Jump to main content.

Northeast Nuclear Energy Company, et al.; Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 3; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

 [Federal Register: April 13, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 72)]
[Notices]
[Page 19246-19247]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr13ap01-109]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-423]


Northeast Nuclear Energy Company, et al.; Millstone Nuclear Power
Station, Unit No. 3; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No
Significant Impact

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering
issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-49,
issued to the Northeast Nuclear Energy Company, et al., (NNECO or the
licensee), for operation of the Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit
No. 3, located in Waterford, Connecticut.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    The proposed action would revise Technical Specification (TS)
Sections: 3.3.2.1, ``Instrumentation--Engineered Safety Feature
Actuation System Instrumentation;'' 3.3.3.1, ``Instrumentation--
Monitoring Instrumentation--Radiation Monitoring;'' 3.7.6.1, ``Plant
Systems--Control Room Emergency Ventilation System;'' 3.9.3.1,
``Refueling Operations--Decay Time;'' 3.9.4, ``Refueling Operations--
Containment Penetrations;'' 3.9.9, ``Refueling Operations--Containment
Radiation Monitoring;'' 3.9.10, ``Refueling Operations--Containment
Purge Valve Isolation System;'' 3.9.13, ``Refueling Operations--Storage
Pool Radiation Monitoring;'' 3.9.14, ``Refueling Operations--Storage
Pool Area Ventilation System--Fuel Movement;'' 3.9.15, ``Refueling
Operations--Storage Pool Area Ventilation System--Fuel Storage;''
3.9.16.1, ``Refueling Operations--Shielded Cask;'' 3.9.16.2,
``Refueling Operations--Shielded Cask;'' 3.9.17, ``Refueling
Operations--Movement of Fuel in Spent Fuel Pool;'' and 3.9.19.2,
``Refueling Operations--Spent Fuel Pool--Storage Pattern,'' and add new
TS 3.3.4, ``Containment Purge Valve Isolation Signal.'' The requested
changes would make the TSs and the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR)
consistent with new analyses of the fuel handling and cask drop
accidents. The Index pages and the Bases for these TSs would be
modified to reflect these changes.
    The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's amendment
request dated June 29, 2000, as supplemented by letters dated October
16, 2000, and January 25, 2001.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    The proposed action is needed for the licensee to move new and
spent fuel while the containment is open during refueling operations.
NNECO has determined that the current analysis of a fuel handling
accident inside containment needs to be revised since the current
analysis is not conservative with respect to the amount of fuel damage
that will occur. As a result, Millstone Unit No. 3 was required to keep
containment isolated during fuel movement inside containment until a
revised analysis was approved by the NRC. With the containment
isolated, high temperature and humidity conditions create an adverse
environment for individuals working inside containment. This type of
environment is a personnel safety concern and can increase the
potential for human errors. The revised analysis, which was submitted
for approval by NNECO in an application dated June 29, 2000, includes a
provision to maintain the personnel air lock doors open under
administrative control. This will greatly simplify normal entry and
egress. This provision will also decrease the time necessary to
evacuate containment in the event of a fuel handling accident, thereby
decreasing personnel exposure.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The NRC has completed its assessment of the potential environmental
impacts associated with the changes. These TS changes are supported by
a revised fuel handling analyses and cask drop accident analyses. The
impact of the above proposed TS changes has been evaluated by the NRC
in consideration for approval of the changes and supporting analyses.
The TS change will not significantly increase the probability of
accidents, no changes are being made in the types of any effluents that
may be

[[Page 19247]]

released offsite, and there is no significant increase in the allowable
individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The
consequences of the postulated design basis accidents related to fuel
handling and cask drop accidents will be greater than previously
evaluated. However, the NRC considers NNECO's approach taken to
calculate the dose analysis was conservative and conformed to the NRC
Regulatory Guide 1.25. Furthermore, the consequences remain well within
10 CFR Part 100 doses (25 percent of 10 CFR Section 100.11(a)(1)) for
offsite releases. Therefore, the TS changes will not significantly
increase the consequences of any fuel handling or cask drop accidents.
    With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed
action does not involve any historic sites. It does not affect non-
radiological plant effluents and has no other environmental impact.
Therefore, there are no significant non-radiological environmental
impacts associated with the proposed amendment.
    Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    As an alternative to the proposed action, the 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. Such action would not enhance the
protection of the environment and would result in unjustified hardship
to the licensee. 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
Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 3.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on January 25, 2001, the
staff consulted with the Connecticut State official, Michael Firsick of
the Division of Radiation, Department of Environmental Protection,
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 NRC concludes
that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the
quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC 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 29, 2000, as supplemented by letters dated
October 16, 2000, and January 25, 2001. Documents may be examined, and/
or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room, located at One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,
Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically
from the ADAMS Public Library component on the NRC Web site, http://
www.nrc.gov(the Electronic Reading Room).

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day of April 2001.
    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Victor Nerses, Sr.,
Project Manager, Section 2, Project Directorate I, Division of
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 01-9161 Filed 4-12-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
 

Local Navigation

Jump to main content.