[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 216 (Tuesday, November 9, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61167-61169]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-29315]


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

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