ML20098D913
| ML20098D913 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 05/21/1992 |
| From: | Black S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20098D915 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9206010100 | |
| Download: ML20098D913 (4) | |
Text
.--
7590-01 c
UNITED STAUS NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY CITY PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD OF SAN ANTONIO CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY LITY OF AUSTIN. TEXAS SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT. UNITS _1 AND 2
@LKET NOS. 50-498 AND 50-4.91 NOTICE OF ENVIRONhENTAL ASSESSMENT AfQ rlNDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) 1s considering issuance of amendments to facility Operating License Nos. NPF-76 and NPF-80, issued to Houston Lighting & Power Company, et. al. (the licensee) for South Texas Project (STP), Units 1 and 2 located in Matagorda County, Texas.
[nuironmenta~i Assessment jdentification of Prooosed AqfiqDi By letter dated October 30, 1991 (ST-HL-AE-3906), the licensee submitted a request to amend its license to reflect changes to the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) for Units 1 and 2.
Those changes involve an unreviewed safety question related to an increase in the operating cycle lengths and associated fuel burnups. The licensee proposes to change the core-average burnup from 23,740 megawatt days / metric ton uranium (MWD /MTU) to
- 40,000 MWD /MTV. A change to the Technical Specification maximum e..richment value was previously addressed by Amendment Nos.16 and 6 and the 9206010100 920521 PDR ADOCK 05000498 P
e,,
Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significtnt Impact which was published in the federal Reaister on June 8, 1990 (55 FR 23492).
Need for Proposed Action:
The licensee has planned a length of 456 effective full power days (EFpD) for the current operating cycle for Unit 1 (Cycle 4).
The increase in core average discharge burnup is required to support this cycle length.
EnvironmentaLJenact of Jhe. Propos_ed Action:
The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed amendment.
The proposed changes to the UFSAR would permit fuel to be irradiated above 33 gigawett days per metric ton (GWD/HT) but not to exceed 60 GWD/MT.
The safety considerations associated with reactor operation with 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 impact on the probability of any accident.
The increased burnup 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.
No changes are being made in the types or-amout's of any radiological effluents that may be released offsite. There is no significant increase in the allowable individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
With regard to potential nonradiological impacts of extended fuel burnup, the proposed changes 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.
I
- ~, - -
a The environmental impacts of transportation resulting from the use of higher enrichment and extended irradiation are discussed in the staff assess-ment entitled "NRC Assessmen; of the Environmental Effects of Transportation Resulting frcm Extended Fuel Enrichment and Irradiation." This assessment was published in the Federal Reaister 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, tne environmental cost contribution of an increase in fuel enrichment up to 5 weight percent U-235 and irradiation limits of up to 60 GWD/MT are either unchanged, or may in fact be reduced from those summarized in Table S-4 asset forth in 10 CFR St.52(c).
These findings 4
are applicable to the changes associated with the extended burnup unreviewed safety question for the South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2.
Therefore, the Commission concludes that there are no significant radiological or nonradiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
The Notice-of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments and Opportunity for Hearing in connection _with this action was published in the Federal Reaister l
on March 4, 1992 (57 FR 07812).
l l
Alternatives to the Proposed Action;.
Since the Commission concluded that there are no significant i
environmental effects that would result from the proposed action, any alternative with equal or greater environmental impacts need not be evaluateu.
The principal alternative would be to deny the requested amendments.
This would not ceduce the environmental impacts of plant operation and would result in reduced operational flexibility.
l l
e 4
~.
~4-Alternate Use of Resources-This action does not involve the use of any resources not previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for the South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, dated August 1986 (NUREG-11711 Aaencie: and Persons Contacted 1 The NRC staff reviewed the licensee's request and did not consult other egencies or ! arsons.
EJJ@Jfl0 0F NO SIGNIFICA1T IMPACT:
The Commission has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed amendments.
Based upon the foregoing envirenmental assessment, we conclude thtt the proposed action will not hav.
significant effect on the quality of the human environment.
For further details with respect to this action, see the arplication for license amendments dated October 30, 1991.
Copies are available for inspection at the Commission's Pubilt. Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20555, and at the local public document room located at the Wharton County Junior College, J. M. Hodges Learning Center, 911 Boling Highway, Wharton, Texas 77488.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day of May 1991.
FOR THE flVCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION C) 4 Suzanne C. Black, Director Projset Directorate IV-2 Division of Reactor Projects Ill/IV/V Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation m..
.-m
-y-m.
.,e-,
--_r-,
_ -.