[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