ML20086S932
| ML20086S932 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Farley  |
| Issue date: | 12/20/1991 |
| From: | Adensam E Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20086S937 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9201060071 | |
| Download: ML20086S932 (4) | |
Text
-_
-. ~. -. - - -
g*t i
+
7590-01 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSILN l
ALABAMA POWER COMPANY JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50 348 AND S0-364 ENVIRONMENTAt. ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF i
i N0 SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission (the Commission) is considering issuance of amendments to Facility Operating Licenses Hos. NPF-2 and NPF-8 issued to Alabama Power Company (the licensee) for operation of Joseph M.
Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 (FNP), located in Houston County, Alabama.
-ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT.
l Identification of Proposed' Action P
The proposed amendments would include provisions in Technical Specifications (TS) 5.3, Reactor Core, which allow for an increase in reload fuel enrichment from 4.3 weight percent U-235 to a rominal 5 weicht percent U-235, and a change in' reactor core fuel type to include Westinghouse Optimized Fuel Assemblies
-(OFA) and Vt.NTAGE-5 fuel assemblies, in addition to the currently authorized Westinghouse low Paras-itic (LOPAR) fuel.
In addition,.TS 5.6, Fuel Storage, is revised to a'ilow for storage of Westinghouse OFA and VANTAGE-5 fuel assemblies.
The proposed action.is in accordance with the licensee.'s grplication for amendment dated July 1,1991, as supplemented October 18, 1991.
L i
l l
P
I 2
The Need for the proposed Action:
The proposed changes are needed so that the licensee can use higher fuel anrichment to provide the flexibility of extending the fuel irradiation and to permit operation for longer fuel cycles.
Environmental impacts of the proposed Action:
The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed revisions to the TS.
'* proposed revisions would permit use of fuel enr'.ched to a nominal 5.0 weight percent Uranium 235. The safety considerations associated with reactor operation with higher enrichment and extended irradiation have been evaluated by the NRC staff. 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.
The higher enrichment, with fuel burnup to 60,000 megawatt oors per metric ton Uranium, may slightly change the mix of fission products that might be released in the event of a serious accident, but such small changes would not significantly affect the consequences of serious t r.ci den t s.
No changes are being made in the types or anmunts of any radiological effluents that may be released offsite. There is no significant increase in the 6110wable individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
With regard to potential nonradiological impacts of reactor operation with higher enrichment and extended irradiation, the proposed changes to the TS involve systems located within the restricted area, as defined in 10 CFR 1
part 20. They do not affect nonradiological plant effluents and have no other environmental impact.
The environmental impacts of transportation resulting from the use of l
I l
higher enrichn.ent fuel and extended irradiation were published and discussed I
i l-
-. _ - ~ _ _
~.,
^E 3
in the staff assessment entitled, "NRC Assessment of the Environmental Effects of Transportation Resulting from Extended Fuel Enrichment and Irradiation,"
dated July 7,1988, ar.d published in the Federal Register (53 FR 30355) on August 11, 1987. As indicated therein, the environmental cost contribution of the proposed incretse in the fuel enrichment and irradiation limits are either unchanged or may, in f act, be reduced f rom those surinarized in Table 5 4 as set forth in 10 CFR 51.52(c).
Therefore, the Commission concludes that there are no significant radiological ur nonradiological environmental impacts assciated with the proposed amend. tent.
Alternative to the Proposed Action Since the Comission concluded that there are no significant environmental effects that would result from the proposed action, any other siternative would have equal or greater environmental impacts and need not be evaluated.
This The principal alternative would be to deny the requested amendments.
would not reduce the environmental impact of plant operations and would result in reduced operational flexibility.
Alternative Use of Resources This action does not it.volve the use of any resources not previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement related to operation of the Joseph it. Farlay Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2.
Agericies and Persons Consulted The NRC staff reviewed the licensee's request and did not consult other agencies or persons.
5 I
4 l
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFicANT IMPACT The Comission 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 amendments dated July 1,1991, as supplemented by letter dated October 18, 1991, which are available for public inspection at the Comission's Public Document Room 2120 L Street, N. W., Washington, D. C ant! at the Houston-Love tiemorial Library, 212 W. 'ctrMshaw Street, P.O. Box 1369, Dothan, Alabama 3630?.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day of December 1991.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
)
hd&
Elinor G. Adensam Director Project Directorate 11-1 Division of Reactor Projects 1/11 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation a