ML20245H725
| ML20245H725 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | FitzPatrick  |
| Issue date: | 04/27/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20245H716 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8905030493 | |
| Download: ML20245H725 (7) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ - _. _ _ _ _ - _ _
- n ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATING TO THE CHANGE IN THE EXPIRATION DATE OF FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE DPR-59 POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK OSWEGO COUNTY, NEW YORK FITZPATRICK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT DOCKET NUMBER 50-333 DATED
L 1
1 L
j!A" ns!! M83g33 PDC L1________________.______
l TABLE OF. CONTENTS l
L
1.0 INTRODUCTION
2.0 IDENTIFICATION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 1'
3.0 THE NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTICN 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 4.1 Radiological Impacts - General Public 4.1.1 Environmental Impacts - General Public 4.1.2 Environmental Impacts - Occupational Exposures 4.1.3 Environmental Impacts - Transportation of Fuel and Waste 4.2 Non-Radiological Impacts 5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION 6.0 ALTERNATIVE USE OF RESOURCES 7.0 AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED.
8.0 BASIS AND CONCLUSIONS FOR NOT PREPARING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT l
\\
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the staff) is considering the issuance of a proposed amendment which would extend the expiration date of the facility operating license for the Janes A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant.
The expiration date for license DPR-59 would be extended from May 20, 2010 to October 17, 2014. The FitzPatrick Plant is o the State of New York (PASNY or the licensee)persted by the Power Authority of and is located in the County of Oswego, New York.
2.0 IDENTIFICATION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION The currently licensed term is 40 years commencing with the issuance of the construction permit on May 20, 1970. Accounting for the time that was required for const-uction of the plant, this represents an effective operating i
license term of approximately 35.5 years. The licensee's application of August 19, 1987 requests extension of the expiration date of the operating license to October 17, 2014. With this proposed expiration date, the 40-year operating term for the license would start with issuance of the operating license rather than issuance of the construction permit.
1 3.0 THE NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION The granting of the proposed license amendment would allow the licensee to operate for approximately four and one-half additional years beyond the currently approved license expiration date. Without issuance of the proposed license amendment, the plant would be shut down at the end of the currently approved license term.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION In March 1973, the United States Atomic Energy Commission issued the " Final Environmental Statement for the James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Plant." This document was issued in support of continuation of the Construction Permit CPPR-71 and the issuance of an operating license to.the Power Authority of the State of New York and the Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation. This document provides an evaluation of the environmental impact associated with plant operation. The staff has reviewed the Final Environmental Statement (FES),
and additional information provided by the licensee in its license amendment submittal, to determine the environmental impact of operation of the FitzPatrick Plant for approximately four and one-half additional years.
4.1 Radiological Impacts The staff has considered potential radiological impacts for the general public in residence in the vicinity of the James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant.
These impacts include potential accidents and normal radiological release.
In addition, the staff has considered the impacts of radiation exposure to workers at the plant. Finally, the impact on the transportation of fuel and waste have been considered. These impacts are summarized in Sections 4.1.1 through 4.1.3 below.
L
. 4.1.1 General Public In the. FES the staff calculated the dose commitment to the population residing around the FitzPatrick site to assess the impacts on people from radioactive material released as part of the normal operation of the plant. Table 5.9 of the FES lists the estimated annual doses associated with the operation of the FitzPatrick Plant, and shows that the dose would be below the annual dose design objectives of 10 CFR 50, Appendix I, Rule Making 50-2.
Since this dose is not expected to increase, but could, in fact, decrease, the staff concludes that the dose to members of the public would remain below the dose design objectives of 10 CFR 50. Appendix I, and would not be significant.
The staff has assessed the public risks from reactor accidents per year of operation at other reactors of comparat'le design and power level.
In all cases, the estimated risks of early fatalities and latent cancer fatalities per year of reactor operation have been small compared to the risks of many non-reactor type of accidents to which the public is typically exposed, and i
the natural incidence of fatal cancers. The annual risks associated with reactor accidents did not increase with longer period of operation of the reactor.
If similar risks were estimated for the FitzPatrick Plant, a similar conclusion would be expected.
Further, the integrated exposure to population within a 50-mile radius of the site from each postulated accident would be orders of magnitude smaller than that from naturally occurring background radiation. When considered with the probability of occurrence, the annual potential radiation exposure of the population from all the postulated accidents is an even smaller fraction of the exposure from natural background radiation and, in fact, is well within naturally occurring variations in the natural background. The staff concludes that the proposed additional years of l
operation would not increase the annual public risk from reactor accidents.
A comparison of the projected Oswego County population figures in Table 5.7 of the FES for 1980 (which was based on the 1970 census), versus the actual 1980 U.S. Census figures, shows an overprediction of 7% for Oswego County (which contains the entire 10 mile Emergency Planning Zone) and an overprediction of 9.5% for the seven surrounding counties (which represents the 50 mile radius around the plant). Additionally, comparison of the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) and 1980 census figures shows an overprediction of 4% for Oswego County and 10.8% for the seven county region. The 1980 census figure.shows that the Oswego County population was 114,000 and the seven county population was 1,089,000. Thus, the area continues to be sparsely settled and predominantly natural open space, as predicted in the FES.
j Therefore, the staff has concluded that the effect on the general public of continued plant operation through the year 2014 would not increase over that previously evaluated as a result of the license extension, j
4.1.2 Occupational Exposures The staff has evaluated the licensee's dose assessment for the years 2010 to j
2014 - the additional years during which FitzPatrick would operate - and l
compared it with current FitzPatrick and overall industry dose experience.
j The average dose for the FitzPatrick plant over the most recent five-year I
j
. period covering 1984 through 1988 has _ been 832 person-rem per year, which is i
only slightly higher than the industry average of approximately 800 person-rems dose per unit per year for operating boiling water reactors in the United States. This period included two years (1985 and 1987) when outages.
required unusually high dose commitments for inspections and repair of plant systems. The licensee does not expect any increases in station dose during the years 2010 to. 2014 and has, in fact, comitted to a goal of less than 300 person-rem, each year starting in 1989.
It is expected that this can be accomplished with a strong ALARA program which is being developed and by using state-of-the-art technologies, including zinc. injection, enhanced chemistry control and modern decontamination methods. The staff expects that increased doses from maintenance and corrosion product buildup will be offset by a continually improving ALARA program, dose-saving plant modifications, and fewer major modifications. Continuing improvements in fuel integrity and increased-effort to prevent leaks from contaminated systems are expected to result in further decreases in personnel contaminations. Overall, occupational radiation exposures can be expected to remain about as estimated in the FES and lower than has been experienced during recent years.
Additional occupational exposures will result from decommissioning of the FitzPatrick plant, although these doses will be incurred with or without the license extension periods. Any increases in corrosion product buildup during the period of extension will be compensated for by improved chemistry controls and other ALARA measures. Consequently, the extended operating time should have no measurable adverse effect on decommission dose requirements.
The combined storage capacity of the spent fuel pool is 2244 bundles. Current projections indicate that the pool will be unable to accommodate a full core off-load by the year 1991 and will not be able to accommodate a refueling off-load (approximately one-third of the core) by the year 1995.
Present plans call for submittal of a license amendment in mid-1989 to install new fuel racks which will accommodate an additional 553 fuel bundles. This will extend the full core off-load capability year to 1997 and the refueling off-load year to 2001. During this time other plans can be formulated for additional storage capability either on-site or in conjunction with plans being developed by the State of New York.
The staff concludes that the licensee's dose assessment is acceptable and that the radiation protection program at FitzPatrick is adeouate to ensure that occupational radiation exposures will be maintained ALARA and in continued compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 20.
Therefore, the staff concludes that the environmental impact associated with a 40-year operating license duration is not significantly different from that associated with the approximately 35-year operating term authorized by the existing license which was previously assessed in the FitzPatrick FES.
4.1.3 Environmental Impacts-Transportation of Fuel and Waste The staff has reviewed the environmental impact attributable to the transportation of fuel and waste to and from the FitzPatrick site. With respect to the normal conditions of transport and -'ssible accidents in
-___-_____ ___=__ _ __ _ _
. transport, the staff concludes that the environmental impacts are bounded by those identified in Table S-4, " Environmental Impact of Transportation of Fuel and Waste To and F om One Light Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor" of 10 CFR i
Part 51.52. The bases for this conclusion are that:
(1) Table S-4 is based on an annual refueling and an assumption of 60 spent-fuel shipments per reactor year. At the present time the FitzPatrick reactor has completed a transition to an 18-month refueling cycle which would result in fewer than 60 spent-fuel shipments per year, if fuel shipment were, in fact, being made.
Reducing the number of fuel shipments would reduce the overall impacts related to population exposure and accidents discussed in Table S-4. (2) Table S-4 represents the contribution of such transportation to annual radiation dose per reactor year to exposed transportation workers and to the general public.
Even if the spent fuel exceeds the average fuel irradiation level specified in 10 CFR 51.52(a)(3) (which is used as the bases for Table S-4) it will still be less than 60 gigawatt days per metric ton (GWD/MTU). The NRC has previously found (53 FR 6040, February 29,1988) that the environmental impacts sumarized in Table S-4 of 10 CFR 51.52 are conservative and bound the corresponding impacts for burnup levels up to 60 GWD/MTV. By comparison, the FitzPatrick design value is approximately 27 GWD/MTV according to the FitzPatrick FSAR.
The radiation levels of transport fuel casks are limited by the Department of Transportation and are not dependent on fuel enrichment and/or irradiation levels. Therefore, the estimated doses to exposed individuals per reactor year will not increase over that specified in Table S-4 The annual radiation dose to individuals would not be changed by the extended period of operation. Although some integral risk with respect to normal conditions of transportation and possible accidents in transport would be dttributed to the additional years of operation, the integral risk would not be significant because the annual risk for such transportation is small.
4.2 Non-Radiological Impacts The staff has reevaluated the non-radiological impact associated with operation of FitzPatrick to include the approximately four and a half additional years of operation associated with changes in the expiration date of the operating license. The non-radiological impact, primarily on water and land use, is shown in the FES to be quite minor. Continued plant operation during the additional four and a half year period would also have a minor impact when compared with the impacts associated with construction or replacement power production capability.
All potential impacts have been identified, described, and evaluated in previously issued environmental impact statements and/or appraisals by the NRC and reviews by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit. All operational, non-radiological impacts on biological resources have been assessed by the staff in the FES on bases other than a life-of-plant basis and the requested extension of the operating license will not alter previous staff findings and conclusions.
l L
1L_______________ _
s
' We conclude, therefore, that the non-radiological impacts assocu.us with the proposed changes in the license expiration date is acceptable.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION The principal alternative to issuance of the proposed license extension would be to deny the application.
In this case, FitzPatrick would shut down upon expiration of the present operating license.
In Sections 9 and 11 of the FES, alternative energy sources and sites and a benefit-cost sumary is presented.
Included in the analysis is comparison among various options for producing an equivalent electrical power capacity.
Even considering significant changes in the economics of the alternatives, operation of the FitzPatrick plant in the present configurt. tion for an additional four and a half years would only require incremental yearly costs.
These costs would be substantially less then the purchase of replacement power or the installation of new electrical generating capacity. Moreover, the overall cost per year of the facility would decrease since the large initial capital outlay would be averaged over a greater number.of years.
In sumary, the cost-benefit advantage of the FitzPatrick plant compared to alternative electrical power generating capacity improves with the extended plant lifetime.
6.0 ALTERNATIVE USE 0F RESOURCES This action does not involve the use of resources not previously considered in connection the March 1973 FES.
7.0 AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED The Commission's staff reviewed the licensee's request and consulted with the State of New York Energy Office, which had not objection to the proposed operating license extension.
8.0 BASIS AND CONCLUSIONS FOR NOT PREPARING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT The Comission has detennined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action. The staff has reviewed the proposed license amendment 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 it will not change any conclusions reached by the Comission in the FES. Therefore, l
pursuant to 10 CFR 51.31, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared for this action.
Based upon this environmental assessment. the Commission concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.
1 Dated:
PRINCIPAL CONTRIBtlTORS David E. LaBarge Lawrence P. Crocker i
_ - _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ - - _