[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 57 (Thursday, March 23, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15661-15663]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-7239]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366]


Southern Nuclear Operating Company; Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, 
Units 1 and 2; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant 
Impact

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering 
issuance of amendments to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-57 and 
NFP-5, issued to Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., et al. (the 
licensee), for operation of the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 
and 2, located in Appling County, Georgia.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    The proposed action would allow an increase in the storage capacity 
of Unit 1's spent fuel pool (SFP) from 3181 to 3349 and of Unit 2's SFP 
from 2845 to 2933. This will be accomplished by placing a single high 
density storage rack containing 168 storage spaces in an 8 by 21 array 
in the Contaminated Equipment Storage Area (CESA) of each unit's pool 
where currently no racks exist. Accordingly, the Hatch 1 SFP licensed 
storage capacity will increase to a total of 3349 (3181 + 168) fuel 
assemblies. However, the Hatch 2 SFP licensed storage capacity will 
only increase to a total of 2933 (2845 + 88) fuel assemblies because 
the new Holtec rack will ``replace'' the four original standard type 
storage racks capable of storing 80 assemblies that were planned for 
installation in the Unit 2 CESA but they were, in fact, never 
installed.
    The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's 
application for amendment dated April 6, 1999.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    Long term plans for spent fuel storage at Hatch include utilization 
of dry cask storage at a separate facility located on the plant site. 
However, due to uncertainties in cask fabrication and procurement and 
cask loading, the licensee is proposing to increase the storage 
capacity of the SFPs. The increased storage capacity of one SFP will 
allow a full core discharge from one unit after the next refueling 
outage. The increased storage capacity of the second SFP will allow a 
full core discharge of the second unit after its next refueling outage.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

Solid Radioactive Wastes
    The necessity for pool filtration resin replacement is determined 
by the requirement for water clarity, and the resin is normally 
expected to be changed about once a year. The licensee does not expect 
the resin change-out frequency of the SFP purification system to be 
permanently increased as a result of the expanded storage capacity. 
Overall, the licensee concludes that the additional fuel storage made 
available by the increased storage capacity will not result in a 
significant change in the generation of solid radioactive waste.
Occupational Radiation Exposure
    The licensee plans to utilize the Contaminated Equipment Storage 
Area in each unit's SFP where racks do not

[[Page 15662]]

currently exist. The licensee estimates that the collective dose 
associated with the proposed fuel rack installation is in the range of 
2 to 4 person-rem. All of the operations involved in racking will 
utilize detailed procedures with the full consideration of ALARA (as 
low as reasonably achievable) principles. The Radiation Protection 
Department will prepare Radiation Work Permits (RWPs) for the various 
jobs associated with the SFP rack installation operation. These RWPs 
will instruct the project personnel in the areas of protective 
clothing, general dose rates, contamination levels and dosimetry 
requirements. Personnel will wear protective clothing and will be 
required to wear personnel monitoring equipment including alarming 
dosimeters.
    Since the proposed license amendments do not involve the removal of 
any spent fuel racks, the licensee does not plan on using divers for 
this project. However, if it becomes necessary to utilize divers to 
remove any interference which may impede the installation of the new 
spent fuel racks, the licensee will equip each diver with the 
appropriate monitoring equipment. The licensee will monitor and control 
work, personnel traffic, and equipment movement in the SFP area to 
minimize contamination and to assure that exposure is maintained ALARA.
    Therefore, the staff concludes that the SFP capacity can be 
increased in a manner that will ensure that doses to workers will be 
maintained ALARA.
Gaseous Radioactive Wastes
    The storage of additional spent fuel assemblies in the pools is not 
expected to affect the releases of radioactive gases from the spent 
fuel pools. 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 pools and are subsequently released 
into the air. Since the frequency of refueling (and, therefore, the 
number of freshly offloaded spent fuel assemblies stored in the pools 
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 pool fuel storage capacity.
    The increased heat load on the pools from the storage of additional 
spent fuel assemblies will potentially result in an increase in the 
pools' 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 
the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant will remain a small fraction of the 
limits of 10 CFR 20.1301.
Liquid Radioactive Wastes
    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 pool water. When the resins are 
replaced, the small amount of resin sluice water that is released is 
processed by the radwaste systems. As previously stated, the frequency 
of resin replacement may increase slightly during the installation of 
the new racks. However, the increase the amount of radioactive liquid 
released to the environment as a result of the proposed SFP expansion 
is expected to be negligible.
Accident Considerations
    Because of the similarity between the new racks and the existing 
ones, and the small increase in the spent fuel capacity of the new 
racks, the major parameters and assumptions used in the fuel handling 
accident analysis are not changed and remain bounding. Therefore, staff 
concludes that the increases in the capacity of the SFPs will not be 
accompanied by an associated increase in the radiological consequences 
of fuel handling accidents.
Summary
    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 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 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. To date, 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 the spent fuel to the DOE repository is not 
considered an alternative to increased onsite fuel storage capacity at 
this time.
Shipping Fuel to a Reprocessing Facility
    Reprocessing of spent fuel from Hatch Units 1 and 2 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, as the 
cost of spent fuel reprocessing is not offset by the salvage value of 
the residual uranium, reprocessing represents an added cost.
Shipping the Fuel Offsite to Another Utility or Another Site in the 
Licensee's System
    The shipment of fuel to another utility or transferring fuel to 
another of the licensee's facilities would provide short-term relief. 
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, Subtitle B, Section 13(a)(1), 
however, clearly places the responsibility for the interim storage of 
spent fuel with each owner or operator of a nuclear plant. The SFPs at 
the other reactor sites were designed with capacity to accommodate 
spent fuel from those particular sites. Therefore, transferring spent 
fuel from Hatch to other sites would create storage capacity problems 
at those locations. The shipment of spent fuel to another site or 
transferring it to another Southern Nuclear site is not an acceptable 
alternative because no additional storage capacity would be created.
Alternative Creating Additional Storage Capacity
    Alternative technologies that would create additional storage 
capacity include rod consolidation, dry cask storage, modular vault dry 
storage, and constructing a new pool. Rod consolidation involves 
disassembling

[[Page 15663]]

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. 
Concerns for dry cask storage include the need for special security 
provisions and high cost. Vault storage consists of storing spent fuel 
in shielded stainless steel cylinders in a horizontal configuration in 
a reinforced concrete vault. The concrete vault provides missile and 
earthquake protection and radiation shielding. Concerns for vault dry 
storage include security, land consumption, eventual decommissioning of 
the new vault, the potential for fuel or clad rupture due to high 
temperatures, and high cost. The alternative of constructing and 
licensing new spent fuel pools is not practical for Hatch because such 
an effort would require about 10 years to complete and would be an 
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 
affecting the fuel transfers, require additional security measures that 
are significantly more expensive, and would not result in a significant 
improvement in environmental impacts compared to the proposed reracking 
modifications.
Reduction of Spent Fuel Generation
    Generally, improved usage of the fuel and/or operation at a reduced 
power level would be an alternative that would decrease the amount of 
fuel being stored in the SFPs and, thus, increase the amount of time 
before the maximum storage capabilities of the SFPs are reached. 
However, 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
    The NRC staff also considered denial of the proposed action (i.e., 
the ``no-action'' alternative). Denial of the application would result 
in no significant change in current environmental impacts. The 
environmental impacts of the proposed action and the alternative 
actions 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 Edwin I. 
Hatch Nuclear Plant.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on March 1, 2000, the staff 
consulted with the Georgia State official, Mr. James Setser of the 
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 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 April 6, 1999, which is 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 17th day of March 2000.
    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Leonard N. Olshan,
Project Manager, Section 1, Project Directorate II, Division of 
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 00-7239 Filed 3-22-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P