ML17221A636
| ML17221A636 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 02/22/1988 |
| From: | Berkow H Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17221A635 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8802240327 | |
| Download: ML17221A636 (5) | |
Text
759O Ol UNITED STATES NUCLFAR RE(:l!LATORY COMMISSION FLORIDA POMFR AND LIGl T COMPANY, ET AL.
ST.
LUCIE PLANT, UNIT NOS.
1 AND DOCKET NOS.
50-335 AND 50-389 NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The Nuclear Regulatory Conmissinn (the Comission> is considering issuance of a license change to Facility Operating License NPF-16, issued tn the Florida Power and Light Company, et al. {the licensee}, for operation nf the St. Lucle Plant., Unit No.
P., located in St. Lucie County. Florida.
Identi<icatinn nf the Prn osed Action The license change
~or
.he St. Lucie Plant, Unit Wo. 2, would permit spent
,uel from Unit No.
1 to be stored in the Unit No.
". spent fuel storage onol.
The spent fuel assembl'.es from Unit No.
1 would be transferred one at a time in an NRC-approved shipping cask between the Unit No.
1 spent fuel pool and the Unit No.
2 spent fuel pool, a distance of approximately 300 feet.
The transfer of spent fuel would take place if there is a need to completely off-'oad the Unit No.
1 reactor core before the licensee re-racks the Unit No.
1 spent fuel pool sometime in mid-1988, the next refueling outage.
The transfer nf spent fuel would also take place if the licensee cannnt re-rack the pool be+ore mid-1988 because additional spent fuel will be in the pool at that time and the licensee is not allowed to carry loads in excess of P.,OOO pounds {e.g., rack) over spent ~ver.
The Unit No.
1 spent fuel pool does not have enouqh space at f
8802240327 880222 PDR ADQCK 05000335
the present time for a Unit 1 reactnr core nf<-load.
The proposed license change is responsive to the licer see's application dated July "., 1986, as supplemented bv letters dated February 6 and 9, March 2 and ?7, and Aptil ?8, 1987.
The Commission's staff.has prepared an Fnvironmental Assessment of the proposed action, "Fnvironmental Assessment by the Office of nuclear Reactor Regulatinn Relating to the Transfer of Unit No.
1 Spent Fuel between Units No.
1 and No.
2 of the St. Lucie Plant, Facility Operating License Nos.
DPR-67 and NPF-16, Florida Power and Light Company, et al., St. Lucie Plant, Unit Nos.
1 at d 2, Oocket Nos.
50-335 and 50-389," dated February 22, 1988.
Summar
'of Environmental Assessment The Commissinn's staff has reviewed.the potential environmental impact o<
the proposed license change to transfer Unit No.
1 spent fuel between the St. Lucie Plant Units.
This evaluation considered the previous environmental
- studies, inc~uding the "Final Fnvironmental Statement Relating to the operation of St. Lurie Plant, Unit No. 1," dated June
- 1973, and the "Final Environmental Statement Relating tn Operation of the St. Lucie Plant, Unit No. 2," dated April 1982.
The proposed amendment would not alter the tvpe or amount o.
<uel that can be received,
- used, and possessed at the site.
Limitations on the amount of fuel that may be stored in the Unit Yo. 2 spent fuel pool and the manner in which it may be stored and handled would also nnt he changed.
Only the Unit No.
1 spent fuel that has been sufficiently aged would he transferred and an NRC-approved shipping cask would be used tn transfer the fuel between units.
The only poten-tial radiological environmental impacts that are affected deal with occupational and public radiation exposure.
Radioloeical Im acts The occupational exposure for the proposed transfer operation is estimated to be less than 0.4 person-rems per spent fuel assembly.
Based on present and prospected operations, the staff estimated that the proposed transfer of Unit Hn.
1 spent fuel between the units should only add a small fraction to the total annual occupational radiation dose at the facility.
The total nccupational dose for 1984 and 1985 at the site was approximately 1304 person-rems per year.
Thus, the staff concluded that the proposed transfer of spent fuel will not result in any significant increase in doses received by workers.
10 CFR Part 71.43 provides that a package (shipping caskl must be designed, constructed, and prepared for shipment so that under specified tests for normal conditions o~ operation, there will he nn loss or dispersal of radioactive con-
- tents, no significant increase in external radiation 1evels, and no substantial reduction in the e~fectiveness of the packaging.
~0 CFR 71.47 provides that radiation levels external to the package must not exceed 10 millirem/hour at any point two meters beyond the outermost sides of the transportfno vehicles.
For a cask meeting this criterion, the corre-sponding dose rate is approximately 0.0001 millirem/hour at the nearest site boundary.
'hestaff estimated the annual total dose commitment to a maximally ex-posed individual at the nearest site boundary due to the proposed transfer of spent fuel, and found it t'o he within the limitation of the plant Technica'.
Specifications which are based on the offsite dose requirements of 10 CFP Parts PO and 50 and 40 CFP Part 190.
Likewise, the staf~ estimated that the annual population dose to the general public due to the proposed transfer
would be a small fraction of the three person-rem population dose estimated in the Unit Nos.
1 and 2 Final Environmental Statements for a>l transporation of, fuel and waste to and from a nuclear power reactor.
The estimated annual total population dose including the, proposed transfer of spent fuel would be verv small compared to the annual dose to this same nopulation from backqrnund radia-tion.
Thus, the staff concluded that the proposed transfer o
spent fuel would not result in any siani<icant increase in doses received by the nublic.
The sta
< has also reviewed the potential conseauences
'of three pnstu>ated design basis accidents which involve spent fuel.
These accidents are the fuel
- handling, cask drop, and cask transport accidents.
The previous evaluations of the fuel handlina and cask drop accidents do not require reevaluation because the operations potentially involved with these accidents are not modified by the proposed license amendment.
However, the staff'eevaluated the single fuel assembly cask transport accident.
The calculated doses are well below the guidelines stated in 10 CFR Part 100.
Thus, the staff concluded that the consequences of oostulated desiqn basis accidents for the spent fuel transfer are acceptable.
Non-Radiolo ical Im acts The staff has evaluated the potential non-radioloqical environmental impacts associated with the proposed spent fuel transfer and concluded that they are not siqnificant.
The Commission has concluded that the proposed license change would not cause a significant increase in the impact to the environment and will not change any conclusions reached by the Commiss'on in the Firal Environmental Statement for each unit.
Findin o
No Siqnificant Im act The Commission's staff has reviewed the proposed license chanae to trans-fer the spent fuel between the units relative to the requiremer ts set forth in 10 CFP. Part 51.
Based upon the environmental assessmer t, the 'staff con-eluded that there are no siqnificant radiological or non-radiological impacts associated with the proposed action and that the proposed license chanoe would not have a significant effect on +he quality of the human environment.
There-fnre, the Commission has de+ermined, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.31, not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed license chanqe.
For further details with respect to this action, see (1) the application for license change dated July 2, 1986, as supplemented February 6 and 9, Karch 2 and 27 and April 28, 1987, (2) the "Final Fnvironmental Statement Re-lating to the Operation o~ the St. Lucie Plant, Unit No. 1," dated June
- 1973, (3> the "Final Environmental Statement Relating to the Operation of the St. Lucie Plant, Unit No. ?," dated April 1982, and (4) the Fnvironmental Assessment dated February 22, 1988 These documents are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document
- Room, 1717 H Street, Washington, D.C. 20555, and at the Indian River Juninr College Library, 3?09 Virginia Avenue, Ft. Pierce, Florida.
Da+ed at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd day of February, 1988.
FOR THE NUCLEAR RFN<LATORv COMMISSION erbert N. Berknw, Director Project Directorate II-2 Division of Reactor Projects-I/II Office o+ Nuclear Reactor Regulatinn