ML19319E216
| ML19319E216 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rancho Seco |
| Issue date: | 06/30/1976 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19319E189 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8003310725 | |
| Download: ML19319E216 (13) | |
Text
_ - _
B 4
~ ' [*%
unirso sT2rts
- .+
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON j
j wAsmuorou. o. c. 2osss a%.. /
E:"'IC:.:::4TAL I:7AJ. A.7.~ USAL BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION _
SUPPORTING M.END"ENT NC. 5 TO DPR 54 SACP.A"iNTO t%:.!C: PAL U!ILITY DISTRICT R RFSEC0 NUCLEM GENEPATit;G STATION OCCAET lW. 50-312 I.
Description of Proposed Action In their submittal of December 19, 1975, the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (the licensee) requested approval of the NRC for an amendment to Facility Operating License No. DPR-54 and a con-comitant change to the Technical Specifications for the Rancno Seco Nuclear Generating Station (the facility). This amendment to the license concerns the proposed expansion of the capacity of the spent fuel storage pool (SFP). The present total stofage capacity of the SFP is 244 assemblies including four failed fuel containers, or approximately 1 1/3 full cores.
(ancho Seco is currently operating in its first fuel cycle and the reload fuel for the second cycle will not be received until the proposed SFP codifica-tion has been complet~
Ther fore, there is no fuel, spent or new, now in the fuel s.
,e Nilding.
(The licensee notified the Commission by letter of May 21, 1976, that the reactor would be defueled to permit ' removal of the surve'llance capsule holder tubes and the fuel would be stored in the sp.at fuel pool during this brief period.) The first discharge of fuel from Rancho Seco will be in the summer of 1977. With annual discharges, the existing spent fuel pool would be filled with the discharge occurring in the summer of 1980. The capability for storage of a full core off-load would be lost after the second annual discharge of fuel-in the s;..'ing of 1978.
The modification evaluated in thi's environmental impact appraisal is the' proposal by the licensee to replace the present spent fuel racks in the pool with racks of a new design.
The new racks would increase the potential storage capacity to 579 assemblies by de-creasing the center-tc< enter spacing of the fuel assemblies. The proposed modification would accommodate both spent fuel discharges through 1985 and the core offload capability after the 1982 refueling.
The proposed modification will not alter the external physical geometry of the spent fuel pool or require additional modifications 7
to the SFP cooling or purification systems. The proposed modifi-cation does not affect in any manner the quantity of uranium fuel utilized in the reactor over the anticipated operating life of the
""03 sl o
a r
2 facility and thus in no way affects the generation of spent uranium fuel by the facility. The rate of spent fuel generation and tne total quantity of spent fuel generated during the anticipated operating ~ lifetime of the facility and stored in the SFP remains unchanged as a result of the ' proposed expansion. The modification will increase.the number of spent fuel. assemblies stored in the SFP as well as the length of time that some of the fuel assemblies will be stored in the pool.
Currently, spent fuel is not being re;
- essed on a commercial basis in the United States. The Nuclear Fuel Service (NFS) plant in New York was shut down in 1972 for alterations and expansions.
The Allied General. Nuclear Service (AGNS) proposed plant is uncer construction in South Carolina, and this facility is not licensed to operate. The General Electric Company's (GE) Midwest Fuel Recovery Plant in Illinois is in a decomissioned condition.
Although no plants are licensed for reprocesssing fuel, the GE and NFS facilities are licensed for storing spent fuel and applications have been filed for permission to expand these facilities. Also, AGNS has applied for a license to receive and store irradiated fuel assemblies prior to a decision on the licensing action relating to the separation facility. Construction of the AGNS receiving and storage station itself is complete.
The NRC Staff is preparing a generic environmental impact statement on spent fuel storage of light water power reactor fuel and is ex-pected to complete this statemeht by the fall of 1977. The pro-posed expansion of the SFP capacity at R6r.cho 10 will afford the licensee operational flexibility by. providing storage spce for spent fuel discharges through 1985.
II. Environmental Impacts of Proposed Action 1
On September 16, 1975, the Comission announced (40 F.R. 42801) its intent to prepare a generic environmental impact statement on hand-ling and storage of spent fuel from light water power reactors.
In this' notice,- the Comission also announced its conclusion that it would not be in tae.public interest to defer all licensirg actions intended to amelicrate a possible shortage of spent fuel storage capacity pending completion of the generic environmental impact statement. The Comission directed that in the consideration of any such proposed licensing action, the following five spc-ific
. factors should be applied, balanced, and weighed in the c,s.L xt of
. the required environmental statement or appraisal.
t
- =
r-a.
Is 1,t_likely that the licensing action here proposed would have a utility that is independent.of the utility of other licensing actions designed to aneliorate a possible shortage of spent fuel capacity?
The Rancho Seco SFP was designed to accept both the spent fuel from a normal reactor core refueling (approximately 1/3 : ore) and an
'antire reactor core (" core off-load") should unicading of the core be necessary or desirable because of operational censiderations. A complete core consists of 177 fuel assemblies.
The Rancho Seco spent fuel storage pool was designed on the assumption that a fuel cycle would be in existence that would require the storage of a single batch of spent fuel for less than one year in the spent fuel pool. Therefore, a pool storage casacity of 1-1/3 cores was considered adequate. This would allow tne complete unload-ing of the reactor for maintenance or inspection,.aven if one batch (1/3 core) were in the pool.
Currently, spent fuel-is not being reprocessed on a commercial basis in the United States.
In addition, the Sacramento Municipal Utility District has be3n unable to contract for off-site storage of spent fuel as the precent time.
It is therefore desirable to modify the existing spent 'uel storage facility to allow storage of additional spent fuel on ths Rancho Seco site.
The Rancho Seco spent fuel pool has a present caoacity for 244 fuel assemblies including four failed-fuel container locations.
The proposed modification would expand the storage capability to 579 fuel assemblies, including three as,semblies in failed fuel containers.
It is highly desirable that this modification t.e completed prior to the first refueling of-Rancho Seco so the storage pool can be drained and the installation made under essentially clean conditions without fuel present.
The licensee has entered into a contract with Exxon Nuc. lear Company fer tiic design, analysis, and fabrication of replacement spent fuel storage racks that will provide storage'for slightly over three full cores of fuel. Therefore, nine annual discharges may be accommodated, or six annua 1' discharges may be accommodated while still maintaining the capability for a full-core discharge.
i O
um*
l
, Since spent fuel reprocessing facilities cannot assuredly be avail-
.able to the Sacramento ilunicipal Utility District prior to the mid-1380's (and, therefore, no spent fuel can be shipped for reprocessing),
- pent fuel discharges subsequent to 1980 will have to be storec or the facility shut down.
The preposed licensing action (i.e., in-stalling new racks of a design that permits storing more asse-blies in the same space) would provide the licensee with additional operating flexibility'which is desirable even if adequate offsite storage facilities hereafter become available to the licensee.
We have concluded that a need for additional spent fuel storage capacity exists at Rancho Seco which is independent of the utility of other licensing actions designed to ameliorate a possible shortage of spent fuel capacity.
b.
Is it likely that the taking of the action here proposed prior to the preparation of the generic statement would constitute a connitment of resources that would tend to significantly foreclose the al.ternatives available with respect to any other licensing actions designed to ameliorate a possible shortage of spent fuel storage capacity?
With respect to this proposed licensing action, we have considered commitment of both material and nonmaterial resources. The material resources considered are those to be utilized in the expansion of the SFP. The proposed fuel rack modification will involve removing the old racks and replacing then; with racks which have a closer center-to-center spacing of the fuel assemblies (15 inches nominally in both directions).
Individual assembly locations consist of
~
austenitic type 304 stainless steel. square tubes fabricated from 14-gauge stainless sheet, and do not use a poison material such as boron impregnated stainless steel, B C plates or boral.
4 The quantity of stainless steel to be utilized in the new spent fuel racks is approximately 135,000 pounds. The following list
. provides a component breakdown of the amou1t of steel utilized:
l e
m.
l
..o 5
i 41,600 lbs.
5 - 6x6 racks 0
8,320 lbs.
=
57,300 lbs.
6 - 6x7 racks 0
9,550 lbs.
=
8,830 lbs.
l 1 - 6x7-4 rack 0
8,830 lbs.
=
22,260 lbs.
2 - 7x7 racks 0
11,130 lbs.
=
2,450 lbs.
1 - 2x6 rack 0
2,450
=
132,440 lbs.
Fixtures, Shims Cask Catcher Attachments - Add s 1-1/2%
2,000 lbs.
134,440 lbs.
Theamounyjof stainless steel used annually in the V. S. is about 2.82 x 10 lbs..The material is readily available in abundant supply. The amount of stainless steel required for fabrication of the new racks is a small amount of this resource consumed annually in the United States. Also, the existing storage racks, which are fabricated from stainless steel, will be available as scrap to off-set the net usage. We conclude that the amount of material reauired for the racks at Rancho Seco is insignificant and does not represent
. an irreversible. commitment of natural resources. This licensing action would not constitute a cannitment of resources that would affect the alternatives available to other nuclear power plants or other actions that might be taken by the industry in the future to alleviate fuel storage problems. No other resources need be allocated because the other design characteristics of the SFP remain unchanged.
No additional allocation of land would be made; the land area now used for the SFP would be used more efficiently by reducing the spacings among' fuel assemblies.
The increased storage capacity at the Rancho Seco spent fuel pool was considered as a, nonmaterial resource and was evaluated relative to proposed similar licensing actions within a two year period (the time we estimate is necessary to complete the generic environmental statement) at other nuclear power plants, fuel reprocessing facilities and fuel storage facilities. We have determined that the proposed expansion in the storage capacity of the Rancho Seco SFP is only a measure to allow for continued operation and to provide operational flexibility at the facility, and will not affect similar licensing
~
actions at other nuclear power plants.
4 4
M
' We conclude that the expension of the spent fuel pool at Rancho Seco prior to the preparation of the generic statement does not constitute a commitment of either material or nonmaterial resources that would tend to significantly foreclose the alternatives available with respect to any other individual licensing actions designed to ameliorate a possible shortage of spent fuel storage capacity.
c.
Can the environmental impacts associated with the licensing action here proposed be adequately addressed within the con-text of the present application without overlooking any cumula-tive environmental impacts?
The SFP at Rancho Seco was designed principally to store spent fuel assemblies prior to shipment to a reprocessing facility. These assemblies'may be transferred from the reactor core to the SFP during a core refueling, or to allow for inspection and/or modifi-cation to core internals which may require the removal and storage of certain fuel assemblies or a full core. The assemblies are initially intensely radioactive due to their fission product con-tent and have a high thermal output. Thus they are stored in the SFP to' allow for radioactive and thermal decay. The major propor-tion of decay occurs during the 150 day period following removal from the reactor qore. After this period, the assemblies may be l
withdrawn and placed into a heavily shielded fuel cask for offsite shipment. Space permitting, the assemblies may be stored for an additional period allowing continued fission product decay and thermal cooling.
Since the additional capacity of the SFP is proposed for this site alone and for this~ licensee only, all the environmental impacts can be assessed within the context of this application. Potential impacts, both nonradiological and radiological relative to the construction and operation of the expanded SFP at this facility were considered by the NRC Staff. No environmental impacts on the environs outside the spent fuel storage building were identified that would be associated with the proposed construction of the expanded SFP. The impacts within this building are expected to be limited to those normally associated with metal working activities.
We could not identify any impacts either onsite or offsite as environmentally significant due to the operation of an expanded SFP at this facility. The only potential offsite nonradiological environmental impact that could arise from this proposed action 1
e
-v
~
.. would be an additional heat load on the plant cooling water system.
The spent fuel pool heat exchanger is cooled by the ccmponent and turbine plant cooling water system. This system also provides cooling for numerous components throughout the plant besides the spent fuel cool heat exchanger, including seal return ecolers, letdown cool 0rs, sample heat exchangers, reactor building normal ventilating units, reactor coolant pumps, control rod drive coolers, lube oil coolers for various pumps, air compressor aftercoolers and various coolers in the radioactive waste disposal system. The component cooling water system is in turn cooled by the plant cooling water systtm, which also cools the main turbine lute oil coolers and generator hydrogen coolers.
The plant cooling water system pumps take suction from the makeup flume of the condenser water intake _ canal. After passing through the heat exchangers, the water is returned to the intake canal at a different location.
Compared to the heat input from all other sources, the additional heat load from the SFP cooling system (due to the storage of ad-ditional spent fuel) will have a minor effect on the temperature of i.he discharge from the plant cooling water system and will not alter the evaluation of thermal effluents presented in the FES for Rancho Seco issued in March 1973.
The only potential offsite radiological environmental impact associated with th'is expansion would be due to the additional i
increment in the longlived radioactive effluents released at the facility. The expansion of-the storage capacity of the SFP will allow spent fuel to be stored for an additional 5 years without shipment off-site assuming that it is not necessary to off-load a complete core.
During the storage of the spent fuel under water, both volatile and l
nonvolatile radioactive nuclides may be released to the water from the surface of the assemblies or from defects in the fuel cladding.
Most of the material released from the surface of tg assgbliegg l
consisg of activa?.ed corrosion products such as Co
, Co
, Fe and Mn which are not volatile. Theradionuclid934relejgydt 8hh' waterggroughdefectsinthecladding,suchasCs
, Cs
, Sr and Sr are predominantly nonvolatile and.. as with the activated corrosion product nuclides, the primary impact is their contribution to radiation levels to which workers in and near the SFP would be exposed. The volatile fission product nuclides of most concern that might be released through defects in the fuel cladding are the j
noble gases (xenon and krypton), tritium and the iodine isotopes.
3 m.
^
i
\\
l
.. To remove the nonvolatile corrosion and fission product nuclides, as well as to control water chenistry and optical clarity, the Rancho Seco SFP purification gystem utilizes a cartridge type filter, a skimmer and a 50 f t nonregenerative mixed bed demin-eralizer.
During operation, uo to 160 gpm of the SFP water (pool volume is approximately 600,000 gals) is processed through the purification system; 63 hours7.291667e-4 days <br />0.0175 hours <br />1.041667e-4 weeks <br />2.39715e-5 months <br /> are required for one turnover at 160 gpm.
Storing additional spent fuel in the SFP will increase the amount of corrosion and fission product nuclides introduced into the SFP wa ter. The purification system, which is not scheduled to be in continuous operation, is capable of removing the increased radio-activity so as to maintain acceptable radiation levels above and in the vicinity of the pool. This will increase the amount of radio-activity accumulated on the filter and demineralizer which are disposed of as solid waste. At present, the licensee has not shipped any spent demineralizer resin or cartridge filters from the spent fuel pool purification system. The licensee plans to replace the filter and resin bed on the basis _of pressure drop. Since irradiated fuel has been stored in the SFP only for a brief period, the SFP purification system has not been used enough to verify replacement periods. Once irradiated fugl is stored in the SFP, the licensee expects to replace the 50 fta resin bed once per year and the 12 ft3 filter twice a year. Based on data.from another operating pressurized water reactor with irradiated fuel in the spent fuel pool, the licensee's estimates are reasonable. Since the licensee expects that filter and resin bed replaceinent will be more dependent on dirt loading (airborne dust and debris) rather than on soluble, colloidal and particulate material contributed by the stored fuel, they do not anticipate an increase in solid waste shipments due to the proposed increase in the number of spent fuel assemblies to be stored in the SFP. As a conservative estimate, we have assumed that the amount of solid radwaste generated each year by the SFP purification system may be increased by an additional resin bed and an additional filter cartridge.
This would increase thg volume of solid waste to be shipped from the facility by 62 ft / year.
licensee shipping 3000 ft}/yr of solid waste.In the FES dated March 19 3, w If the increased stg/yr, the-2", increase in total waste volume would not have anyrage o ft significant additional environmental impact over that previously evaluated.
v
i g.
' We have estimated the increment in onsite occupational dose resulting from the proposed increase in stored fuel assemblies on the basis i
. of'information supplied by the licensee and by utilizing realistic assumptions for radionuclide concentrations in the SFP water and for occupancy timet. - This analysis indicates that the occupational radiation exposure resulting from this proposed action represents less than one percent of the present total annual occupational burden at this facility. The small increase in radiation exposure will not
- effect the licensee's ability to maintain individual occupational doses as' low as reasonably achievable and within the limits of 10 CFR
- 20...Thus, we conclude that storing additional fuel in the SFP will not result in any significant increase in doses received by occupational workers.
With respect to gaseous releases, since short lived noble gases would have decayed to negligible amounts, the only significant
' noble gas isotope remaining in the SFP and attributable to storing additional assemblies for a longer period of time would be Krypton-
- 85. Based on operating experience for Zircaloy clad fuel, we have assumed that 0.25% of all fuel rods will have cladding defects which permit the escape of fission product gases.
It is assumed that the fission product gases escape on a relatively linear basis with time.
On.this basis, we have conservatively estimated that an additional 100 curies per. year of Krypton-85 will be released when the modified pool is completely filled. The release rate averaged over the additional
- 5 years needed to fill up the modified pool is 60 Ci/yr. The licensee concluded that increasing the fuel storage from 244 assemblies to 579 assemblies (a factor of 2.37)'wil.1 not necessarily increase the Krypton-85 release rate, since the fuel-discharge will continue on a 1/3 core / year-rate and the release of Krypton 85 is most likely to occur'during the. initial handling and the first year of storage.
Nevertheless,' as a' conservative approach, the licensee assumed that yearly release might increase by the 2.37 factor or 44 curies per
- year when~the. pool-is~ filled with 579 assemblies. The total facility l
release' initially projected by the licensee for Krypton 85 was 981 curies-per year; thus, the maximum percentage increase projected by the licensae due to the proposed fuel storage expansion would be 1ess than 4.5%.
As discussed in Section III.D.2.b of the FES issued in March 1973, the fuelfstorage pool area is continuously ventilated.- Normally, this air'is released through the plant vent.
In the TES, we estimated that about 760-Ci/yr of Krypton-85 would be released from 9
I i
e
[
M
- 'iB y
v g
g3-ps---g-g y
a--t+.
.se p
t-me
10 the entire facility along with 12,200 Ci/yr of other xenon and krypton isotopes. For comparison, the facility has reported an average re-lease of 120 curies per year of noble gases for the first full year of operation. The licensee has conducted a continuous environ-mental radioactivity monitoring program starting prior to facility operation. Sampling and analyses were performed on air partic-ulates, gamma dose rate, surface water, well water, rabbits, vege-tation, bottom sediment, milk, aquatic plants and fish. The re-suits are published in the annual reports. Based on the data obtained, there is no significant radioactivity in the environment that can be attributed to facility operation. The expected addi-tional 100 C1/yr of Krypton-85 that may be released as a result of the proposed modification is less than 1". of the total noble gas release estimated for the facility in the FES and will not have any significant impact on ' radiation levels or personnel exposures offsite.
Assuming that the spent fuel will be stored onsite for a year or more (rather than shipped offsite after 3 to 5 months storage as
)
originally planned), Iodine-131 releases will not be significantly increased by the expansion of the fuel storage capacity since the Iodine-131 inventory in the fuel will decay to negligible levels.
Due to conservatism in the original SFP cooling system design, storing additional spent fuel assemblies is not expected to in-crease the bulk water temperature above the 120*F used in the design analysis. Cross connections are available to use one of the two redundant decay heat removal pumps and coolers to supplement the SFP cooling system. The licensee has stated that the installed equipment will be utilized as necessary to maintain the pool water temperature at 120*F or less. On this basis, it is not expected that there will be any significant change in evaporation rates and the release of tritium.
As concluded in the NRC Staff's Safety Evaluation Report (SER) of June 1973 on Rancho Seco the spent fuel shipping cask storage area j
has been designed to minimize the loss of water due to an accidental drop of a spent fuel shipping cask. The proposed fuel storage rack modification does not involve the spent fuel shipping cask area; therefore, the proposed modification does not affect the original safety evaluation as to the integrity of the spent fuel storage area. We also conclude that the cask presents no additional hazard to fuel stored in the pool; it is physically prevented from entering the fuel area and damaging fuel, even in the event of failure of the supporting cable, by a protective cask catcher. The potential offsite doses due to a fuel handling accident remain as stated in the Final Environmental Statement of March,1973; they are unaffected by the proposed stor' age rack modification.-
k
4 11 We have considered the.potiential cumulative environmental impacts associated with the expansion of the.5FP and have concluded that they will not. result in radioactive effluent releases that signifi-cantly affect the quality of the human environment during either normal operation of the expanded SFP or under postulated fuel handling accident conditions.
d.
Have all technical issues which have arisen during the review of this application been resolved within that context?
The accompanying safety evaluation report points out that all questions concerning health and safety have been answered.
Would a deferral or severe restriction on this licensing e.
action result in substantial harm to the public interest?
In regard to this licensing action, we have considered the following alternatives:
(a) shipment of spent fuel to a fuel reprocessing facility, (b) shipment of spent fuel to spent fuel storage facility, (c) shipment of spent fuel to another reactor site, and (d) ceasing operation of the facility.
The contract price for the design and fabrication of the replace-ment racks is $799,000, including estimated freight charges. The current estimate' for the removal of the old racks and installation of the new racks is $200,000, resulting in a total cost of $999,000 for the proposed modification of the Rancho Seco spent fuel pool in 1976 dollars.
The Sacramento Municipal Utility District had a fuel reprocessing contract with General Electric Company. When General Electric was unable to operate their facility at Morris, Illinois, this contract was cancelled. At that time, General Electric approached the District with a proposal to provide fuel storage at the Morris, Illinois facility. The most recent estimates by General Electric for the average cost of this storage equates to approximately $10 per kilogram of uranium per year.
At the present time, General ~ Electric has not fully comitted to this. fuel storage proposal. The District feels it would not be prudent -to wait for such a program to develop and lose the oppor-tunity of modifying the Rancho Seco fuel storage, racks before the, first refueling.
Installation of new racks would be more expensive and difficult and would involve more potential radiation exposure.
j-if performed while spent fuel was in' the pool.
t
- i;
~-
l 12 -
j t
The licen'see has made inquiries i; the two potential fuel repro-cessors in the U. S. to detenaine the availability of storage space and fuel reprocessing services. At present, neither the NFS :-
AGNS facilities were able to extend a contract to the licensee for the storage or reprocessing of spent fuel.
The staff anticipates that shipment of spent fuel cannot be made to such facilities prior to the mid-1980's. Although it is not anticipated that any storage l
^ will be available in the foreseeable future, the costs associated with this alternative would be based on a minimum storage com-mitment of seven to ten years and are estimated to be 54,600/ year /
assembly or $32,300 to $46,000/ assembly for the seven to ten year period.. Not included in this estimate is the cost of shipping the spent fuel to the reprocessor's facility.
Since the Rancho Seco-fuel storage facility is empty at the present time, it is not logical to attempt to store fuel from this facility at another facility licensed to store spent fuel. Any other facility would have no more storage space available than Rancho Seco has itself.
According to a survey conducted and documented by the Energy Research and Development Agency, as much as 46 percent of the operating nuclear power plants will lose the ability to refuel during the period 1975-1984 should there not be any additional spent fuel storage pool expansions or conmitments to utilize offsite storage facilities. Thus, Rancho Seco cannot assuredly rely on any other-power. facility to provide addi-tional storage capability except on a short-term emergency basis.
The first discharge of fuel from Rancho Seco Unit No. I will be in the s,ummer of 1977. With annual discharges, the existing spent fuel pool would be filled with the' discharge occurring in the summer of 1980. This implies that the licensee would be unable to discharge fuel in the summer of 1981 and the unit operation would
-have to be term ted. The licensee does not have sufficient generating capacity to provide the replacement power which would be required if Rancho Seco were to terminate operation. Therefore, the licensee would have to purchase power elsewhere or construct alternate. generating facilities. This power would cost 2.5 to 3.0 cents per kilowatt hour in 1981 for a total ant.ual cost of $150 to
$180 million, assuming a 75% plant capacity factor.
In summary, the alternatives desiribed above do not offer the operating flexibility of the proposed action nor could they be
. completed as rapidly as the proposed action. The alternatives of shipping the spent fuel to a reprocessing facility, an independent t
e e
64 4
e a- - -,.
p
storage facility or' to another nuclear plant would be more expen-
-sive than the proposed action and might preempt storage space needed by another utility. The alternative of ceasing operation of the facility also would be much more expensive than the proposed action because of the need to provide fossil fuel replacement In addition to the economic advantages of the proposed power.
action, t.e have determined that the environmental impacts associated with the proposed modification would not be significantly changed from those a.ialyzed in the ;;RC staff's FES issued in March 1973.
Accordingly, deferral or severe restriction of the action here prcposed would result in substantial harm to the public interest.
III. Basis and Conclusion for not Preparing an Envircnmental Impact Statement We have reviewed this proposed facility modification relative to the' requirements set forth in 10 CFR Part 51 and the Council of Environmental Quality's Guidelines, 40 CTR 1500.6 and have applied, weighed, and balanced the five factors specified by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 40 FR 42801. We have determined that the license unendment will not signif,icantly affect the quality of the human environment.
Therefore, the Commission has found that an environmental impact statement need not be prepared, and that pursuant to 10 CFR 50.5(c), the issuance of a negative declaration to this effect is appropriate.
Dated:
June 30, 1976 w
9 4
s e
9 7