Power Authority of the State of New York, James A. Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power Plant, Environmental Assessment and Finding of no Significant Impact

[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 232 (Monday, December 2, 1996)]

[Notices]

[Pages 64004-64006]

From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[FR Doc No: 96-30899]

[[Page 64003]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part IX

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

_______________________________________________________________________

Power Authority of the State of New York

_______________________________________________________________________

James A. Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power Plant, Environmental Assessment and

Finding of no Significant Impact

Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 232 / Monday, December 2, 1996 /

Notice

[[Page 64004]]

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-333]

Power Authority of the State of New York, James A. Fitzpatrick

Nuclear Power Plant, 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 No.

DPR-59, issued to Power Authority of the State of New York (the

licensee), for operation of the James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power

Plant (JAFNPP), located in Oswego County, New York.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action: This Environmental

Assessment has been prepared to address potential environmental issues

related to the licensee's application to amend the JAFNPP operating

license dated June 12, 1992, as supplemented by letters dated September

17, 1992, March 17, 1993, August 17, 1993, August 18, 1993, December

29, 1993, June 29, 1995, August 15, 1996, October 3, 1996, and October

23, 1996. The proposed amendment would increase the licensed core

thermal power from 2436 MWt to 2536 MWt, which represents an

approximate increase of 4.1% thermal power over the current licensed

power level. This request is in accordance with the generic boiling

water reactor (BWR) power uprate program established by the General

Electric Company (GE) (Reference 1) and approved by the U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff in a letter from W. Russell, NRC, to

P. Marriotte, GE, dated September 30, 1991 (Reference 2).

Implementation of the proposed power uprate at JAFNPP will result in a

4.8% increase in rated steam flow. New fuel designs are not needed for

power uprate. New fuel designs may be used to provide additional

operating flexibility and maintain fuel cycle length. The higher power

level will be achieved by extending the power/flow map by increasing

core flow along existing flow control lines. The maximum recirculation

flow limit will not be increased. Uprated operation will involve a

slightly higher reactor vessel dome pressure. Implementation of this

proposed power uprate will require minor modifications, such as,

resetting of the low set safety relief setpoints, as well as the

calibration of plant instrumentation to reflect the uprated power.

Plant operating, emergency, and other procedure changes will be made

where necessary to support uprated operation.

The proposed action involves NRC issuance of a license amendment to

uprate the authorized power level by changing the operating license,

including Appendix A of the license (Technical Specifications).

The Need for the Proposed Action

The proposed action is needed to allow the licensee to increase the

potential electrical output of JAFNPP by approximately 32 megawatts-

electric. The power uprate program at JAFNPP would provide additional

electric power to service domestic and commercial areas of the

licensee's grid. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action:

The ``Final Environmental Statement (FES) related to operation of

FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant'' issued in March 1973 (Reference 4)

assumed a maximum power level of 2550 MWt in it's analyses. By letter

dated June 12, 1992, the licensee submitted the proposed amendment to

implement power uprate for JAFNPP, which is the subject of this

environmental assessment the uprated power level would be 2536 MWt. The

uprated power level would be within the bounding analysis of the FES.

Section 11.3 of the JAFNPP power uprate licensing topical report (GE

report NEDC-32016P, Revision 1,) which was submitted on August 18,

1993, provided an environmental assessment of the proposed power

uprate. Some environmental effects will remain the same, while power

uprate may nominally increase others. Actual effects are at worst

proportional to the approximately 4.8% increase of original steam flow.

The licensee provided information regarding the nonradiological and

radiological environmental effects of the proposed action in the

licensee's application to amend the JAFNPP operating license dated June

12, 1992, as supplemented by letters dated September 17, 1992, March

17, 1993, August 17, 1993, August 18, 1993, December 29, 1993, June 29,

1995, August 15, 1996 October 3, 1996, and October 23, 1996.

The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action

and concludes that there are no significant radiological or non-

radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed

amendment. A summary of the nonradiological and radiological effects on

the environment that may result from the proposed amendments is

provided below. Nonradiological Environmental Assessment:

Power uprate will not change the method of generating electricity

nor the method of handling any influents from nor effluents to the

environment. Therefore, no new or different types of environmental

impacts are expected. The evaluation is based upon information provided

by the licensee in an April 1993 GE licensing topical report supporting

the JAFNPP power uprate.

The nonradiological environmental effects of the uprate will be

controlled at the same levels as for the original analysis except for a

small (<5%) heat addition to Lake Ontario. All other limits for the

plant environmental releases, such as maximum lake return temperature,

lake water maximum change in temperature, and plant vent radiological

limits will not be increased or exceeded as a consequence of uprate.

NYPA was notified by the New York State Department of Environmental

Conservation, by letter dated December 1, 1995, that the State

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit for the facility was

modified to allow a net heat addition of 6.00x109 Btu/hr to Lake

Ontario.

This change will eliminate the need to reduce power during uprate

operations during periods of high lake temperature. The vast majority

of the time FitzPatrick can be operated at full uprated power and

remain within pre-uprate limits. Therefore, the environmental impact of

power uprate is not significant.

Nonradiological effluent discharges from other systems were also

considered. Nonradiological effluent limits for systems such as floor

and equipment drains are established in SPDES permit. Discharges from

these systems are not expected to change significantly, if at all,

because operation at uprated power levels are governed by the limits in

the SPDES permit. Thus, the staff finds that the impact on the

environment from those systems as a result of operation at uprated

power levels is not significant.

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.

Radiological Environmental Assessment

The licensee evaluated the impact of the proposed power uprate

amendment to show that the applicable regulatory

[[Page 64005]]

acceptance criteria relative to radiological environmental impacts will

continue to be satisfied for the uprated power conditions. In

conducting this evaluation, the licensee considered the effect of the

higher power level on liquid radioactive wastes, gaseous radioactive

wastes, and radiation levels both in the plant and offsite during both

normal and post-accident conditions.

The liquid radwaste treatment systems receive inputs from a variety

of sources (e.g. leakage from component cooling water system, reactor

coolant system, condensate and feedwater system, turbine plant cooling

water system, and auxiliary steam system). Leakages from these systems

are not expected to increase significantly since the operating

pressures of these systems are either being maintained constant or are

being increased only slightly due to the proposed power uprate.

The largest single source of liquid radioactive waste is from the

ultrasonic cleaning of the condensate demineralizers. These

demineralizers remove activated corrosion products which are expected

to increase proportionally to the proposed power uprate. However, the

total volume of processed waste is not expected to increase

significantly, since the only appreciable increase in processed waste

will result in a slight decrease in the time interval between

ultrasonic cleaning or regeneration of the condensate demineralizers.

The reported time between ultrasonic cleaning or regeneration is 65

days and is not expected to decrease significantly at uprate. Based on

a review of plant effluent reports and the slight increase expected due

to the proposed power uprate, the NRC staff has concluded that the

slight increase in the processing of liquid radioactive wastes will not

have a significant increase in environmental impact and that the

requirements of 10 CFR Part 20 and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I, will

continue to be met.

Gaseous radioactive effluents are produced during both normal

operation and abnormal operational occurrences. These effluents are

collected, controlled, processed, stored, and disposed of by the

gaseous radioactive waste management systems which include the various

building ventilation systems, the offgas system, and the standby gas

treatment system (SGTS). The concentration of radioactive gaseous

effluents released through the building ventilation systems during

normal operation is not expected to increase significantly due to the

proposed power uprate since the amount of fission products released

into the reactor coolant (and subsequently into the building

atmosphere) depends on the number and nature of fuel rod defects. The

concentration of activation products contained in the reactor coolant

is expected to remain unchanged, since the linear increase in the

production of these activation products will be offset by the linear

increase in steaming rate. Therefore, based on its review of the

various building ventilation systems, the NRC staff has concluded that

there will not be a significant adverse effect on airborne radioactive

effluents as a result of the proposed power uprate.

Radiolysis of the reactor coolant causes the formation of hydrogen

and oxygen, the quantities of which increase linearly with core power.

These additional quantities of hydrogen and oxygen would increase the

flow to the recombiners by 4.8% during uprated power conditions. The

offgas system was originally designed for 105 percent of warranted

steam flow which would not be exceeded during operation at the proposed

uprated power level. Therefore, no changes will be required in the

offgas system since the offgas system will be operated within the

original evaluated design condition. There will be no environmental

impact that was not previously evaluated.

The SGTS is designed to minimize offsite and control room radiation

dose rates during venting and purging of both the primary and secondary

containment atmosphere under accident or abnormal conditions. This is

accomplished by maintaining the secondary containment at a slightly

negative pressure (more negative than or equal to -0.25 inch water

gauge) with respect to the outside atmosphere and discharging the

secondary containment atmosphere through high-efficiency particulate

air (HEPA) filters and charcoal absorbers. The capacity of the SGTS was

selected to provide one secondary containment air volume change per day

and thereby maintain the reactor building at a slight negative

pressure. This capability is not affected by power uprate. The charcoal

filter beds are unaffected by power uprate. The total post-LOCA iodine

loading increases slightly at the uprated conditions, there are no

radiological consequences because the increased loading remains within

the design absorption capacity of the filter beds. Therefore, the staff

finds there would be no significant increase in environmental impact.

The licensee has evaluated the effects of the power uprate on in-

plant radiation levels in the JAFNPP facility during both normal

operation and post-accident. The licensee has concluded that radiation

levels during both normal operation and post-accident may increase

slightly (at most, proportional to the increase in power level). The

slight increases in in-plant radiation levels expected due to the

proposed power uprate are not expected to affect radiation zoning or

shielding requirements. Individual worker occupational exposures will

be maintained within acceptable limits by the existing Health Physics

program which the licensee uses to control access to radiation areas.

Therefore, the NRC staff has concluded that the slightly increased

in-plant radiation levels will not have a significant environmental

impact. The offsite doses associated with normal operation are not

significantly affected by operation at the proposed uprated power level

and are expected to remain well within the limits of 10 CFR Part 20 and

10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I. These limits are imposed by Technical

Specification which will not be changed by the proposed power uprate.

Therefore, the NRC staff has concluded that the offsite doses due

to normal operation at the proposed uprate conditions will not result

in a significant environmental impact.

The licensee considered the following design basis accidents in the

re-assessment of the radiological consequences at JAFNPP under power

uprate conditions:

(1) LOCA (drywell leakage and ESF component leakage pathways),

(2) Main Steam Line Break (MSLB) outside containment,

(3) Control Rod Drop Accident (CRDA), and

(4) Refueling Accident (RA)

The basic data and assumptions in each of the four accident

scenarios are consistent with the current licensing basis and the

models in the Standard Review Plan (US NRC NUREG-0800) and applicable

regulatory guides. The highest immersion dose to an offsite receptor is

11.2 rem, to the thyroid at the low population zone following a design

basis LOCA. The worst case offsite dose with respect to the regulatory

limits is the post-LOCA whole body dose at the site boundary, which

amounts to 8.5% of the limit. For the control room, the worst case

immersion dose is to the thyroid following a CRDA. It amounts to

approximately 77% of the regulatory limit. The licensee's analyses

indicate that the calculated offsite radiological consequences doses

for all DBAs are within the dose acceptance criteria stated in the

NRC's SRP and 10 CFR Part 100 and also comply with the dose acceptance

criteria for control room operators given in General Design

[[Page 64006]]

Criteria (GDC) 19 of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50. The staff concludes

that the offsite radiological consequences and control room operator

doses for all DBAs at the uprated power level will continue to meet the

acceptance criteria of the SRP, 10 CFR Part 100, and GDC 19.

The power uprate will not 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

the allowable individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.

Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no significant

radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action:

Since the Commission has concluded there is no measurable

environmental impact 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 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 the

James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy, on April 22, 1996, the staff

consulted with the New York State official, F. William Valentino of the

New York State Energy, Research and Development Authority, 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 June 12, 1992, as supplemented by letters dated

September 17, 1992, March 17, 1993, August 17, 1993, August 18, 1993,

December 29, 1993, and June 29, 1995, 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 Reference and Documents Department,

Penfield Library, State University of New York, Oswego, New York 13126.

References

1. GE Nuclear Energy, ``Generic Guidelines for General Electric

Boiling Water Reactor Power Uprate,'' Licensing Topical Report NEDO-

31897, Class 1 (non-proprietary), February 1992; and NEDC-31897P-A,

Class III (proprietary), May 1992.

2. W.T. Russell, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, letter to P.W.

Marriott, General Electric Company, ``Staff Position Concerning General

Electric Boiling Water Reactor Power Uprate Program,'' September 30,

1991.

3. Final Environmental Statement related to operation of James A.

FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, March 1973.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day of November 1996.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

S. Singh Bajwa,

Acting Director, Project Directorate I-1 Division of Reactor Projects-

I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

[FR Doc. 96-30899 Filed 11-29-96; 2:16 pm]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P