[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 14 (Monday, January 22, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1606-1607]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-702]



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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-213]


Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company; Haddam Neck 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-61, issued to Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company (CYAPCO, the 
licensee), for operation of the Haddam Neck Plant, located in Middlesex 
County, Connecticut.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    The proposed amendment will revise the Haddam Neck Technical 
Specifications (TS) to delete TS Sections 1.38 and 1.39, ``Definitions, 
Fuel Assembly Types,'' revise TS Sections 3/4.9.3, ``Refueling 
Operations, Decay Time'' and 3/4.9.14, ``Refueling Operations, Spent 
Fuel Pool--Reactivity Condition,'' replace TS Sections 5.6.1.1, ``Spent 
Fuel,'' and 5.6.3, ``Capacity,'' and add a new TS Section 3/4.9.15, 
``Refueling Operations, Spent Fuel Pool Cooling.'' The proposed action 
is in accordance with the licensee's amendment request dated March 31, 
1995, as supplemented November 14, 1995.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    The proposed TS changes support a rerack of the spent fuel pool to 
expand the spent fuel pool's storage capacity from 1168 assemblies to 
1480 assemblies so as to accommodate a full-core-discharge through the 
current validity date of the Haddam Neck Operating License (2007). The 
Haddam Neck Plant received its provisional Operating License in June 
1967. The original spent fuel pool capacity was 336 fuel assemblies. In 
1975-1976, CYAPCO performed a rerack to increase the capacity of the 
spent fuel pool from 368 to 1172 fuel assemblies. The licensee 
believed, at that time, that the increase to 1172 fuel assemblies would 
provide sufficient space until the mid-1990's, at which time a fuel 
reprocessing facility would be in operation. At the present time, 
CYAPCO has contracted with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to begin 
taking delivery of its spent fuel in 1998. However, DOE has indicated 
that all of CYAPCO's spent fuel may remain at the site until a 
repository is operational or until some other facility is constructed 
under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. CYAPCO does not believe that such a 
facility will be operational in time for the Haddam 

[[Page 1607]]
Neck Plant to avoid loss of full-core-discharge capability. CYAPCO 
evaluated spent fuel storage alternatives that have been licensed by 
the NRC and that are currently feasible for use at the Haddam Neck 
site. The result of this evaluation is that a rerack of the spent fuel 
pool is the most cost-effective alternative. This TS change is 
necessary for support of the rerack of the Haddam Neck spent fuel pool.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed 
revision to the TS. The staff has concluded the following for the 
various design considerations of the rerack of the Haddam Neck spent 
fuel pool (SFP):
    1. The staff finds the criticality aspects of the proposed increase 
in the storage capacity of the Haddam Neck spent fuel pool storage 
racks are acceptable and meet the requirements of General Design 
Criterion 62 for the prevention of criticality in fuel storage and 
handling.
    2. The staff has reviewed the licensee's rationale for SPF cooling, 
performed confirmatory decay heat load calculations, reviewed the 
effects of SFP boiling, and the heavy load capability of the SFP 
building cranes, and concludes that the above issues relating to the 
increase in the SFP storage capacity from 1168 to 1480 fuel assemblies 
are acceptable.
    3. The staff concludes that the materials selected for the Haddam 
Neck Plant spent fuel rack modifications have been carefully and 
satisfactorily thought out and no occurrence of degradation of the 
material selected for the rack modification is expected. The racks are 
constructed from a type 304 stainless steel and fabricated according to 
an approved ASME specification. The choice of Boral as a poison 
material will ensure reliable criticality control. The design of the 
fuel racks accounts for the possibility of hydrogen production by 
corrosion of Boral and provides ventilation outlets that would relieve 
hydrogen pressure which otherwise could cause deformation of the rack 
cells.
    4. The Boral Surveillance Program will provide a reliable method of 
assessing the potential degradation of Boral panels which are exposed 
to radiation in the spent fuel area over time. The staff concludes that 
the licensee's selection of structural, welding and poison materials 
meets current industry and regulatory standards. These materials are 
acceptable for construction of the new rack modules because they meet 
the requirements of General Design Criterion 62, as it applies to 
providing physical systems for prevention of criticality in fuel 
storage.
    5. The staff concludes that CYAPCO's structural analysis and design 
of the spent fuel rack modules and the spent fuel pool structure are 
adequate to withstand the effects of the required loads. The analysis 
and design are in compliance with the current licensing basis set forth 
in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report and applicable provisions 
of the Standard Review Plan, and are therefore acceptable.
    The TS change 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. 
Therefore, the Commission concludes that there are no significant 
radiological environmental impacts associated with this proposed TS 
amendment.
    With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed 
amendment involves 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. Therefore, the 
Commission concludes that there are no significant nonradiological 
environmental impacts associated with the proposed amendment.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    Since the Commission has concluded there is no measurable 
environmental impact associated with the proposed amendment, any 
alternatives with equal or greater environmental impact need not be 
evaluated. The principal alternative to the amendment would be to deny 
the amendment request. Such action would not enhance the protection of 
the environment and would result in unjustified cost to the licensee.

Alternative Use of Resources

    This action does not involve the use of resources not considered 
previously in the Final Environmental Statement for the Haddam Neck 
Plant.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on January 5, 1996, the staff 
consulted with the Connecticut State official, Alan B. Wang of the U. 
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 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 amendment.
    For further details with respect to this proposed action, see the 
licensee's letter dated March 31, 1995, as supplemented by letter dated 
November 14, 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 Russell Library, 123 Broad Street, Middletown Connecticut.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day of January 1996.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Phillip McKee,
 Director, Project Directorate I-3, Division of Reactor Projects--I/II, 
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 96-702 Filed 1-19-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P