[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