[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 205 (Tuesday, October 25, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61651-61654]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-5874]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-461]
Amergen Energy Company, LLC; Clinton Power Station, Unit 1;
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-62
issued to AmerGen Energy Company, LLC (AmerGen or the licensee), for
operation of Clinton Power Station, Unit 1 (CPS), located in DeWitt
County, Illinois. Therefore, 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 revise Technical Specification 4.3,
``Fuel Assemblies,'' for CPS to reflect the increased fuel storage
capacity in the spent fuel pool (SFP) and the addition of fuel storage
capacity in the fuel cask storage pool. The proposed expansion will
increase the total storage capacity from 2,512 to 4,159 fuel
assemblies.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's
application dated August 18, 2004, as supplemented on May 13 and 25,
June 14, and August 17, 2005.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The loss of full core discharge capability at CPS is projected to
occur during the February 2006 refueling outage, based on current
projections. To maintain spent fuel storage capability, AmerGen would
like to expand SFP storage capacity. The proposed action would result
in the increased fuel storage capacity in the SFP and the addition of
fuel storage capacity in the fuel cask storage pool. The proposed
expansion will increase the total storage capacity from 2,512 to 4,159
fuel assemblies. The additional capacity is expected to allow operation
without loss of full-core discharge capability until the year 2016.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
Radioactive Waste Treatment
CPS 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) for CPS, Unit 1, dated May
1982. The proposed changes to the SFP will not involve any change in
the waste treatment systems described in the FES.
Gaseous Radioactive Wastes
The increase in the number of spent fuel assemblies stored in the
SFP will potentially result in an increase in the radioactive gasses
evolving from the pool. However, the level of gaseous radioactivity in
the pool water is dominated by the most recent reactor core offload to
the pool, not the fuel already stored in the pool. Therefore, the
storage of additional aged spent fuel assemblies in the pool will have
a minimal contribution to radioactivity in the pool. The overall
release of radioactive gases from CPS will remain within the limits of
Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Section 20.1301.
Solid Radioactive Wastes
Spent resins are generated by the processing of SFP water through
the pools' purification system. These spent resins are disposed of as
solid radioactive waste. Resin replacement is determined primarily by
the requirement for water clarity and is normally done approximately
once per year. No significant increase in the volume of solid
radioactive waste is expected with the expanded storage capacity.
During pool re-racking operations, small amounts of additional waste
resin may be generated by the
[[Page 61652]]
pools' cleanup systems on a one-time basis. Additional solid
radioactive waste will consist of the existing contaminated fuel
storage racks. The old existing fuel storage racks will be washed down
prior to being removed from the pool to remove as much contamination as
possible. Then the racks will be shipped to a volume reduction facility
for processing and subsequent disposal at a burial site. Shipping
containers and procedures will conform to Federal regulations as
specified in 10 CFR Part 71, ``Packaging and Transportation of
Radioactive Material,'' and to the requirements of any state through
which the shipment may pass, as set forth by the state department of
transportation.
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 in the amount of radioactive
liquid released to the environment as a result of the proposed SFP
expansion is expected to be negligible.
Occupational Dose Consideration
All operations involved in the fuel rack installations will follow
detailed procedures prepared in accordance with as low as reasonably
achievable (ALARA) principles. Personnel performing the re-racking
operation will be given pre-job briefings to ensure awareness of job
responsibilities and necessary precautions. Radiation protection
personnel at CPS will monitor and control work, personnel traffic, and
equipment movement in the SFP area to minimize contamination and assure
that exposures are maintained ALARA. Personnel monitoring equipment
(including thermoluminescence dosimeter (TLDs)), protective clothing,
and respiratory protective equipment will be issued as required.
Alarming dosimeters will be used as needed to confirm exposure and dose
rates to workers.
The licensee plans to use divers in the pool to remove underwater
interferences and assist in fuel storage rack removal. Procedures for
controlling diving operations will comply with the guidance in
Regulatory Guide 8.38, ``Control of Access to High and Very High
Radiation Areas in Nuclear Power Plants.'' During the diving
operations, the licensee estimates that dose rates will average from 20
to 40 mrem/hr. Special precautions such as physical barriers or tethers
will be used to prevent a diver from coming in close proximity to
highly radioactive materials in the pool. The diver will be confined to
a safe diving area within the pool, which will be clearly delineated in
the pre-job brief as well as physically marked in the pool. The diver
will be visually monitored, either directly or remotely, at all times
during the dive. In addition, the diver will be monitored by a remote
dose telemetry system. This system enables the radiation protection
personnel supervising the dive to obtain the dose being delivered to
the diver's body. The diver will have a hand-held probe to complete
radiological surveys when entering the water. Divers exiting the pool
will be monitored for radiation and contamination, as will all items
removed from the pool. Appropriate measures will be taken to minimize
the spread of contamination. The existing fuel racks that are removed
from the pool will be rinsed and surveyed as they break the water's
surface, allowed to ``drip dry,'' and then placed in plastic shipping
bags to contain any contamination until they are placed in shipping
containers to be taken offsite for disposal.
The increased storage capacity will not affect dose rates in areas
adjacent to the SFP and transfer canal. The concrete side walls of the
SFP provide sufficient shielding that the maximum dose rate in adjacent
areas from fuel in the SFP is calculated to be 2 mrem/hr, if the pool
is completely filled with freshly offloaded fuel. The walls of the fuel
cask storage pool are not as thick, and the licensee's shielding
calculations indicate that filling the racks that are proposed to be
installed in the fuel cask storage pool with freshly offloaded fuel
could result in dose rates of up to 26 mrem/hr in adjacent areas. This
could be mitigated by filling the outer (peripheral) three rows of the
storage cells with older (more decayed) fuel, thus reducing the maximum
dose rate in the adjacent areas to 4.4 mrem/hr. The licensee will
implement administrative controls to ensure that fuel stored in the
peripheral storage cells will have been stored outside of the reactor
for a minimum of 10 years, allowing sufficient decay time.
On the basis of its review of the licensee's proposal, the NRC
staff concludes that the CPS SFP re-racking operations can be performed
in a manner that will ensure that doses to workers will be maintained
ALARA and that the generation of additional solid radioactive waste
will be minimized. The staff concludes that the projected dose for the
project of 7 to 14 person-rem is in the range of doses for similar
modifications at other nuclear plants.
Accident Considerations
The licensee evaluated the impact of newly installed higher density
storage racks in the SFP and fuel storage in the fuel cask storage pool
on the current design basis accident (DBA) dose analyses, as discussed
in the CPS Updated Safety Analysis Report. The DBAs that are
potentially affected by the proposed change to the SFP storage capacity
are the fuel handling accident (FHA) and the cask drop accident. By
Amendment No. 147, dated April 3, 2002, the CPS licensing basis for the
FHA was changed by a selective implementation of an alternative source
term, per the provisions of 10 CFR 50.67. In support of that amendment
request, AmerGen demonstrated that the radiological consequences of an
FHA, either in the containment or in the fuel building, are within the
offsite and control room dose acceptance criteria specified in NUREG-
0800, ``Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports
for Nuclear Power Plants,'' and General Design Criterion 19 of 10 CFR
Part 50, Appendix A, and well within the dose criteria given in 10 CFR
50.67.
The NRC staff performed a review of the licensee's analysis of the
proposed action on DBA dose analyses. Adding additional spent fuel
storage does not increase the amount of fuel assumed to be damaged in
an FHA, and the proposed action does not significantly change the
source term in the DBA; therefore, the staff finds that the current
licensing basis FHA dose analysis remains applicable after the
expansion of the spent fuel storage capacity. The licensee plans to
install spent fuel storage racks in the fuel cask storage pool. The
licensee will implement administrative controls to ensure that fuel
will be removed from the racks in the fuel cask storage pool prior to
any fuel cask being moved in the area. Therefore, there would be no
damage to spent fuel or radiological consequences as a result of a cask
drop on the empty fuel storage racks in the fuel cask storage area.
Based on its review, the staff finds that the current licensing basis
analysis of the cask drop accident remains bounding with respect to
radiological consequences.
During removal and installation of fuel storage racks in the SFP
and fuel cask storage pool, AmerGen will ensure that all work will be
controlled and performed in strict accordance with specific written
guidance. Any
[[Page 61653]]
movement of fuel assemblies required to support removal and
installation of racks will be performed as during normal refueling
operations, and no shipping cask movement will be performed during this
time frame. The licensee will determine and follow safe load paths and
written procedures to ensure that no racks are carried over any
portions of the existing fuel storage racks containing fuel assemblies.
Based on its review, the staff concludes that the current DBA dose
analyses remain bounding for the installation of expanded spent fuel
storage capacity in the SFP and fuel cask storage pool.
The proposed action will not significantly increase the probability
or consequences of accidents. No changes are being made in the types of
effluents that may be released off site. There is no significant
increase in the amount of any effluent released off site. 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 have a potential to affect any historic 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 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) proposed high-level
radioactive waste repository is not expected to begin receiving spent
fuel in the near future. 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 CPS 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.
Shipping the Fuel Offsite to Another Utility or another Exelon/AmerGen
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 shortage of SFP storage at CPS. However, the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act of 1982, Subtitle B, Section 131(a)(1) 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 CPS to other sites would
create storage capacity problems at those locations. The shipment of
spent fuel to another site or transferring it to another Exelon/AmerGen
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 potential for
increased fuel cladding corrosion due to some of the protective oxide
layer being scraped off, and because the time-consuming 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 SFPs is not
practical for CPS 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 an FHA, 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
reduction in environmental impacts compared to the proposed re-racking
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 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 reducing power is not considered a
practical alternative.
Impact on SFP Storage From Increasing Length of Fuel Cycle
By letter dated May 20, 2004, as supplemented May 23 and September
30, 2005, the licensee requested changes to the Technical Specification
Surveillance Requirement frequencies to support 24-month fuel cycles at
CPS in accordance with the guidance of Generic Letter 91-04, ``Changes
in Technical Specification Surveillance Intervals to Accommodate a 24-
Month Fuel Cycle.'' Currently, this request is under review by the NRC
staff. If this request is approved, CPS will experience a loss of full
core discharge capability sooner. Therefore, this is not a practical
alternative to the proposed action.
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 change in current environmental impacts. The
[[Page 61654]]
environmental impacts of the proposed action and this alternative
action are similar.
Alternative Use of Resources
The action does not involve the use of any different resources than
those previously considered in the FES for CPS, Unit 1, dated May 1982.
Agencies and Persons Contacted
In accordance with its stated policy, on September 27, 2005, the
NRC staff consulted with Illinois State Official, Frank Niziolek of the
Illinois 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 August 18, 2004, as supplemented by letters
dated May 13 and 25, June 14, and August 17, 2005. 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 Agencywide Documents Access and
Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the NRC Web
site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have
access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents
located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff at 1-800-
397-4209, or 301-415-4737, or send an e-mail to [email protected].
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day of October, 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Kahtan N. Jabbour,
Sr. Manager, Section 2, Project Directorate III, Division of Licensing
Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E5-5874 Filed 10-24-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P