ML17254A672
| ML17254A672 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Ginna  |
| Issue date: | 12/12/1985 |
| From: | Lear G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17254A671 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8512190013 | |
| Download: ML17254A672 (5) | |
Text
t l
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ROCHESTER GAS AND ELECTRIC CORPORATION DOCKET NO. 50-244 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT 7590-01 The U. S..Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of a license amendment to allow storage of consolidated spent fuel to Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (the licensee), for the R.
E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant located in Mayne County, New York.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Back round The spent fuel storage capacity of the R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant (Ginna) was 210 fuel assemblies when the plant was licensed in 1969.
This licensed 4:apacity was increased in 1976 to 595 fuel assemblies by reracking the spent fuel pool (SFP).
This limited increase in storage capacity was in keeping with the expectation generally held in the industry that the federal government would begin accepting spent fuel for interim storage in the 1981-1982 time frame.
Comercial reprocessing of spent fuel has not developed as had been originally anticipated.
In 1975 the Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) directed the staff.to prepare a -Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS, the Statement) on spent fuel storage.
The Comission directed the staff to analyze alternatives for the handling and storage of spent light water power reactor fuel with particular emphasis on developing long range policy.
The Statement was to consider alternative methods of spent fuel storage as well as the possible restriction or termination of the generation of spent fuel 8@121,900iS 8512>2 PDR
- DOCK 0500024'4 P
through nuclear power plant shutdown.
These alternatives were addressed for the Ginna Nuclear Power Plant in the "Environmental Assessment by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Relating to the Second Modification of the Spent Fuel Storage Pool" dated November 8, 1984.
The referenced Environmental Assessment was issued in conjunction with a license amendment that granted an increase in storage capacity of the Ginna spent fuel pool to 1016 fuel assemblies.
Descri tion and Need of Pro osed Action As discussed in the aforementioned November 8, 1984 Environmental Assessment, 81 spent fuel assemblies belonging to Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RGKE) were located at what was formerly the NFS Facility, West Valley, New York.
The current licensee of the West Valley Facility, New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA), has placed a requirement on RGKE to remove all 81 spent fuel assemblies by early January 1986.
In conjunction with this, the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Manage-
- ment of the Department of Energy (DOE) has requested that a "rod consolidation demonstration" at the West Valley Facility take place.
Approximately 25 as-semblies of RGKE spent nuclear fuel from the Ginna reactor would be used for this program.
Upon completion of the demonstration project the fuel would be shipped to Ginna and placed in the spent fuel pool.
To accommodate the receipt and storage of the consolidated fuel, a Technical Specification License Amendment must be granted by NRC.
Radiolo ical Environmental Im act of Pro osed Action V
'The potential radiological environmental impact associated with.the storage of spent nuclear fuel from the Ginna reactor in the spent fuel pool at Ginna in its current configuration was discussed and evaluated in the above-mentioned Environmental Assessment dated November 8, 1984.
The findings detailed in, that Environmental Assessment with regard to types and amounts of radioactivity released in the current pool.configuration, the radioactivity
-released to the atmosphere, the types and volumes of liquid and solid radioactive wastes, the occupational radiation exposure and the radiological impact to the public from normal operations and accidents, still provide a
bounding scenario with the proposed action included.
Mith respect to normal operations the November 8, 1984 Environmental Assessment provides a bounding
.scenario because it is based on radioactive releases from a quantity of spent
.fuel which is equal to the authorized capacity of the current spent fuel pool, which capacity is not being increased by the proposed amendment.
Mith respect r
to accidents, the November S,'984 Environmental Assessment provides a bounding
--scenario because the accidents.analyzed in it would -result in greater.potential offsite doses than those which would result from similar.accidents involving canisters containing consolidated fuel rods which have decayed for 5 years or longer.
Non-Radiolo ical Environmental Im acts of the Pro osed Action The findings in the above-mentioned Environmental Assessment with regard to non-radiological environmental impacts remain valid and still;are bounding with regard to the effects of the proposed action because it is based on environmental impacts resulting from a quantity of spent fuel which is equal
7590-01
-4 to the authorized capacity of the current spent fuel pool, which capacity is not being increased by the proposed amendment.
and no new or additional non-radiological environmental impacts would result from storing canisters containing consoliated fuel rods.
~ Alternatives to the Pro osed Action The only alternative to the proposed action would be to deny the license amendment, in which case the spent fuel would be shipped back to Ginna in an unconsolidated form in the same manner as the assemblies that are not scheduled for the consolidation demonstration program.
This alternative would not lead to a reduced environmental impact over the proposed action.
Alternative Use of Resources
'This action does not involve use of resources not previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement dated December 1973 or the Environmental Evaluation of June 17, 1983 for the R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, nor does it involve conflicting use of limited available resources requiring consideration of other alternatives.
A encies and Persons Consulted The NRC has consulted with DOE and NYSERDA with regard to this action.
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The staff has reviewed this proposed facility modification relative to the requirements set forth in 10 CFR Part 51.
Based on this assessment, the staff concludes that there are no significant radiological or non-radiological impacts associated with the proposed action and that the issuance of -the proposed license amendment will have no significant impact on the quality of the human environment.
Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.31, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared for this action.
IQJV UL For further details with respect of this action, see the application for amendment dated February 27, 1985 as supplemented June 10, June 25 and July ll, 1985 and the staff Environmental Assessment dated November 8,'1984 which are available for public inspection at the Comoission's Public Document
- Room, 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., and at the Local Public Document Room at the Rochester Public Library, 115 South Avenue, Rochester, New York 14610.
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, -this 12th day of December, 1985.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COOlISSION George
. Lear, Director Project Directorate 41 Division of PWR Licensing-A