ML20006E902
| ML20006E902 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 02/16/1990 |
| From: | Hannon J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20006E903 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9002260513 | |
| Download: ML20006E902 (4) | |
Text
,
j s.-
(Q l
j 7590-01 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY.
j DOCKETNOS.50-266AND50-101 0
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT i
s The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Comission) is considering issuance of-amendments to Facility' Operating License Nos. DPR-24 and DPR-27,-
issuedtotheWisconsinElectricPowerCompany,(thelicensee),foroperation of the.' Point-Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. I and 2, located in Manitowoc County, Wisconsin.
! ENVIRONMENTAL' ASSESSMENT Identification of Proposed Action The proposed amendments would revise the provisions in the Technical Specifications (TS)relatingtofuelstorage. Specifically, the-proposed
, amendments would increase the U-235 content per axial centimeter for 0FA fuel assemblies from 39.4 to 46.8 grams and would permit the use of axial fuel blankets. The increase in U-235 content for the OFA fuel assemblies 1
--corresponds to-an increase in fresh fuel enrichment from the current limit G
of 4.0 to 4.75 weight percent U-235. The U-235 content permitted for standard fuel assemblies would remain unchanged.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's application for amendmen'ts dated July 6, ~1988, as supplemented by a letter dated November 1, i
1989.
. i t' 9002260513 900216 DR ADOCK 05 26
q,;
7,
, ; ~;,.
L 1 j,
'The Need for the Proposed Action The proposed change to the T5 is required in order to permit the storage h
of fuel assemblies with an enrichment of up to 4.75 weight percent U-235.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
. The Comission has completed its evaluation of the proposed revision to TS and concludes that~ storage and use of 0FA fuel enriched with U-235 in excess of 4 weight percent and up to 4.75 weight percent at the Point Beach Nucleai
. Plant is acceptable. The safety considerations associated with higher enrich-ment and extended irradiation 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 affect on the probability of any accident. The increased burnup'may slightly. change the mix of fission products that might be, L
released in the event of a serious accident but such changes would not signifi-cantly affect the consequences of serious accidents. Routine radiological ef-i fluents are not affected. As a result, there is no increase in individual or cumulative 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-u 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-y (53 FR 32322) in connection with the Sheuro Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1:
h Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact. As indicated 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 Gigawatt L
l.
1'
'f me, y' o Days per Metric Ton (GWD/MT) are either unchanged, or may in fact be reduced fromthose-summarizedinTableS-4assetforthin10CFR51.52(c). These findings are applicable to these proposed amendments for the Point Beach Nuclear Plant.
Accordingly, the Comission concludes.that this proposed action would result in.
-no significant radiological environmental impact.
The Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment and Opportunity for Hearing in connection with this action was published in the Federal Register-on February 23,1989(54FR7900). No request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene was filed following this notice.
With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed change to l
the TS will in.no way affect environs located outside the restricted area as L
L
- defined in 10 CFR Part 20.. It does'not affect nonradiological plant' effluents and has.no other environmental impact. Therefore, the Commission concludes that~-
l, there are no significant nonradiological environmental impacts associated with
-the proposed amendments.
p
~ Alternative to the Proposed Action Since the Comission 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.
L The principal alternative would be to deny the requested' amendments. This i
l would not reduce environmental impacts of plant operation and would result in reduced operational flexibility.
U l
. 8 D
+-
y
- u r.
Alternative Use of Resources
]
This action does not involve the use of any resources not previously con-l
- sidered.in the Final Environmental Statement for the Point Beach Nuclear Plant I
- Unit Nos. I and 2,. dated May 1972.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
+
.l
.The NRC staff. reviewed the-licensee's request and'did not consult other agencies or persons.
[
h FINDING OF-NO SIGNIFICANT' IMPACT The Comission has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for-the proposed license amendments, p
1 Based upon the foregoing environmental assessment, we conclude that the I
proposed action will not have a significant effect on the. quality of the human environment.
4 For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendments dated July 6,1988 and a supplement-dated November 1,1989 which are available' for public inspection at the Comission's Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. and at the Joseph P. Mann Library,1516 Sixteenth Street, Two Rivers, Wisconsin.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day of February 1990.
~
l; FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
'h
. John N. Hannon, Director Project Directorate III-3 Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV, V and Special Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 1
i-
[
_