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

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 the Power Authority of the State of New York (PASNY)

(the licensee, also known as the New York Power Authority), for

operation of the James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, located in

Oswego County, New York.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

The proposed action would modify the spent fuel pool (SFP) by

installation of an additional 7 new high density storage rack modules

for fuel storage in the SFP. The additional rack modules will increase

the FitzPatrick SFP capacity from 2797 to 3239 fuel assemblies.

The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's

application for amendment dated October 14, 1997, as supplemented on

July 23, 1998, December 3, 1998, February 25, 1999, and September 29,

1999.

The Need for the Proposed Action

The proposed action is needed to provide for storage of spent fuel

until the licensee installs and obtains a license for an interim spent

fuel storage installation (IFSFI). The underlying purpose of the

expansion is to provide interim additional storage capacity for spent

fuel to allow for continued operation until additional methods of

storing spent fuel have been established.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

The factors considered in this determination are discussed below.

Radioactive Waste Treatment

FitzPatrick uses waste treatment systems designed to collect and

process gaseous, liquid, and solid waste that might contain radioactive

material. These radioactive waste treatment systems are evaluated in

the Final Environmental Statement (FES) dated March 1973. The proposed

SFP expansion will not involve any change in the waste treatment

systems described in the FES.

Radioactive Material Released to the Atmosphere

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

expected to affect the releases 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 may be released to the reactor coolant from fuel

assemblies which may develop leaks during reactor operation. During

refueling operations, some of these fission products may enter the SFP

and subsequently be released into the air. However, as the frequency of

refuelings will not be increased by the proposed action, there will be

no increase in the amount of radioactive material released to the

atmosphere during these operations.

Experience has demonstrated that during the period between

refueling outages there is no longer a significant release of fission

products from stored fuel. The storage of additional fuel assemblies in

the SFP will not increase the SFP bulk water temperature beyond the

existing design temperature. Therefore, radioactive material airborne

release rates due to evaporation from the SFP are not expected to

increase.

Solid Radioactive Wastes

Spent resins are generated by the processing of SFP water through

the SFP purification system. These spent resins are disposed of as

solid radioactive waste. The frequency of resin changeout may increase

slightly during the installation of the new racks due to the

possibility of resuspension of particulate matter in the SFP (due to

turbulence caused by the SFP rack installations). The licensee will use

a Tri-Nuke underwater filtration unit to

[[Page 61168]]

clean the floor of the SFP during SFP rack installation. Vacuuming of

the SFP floor will remove any extraneous debris and crud and ensure

visual clarity in the SFP (to facilitate diving operations, if needed,

and installation of the SFP racks). Debris and crud will be filtered

and collected in the Tri-Nuke filters and stored underwater. Depending

on the waste characterization of these filters, the licensee will

dispose of them utilizing shielded canisters and high integrity

containers which will then be stored onsite or shipped for burial

accordingly. The staff does not expect that the additional fuel storage

made possible by the increased SFP storage capacity will result in a

significant change in the generation of solid radwaste.

Liquid Radioactive Wastes

The release of radioactive liquids will not be affected directly as

a result of the modifications. The SFP ion exchanger resins remove

soluble radioactive materials from the SFP water. When the resins are

changed out, the small amount of resin sluice water which is released

is processed by the radwaste system. As stated above, the frequency of

resin changeout may increase slightly during the installation of the

new racks. However, the amount of radioactive liquid released to the

environment as a result of the proposed SFP expansion is expected to be

negligible.

Radiological Impact Assessment

Radiation Protection personnel will constantly monitor the doses to

the workers during the SFP expansion operation. The total occupational

dose to plant workers as a result of the SFP expansion operation is

estimated to be between 3 and 4 person-rem. Since the proposed action

does 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 interferences which may

impede the installation of the new spent fuel racks, the licensee will

equip each diver with radiation detectors with remote, above surface,

readouts which will be continuously monitored by Radiation Protection

personnel. This dose estimate is comparable to doses for similar SFP

modifications performed at other plants. The proposed SFP rack

installation will follow detailed procedures prepared with full

consideration of as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA) principles.

On the basis of our review of the FitzPatrick proposal, the staff

concludes that the FitzPatrick SFP rack installation can be performed

in a manner that will ensure that doses to workers will be maintained

ALARA. The estimated dose of 3 to 4 person-rem to perform the proposed

SFP rack installation is a small fraction of the annual collective dose

accrued at FitzPatrick.

Accident Considerations

In its application, the licensee evaluated the possible

consequences of a fuel handling accident to determine the thyroid and

whole-body doses at the Exclusion Area Boundary (EAB), Low Population

Zone (LPZ), and Control Room.

The proposed SFP rack installation at the FitzPatrick Nuclear Power

Plant 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.

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 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 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 Commission 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 the permanent repository or a centralized

high-level radioactive waste storage facility is an alternative to

increasing onsite spent fuel storage capacity. However, the U.S.

Department of Energy (DOE) is not expected to open the permanent

repository until 2010 and is currently prohibited from selecting a site

for centralized storage until after a determination is made on

permanent repository site suitability. Congress, with the urging of

some affected utilities and States, has recently taken up proposed

changes to the Federal program that would integrate storage and

disposal at one site and require DOE to construct an interim storage

facility. No decision has yet been made on centralized federal storage

that would provide a basis for evaluating it as a viable alternative to

the Power Authority's proposed action.

Shipping Fuel to a Reprocessing Facility

Reprocessing of spent fuel from the FitzPatrick plant is not a

viable alternative since there are no operating commercial reprocessing

facilities in the United States. Spent fuel would have to be shipped to

an overseas facility for reprocessing. This approach has never been

used and it would require approval by the U.S. 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

and reprocessing represents an added cost. Therefore, this alternative

is considered unacceptable.

Shipping Fuel to Another Utility or Site or to Indian Point 3 (IP3) for

Storage

Shipment of irradiated fuel from FitzPatrick for storage at the IP3

fuel pool would provide short-term relief from the storage problem at

FitzPatrick. However, this transfer of fuel between units would create

no additional storage locations for irradiated fuel, nor would it

eliminate the need to develop additional spent fuel storage capability

at FitzPatrick in the future. As a result, any fuel transfer would

accelerate the loss of fuel pool storage at the IP3 and give no benefit

to either facility.

Currently, the IP3 site has installed fuel pool storage capacity

sufficient to handle site requirements for irradiated fuel storage,

while maintaining full core discharge capability until approximately

the year 2009. The design of the IP3 fuel pool storage racks has been

optimized for storage of pressurized-water reactor fuel with a

different physical and nuclear design than the boiling-water reactor

fuel used at FitzPatrick. Thus, storage of FitzPatrick fuel at IP3

would both limit storage of future discharged IP3 fuel and represent a

less then optimal use of the existing IP3 storage capability.

PASNY knows of no other utility that is prepared to accept

shipments of irradiated fuel from FitzPatrick for long-term storage at

its site.

For these reasons, and considering the increased fuel handling and

additional occupational radiation exposure incurred during the shipment

of irradiated fuel, the alternative of shipping FitzPatrick fuel to IP3

or other site for storage is not an acceptable alternative to the

proposed action.

[[Page 61169]]

Alternatives Creating Additional Storage Capacity

A variety of alternatives to increase the storage capacity of the

FitzPatrick SFP were considered. Fuel rod consolidation was considered

as a potential alternative and was eliminated because of the limited

industry experience in disassembling irradiated fuel and because of the

potential for fission product release due to rod breakage during

disassembly. Additionally, because DOE considers consolidated fuel to

be a non-standard waste form, the licensee could be concerned that the

presence of fuel in this form would cause DOE to delay its acceptance

of waste from FitzPatrick.

The early implementation of dry cask storage for irradiated fuel at

FitzPatrick was also considered. Dry cask storage involves transferring

irradiated fuel, after several years of storage in the FitzPatrick SFP,

to high capacity casks with passive heat dissipation features. After

loading, these casks would be placed on a concrete pad at an outdoor

location on the FitzPatrick site. Although dry cask storage is planned

by the licensee as a long-term storage option for FitzPatrick, the

early implementation of this alternative was rejected by the licensee

because the 442 storage locations provide needed irradiated fuel

storage with less environmental impact and at lower cost.

As a result, the licensee concluded that none of the alternative

technologies that could create additional spent fuel storage capacity

at FitzPatrick could do so with less environmental impact than the

impacts associated with the chosen option.

Reduction of Spent Fuel Generation

To minimize the quantities of irradiated fuel generated during full

power operation at FitzPatrick, the licensee has developed efficient

fuel loading patterns that seek to maximize the utilization of each

assembly consistent with limits on the integrated fuel rod exposure.

Batch discharge burnups for FitzPatrick fuel currently exceed 40 GWD/MT

with peak assembly burnups reaching 46 GWD/MT by the time of discharge.

The licensee expects batch average discharge exposure to exceed 43 GWD/

MT after the current cycle and to increase to 45 GWD/MT thereafter.

FitzPatrick depletes fuel assemblies to these burnups with minimal

cladding perforations so that the fission product inventory present in

the SFP water remains low. The high values of batch average and peak

assembly discharge burnup ensure that the electricity generated by

FitzPatrick yields the minimum possible amount of spent fuel.

The fuel assembly design used at FitzPatrick is not compatible with

the IP3 core. As a result, partially irradiated fuel from other PASNY

nuclear units cannot be used at FitzPatrick (or vice versa) to reduce

the rate of spent fuel discharge.

Operation of FitzPatrick at a reduced power level for long periods

of time would extend the existing SFP storage capacity. However, to

compensate for the reduced generation by FitzPatrick another power

generation facility would be required to increase its power output,

possibly resulting in an increase in airborne pollution and greenhouse

gas emissions. The adverse environmental impact of increased airborne

pollution and greenhouse gas omissions resulting from a long-term

derate of FitzPatrick generating capacity is significantly greater than

the environmental impact associated with increasing the storage

capacity of the existing FitzPatrick SPF.

The No-Action Alternative

As an alternative to the proposed action, 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 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

FitzPatrick.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy, on May 24, 1999, the NRC

staff consulted with the New York State official, Mr. Jack Spath, of

the New York State Research and Development Authority, 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 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 October 14, 1997, as supplemented by letters

dated July 23, 1998, December 3, 1998, February 25, 1999, and September

29, 1999, which are available for public inspection at the Commission's

Public Document Room, The Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW.,

Washington, DC, and accessible electronically through the ADAMS Public

Electronic Reading Room link at the NRC Web site (http://www.NRC.gov).

Dated at Rockville, MD., this 3rd day of November, 1999.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Sheri R. Peterson,

Chief, Section I, Project Directorate I, Division of Licensing Project

Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 99-29315 Filed 11-8-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P