Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., et al.; Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425]

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., et al.; Vogtle Electric

Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2; Environmental Assessment and Finding

of No Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of amendments to Facility Operating License Nos.

NPF-68 and NPF-81 issued to Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.,

et al. (the licensee), for operation of the Vogtle Electric Generating

Plant (VEGP), Units 1 and 2, respectively, located in Burke County,

Georgia.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

The proposed action would change the common VEGP Technical

Specifications to allow an increase in the Unit 1 spent fuel storage

capacity from 288 to 1476 fuel assemblies. The increase in spent fuel

storage capacity is achieved by replacing the existing spent fuel

storage racks, a process referred to herein as ``reracking.'' The

proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's application for

license amendments dated September 4, 1997, as supplemented by letters

dated November 20, 1997, May 19 and June 12, 1998.

The Need for the Proposed Action

The VEGP spent fuel pools (SFPs) are operated as a single facility

and accept spent fuel from both Units 1 and 2. The VEGP Unit 2 spent

fuel pool has a storage capacity of 2098 fuel assemblies. Under current

conditions, the SFPs will lose the capacity for a full-core off-load

(193 fuel assemblies) in the year 2005. There are no independent

commercial spent fuel storage facilities operating in the U.S., nor are

there any domestic reprocessing facilities; therefore, the projected

loss of storage capacity in the VEGP SFPs would affect the licensee's

ability to operate VEGP. The proposed amendments are needed to ensure

the capability of full-core off-load until the year 2015.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

Radiological Impacts

VEGP has waste treatment systems designed to collect and process

waste that may contain radioactive material. The radioactive waste

treatment systems were evaluated in the ``Final Environmental Statement

Related to the Operation of Vogtle Electric Generating Plant,'' NUREG-

1087, March 1985. The SFP cooling and purification system is designed

to remove the decay heat generated by stored spent fuel assemblies and

to clarify and purify the water to permit unencumbered access to the

plant fuel storage area and maintain optical clarity of the SFP water.

Liquid Radioactive Waste

It is not expected that there will be a significant increase in the

liquid release of radionuclides from the plant as a result of the SFP

reracking modifications. The SFP cooling and purification system

operates as a closed system. The SFP demineralizer resin removes

soluble radioactive materials from the SFP water. A small increase in

activity on the filters and demineralizers may occur during the

installation of the new racks because of the more frequent fuel

shuffling and underwater pressure washing of the old racks during

removal. However, the amount of radioactivity released to the

environment as a result of the proposed reracking is expected to be

negligible.

Solid Radioactive Waste

The existing spent fuel racks in the VEGP Unit 1 SFP will be

removed from the site by a salvage company. After usable material has

been salvaged, the remainder will be volume reduced and disposed of at

the Barnwell, South Carolina, facility. In a worst-case scenario, with

no salvageable material and no volume reduction, the resulting material

would represent 44 percent of the expected solid waste volume

associated with VEGP Units 1 and 2 for 1998; however, this volume is

not significant when viewed over the 40-year operational lifetime of

the VEGP facility.

In addition to the spent fuel assemblies themselves, the only other

solid radioactive waste generated by the SFP is the SFP polisher resin,

which is used for water clarity. As indicated in the licensee's

submittal of September 4, 1997, these resins are replaced approximately

once per refueling cycle. No additional spent resins are expected to be

generated by the pool cleanup system as a result of the expanded spent

fuel storage capability; therefore, no significant increase in the

volume of solid radioactive waste associated with these resins is

expected with the proposed amendments.

Radioactive Material Released to the Atmosphere

The only radioactive gas of significance that could be attributable

to storing additional spent fuel assemblies for a longer period of

time, made possible as a result of the proposed reracking, would be the

noble gas radionuclide krypton-85 (Kr-85). Experience has demonstrated

that after spent fuel has decayed 4 to 6 months, there is no longer a

significant release of fission products, including Kr-85, from stored

spent fuel containing cladding defects. The licensee has stated that in

the past 2 years, the Kr-85 concentrations measured from the fuel

storage area ventilation release point have been negligible and the

licensee expects that enlarging the storage capacity of the SFP will

have no effect on the average annual quantities of Kr-85 released to

the atmosphere.

Iodine-131 released from spent fuel assemblies to the SFP water

will not be significantly increased as a result of the expansion of the

fuel storage capacity since the iodine-131 inventory in the fuel will

decay to negligible levels between refuelings.

Most of the tritium in the SFP water results from activation of

boron and lithium in the primary coolant during power operation. A

relatively small amount of tritium is produced during reactor operation

by the fission process within the reactor fuel. The subsequent

diffusion of the tritium through the fuel and cladding represents a

small contribution to the total amount of tritium in the SFP water.

Tritium releases from the fuel assemblies occur mainly during reactor

operation and, to a limited extent, shortly after shutdown. Thus,

expanding the SFP capacity will not increase the tritium concentration

in the SFP.

Most airborne releases of tritium and iodine from nuclear power

plants result during refuelings from evaporation of reactor coolant,

which contains tritium and iodine in higher concentrations than in the

SFP. The storage of additional spent fuel assemblies in the SFP is not

expected to significantly increase the SFP bulk water temperature, and,

therefore, evaporation rates from the SFP are not expected to

significantly increase. Consequently, it is not expected that there

will be any significant change in the annual release of tritium or

iodine as a result of the proposed modifications from that previously

evaluated in NUREG-1087.

[[Page 34492]]

Occupational Doses

The licensee estimates that the increased number of fuel assemblies

stored in the Unit 1 SFP may result in a small increase in doses in the

areas adjacent to the sides of the SFP, although it will not be enough

to change any existing radiation zone designations. To minimize any

potential dose rate increases from the increased storage of spent fuel,

the licensee plans to control the placement of freshly discharged fuel

so that it is not placed in SFP rack positions adjacent to the sides of

the SFP. Dose rates on the fuel pool level are primarily due to

radionuclides in the pool water. During normal operations, dose rates

in this area are generally 2.5 mrem/hr or less. The staff finds these

dose rates to be acceptable and in accordance with SFP dose rates at

other plants.

The licensee will constantly monitor the doses to the workers

during the reracking operation using electronic personnel dosimetry.

Each diver will be monitored using multiple teledosimetry devices.

These teledosimetry devices will transmit diver dose and dose rate data

that will be continuously monitored adjacent to the SFP. Cameras will

be used to monitor the movements of the divers. The licensee will use

continuous air samplers when there is a potential for airborne activity

in the SFP area during the modifications. In addition, the plant

effluent radiation monitoring system will monitor any gaseous releases.

The total occupational dose to plant workers as a result of the

reracking operation is estimated to be approximately 4.3 person-rem.

This dose estimate is based on the licensee's detailed review of the

anticipated work activities, their duration, and expected dose rates

associated with each of the activities related to the SFP reracking.

The upcoming reracking operation at Vogtle Unit 1 will follow detailed

procedures prepared with full consideration of as low as is reasonably

achievable (ALARA) principles. On the basis of its review of the

proposed action, the staff concludes that the Vogtle Unit 1 SFP rerack

modification can be performed in a manner that will ensure that doses

to workers will be maintained ALARA. The estimated dose of 4.3 person-

rem to perform the proposed SFP rerack is a small fraction of the

annual collective dose accrued at Vogtle and, therefore, the staff

finds this dose to be acceptable.

Uranium Fuel Cycle and Transportation

The environmental impacts on the uranium fuel cycle and

transportation resulting from the use of higher enrichment fuel and

extended irradiation were published in NUREG/CR-5009, ``Assessment of

the Use of Extended Burnup Fuels in Light Water Power Reactors,''

February 1988, and discussed in the staff's Environmental Assessment

and Finding of No Significant Impact published in the Federal Register

on February 29, 1988 (53 FR 6040). The staff concluded that no

significant adverse effects will be generated by increasing the burnup

levels as long as the maximum rod-average burnup level of any fuel rod

is no greater than 60 Gwd/MtU. The staff also stated that the

environmental impacts summarized in Tables S-3 and S-4 for a burnup

level of 33 Gwd/MtU are conservative and bound the corresponding

impacts for burnup levels up to 60 Gwd/MtU and uranium-235 enrichments

up to 5 weight percent. Since the proposed amendment does not involve

an increase in the enrichment or burnup of fuel utilized at VEGP, the

staff concludes that there is no significant radiological environmental

impact associated with the proposed expansion of the spent fuel storage

capacity at VEGP Unit 1 or with the uranium fuel cycle or

transportation.

Accident Considerations

In the Vogtle Final Safety Analysis Report, the licensee evaluated

the possible consequences of the following three hypothetical accidents

involving fuel in the SFP: a fuel-handling accident in the fuel-

handling building; a fuel-handling accident in the containment with the

airlock closed; and a fuel-handling accident in the containment with

the airlock open. The licensee reevaluated these hypothetical accidents

to determine the thyroid and whole-body doses at the exclusion area

boundary, in the low-population zone, and in the control room.

On the basis of the review of the licensee's reevaluation, the NRC

staff concludes that the proposed reracking of the Vogtle Unit 1 SFP

will not result in an increase in the doses from any of these

hypothetical accidents.

Nonradiological Impact

The proposed amendments do not modify land use at the site; no new

facilities or laydown areas are needed to support the rerack or

operation after rerack; therefore, the proposed amendments do not

affect land use or land with historical or archeological sites.

The increased spent fuel inventory results in a minor bulk pool

temperature increase. This minor increase in temperature results in a

minor increase in the pool water evaporation rate. The licensee's

submittal of September 4, 1997, indicates that the effects of the

increased temperature and evaporation rates are within the capacity of

the existing fuel-handling building heating, ventilation, and air

conditioning system. The total heat load from spent fuel cooling

dissipated to the environment represents 2.5 percent of the total

rejected plant heat.

The proposed action does not affect nonradiological plant

effluents, and no changes to the National Pollution Discharge

Elimination System permit are needed. The proposed action does not

result in any significant changes to land use or water use, or result

in any significant changes to the quantity or quality of effluents; no

effects on endangered or threatened species or on their habitat are

expected.

The proposed action will not change the method of generating

electricity or the method of handling any influents from the

environment or nonradiological effluents to the environment. Therefore,

no changes or different types of nonradiological environmental impacts

are expected as a result of the amendments.

Summary

The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action.

The proposed action will not 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

the allowable individual or cumulative occupational or offsite

radiation exposure. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there

are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with

the proposed action.

With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed

action does involve features located entirely within the restricted

area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. It does not affect nonradiological

plant effluents and has no other environmental impact. Accordingly, the

Commission concludes that there are no significant nonradiological

environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

Since the Commission has concluded there are no significant

environmental impacts associated with the proposed action, any

alternatives with equal or greater environmental impact need not be

evaluated. As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff

considered denial of the proposed action. Denial of

[[Page 34493]]

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

The proposed action does not involve the use of any resources not

previously considered in NUREG-1087.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy, on May 26, 1998, the staff

consulted with the Georgia State official, Mr. J. Setzer of the Georgia

Department of Natural Resources, regarding the environmental impact of

the proposed action. The State official had no comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

Based upon 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 September 4, 1997, as supplemented by letters

dated November 20, 1997, May 19 and June 12, 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 Burke County Library, 412 Fourth

Street, Waynesboro, Georgia.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day of June 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Jacob I. Zimmerman,

Acting Director, Project Directorate II-2, Division of Reactor

Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98-16746 Filed 6-23-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P