblies This (about 240% of the full core load) was considered adequate.
provideo for complete unloading of the reactor even if the spent fuel from the four previous refuelings were in the pool.
It is prudent enoineering practice to reserve space in the SFP to receive an entire reactor core, should this be necessary to inspect or repair core internals or because of other coerational considerations. With the present spent fuel storage racks, TMI-l will not have a full core offload capability following the projected refueling in 1980.
If expansion of the storage capacity of the SFP is not approved, and an alternate storage facility for the spent fuel is not used, TMI-l will have to shutdown in 1984.
As discussed under alternatives (Section 7.0), an alternate storage facility other than another reactor is not now available. As a long term solution to the spent fuel storage problem, the Federal Government is planning to provide a retrievable repository for spent fuel by 1985.
The proposed licensing action (i.e., installing new racks of a design that permits storing more assemblies in the same space) would allow TMI-l to continue to operate beyond 1985 when the proposed Federal repository is expected to be in operation. The proposed modification will also provide MEC with additional flexibility which is desirable even if adequate offsite storage facilities hereafter become available to the MEC.
We have concluded that a need for additional spent fuel storage capacity exists at TMI-l which is independent of the utility of other licensing actions designed to ameliorate a possible shortage of spent fuel capacity.
o.
1505 065
.. 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 foreclose the alternatives available wich respect to any other licensing actions designed to ameliorate a possible shortage of fuel storage capacity?
With respect to this proposed licensing action, we have considered commitment of both material and nonmaterial resources.
The material resources con >idered are those to be utilized in the expansion of the SFP.
The increased storace capacity of the TMI-1 spent fuel pool was considered as a nonmaterial resource and was evaluated relative to proposed similar licensing actions witnin a one year period (the time we estimate necessary to complete the generic environmental statement) at other nuclear power plants, fuel reprocessing fa:.ilities and fuel storage facilities.
We have determined that the proposed expansion in the storage capacity of the SFP is a reasure to allow for continued operation and to provide operational flexibility at the facility, and will not affect similar licensing actions at other nuclear power plants, or other actions with respect to increasing spent fuel storage capacity in the U.S.
We conclude that the expansion of the SFP at TMI-1, prior to the preparation of the generic statement, does not constitute a commitment of either material or nonmaterial resources that would tend to siqnificantly foreclose the alternatives 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 here proposed be adequately addressed within the context of the present application without overlooking any cumulative environmental impacts?
Potentialnon-radiologicalandradiologicalimpactsiesultingfromthe fuel rack conversion and subsequent operation of the expanded SFP at this facility were considered by the NkC staff (fections 5.3 a d 5.4, sup e ).
The environmental irrpact of storage rach removal occurred two years prior to reactor startup when the stornne rx's in the "C" SFP were removed and stored in an open field adjacent to Tf1I-1.
Because this occurred prior to startup there was no contaninaticn on the racks and consequently no radiation exposure. f1EC states that these original racks are scheduled to remain in storage until a use is 1505 066
. found for the aluminum from which tN racks are f abricated or the racks are disposed of as ordinary scrap. metal.
No further environ-mental impacts on the environs outside the spent fuel storage building are expected during ir.stallation 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 non-radiological environmental inpact 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 res:lved within that context?
This Environmental Impact Appraisal and the accompanying Safety Evaluation respond to the questions concerning health, safety and environmental concerns. There are no unresolved technical issues with re N.t to the licensing action.
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 pcwer genera-tion 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 o' the JP will have a negligible environmental impact.
Accordingly, deferral or severe restriction of the action here prcposed could result in sub-stantial harm to the public interest.
9.0 Benefit-Cost Balance This section summarizes and compares the cost and the benefits result-ing from the prc;;osea nodification 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.
'505 067
SUtUARY OF COST-BENEFITS Benefit Cost _
Al ternative Reprocessing of Spent Fuel
.None-this alternative is not available now or in the foreseeable future.
$2850/ assembly
- Best assurance of continued Increase storage capacity operation of TMI-l and croduc-of TMI-l SFP tion of electrical energy until storage at an ISFSI is available.
Continued operation of TMI-1
>$10,000/
Storage at ISFSI assembly plus and production of electrical shipping cost * ' energy, depending en the timely availability of the ISFSI. However, timely availability is considered unlikely.
Improved assurance of Storage at 0ther Nuclear continued operatien of Plants TMI-1 and production of electricity until off-sitr storage 's available, but may require shutdcwn of !"I-l and receiving reactor if availability of off-site storage is delayed.
About $77 None-No production of Reactor Shutdown million/yr**
electrical energy.
t
- Construction Costs
- This does not include costs of maintaining the plant in a standby condition, deccmmissioning costs etc.
- Cost will vary with facili".y. At TMI-2 cost would be limited to in-house transfer costs and would be low. At Oyster Creek cost would include cost of modifyina. storage ' racks (comparable to cost At a non-of proposed Ti!I-l modification) plus shipping costs.
owned reactor, costs would include space rental, shipping costs and possibly a redification cost.
1505 06B
. As can be seen from the table, three alternatives are potentially capable of providing continued operation of T.MI-l and production of electrical power.
However, because of the uncertainty as to when off-site storage facilities will be available and the uncertainty as to whether or not TMI-l would be required to officad a full core in the interim, each of these alternatives provides a different degree of assurance that TMI-l operation would not be impaired by a lack of fuel storage capability.
Under extremely f avorable circumstances reliance on storage at an ISFSI might allow uninterrupted operation of TMI-1, but in terms of a realistic schedule this is considered highly unlikely.
Transfer of spent fuel to another reactor provides some improved assurance of continued operation of itil-1 until off-site storage is available, but again based on realistic scheduling this alternative appears marginal.
In addition, this alternative adversely affects the fuel storage situation of the receiving reactor.
Increasing the spent fuel storage cvacity at TMI-1, as proposed, increases the length of time that the f acility can operate without shipping fuel off-site and thus, provides the greatest assurance that TMI-l will be able to continue in operation until off-site storage facilities are available.
In addition, this option does not impact the fuel storage capabilities of other reactors.
The other two alternatives listed do not provide a benefit in terms of production of electrical energy.
Reprocessing of spent fuel is not a viable option at the present time or for the forseeable future and therefore, need not be considered further.
Reactor shutdown would stop the generation of additional spent fuel at TMI-1, but also would stop the production of electrical energy.
Further, as can be seen from the table this would be a very costly alternative.
It therefore appears that there ara only two reasonable alternatives:
(1) the expansion of the spent fuel storage capacity at TMI-1, or (2) the transfer of spent fuel to another reactor.
As can be seen from the table and its footnotes, if one excludes the option of transferring fuel to the TMI-2 SFPs, the proposed increase in storage capacity at TMI-l is the most cost-effective option. This is because even if shipment were made to Oyster Creek, rack modification costs would be involved and the actification costs would reasonably be expected to be roughly comparable to the costs of the proposed modification at it'I-1.
There would alsc be the adcitional costs of shipment. Theoretically, shipment could also be made to a non-own.ed reactor.. facility where no mcdification costs would be involved.
However, in view of the current fuel storage situation we do not consider this a realistic option.
1505 069
. Transferring spent fuel from the TftI-l $ fps to.those at TMI-2 could be the least expensive option since it involves only inter-facility transfer and no rack modifications. However, as noted previously, this alternative appears to be only marginally acceptable with respect to assuring that IMI-l could continue operation until an ISFSI is available. Accordingly, in view of the relatively modest cost of the proposed modification and the greater assurance that is provides with respect to maintaining TMI-l in operation i
until an ISFSI is available, we conclude that th proposed modification is the most cost effective option that provides reasonable assurance of achieving the desired goal.
As evaluated in the proceeding sections, the environmental impacts associated with the proposed modification would not be significantly changed from those analyzed in the Final Environmental Statement for Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2; issued December 1972.
10.0 Basis and Conclusion for not Preparing an Environmental Irroact Statement We have reviewed this proposed facility modification relative to the requirements set forth in 10 CFR Part 51 and the Council of Environ-mental Quality's Guidelines, 40 CF' 1500'.6 and have applied, weighed, and balanced the #ive factors specified by the Nuclear Regulatory Cormiission in 40 FR 42801. We have determined that the proposed license amendment will not significantly affect the cuality of the human environment and that there will be no significant environmental impact attributable to the proposed 3ction other than that which has already been predicted and described in the Commission's Final Environmental Statement for the faci s ity dated December 1972.
l here fo re,
the Commission has found that an environmental impact 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.
Dated: December 19, 1977 1505 070
7590-01 UNITED ST ATES ICCLEAR RECUL ATORY CC:'".i;5'ON DOCKET N0. 50-239 METROF0LITAN EDISO: CC"oA*:Y JERSEY CENTRAL PCWER AN!) L)Ghi CC';T*:Y PENNSYLVani A ELEClifiQCfr7,In ~~
t:0TICE OT ISSUI' #F Of A'!EfD"rNT TO F/sC!LITY OPERATIN3 L!Ci!.3L AND I:EGATIVE DECLARATION The U. S. Nuclear Regulato.y Commission (the Co.Tmission) has issued to Facility Operating License No. DPR-50, issued to Amendment flo. 34 Metropolitan Edison Company, Jersey Central Power and Light Company, and Pennsylvania Electric Conpany (the licensees), vehich revised Technical Specifications for operation of the Three Mile Island Huclear Station, Unit flo.1 (TMI-1) located in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania.
The amendment is effective as of its date of issuance.
The amendment authorizes modification of Spent fuel Pool "B" at Till-1, increasing its capacity from 174 fuel assc nblics to 496 fuel assemblies, and revises the Technical Specifications appropriately.
The application for the arandnent complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act)
The Cor:nission has made and the Commission's rules and regulations.
appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Cornission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license
!!otice of _ Proposed issuance of Ardndment to Facility amendment.
Operating License in connection with this action was published in the s.
79/o220 0 0 150L5 071
7590-01
~
<.., FEDERAL REGISTER cn l' arch 3, 1977 (42 F.R. I?935).
No request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene vns filed following notice of the proposed action.
The Cemmission has ?repared an envirenmental impact appraisal for this action and has concluded that an environmental impact statetent is not warranted because there will be no significant environmental impact attributable to the action other than that which has already been predicted and described in the Commission's Final Environmental State-ment for the facility dated December 1972.
For further details with respect to this action, see (1) the application for amendment dated February 3,1977, as supplemented flay 24 and July 21,1977,(2) Amendment No. 34 to License No. DPR-50, (3) the Commission's related Safety Evaluation, and (4) the Commission's Environc. ental Impact Appraisal.
All of these items are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Roon,1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. and at the Government Publications Section, State Library of Pennsylvania, Box 1601 (Education Building),
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. A copy of items (2), (3), end (a) may be obtained upon request addressed to tha U. S. Nucicar Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
20555, Attention:
Director, Division of Operati. g Reactors.
n Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 19th day of December 1977.
FOR THE f:UCLEAR REGULATCIY CCl"fi$5!C.'
W
,f.
h!.3
^-
Robert P. Reid, Chief Operatir.g Reactors Brancn #4 Division of Operating Reactors 1505 072