[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 153 (Wednesday, August 10, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-19493]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: August 10, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Docket No. 50-213
Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co. (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 allow an increased limit for fuel enrichment.
The change will allow the storage of fuel with an enrichment not to
exceed a nominal 5.0 weight percent (w/o) U-235 in the Haddam Neck
Plant new and spent fuel storage racks. The proposed action is in
accordance with the licensee's amendment request dated January 6, 1994,
as supplemented March 16, 1994.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The current new and spent fuel storage rack maximum nominal
enrichment is 3.9 w/o U-235 for Zircaloy clad fuel and 4.0 w/o U-235
for stainless steel clad fuel. The licensee has changed fuel vendors
and has ordered higher enriched fuel (5.0 w/o U-235) for the upcoming
outage scheduled to start in January 1995. The TS change is necessary
for the storage of the new and eventually used fuel in the new and
spent fuel storage racks. The licensee is planning to go to a longer
cycle, which requires the use of the higher enriched fuel.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed
revision to the TS. The staff has concluded that the analysis methods
used are acceptable and capable of predicting the reactivity of the
Haddam Neck Plant storage racks with a high degree of confidence. The
licensee has analyzed the new fuel storage racks for three different
configurations as required by the NRC and determined that the staff
criteria are met. Storage of fuel assemblies with nominal enrichments
greater than 4.60 w/o U-235 were evaluated by means of reactivity
equivalencing. This concept is predicated on the reactivity decrease
associated with the addition of integral fuel burnable absorbers
(IFBA), which the staff has found acceptable in previous fuel storage
applications. Fuel in the spent fuel racks was analyzed using
alternating rows of fresh and burned (irradiated) fuel assemblies. For
nominal storage cell design, uncertainties due to tolerances in fuel
enrichment and density, fuel pellet dishing, storage cell I.D. and
pitch, stainless steel thickness, and B4C panel width were accounted
for as well as eccentric fuel positioning. To enable the storage of
burned fuel assemblies initially enriched to greater than 3.2 w/o U-
235, the concept of burnup credit reactivity equivalencing was used.
This analysis is predicated upon the reactivity decrease associated
with fuel depletion and has been previously accepted by the staff for
spent fuel storage analysis. The maximum Keff of the alternating rows
storage configuration was 0.9485 when combined with all known
uncertainties and meets the staff criteria of Keff less than 0.95.
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.
Accordingly, 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 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 amendment.
The environmental impacts of transportation resulting from the use
of more highly enriched fuel and extended burnup rates have been
discussed in the generic staff assessment entitled ``NRC Assessment of
the Environmental Effects of Transportation Resulting from Extended
Fuel Enrichment and Irradiation,'' dated July 7, 1988, and published in
the Federal Register on August 11, 1988 (53 FR 30355) as corrected on
August 24 1988 (53 FR 32322). As indicted therein, the environmental
cost contribution of the proposed increase in fuel enrichment and
irradiation limits are either unchanged or may in fact be reduced from
those summarized in Table S-4 as set forth in 10 CFR 51.52(c).
Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no significant
radiological or 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
The NRC staff consulted with the Connecticut State official
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 January 6, 1994, as supplemented March 16,
1994, which are available for public inspection at the Commission's
Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20555, and at the local public document room located at
the Russell Library, 123 Broad Street, Middletown, Connecticut 06547.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of August, 1994.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Alexander W. Dromerick,
Acting Director, Project Directorate I-4, Division of Reactor
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 94-19493 Filed 8-9-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M