ML20045C307
| ML20045C307 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 06/16/1993 |
| From: | Black S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20045C308 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9306220341 | |
| Download: ML20045C307 (4) | |
Text
..
7590-1 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION TV ELECTRIC COMPANY COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION. UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-445 AND 50-446 LNVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING 0F N0 SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of amendments to Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-87 and NPF-89, issued to Texas Utilities Electric Company, et al., (the licensee) for the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Company (CPSES), Units 1 and 2 located in Somervell County, Texas.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Identification of Proposed Action:
By letter dated October 16, 1992, as supplemented by letter dated March 17, 1993, the licensee proposed to change the technical specifications (TSs) to allow an increase in fuel enrichment (Uranium 235) to 4.3 weight percent.
The present TSs permit a maximum enrichment of 3.5 weight percent.
Associated with the change is the allowance of fuel irradiation up to 60,000 megawatt days / metric ton of Uranium (MWD /MTU).
The Need for Proposed Action:
The licensee intends, in the future, to use the more highly enriched fuel to operate with 18 month fuel cycles. Currently, TS 5.3.1 limits the storage and use of fuel to an enrichment of 3.5 weight percent.
Before the licensee extends plant operating cycles, it plans on receiving shipments of 4.3 weight percent fuel in July 1993. Thus, the change to the TSs was requested.
i 9306220341 930616 DR ADOCK 0500 S
T
. Environmental Impact of the Proposed Action:
The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed revision to TSs and concludes that storage and use of fuel enriched with U-235 up to 4.3 weight percent at the CPSES, Units 1 and 2, is acceptable. The safety considerations associated with higher enrichments 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 l
level. The change to the fuel burnup is bounded by NRC staff generic review (discussed below).
As a result, there is no significant increase in l
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 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 32322) in connection with the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1:
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 60,000 MWD /MTU 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 these proposed amendments for CPSES, Units 1 and 2.
Accordingly, the Commission concludes that this proposed action would result in no significant radiological environmental impact.
. With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed changes involve systems located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.
It does not affect non-radiological plant effluents and has no other environmental impact.
Therefore, the Commission concludes that there are no significant non-radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed amendments.
The Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments and Opportunity for Hearing in connection with this action was published in the FEDERAL REGISTER on April 20, 1993 (58 FR 21323).
No request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene was filed following this notice.
Alternatives to the Proposed Action:
Since the Commission concluded that there are no significant environmental effects that would result from the proposed action, any alternative 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; however, this would not reduce environmental impacts of plant operation and would result in reduced operational flexibility. The environmental impacts of the proposed action and the alternative action are similar.
Alternative Use of Resources:
This action does not involve the use of any resources not previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for the CPSES, Units 1 and 2, dated September 1981 (NUREG 0775) and Supplement dated October 1989.
Aaencies and Persons Consulted:
The NRC staff reviewed the licensee's request.
The staff consulted with the State of Texas regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action.
l i
i
________--__--____-_______O
i 4 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT:
The Commission has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed license amendments.
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.
(
For further details with respect to this action, see the application for license amendments dated October 16, 1992, and supplemental letter dated March 17, 1993.
Copies are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW.,
Washington, D.C. 20555, and at the Local Public Document Room located at the University of Texas at the Arlington Library, Government Publications / Maps, 701 South Cooper, P. O. Box 19497, Arlington, Texas 76019.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day of June 1993.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
)(N(,(
H%
Suzanne T. Black, Director Project Directorate IV-2 Division of Reactor Projects Ill/IV/V Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation i
i 4
l I
i 1
i
---_-_____--___-__-_-____-__--_--__-___-_-_--____-__-_-_-______--_--___________-_-______--__b s