ML20195J488

Notice of EA & Fonsi Re Licensee Request for Reduction in Amount of Insurance Required for Facility

ML20195J488
Person / Time
Site:	Haddam Neck File:Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co icon.png
Issue date:	09/16/1998
From:	Masnik M NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:
Shared Package
ML20195J363	List: ML20195J357 ML20195J479 ML20195J488
References
NUDOCS 9811240309
Download: ML20195J488 (4)

Text

4 -- 4M,'----A = 4s A - m 14 .4-. ,wme..- -- a,a J -- 4A.--- a ., de

• sw 4 -#A.+ g += -

~

o' .

l) . '

l l*

7590-01-P UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY HADDAM NECK PLANT DOCKET NO. 50-213 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING'QF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission or NRC) is consids.ing issuance of an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR SO.54(w) and 10 CFR 140.11 regarding financial protection requirements to Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company (CYAPCo or the licensee) for the Haddam Neck Plant (HNP) located in Middlesex County, Connecticut.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Identification of the Prooosed Action The proposed exemption would allow an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(w) regarding the amount of onsite property insurance required for the l

l licensee and from the requirements of 10 CFR 140.11 regarding the amount of offsite liability insurance required by the licensee.

By letter dated September 26,1997, the licensee presented the results of an analysis of the capability of spent fuel stored in the spent fuel pool (SFP) to heat up in the

, absence of cooling water. The licensee provided information that as of October 1,1997, l~

the spent fuel could not heat up above 538 *C in the absence of any cooling water. In order to achieve the results presented, the licensee had to arrange the spent fuelin a configuration consistent with the analysis.

9811240309 981119 PDR ADOCK 05000213 J PDR l

I i _

L. + - ,

i

!A l

2 By letter dated October 7,1997, the licensee requested the exemption on the basis i

that HNP is permanently shut down and defueled, and, therefore, the potential risk to public health and safety is substantially reduced. The requested action would allow f

- CYAPCo to reduce onsite insurance coverage to $50 million and offsite coverage to $100 million for HNP.

e- By letter dated December 18,1997, the licensee stated that movement of the spent nuctsar fuelinto the configuration consistent with the fuel heat-up analysis had been completed on October 23,1997.

l Need for the Procosed Action 1 l

The proposed exemption is needed because the licensee's required insurance l l coverage significantly exceeds the potential cost consequences of radiologicalincidents j _ possible at a permanently shutdown and defueled nuclear power plant with spent fuel that

- will have cooled for two years on July 22,1998.

l-Environmentalimoacts of the Procosed Action The NRC's evaluation of the proposed exemption from 10 CFR 50.54(w) and 10 CFR 140.11 indicates that issuance of the proposed exemption is an administrative 1

- action and will not have any environmentalimpact. The HNP facility permanently ceased

' reactor power operations on July 22,1996, and completed the permanent transfer of all reactor fuel to 'the SFP on November 15,1996. The licensee maintains and operates the

plant in a configuration necessary to support the safe storage of spent fuel and to comply j i

! with the facility operating license and NRC's rules and regulations. ,

l l-i 4

r a - .r -- -

t.

e.

3 No changes are being made in the types or amounts of any radiological effluents that may be released offsite. There is no significant increase in occupational or public radiation exposure. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

With regard to potential nonradiologicalimpacts, the proposed exemption does not affect nonradiological plant effluents and has no other nonradiological environmental impact.

Therefore, the Commission concludes that there are no significant radiological or nonradiological environmentalimpacts associated with the proposed exemption.

Alternatives to the Procosed Action Since the Commission has concluded that there is no significant environmental impact associated with the proposed exemption, any alternatives with equal or greater environmentalimpact need not be evaluated. The principal alternative to the action would be to deny the request, thereby requiring the licensee to maintain insurance coverage required of an operating plant (no-action alternative); such an action would not enhance the

protection of the environment. Denial of the application would result in no change in current environmentalimpacts. The impacts of the proposed action and the alternative 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 HNP issued in October 1973.

i

4

.4-4 Aaencies and Persons Consulted ,

1 In accordance with its stated policy on August 19,1998, the NRC staff consulted with the Connecticut State Official, Mr. D. Galloway, Department of Environmental Protection, regarding the environmentalimpact of the proposed action. The State official had no comments.

Findina of No Sjanificant imoact ,

On the basis of the environmental assessment, the staff concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.

4 Accordingly, the Commission will not prepare an environmental impact statement for the ,

l proposed exemption.

For further details with respect to the proposed exemption, see letters from the l

licensee dated September 26f October 7, and December 18,1997, which are available at the Commission's Public Document Room,2120 L Street, NW., Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 and at the Local Public Document Room, Russell Library,123 Broad Street, Middletown, Connecticut 06457 Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day of September 1998 FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i,.'.:l I Q Micheal T. Masnik, Acting Director Non-Power Reactors and Decommissioning Project Directorate Division of Reactor Program Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

-. . . . . _ _ _.