ML20073G307
| ML20073G307 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 09/27/1994 |
| From: | Stolz J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20073G309 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9410040093 | |
| Download: ML20073G307 (4) | |
Text
,
e 7590-01 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION NORTH ATLANTIC ENERGY SERVICE CORPORATION. ET AL SEABROOK STATION. UNIT NO. 1 DOCKET NO. 50-443 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The U.S. Nuclear hegulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering amending Facility Operating License No. NPF-86 issued to North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation (North Atlantic) for the Seabrook Station, Unit No.1 (Seabrook). The facility is located in Rockingham County, New Hampshire.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Identification of the Proposed Action:
The proposed action would amend the Seabrook Technical Specifications (TS) to permit operation of the Seabrook core with an expanded axial flux difference (AFD) band from that currently permitted. Operation with the expanded AFD band would be supported by continuous monitoring of core power distribution using the fixed incore detector system. Other TS changes would allow for fuel design enhancements. The changes to the TS include modification to a number of safety analysis input parameters and assumptions as follows:
Incorporation of Westinghouse WRB-1 departure from nucleate boiling correlation and revised thermal design procedure Increased core power distribution peaking factors Allowance for positive moderator temperature coefficient Allowance for thimble plug deletion Allowance for increased steam generator tube plugging limit Allowance for new fuel design features 9410040093 940927 PDR ADOCK 05000443 P
PDR;a
e
,. 1 Modification of analytical assumptions related to certain
=
surveillance parameters Expansion of AFD band Limiting Condition for Operation.
=
The Need for the Proposed Action:
The proposed changes will allow operation of Seabrook with improved fuel cycle management and will permit North Atlantic to implement certain new fuel design features in the future.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action:
The proposed action will allow for a significant improvement in fuel utilization. The number of fuel assemblies required for an equilibrium core reload will decrease from 80 to 72. Thus, the major environmental effects of the propose action are:
a.
Less nuclear fuel will be required for the reactor core thereby reducing the environmental impacts associated with mining, converting, enriching, and transporting uranium, b.
Fewer fuel assemblies will be required for the reactor core reloads thereby reducing the environmental impacts associated with fabricating and transporting fuel assemblies, c.
Fewer spent fuel assemblies will be produced reducing the amount of spent fuel storage space required, and d.
Fewer spent fuel assemblies will need to be managed in long-term storage or disposed of in licensed repositories.
The Commission has evaluated the environmental impact of the proposed action and has determined that neither the probability of accidents nor the post-accident radiological releases would be greater than previously
r k,
determined.
Further, the Commission has determined that the proposed approval would not affect routine radiological plant effluents and would not increase occupational radiological exposure. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed approval does involve features located entirely within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.
It does not affect nonradiological plant effluents and has no other environmental impact. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no significant nonradiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
Alternatives to the Proposed Action:
Since the Commission has concluded that the environmental effects of the proposed action are not significant, any alternatives with equal or greater environmental impact need not be evaluated.
The principal alternative would be to deny the requested approval. This would not reduce the environmental impact attributable to the facility.
Alternative Use of Resources:
This action does not involve the use of resources not previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement Related to Operation of the Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2, dated December 1974.
Acencies and Persons Consulted:
The Commission's staff reviewed the licensee's request and discussed the proposed issuance with the New Hampshire and Massachusetts State officials.
The State officials had no comments. The Commission did not consult other agencies or persons.
r 3 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Based upon 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 action.
For further details with respect to this action, see the request for approval dated November 23, 1993, as clarified and supplemented by letter dated August 15, 1994, which are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW, Washington, DC 20555, and at the Local Public Document Room located at the Exeter Public Library, 47 Front Street, Exeter, New Hampshire 03833.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day of September 1994.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
m u
-l-
. -Clll John N'. Stolz, Director Pr'oject Directorate I-4 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation I