[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 197 (Thursday, October 11, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51985-51987]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-25568]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-346]


FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, FENOC; Davis-Besse Nuclear 
Power Plant; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant 
Impact

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering 
issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-3 issued 
to FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, (FENOC, or the licensee), for 
operation of Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Plant (DBNPS), located in Oak 
Harbor, Ohio. As required by 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC is issuing this 
environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    The proposed action would increase the number of fuel assemblies 
that can be stored in the DBNPS spent fuel pool (SFP) from 735 fuel 
assemblies to 1,624 fuel assemblies, an increase of 889 fuel 
assemblies. In addition, the new spent fuel storage racks will use 
Boral as the neutron absorber material.
    The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's 
application for amendment dated December 2, 2000.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    DBNPS is a pressurized water reactor which commenced commercial 
operation in 1974 and its current operating license will expire in 
April 22, 2017. DBNPS was originally designed to accommodate 735 spent 
fuel assemblies.
    DBNPS began operating Cycle 12 (May 1998) with insufficient storage 
capacity in the SFP to fully offload the entire reactor core (177 fuel 
assemblies). Since a full core offload into the SFP was required for 
the performance of the 10-year inservice inspection activities during 
the spring 2000 Twelfth Refueling Outage, DBNPS submitted License 
Amendment Request 98-007 on May 21, 1999, to allow the use of spent 
fuel racks in the cask pit area adjacent to the SFP to perform the 10-
year inservice inspection activities the NRC staff approved this 
activity on February 29, 2000.
    The purpose of this current license amendment request is to provide 
the necessary revisions to the DBNPS technical specifications (TSs) to 
reflect an increase in SFP storage capability from the current capacity 
of 735 fuel assemblies to a new capacity of 1,624 fuel assemblies. To 
provide additional temporary storage of fuel assemblies to support a 
complete re-racking of the SFP, the licensee also requested approval 
for up to 90 transfer pit storage locations. The transfer pit storage 
rack will be relocated into the SFP as part of the completion of the 
re-racking project. The resulting SFP fuel storage capacity will be 
sufficient to meet the storage needs through the current expiration 
date of the DBNPS operating license (April 22, 2017).

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

Radioactive Wastes
    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 (NUREG 75/
097). The proposed SFP expansion will not involve any change in the 
waste treatment systems described in the FES.
Radioactive Material Released Into the Atmosphere
    The expanded fuel storage capacity obtained by installing new fuel 
racks is not expected to affect the release 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 are released to the reactor coolant 
from the small number of fuel assemblies which 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 of the spent fuel building. Gaseous releases from the fuel 
storage area are combined with other plant exhausts. If radio-iodine 
levels become too high, the air can be diverted to charcoal filters for 
the removal of radio-iodine before release to the environment. 
Normally, the radioactive gas contribution from the fuel storage area 
is negligible compared to the gaseous releases from other areas of the 
plant. 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 a negligible increase in the 
amounts of these types of fission products released to the atmosphere 
as a result of the increased SFP fuel storage capacity.
    Tritium gases contained in the SFP are produced from two sources. 
The first source is the tritium from the reactor coolant system (RCS), 
which is a result of neutron capture in the reactor core by \10\B. This 
tritium can only enter the spent fuel pool during refueling outages 
when the SFP and the RCS are interconnected. Since the proposed 
amendment does not increase the frequency of refueling outages, this 
source of tritium does not change. The second source of tritium is a 
result of neutron capture by \10\B in the SFP water. The decay neutron 
flux from the old fuel in the SFP is considerably smaller than the 
neutron flux in the core of an operating reactor. Due to the small 
neutron flux associated with the fuel to be stored in the new racks, 
the affect on tritium production will be insignificant. Therefore, the 
release of tritium from the storage of additional spent fuel assemblies 
in the transfer canal will be insignificant.
    In addition, the plant radiological effluent TSs, which are not 
being changed by this action, restrict the total releases of gaseous 
activity from the plant (including the SFP).
Solid Radioactive Wastes
    Independent of the proposed modification, the concentration of 
radionuclides in the SFP is controlled by the filters and demineralizer 
of the SFP purification system as well as by the decay of short-lived 
isotopes. Spent resins are generated by the processing of SFP water 
through the SFP purification system. Both spent resins and filters are 
disposed of as solid radioactive waste. The spent fuel pool cooling and 
cleanup system currently generates approximately 50 cubic feet of solid 
radioactive waste annually. Re-racking activities may result in a one-
time shortening of the resin change-out interval or an increase in 
filter usage, however, the long-term normal resin and filter 
replacement frequency is not expected to be significantly affected by 
the additional number of fuel assemblies in storage.
    There will be a one-time increase in solid waste generation due to 
the need to dispose of 12 fuel storage rack modules, a module for 15 
failed fuel storage locations, and miscellaneous piping runs currently 
located in the SFP that will be replaced with the new rack modules. 
However, this represents an insignificant incremental increase in the

[[Page 51986]]

total quantity of solid waste generated as a result of plant operation.
    In conclusion, the staff does not expect that the additional fuel 
storage capacity will result in a significant change in the generation 
of solid radwaste at DBNPS.
Liquid Radioactive Wastes
    The number of stored spent fuel assemblies does not affect the 
release of radioactive liquids from the plant. The contribution from 
the stored fuel assemblies of radioactive materials in the SFP water is 
insignificant relative to other sources of activity, such as the 
reactor coolant system. The volume of SFP water processed for discharge 
is independent of the quantity of stored spent fuel assemblies. 
Therefore, the installation of the new fuel racks is not expected to 
increase the amount of liquid radioactive wastes generated at the 
DBNPS.
    In addition, the plant radiological effluent TSs, which are not 
being changed by this action, restrict the total releases of activity 
in liquids from the plant.
Radiological Impact Assessment
    During normal operations, personnel working in the fuel storage 
area are exposed to radiation from the SFP. 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 somewhat. Fuel movement operations as a result of rack 
installation activities may marginally increase dose rates above and 
around the SFP and cask pit perimeter. However, the dose fields should 
still approximate conditions seen during normal operating conditions. 
Therefore, the staff does not expect a significant increase in airborne 
radioactivity as a result of the expanded spent fuel storage capacity.
    On the basis of our review of the licensee's proposal, the staff 
concludes that the DBNPS SFP expansion can be performed in a manner 
that will ensure that doses to workers will be maintained as low as is 
reasonably achievable and within the limits of 10 CFR part 20.The 
upcoming SFP rack installation will follow detailed procedures prepared 
with full consideration of as low as reasonably achievable principles. 
Personnel doses, including diving operations, is estimated to be no 
greater than 12 person-rem.
Accident Considerations
    The licensee evaluated criticality safety calculations for normal 
conditions, criticality safety calculations for accident conditions, 
long-term reactivity changes, calculation of the transient decay heat 
load in the SFP, calculation of the resulting maximum SFP bulk 
temperature, calculation of the time-to-boil after a loss of forced 
cooling or makeup water capability, rack seismic/structural 
evaluations, rack fatigue analysis, SFP structural evaluation, bearing 
pad analysis and liner integrity analysis, shallow drop event, deep 
drop event, and object drop event.
    The proposed expansion of the SFP 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.
    In summary, the Commission has completed its evaluation of the 
proposed action and concludes that there are no significant adverse 
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
    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 non-radiological environmental impacts, 
the proposed action does not involve any historic sites. It does not 
affect non-radiological plant effluents and has no other environmental 
impact. Therefore, there are no significant non-radiological impacts 
associated with the proposed action.
    Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no significant 
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

Environmental Impacts of the 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 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 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. Therefore, the shipping 
of spent fuel overseas and the increased cost of reprocessing, do not 
provide a viable alternative.
Shipping the Fuel Offsite to Another Utility or Another FENOC Site
    The shipment of fuel to another utility or transferring fuel to 
another of the licensee's facilities would provide short-term relief 
from the problems at DBNPS. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, 
Subtitle B, Section 131(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 DBNPS to other sites 
would create storage capacity problems at those locations. The shipment 
of spent fuel to another site 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, modular vault dry 
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

[[Page 51987]]

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. The licensee has 
previously implemented dry cask storage onsite using the 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. The contracted supplier of the NUHOMS system voluntarily 
stopped fabrication activities and was unable to provide additional 
storage systems within a schedule acceptable to the licensee. Further 
use of this technology was re-evaluated by the licensee and determined 
not to be the best choice for future storage expansion at DBNPS.
    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 DBNPS because such an effort would require 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. Therefore, the alternative technologies, the increased 
risk to workers and security, and the increased costs of these 
measures, do not provide a viable alternative.
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 capacities 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

    Also, the NRC staff 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 Statements for DBNPS.

Agencies and Persons Contacted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on August 30, 2001, the NRC 
staff consulted with Ohio State official, Carol O'Claire, Chief, 
Radiological Branch, 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 December 2, 2000. Documents may be examined, 
and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), 
located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), 
Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible 
electronically from the ADAMS Public Library component on the NRC Web 
site, 
http://www.nrc.gov (the Public Electronic Reading Room). If you do not 
have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the 
documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC PDR Reference staff at 1-
800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737, or by e-mail at [email protected].

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 4th day of October 2001.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Anthony Mendiola,
Section Chief, Section 2, Project Directorate III, Division of 
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 01-25568 Filed 10-10-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P