[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 10 (Friday, January 15, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2687-2688]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-967]



[[Page 2687]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-483]


Union Electric Company; Callaway Plant, 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 No. 
NPF-30, issued to Union Electric Company (the licensee), for operation 
of the Callaway Plant, Unit 1 located in Callaway County, Missouri.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    The proposed action would revise the Callaway Plant, Unit 1 
technical specifications to allow an increase in the Callaway Plant, 
Unit 1 spent fuel pool (SFP) storage capacity and to allow storage of 
an additional 279 fuel assemblies in the cask loading pit.
    The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's 
application for amendment dated February 24, 1998, as supplemented by 
letters dated May 27, June 25, August 25, September 3, November 3, and 
December 4, 1998.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    The licensee received its low power operating license on June 11, 
1984. At that time, the SFP was authorized to store no more than 1344 
fuel assemblies. The licensee's current projections, based on expected 
future spent fuel discharges, indicate that loss of full-core discharge 
capability will occur at the end of Cycle 14 in 2004. Operation of 
Callaway Plant, Unit 1 beyond loss of full-core discharge capability is 
possible for Cycles 15 and 16 to provide an additional three years of 
operation until 2007. The licensee has evaluated spent fuel storage 
alternatives that have been licensed by the NRC and that are currently 
feasible for use at the Callaway site. The evaluation concludes that 
reracking is currently the most cost-effective alternative. Reracking 
would provide an increase in storage capacity to 2642 fuel assemblies, 
which would maintain the plant's capability to accommodate a full-core 
discharge, through the end of the current plant license in 2024.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

Radiological Impacts
    Callaway Plant, Unit 1 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 January 
1982. The proposed SFP expansion will not involve any change in the 
waste treatment systems described in the FES.
Radioactive Material Released to the Atmosphere
    The storage of additional spent fuel assemblies in the SFP is not 
expected to affect the releases of radioactive gases from the SFP. 
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 SFP and are subsequently released into the air. 
Since the frequency of refuelings (and therefore the number of freshly 
offloaded 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 fuel storage capacity.
    The increased heat load on the SFP from the storage of additional 
spent fuel assemblies could potentially result in an increase in the 
SFP evaporation rate, which may result in a slight increase in the 
amount of gaseous tritium released from the pool. However, the overall 
release of radioactive gases from Callaway Plant, Unit 1 will remain a 
small fraction of the limits of 10 CFR 20.1301.
Solid Radioactive Wastes
    Spent resins, which are generated by the processing of SFP water 
through the SFP purification system, are changed about once a year at 
Callaway Plant, Unit 1. These spent resins are disposed of as solid 
radioactive waste. The water turbulence caused by the SFP reracking may 
result in some resuspension of particulate matter in the SFP. This 
could result in a temporary increase in the resin changeout frequency 
of the SFP purification system during the SFP reracking operation. The 
licensee will use a Tri-Nuke underwater filtration unit to clean the 
floor of the SFP following removal of the old SFP rack modules. 
Vacuuming of the SFP floor will remove any extraneous debris and crud 
and ensure visual clarity in the SFP (to facilitate diving operations). 
Debris and crud will be filtered and stored underwater in special 
handling baskets purchased for this operation. Additional solid 
radwaste will consist of the old SFP rack modules themselves as well as 
any interferences or SFP hardware that may have to be removed from the 
SFP to permit installation of the new SFP rack modules. Other than the 
radwaste generated during the actual raracking operation, the staff 
does not expect that the additional fuel storage made possible by the 
increased SFP storage capacity will result in a significant change in 
the generation of solid radwaste at Callaway Plant, Unit 1.
Liquid Radioactive Waste
    The release of radioactive liquids will not be affected directly as 
a result of the SFP 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 that is released is 
processed by the radwaste system. As stated above, the frequency of 
resin changeout may increase slightly during the installation of the 
new racks. However, the amount of liquid radioactivity released to the 
environment as a result of the proposed SFP expansion is expected to be 
negligible.
Occupational Doses
    Radiation protection personnel will constantly monitor the doses to 
the workers during the SFP expansion operation. If it becomes necessary 
to utilize divers for the SFP reracking operation, the licensee will 
equip each diver with electronic dosimeters with remote, above surface, 
readouts, which will be continuously monitored by Health Physics 
personnel. The total occupational dose to plant workers as a result of 
the SFP expansion operation is estimated to be between 6 and 12 person-
rem. This dose estimate is comparable to doses for similar SFP 
modifications performed at other plants. The upcoming SFP rack 
installation will follow detailed procedures prepared with full 
consideration of as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA) principles.
    On the basis of the review of the licensee proposal, the staff 
concludes that the Callaway Plant, Unit 1 SFP rack installation can be 
performed in a manner that will ensure that doses to workers will be 
maintained ALARA. The estimated dose of 6 to 12 person-rem to perform 
the proposed SFP rack installation is a small fraction of the annual 
collective dose accrued at Callaway Plant, Unit 1.

[[Page 2688]]

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 exclusion area boundary (EAB), low population 
zone (LPZ), and control room. The proposed SFP rack installation at the 
Callaway Plant, Unit 1 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 Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action 
and concludes that the proposed action will not increase the 
probability or consequences of accidents, no changes are being made in 
the amount or types of any effluents that may be released off site, 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 non-radiological impacts, the proposed 
action does not involve any historical sites. It does not affect non-
radiological plant effluents and has no other environmental impact. 
Therefore, there are no significant non-radiological environmental 
impacts associated with the proposed action.
    Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no significant 
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

Shipment of 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 wastes 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.
Shipment of Fuel to a Reprocessing Facility
    Reprocessing of spent fuel from Callaway Plant, Unit 1 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 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. The shipment 
of spent fuel to a reprocessing facility is not an acceptable 
alternative because of increased fuel handling risks and additional 
occupational exposure.
Shipment of Fuel to Another Utility or Site for Storage
    The shipment of fuel to another utility for storage would provide 
short-term relief from the storage problem at Callaway Plant, Unit 1. 
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act 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 shipment of fuel to another 
source 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.
Reduction of Spent Fuel Generation
    Operation at a reduced power level 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. However, operating the 
plant at a reduced power level would not make effective use of 
available resources, and would cause unnecessary economic hardship on 
Union Electric Company and its customers. Therefore, reducing the 
amount of spent fuel generated by reducing power is not considered a 
practical alternative.
Development of Onsite Storage Facility
    An independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) is licensed 
under 10 CFR Part 72. It is a passive storage system which stores spent 
fuel in dry casks on a concrete platform in a secured area. There are 
no commercial ISFSIs operating in the United States. Although use of an 
ISFSI provides benefits, the site-specific development of an 
independent dry fuel storage facility at Callaway Plant, Unit 1 was 
deemed undesirable by the licensee compared to the use of the higher 
density spent fuel racks. Furthermore, construction of such a facility 
would not use the existing expansion capacity of the existing Callaway 
Plant, Unit 1 SFP and would have the potential to cause additional and 
different environmental impacts due to activities related to 
construction and operation. Development of a site-specific ISFSI at 
this time and in response to the licensee's current needs would waste 
available resources.
    The staff also considered denial of the proposed action (no-action 
alternative). Denial of the application would result in no change in 
current environmental impacts.

Alternative Use of Resources

    This action does not involve the use of any resources not 
previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for the 
Callaway Plant, Unit 1 dated January 1982.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on January 11, 1999, the 
staff consulted with the Missouri State official, Mr. Tom Lange of the 
Missouri Department of Natural Resources, 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 Commission 
concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect 
on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the Commission 
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 February 24, 1998, as supplemented by letters 
dated May 27, 1998, June 25, 1998, August 25, 1998, September 3, 1998, 
November 3, 1998, and December 4, 1998, which are available for public 
inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, The Gelman 
Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the local public 
document room located at the University of Missouri--Columbia, Elmer 
Ellis Library, Columbia, Missouri, 65201-5149.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day of January 1999.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Mel Gray,
Project Manager, Project Directorate IV-2, Division of Reactor 
Projects--III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 99-967 Filed 1-14-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P