ML20087K912
| ML20087K912 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 08/15/1995 |
| From: | Berkow H NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20087K915 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9508240234 | |
| Download: ML20087K912 (4) | |
Text
_
7590. UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION-DUKE POWER COMPANY. ET~AL.
3 DOCKET NOS. 50-413 AND 50-414 CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION. UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF
-NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT i
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering I
issuance of amendments to Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-35 and NPF-52, issued to Duke Power Company, et al. (the licensee), for operation of the Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, located in York County, South Carolina.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT l
Identification of the Proposed Action:
The proposed action would change the Technical Specifications (TS) to-(a) allow the maximum enrichment f.or fuel stored in the fuel pools to increase from a nominal value of 4.0 to 5.0 weight percent Uranium-235, (b) establish new loading patterns for new and irradiated fuel in the spent fuel pool consistent with associated burnup criteria up to a maximum value of 60 GWD/MTU to accommodate this increase, (c) add a TS to establish a limit for boron concentration for all modes of operation, (d) add BASES to correspond to the TS-that were added, (e) add TS to reflect limits for fuel storage criticality analysis, and (f) reformat the TS to bring them more in line with the standard format-in the NRC report NUREG-1431, " Standard Technical Specifications Westinghouse Plants."
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's application for amendments dated September 19, 1994, as supplemented by letters dated April 26-l and June 19, 1995.
NN NNN13
'P PDR
~ - _ -
',n 1
. 'The Need for the Pronosed Action:
a 1
The proposed action is needed so that the licensee can use higher fuel enrichment to provide additional flexibility in the licensee's reload design efforts and to increase' the _ efficiency of fuel storage cell use in-the spent fuel pools.
l i
' Environmental Imoacts of the Prooosed Action:
1 The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed-revisions to the TS.
The proposed revisions would permit storage of fuel enriched 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. No changes are being made in the types or amounts of any radiological effluents that may be released offsite.
There is no significant. increase in the allowable individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
i The environmental impacts of transportation resulting from the use of
- higher enrichment fuel and extended irradiation were published and discussed in the staff assessment entitled, "NRC Assessment of the Environmental Effects of Transportation Resulting from Extended Fuel Enrichment and Irradiation,"
dated July 7,1988, and published in the Federal Reaister (53 FR 30355) on j
. August 11, 1988, as corrected on August 24, 1988-(53 FR 32322), in connection l
withShearohHarrisNuclearPowerPlant, Unit 1: Environmental Assessment and
-l Finding of No Significant Impact. As indicated therein, the environmental cost contribution of the proposed increase in the fuel enrichment and irradiation limits are either unchanged or may, in fact, be reduced from those I
-2
1 4
. 'I sumarized in Table S-4 asset forth in 10 CFR 51.52(c). Accordingly, the Comission concludes that there are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed amendment.
i With regard-to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed action involves 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 Comission concludes that there are no significant nonradiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
Alternatives to the Proposed Action:
Since the Comission has concluded there is no measurable environmental impact associated with the proposed action, any alternatives with equal or.
greater environmental impact need not be evaluated. The principal alternative to this action would be to deny the requested amendments. Such action would not reduce the environmental impacts of plant operations.
Alternative Use of Resources:
This action does not involve the use of resources not previously considered in the " Final Environmental Statement Related to the Operation of Catawba Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2," dated January 1983.
Aaencies and Persons Consulted:
In accordance with its stated policy, on July 21, 1995, the NRC staff consulted with the South Carolina State official, Mr. V. Autrey of the Bureau 7
of Radiological Health, Department of Health and Environmental Controls, regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. The State official had no coments.
i
, FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Based upon the 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 license amendments.
For furthec details with respect to this action, see the licensee's letter dated September 19, 1994, as supplemented by letters dated April 26 and June 19, 1995, which are available for public inspection at the Commission's i
Public Document Room, The Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, I
and at the local public document room located at the York County Library,138 East Black Street, Rock Hill, South Carolina.
l Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day of August 1995.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Herbert N. Berkow, Director Project Directorate 11-2 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation i
i P
t t
t i
l l
1 i