Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company; Haddam Neck Plant;
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company; Haddam Neck Plant;
[Federal Register: January 22, 1996 (Volume 61, Number 14)] [Notices]
[Page 1606-1607]
>From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
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):
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 ActionSince 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
![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif)