ML17310B217
| ML17310B217 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 04/06/1994 |
| From: | Quay T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17310B219 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9404180407 | |
| Download: ML17310B217 (8) | |
Text
7590-01 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY ET AL.
DOCKET NOS. 50-528 50-529 AND 50-530 PALO VERDE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION UNITS I 2
AND 3 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission -(the Commission) is considering.
issuance of amendments to Facility Operating License Nos.
NPF-41, NPF-51, and NPF-74 issued to Arizona Public 'Service
- Company, et al.,
(the licensee),
for the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS) Units 1, 2,
and 3 located in Wintersburg, Arizona.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Identification of Pro osed Action By letter dated October 26, 1993, the licensee proposed to change technical specifications (TS) to allow an increase in fuel enrichment (Uranium 235) to a maximum of 4.30 weight percent.
The Need For the Pro osed Action The proposed changes
.to the TS are required in order to provide the licensee with operational flexibilityto use fuel enriched with U-'35 up to 4.30 weight percent at PVNGS, Units 1, 2,
and 3.
The present TS permit a
maximum of 4.05 weight percent U-235.
Thus the change to the TS was requested.
Environmental Im act of the Pro osed Action The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed revision to the TS and concludes that storage and use of fuel enriched with U-235 up
e, /
I Qi Q~
E 0
h to 4.30 weight percent at PVNGS, Units 1,. 2, and 3 is acceptable.
The safety considerations associated with higher enri'chments have been evaluated by,the NRC staff and, the staff has concluded that such changes would.not adversely affect plant safety.
The proposed changes
.have no adverse effect.on the probability of any accident.
There will be no change to authorized power level.
There was no change requested to current 52,000 HWD/HTU burnup.
The change in fuel enrichment is bounded by NRC staff, generic review (discussed below).
As a result, there i,s no significant increase in individual or cumul'ative radiation.exposure.
The environmental impacts of transportation, resulting from the use of higher enrichment and extended irradiation are discussed in the staff assessment entitled "NRC Assessment of the Environmental Effects of Transportation Resulting from 'Extended Fuel Enrichment and Irradiation."
This assessment was published in the.FEDERAL REGISTER on August 11.,
1988.
(53 FR 30355) as corrected on. August 24, 1988 (53 FR'2322) in connection
,with the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1:
Environmental Assessment and Finding of'o Significant Impact.
As ind'icated therein, the environmental cost contribution. of an increase in fuel enrichment of up to 5 weight percent U-'235 and irradiation limits. of up to 60,000 HWD/HTU are either. unchanged, or may in fact be reduced from those summarized in Table S-4 asset forth in 10 CFR 51.52(c).
These findings are:applicable to the proposed amendiments for PVNGS, Units 1, 2,. and 3.
Accordingly, the Commission concludes that this proposed action would result in no significant radiological environmental impact.
~l lt IP
With.regard to potential nonradiological
- impacts, the proposed, changes involve systems located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR
,Part 20.
It does not affect nonradiological plant effluents and has no other environmental impact.
Therefore, the Commission concludes that there are no: significant nonradiological, environmental, impacts associated with the proposed amendments.
The Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment, Proposed No SIgnificant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for Hearing in connection with this action was published in the FEDERAL REGISTER on, January 19, 1994 (59 FR 2860).
No request
.for hearing:
or, petition for leave to intervene was filed following this notice.
Alternative to the Pro osed Action Since the Commission concluded that there are no significant environmental effects that would result from the. proposed
- action, any alternatives with equal or greater environmental impacts need not be evaluated.
The principal alternative would be to deny the requested amendments.
The staff considered denial of the proposed action.
This would not reduce environmental impacts of plant operation
.and would result in reduced'perational flexibility.
Alternative Use of Resources This action does not involve the use of resources not previously considered in the Final Envi'ronmental Statement related to operation of the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Units 1', 2, and 3, dated February 1982 (NUREG 0841).
II
~
~
I
~
~
~
~
DES A encies and Persons Consulted The staff consulted the State of Arizona official regarding environmental impact of the proposed action.
The State official had no comments.
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The Commission has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed license amendment.
Based'pon the foregoing 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: license amendments.
For further details with respect to this action, see the licensee's application for amendment dated October 26,
- 1993, which is available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document
- Room, Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, N.W
, Wash'ington, D.C.
20555 and at the local public document room at the Phoenix Public Library, 12 East McDowell Road,
- Phoenix, Arizona 85004.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day of April 1994.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,Q Theodore R. quay, Director Project Directorate IV-3 Division of.Reactor Project III/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
~I II 1
l