ML20095C950
| ML20095C950 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 12/05/1995 |
| From: | Matthews D NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20095C956 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9512120377 | |
| Download: ML20095C950 (4) | |
Text
..
i l
e i
i UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION FLORIDA POWER COMPANY CRYSTAL RIVER NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT. UNIT 3 DOCKET No. 50-302 ENVIR0 MENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF N0 SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Conunission) is considering l
issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. DPR-72 issued to Florida Power Compant (the licensee) for operation of Crystal River Nuclear i
Generating Plant, Unit 3, located in Citrus County, Florida.
I ENVIR0 MENTAL ASSESSMENT Identification of Procosed Action The proposed amendment would include provisions in Technical i
Specifications (TS) Section 3.7 which allow for the storage of fuel with an enrichment not to exceed 5.0 w/o U-235 in the new and spent fuel storage racks. The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's application for amendment dated January 26, 1995, as supplemented March 9, 1995, and May 24, 1995.
The Need for Procosed Action:
The proposed changes are needed so that the licensee can use higher fuel enrichment to provide the ficxibility of extending the fuel irradiation and to permit operation for longer fuel cycles.
9512120377 951205 ADOCK050003]2 DR
. Environmental Imnacts of the Pronosed Action The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed revisions to the TS. The proposed revisions would permit use 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 concludsd 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 days 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 accidents. Nochangesarebeingmadeinthetypesoh amounts of any radiological effluents that mav be released offsite. There is no significant increase in the allowable 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 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 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 4
August 11, 1988. As indicated therein, the environmental cost contribution of
1 l
the proposed increase in the fuel enrichment and irradiation limits are either unchanged or may, in fact, be reduced from those summarized in Table S-4 asset forth in 10 CFR 51.52(c). Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed amendment.
With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed action does involve features located entirely 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. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no significant non-radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
2 Alternative to the Proposed Action Since the Commission concluded that there are no significant environmental effects that would result from the proposed action, any other alternative would have equal or greater environmental impacts and need not be evaluated.
The principal alternative would be to deny the requested amendments.
This would not reduce the environmental impact of plant operations and would result in reduced operational flexibility.
Alternative Use of Resources This action does not involve the use of any resources not previcusly considered in the Final Environmental Statement related to operation of the Crystal River Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit 3.
i
~.
Aaencies and Persons Consulted j
In accordance with its stated policy, on November 16, 1995, the NRC i
staff consulted with the Florida State official, Dr. Lyle Jerrett of the State Office of Radiation Control, regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action.
The State official had no comments.
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 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 amendment dated January 26, 1995, and supplements to the application dated March 9, 1995, and May 24, 1995. These documents are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, The Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20555, and at the local public docunient room for the Crystal River Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 3, located at the Coastal Region Library, 8619 W. Crystal Street, Crystal River, Florida 32629 Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5 th day of December 1995.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION A
David B. Matthews, Director Project Directorate 11-1 Division of Reactor Projects I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation i