ML20207C333

Environ Assessment Accepting Proposed Amends to Change Expiration Dates of Licenses NPF-9 & NPF-17 to 210612 & 230303,respectively

ML20207C333
Person / Time
Site:	McGuire, Mcguire
Issue date:	12/16/1986
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20207C327	List: ML20207C320 ML20207C333
References
NUDOCS 8612300114
Download: ML20207C333 (13)

Text

..

I ENVIR0flMENTAL ASSESSMENT

_B_Y THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR kEGULATION RELATINF TO TIT CLAf.6E Ifi EXPIRATION DATES OF FACILITY OPERATIf;G LICENSE NOS. NPF-9 AND NPF-17 DUKE POWER COMPANY MCGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-369 and 50-370

.~

E Date: December 16, 1986 j

B612300114 861216 ADOCK050g9 DR l

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction 2.0 Need for the Proposed Action 3.0 Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action 3.1 Radiological Impacts 3.1.1 Environmental Impacts - General Public 3.1.2 Environmental Impacts - Occupational Exposures 3.1.3 Environmental Impacts - Uranium Fuel Cycle 3.1.4 Environmental Impacts - Transportation of Fuel and Waste 3.2 Non-Radiological Impacts 4.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Action 5.0 Alternative Use of Resources 6.0 Agencies ard Persons Consulted i

7.0 Basis and Conclusions for Not Preparing an Environmental Impact Statement 8.0 References

~~

9.0 Acknowledgement E

i i

i

7, e

O ff V'

,/ ' ',

(

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory 1Comission (the Coniaission) i considerinC issuance of amendments to the Duke Power Ccapany (the licensee) for the McC4, ire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, located in Mecklenburg County, t' orth Carolina. The pro-posed amendments would change tbc expiration,date in paragraph 2.L c/ Facility Operating License NPF-9 for Unit I from'n.idnight n'n February 28, 2C13, to mid-night on June 12, 2021.

Similarly, the expiretidn date in paragrapt 2.K of Facility Operating License NPF-17 for Unit 2 would be changed f ron..mdnight on February 28, 2013, to midnight on March 3, 2023.

I The currently licensed terin for McGuire riucleer Station,' Units i and 2 is 40 s

years concercing with the issuance of the censtruction'~pemit (February 28,1973).

Accounting for the time that was recuired for plant construction, this represents an effective operating license term of about 32 years for Unit 11 and about 30 years for Unit P.

The licensee's application dated !)ecember d6,1985, requests a 40-year operating license term for idcGuire Nuclear Station, Uritsg1 and 2.

P.0 THE NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION l

The granting of the proposed license anendments, wod10, allow the licensee to l

operate McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and I, far an additional 81 and 10 years, respectively, beyond the currently approved dates.

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS CF THE FROPOSED ACTION in April 1976, the Consnission issued the " Final Environmental Stitanent Related to Operation of William B. McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and/2"' {FES). An addendum to the FES was issued in January 1981. These documents provide an evaluation of the environmental impact associated with operation of,ficGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2.

The Commissica has reviewed these cocuments to detemine if any significant environmental impacts, other. than' those prcviously corsidered, would be associated with the proposed licerise extensiors.

L 3.1 RADIOLOGICAL IMPACTS f

The Commission has eyamired the FES to deterinine whether thu#invironmental impacts would be greater with the extended operating licenses. Medated pop-ulation estimates for the area surrounding McGuire ware compared to populatier i

estimates referenced in the FES ano FSAR. The Commission also eeanined the effects of updated population estimates upon the previous determination of exclusion area, Icw population zone (LPZ) and population center distance, in accordance with 10 CFR 100.11.

I TheFESestimatesforthepopulationwithina50-miler [diusofMcGuirewere based on the 19R cer. sus and were projected to the year 2015.

Recalculation of the population estimates based on the 1980 census, and or) projections made by the United States Departn.ent of Comerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis (Refererces 1 and 2), to the years 2020 and 2030 result in,the following a

updated projections:

i i

Population Projections Within 50-mile Radius of McGuire Nuclear 5tation 3

Population Populaticn Annual Year Tetal Averaae Growth (t/yr.)

2015 1970 census) k 2.651 Million 1.46 2020 1970 census) 2.818 ftillion

!.da 2020 1980 census 2.188 Million 0.925 2030 1980 census 2.279 Millien 0.839 1.

As reported in McGuire FES.

2.

From McGuire FSAR Figure 2.1.3-2 3.

Calculated based on 1970 population of 1.38 million withir, the 0-50 mile radius of McGuire as referenced in the McGuire FES.

The McGuire FES cost-benefit analyses used estimated population doses calcu-lated en the basis of 1970 population statistics to evaluate McGuire radioloaical impacts. As shown above, use of updated (1980) census information results in population growth projections that are lower than those projected in the FES for the area within a 50-mile radius of the ficGuire Nuclear Station. These lower population growth rates tend to improve the already favorable cost-benefit con-clusions established in the FES.

1 i

The LPZ around McGuire extends to a 5.5-mile radius from the station.

Estimates for the populations within a 5-mile radius and a 10-mile radius of McGuire were developed by the licensee based on information previously presented in the ficGuire FES and FSAR and updated based on 1980 census data and projections by the United States Department of Comerce (References 1 and 2). These estimates are sumarized as follows:

!=

Peculation Projections Within 5-Itile Radius and 10-mile Radius of McGuire Nuclear Station 5-Mile Radius 10-Mile Radius Population Population Population Annual Averagg Population Annual Avoraq)

Year Total frowth(%/Yr)"

Total Growth (%/Yr 2015(1970Cen.)f 6,813 1.51 E3,CEE 1.67 2020 (1970 Cen.)

7,399 1.53 E8,721 1.64 2020(1980Cen.)

10,739 2.29 71,262 1.19 2030 (1980 Cen.)

11,103 1.96 73,982 1.06 1.

As reported in ficGuire FES.

2.

From McGuire FSAR Table 2.1.3-1 3.

Calculated based on 1970 population of 3465 within the 0-5 mile radius of licGuire as refererced in the McGuire FES.

4.

Calculated based on 1970 population of 39,362 within the 0-10 nile radius of ficGuire as referenced in the f!cGuire FES.

~.

r J

1-x These updated. population growth projections based on,1980 census data for the area within 5 miles of McGuire are approximately 50 percent higher than pre-viously~ projected in the FES or FSAR, which used 1970 census information. The corresponding projections for the area within 10 miles are lower than those in the FES or FSAR by about 15 percent. The exclusion area surrounding the reactors (in which DuFe Pever Ccepeny, through ownership of the property and i

through agreements with and cooperation of the Mecklenburg County Police and North Carolina Highway Patrol and Lake Norman Marine Comission, exercises appropriate control, including exclusion or removal of personnel and property) remains unchanged from that described in SER Section 2.1.

The nearest popu-lation center distance, defined as the distance from the reactor to the nearest boundary of a densely populated center having more than 25,000 resi-dents, continues to be greater than one and one-third the distance from the reactor to the outer boundary of the LPZ. The nearest population center continues to be Charlotte, NC and is projected to remain so throughout the proposed extended license period for McGuire. Therefore, the nearest popu-lation center remains the same as that described in McGuire SER Section 2.1.

' Additionally, the licensee's updated population projections for the year 2020 for all the sectors which include Charlotte (i.'e., S, SSE, SE at 10 to 20 1 miles from the McGuire site) and all the sectors just on the McGuire side of Charlotte (i.e., S, SSE, SE at 5 to 10 miles from the McGuire site) are lower than-those projected based on 1970 census data and presented in McGuire FSAR Figures 2;L3-8 and 2.1.3-14.

The higher-than-projected population growth rates. experienced in this relatively small area within 5 miles of McGuire are offset by favorable radiological ex-posure from pla'nt releases; durin accidents (both discussed below)g normal operation and by low public risk from

, and therefore, do not alter the favorable cost-benefit conclusions reached in the.FES. The increase in population within 5 miles of the station is primarily due to residential lakeshore development, upgrading of secondary roads, and the completion of Interstate 77. The land usage in the local area remains rural. Although there has been higher projected

~

growth than previous projections in the FES and FSAR, the upgrading of secondary s

roads and the completion of Interstate 77 attendant with the population growth I

in the area assures that there continues to be a reasonable assurance that I

appropriate measures can be taken on behalf of the population within the LPZ in the event of an accident. The population density around McGuire remains about half,the average for U.S. nuclear power plants. -Therefore, the conclusion reached in FSAR Section 2.1.3.3 and the FES, that McGuire meets the requirements of 10 CFR 100 remains unchanged.

The McGuire FES includes an assessment of the public risks from reactor acci-dents per year of operation. The Comission has also assessed the public risks from reactor accidents per year of operation at other reactors of ccmparable s

desig'n and power level (and larger).

In all cases, including McGuire, the estimated reactor accident risks of early and latent cancer fatality per year of operation have been small compared to the background accident and cancer fatality risks to which the public is exposed, and did not increase with longer periods of operation. Therefore, we conclude that tha proposed additional years of operation will not increase the annual public risk. from reactor accidents.

e,-we r

-,.-v,-

---e

-~

v---.,-,--,a

---em

~

_ ~

4-The principal factors associated with an additional period of operation which could potentially change the probability or consequence of an accident would be due to aging of electric equipment important to safety, and changes in the fracture toughness properties of reactor vessel beltline materials due to neu-tron irradiation. The Commission has reviewed fracture toughness requirements for protection acainst pressurized thermal shock events and has determined that 4

each McGuire unit can be operated for 40 calendar years without reaching pressurized thermal shock screening criterion specified in 10 CFR 50.61. The Comission also finds that the licensee has established an environmental quali-fication program for electric equipment important to safety in accordance with 10 CFR 50.49, and that this program has given appropriate consideration to all significant types of degradation, including aging, which can have an effect on the functional capability of equipment. Under the licensee's environmental qualification program, equipment important to safety has either been determined to be qualified for at least 40 years of operation, or is designated for periodic replacement or refurbishment prior to the end of its predetermined life.

In addition to the environmental qualification program, numerous other programs exist at nuclear power plants to assure that the probability and consequence of any accident remains consistently small. Examples of such programs include those of Technical Specifications which limit conditions for operation and require periodic surveillances; operating and emergency procedures; administrative pro-cedures; inservice inspection requirements; periodic maintenance; quality control and quality assurance programs; personnel qualification and training programs; and other programs associated with continued confomance to national codes and standards. Such programs remain in effect throughout the duration of the opera-ting license, including any extended operation authorized by the Comission.

Accordingly, the Comission concludes that the proposed extension does not in-crease the probability or the severity of any accident. Although there does exist an integral exposure to risk by virtue of the additional years of plant operation and increased population within 5 miles of the site, the additional

~

exposure to risk is not significant because the probability and consequences of E

accidents remain small. Accordingly, the proposed extension would not cause a significant increase in the public risks from reactor accidents and would not change any conclusions by the Comission in the FES.

The Comission has evaluated the radiological environmental effects associated with normal operation of the facility. This evaluation was conducted to assure that the licensee's "as-low-as-is-reasonably-achievable" (ALARA) measures and dose projections are applicable for the additional years of plant service and are in accordance with 10 CFR Part 20 and the guidance of Regulatory Guide 8.8, "Information Relevant to Ensuring that Occupational Radiation Exposures at Nuclear Power Stations Will Be as low as is Reasonably Achievable".

3.1.1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS - GEFERAL PUBLIC The Comission calculated dose comitments to the human popu-lation residing around nuclear power reactors to assess the impact on people from radioactive material released from these reactors during normal operation. The annual dose commitment

- is the calculated dose that would be received over a 50-year period following the intake of radioactivity for one year under the conditions that would exist 15 years after the plant began operation.

ihe 15 year period is cnosen as representing the midpoint of 30 year plant operations cycle and was incorporated into the dose models by allowing for buildup of long-lived radionuclides in the soil.

Estimated doses are affected significantly only for radionuclides that have half-lives greater than a few years and are incested by humans. For a plant licensed for 40 years, increasing the buildup period from 15 to 20 years would increase the total dose from long-lived radionuclides via the ingestion pathways about 33 percent. The effect on dose from shorter-lived radionuclides would be nil; even Coualt-60 with its 5 year half-life reaches equilibrium in 15 years. Annual doses are dominated by short-lived nuclides such as Iodine-131 so the total change caused by the increase in operating life is negli-gible compared to the already low doses.

In Appendix D of the McGuire SER dated March 1978, the Commission provided an assessment of McGuire with respect to the design ob-jectives of Appendix I of 10 CFR 50. Table 4 of Appendix D indicates that the estimated doses via the ingestion pathways are well below the regulatory design objectives. For example, the in-gestion dose to the thyroid from Units 1 and 2 is 0.58 mrem /yr/ site compared to a design objective of 5 mrem /yr/ site.

The licensee calculates annual offsite doses based upon actual effluent releases during each year of operation. These calcu-lations are based upon methodology and parameters in the licensee's "Offsite Dose Calculational Manual" which was pre-viously reviewed and accepted by the Commission. The doses for.

1985 from station liquid radioactive effluents, and from gaseous radioactive effluents were less than 3% and 27%,

respectively, of the 10 CFR 50 Appendix I limits. Results for these effluents for the first seven months of 1986 were less than 4% and 10%, respectively, of the Appendix I limits (corresponding to extrapolated year-end dose percentages of less than 7% and 17%, respectively). The licensee states that doses for earlier years of operation are comparable in that they, too, are far below Appendix I dose limits. The licensee also expects the annual doses calculated to date to remain typical of plant operations through the year 2023. Thus, an increase of even as much as 33 percent in these pathways would result in a dose that remains within Appendix I dose limits and would not be significant.

3.1.7 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS - OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES The Comission has evaluated the licensee's occupational dose assessment for the years 2013 to 2023 (the additional years during which Unit I and/or Unit 2 would operate), and compared it with current McGuire and overall industry occupational dose e @eifence.

Tie average dose over the recent three year period covering 1983-1985 has been 640 person-rem per year for both McGuire units (320 person-rem per unit). By comparison, the average annual dose per reactor for other U.S. pressurized water reactors has been about 700 person-rem per unit.

The licensee estimates that an average annual dose of 700 person-rem for both units will be incurred for each additional year of operation.

The total occupational dose expected over the period of the operating license extension is 7000 person-rem, and is based on 10 additional years cf operation and 15 additional refuelings during this period with no major unanticipated maintenance.

The licensee also indicated that it will utilize criteria established in its current formal ALARA program in addition to any improvements that are made throughout the duration of the operating license. The program is constantly evolving as techniques are perfected, technology is improved, and the work force becones more educated in radiation protection practices.

Items such as robotics, remote surveillance, remote tooling, decontamination, and improved computer resources, are presently anticipated to be significant factors in the future in further achieving ALARA doses.

As a supplement to its corporate ALARA program, for which the licensee's Nuclear Production Department has responsibility, the

~

Design Engineering Department has developed an ALARA program E

applicable to the design process. This program consists of periodic training, the Design Engineering Department ALARA Guide, and peer review of designs. Following initial design ALARA train-ing, refresher training is required for appropriate Design Engineering personnel every two years. State-of-the-art ALARA design techniques, emphasizing crud and modification dose re-ductions, are introduced at the training sessions.

In addition, the ALARA Guide is distributed to appropriate personnel for use as a reference during the design process. This guide is revised to reflect new design ALARA techniques and concepts.

Finally, designs are subject to review by personnel responsible for ALARA training and guide development. Also, a methodology that considers personnel dose received during modification implementation at the design stage, is being evaluated by the licensee. The Design Engineering Department's ALARA program has been audited by the licensee and by external organizations such as the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO), with favorable results.

9.

Planned or recently completed station modifications that are ex-pected to contribute to reduced occupational exposure over the remainder of station life include removal of the Upper Head In-jection System (see Unit 1 Amendment 57 and Unit 2 Amendment 38) and bypass manifolds associated with resistance temperature datcction instrumentaticn (presently under Cc=issien revicw).

To prolong the life of the McGuire steam generators and reduce occupational exposures, the licensee has obtained Comission approval (by Amendments 59 and 40) of technical specifications revisions to the plugging criteria for tube defects located within the tube sheet region and has developed a shot-peening process (implemented on Unit 1 and planned on Unit 2) to reduce stresses on the primary water surface of the tubes.

Spent fuel is stored in the reracked spent fuel pool in lieu of shipment offsite as stated in the FES. Such storage.was previously evaluated by the Comission for Amendments 35 and 16 and was found to result in insignificant adverse environmental consequences.

Any further expansion of on-site spent fuel storage capacity would be further evaluated for radiological environmental effects by the Comission.

The Comission agrees that it is reasonable to anticipate still further improvements affecting occupational exposures throughout the duration of the operating licenses.

In view of such improve-ments and the favorablo results demonstrated by the licensee's ALARA program to date, the Comission agrees that occupational radiation exposures will be maintained ALARA and in compliance with 10 CFR Part 20 requirements. Therefore, the integral exposure which would occur throughout the additional years ouring which Unit 1 and Unit 2 would be permitted to operate by the proposed amendments would be small.

E Accordingly, the Comission concludes that with respect to radio-logical impacts associated with occupational exposures, there would not be any significant changes to the FES that would be necessary in order to consider 40 years of operation.

3.1.3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS - URANIUM FUEL CYCLE The impacts of the uranium fuel cycle as indicated in addendum to the FES were based upon Table S-3 of 10 CFR 51, Table of Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data. Table S-3 is a sumary of environ-mental impacts attributable to the uranium fuel cycle, normalized to the annual fuel requirement, based on 30 years of operation of a model light water reactor (LWR). The fuel requirements for the model LWR were assumed to be one initial core load and 29 annual refuelings (approximately 1/3 core per refueling).

In considering the annual fuel requirement for 40 years for the model LWR, fuel use is averaged over a 40-year operating life (one initial core and 39 refuelings of approximately 1/3 core) and results in a

i slight reduction compared to the annual fuel requirement averaged

~

for a 30-year operating life. The net result is an approximate 1.5% reduction in the annual fuel requirements for the model LWR, due to averaging out of the initial core load over 40 years, rather than 30 years. Total fuel use for McGuire (1112 metric tent of U-235) would be expected to increase about 5 percent over the amount (1062 metric tons of U-235) originally considered in the FES addendum. This entails a longer production run for the fuel cycle for the McGuire units and, consequently, increased environ-mental costs related to mining, enrichment, and other fuel cycle impacts. The net annualized effects which fom the basis for Table S-3 impacts, remain essentially unchanged from those dis-cussed in the addendum to the FES.

The above evaluation of fuel use takes into account the fact that the licensee has been in the process of converting from Westing-house Standard Design Fuel to Optimized Fuel Assemblies (OFA) on both McGuire units. This transaction is essentially complete on Unit 1 (with only nine fuel assemblies of the standard design re-maining) and has one more significant conversion cycle to complete Unit 2.

This conversion has been previously evaluated by the Commission and found to have no significant environmental impact.

The Commission concludes that with respect to radiological impacts associated with the uranium fuel cycle, there would not be any significant changes to the FES that would be necessary in order to consider 40 years of operation.

3.1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS - TRANSPORTATION OF FUEL AND WASTE 3

The licensee is presently shipping about 10,000 ft of solid rad-waste per McGuire unit per year, with year to year variations based on duration of outages. This is consistent with the quantities-z

~

which had been projected in the FES. The licensee expects this annual volume to remain at about the present level for the life of the station.

l The environmental impacts (both radiological and non-radiological) attributable to transportation of fuel and waste to and from the i

l McGuire site, with respect to normal conditions of transport and l

possible accidents in transport, would continue to be in accordance with the impacts set forth in Table S-4 of 10 CFR 51.52. Table S-4 represents the contribution of such transportation to annual environmental costs including dose per reactor year to exposed transportation workers and to the general public (both onlookers and individuals located along the route), and the estimated numbers of

uch persons exposed each year. These annual environmental costs would not be changed by the extended period of operation. Although sore integral risk with respect to normal conditions of transport-l ation and possible ~ accidents in transport would be attributed to the additional years of operation, the integral risk would not be signi-l ficant because the annual risk for such transport is small.

I

9-The environmental impacts associated with the transhipment of Oconee spent fuel to the McGuire site for storage was previously evaluated by the Commission and found to be insignificant; these impacts would not be changed by the proposed extension because the current authorization to receive, possess and store such fuel at McGuire i:;

limited to 300 fuel assemblies, and this limitation is not changed by the proposed action.

Accordingly, the Comission concludes that there would not be any significant changes to the FES with respect to the transportation of fuel and waste that would be necessary in order to consider 40 years of operation.

3.2 NON-RADIOLOGICAL IMPACTS In accordance with the FES, the licensee has conducted an extensive aquatic monitoring program as detailed in the Environmental Report along with certain modifications. During this same time period, the licensee applied to the Environmental Protection Agency for a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination s.

System (NPDES) permit. The state of North Carolina obtained NPDES permitting authority and Permit No. NC004392 was issued for McGuire on March 28, 1978.

Non-radiological discharges from McGuire would be regulated through the NPDES permitting system including the thermal monitoring as proposed in the McGuire FES. The state of North Carolina required, as part of the March 28, 1978 permit, that the licensee conduct a special demonstration project in accordance with Section 316(a) of the Clean Water Act to show that the thermal discharges would be such that the water quality and indigenous biota of Lake Norman would be protected. Duke completed that study in June 1985, and submitted it in August, 1985. The study was approved by North Carolina by letter dated October 18, 1985 and a copy was provided to the NRC by licensee's letter dated November 27, 1985.

~

The NPDES permit contains provisions to assure that all non-radiological dis-

=

charges from McGuire will comply with applicable water quality standards. The permit also contains provisions requiring that it may be modified from time to time to assure that the discharges to state waters will not cause adverse environmental impacts for the life of the plant.

All potential impacts have been identified, described and evaluated in previously-issued environmental impact statements and/or appraisals by the Comission and reviews by the NPDES permitting authority under the Clean Water Act. All operational non-radiological impacts on aquatic biological resources have been assessed by the Commission on bases other than a life-of-plant basis; hence, the requested extensions will not alter previous Comission findings and conclusions.

4.0 ALTERNATIVE TO THE PROPOSED ACTION The principal alternative to issuance of the proposed license extensions would be to deny the applications. This alternative is, in effect, the same as the "no-action" alternative.

In either case, McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 would shutdown upon expiration of the present operating licenses at midnight on February 28, 2013.

The cost-benefit analysis in the McGuire FES included a comparison of various options for producing an equivalent electrical power capacity.

Even considering significant changes in the economics of the alternatives, operation of McGuire Nuclear Station Unit 1 for an additional 84 years and Unit 2 for an additional 10 years would only require incremental yearly costs. These costs would be substantially less than the purchase of replacement powcr or the installation of new electrical generating capacity. Moreover, the overall cost per year of the facility would decrease since the large initial capital outlay would be averaged over a greater number of years. Environmental impacts related to extending the operating life of the McGuire units, including the fuel cycle and transportation impacts, continue to remain small when compared to impacts re-t lated to alternative sources of power described in the McGuire FES. Extended operation of the plant maintains the economic benefits of low-cost power as no new construction costs are incurred.

l 5.0 ALTERNATIVE USE OF RESOURCES This action does not involve the use of resources not previously considered in connection with the " Final Environmental Statement Relating to Operation of William B. McGuire Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2" dated April 1976 or its addendum dated January 1981.

6.0 AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED 4

i The Cannission reviewed the licensee's request and consulted with the North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development (NCDNR&CD).

NDCNR&CD did not indicate a concern in granting the proposed extension and will extend the water quality requirements in the NPDES to cover the period of the extension. The Commission's review of the proposed action has been based upon the licensee's application of December 16, 1985 and supplemented by letter dated November 24, 1986; the McGuire FES dated April 1976 and its addendum of January 1981; the McGuire Environmental Report-0perating License stage; Appendix B of the McGuire Technical Specifications (Environmental Protection E

Plan); licensee's letter of August 23, 1985 with report pursuant to Section 316(a) of the Clean Water Act; Chapters 2 and 15 of the McGuire FSAR; and licensee's letter of November 27, 1985 with attached NPDES permit.

7.0 BASIS AND CONCLUSION FOR NOT PREPARING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT The Commission has reviewed the proposed license amendments relative to the requirements set forth in 10 CFR Part 51. Based on this assessment, the Commission concludes that there are no significant radiological or non-radiological impacts associated with the proposed action and that the issuance i

of the proposed license amendments will have no significant impact on the quality of the human environment.

Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.31, an j

environmental impact statement need not be prepared for this action.

I i

I

k

8.0 REFERENCES

1.

U.S. Department of Connerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Projection, Economic Activity in North Carolina, Series E Projection, April 1986.

2.

U.S. Deper Liierit of Conner-ce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Projection, Economic Activity in South Carolina, Series E Projection, April 1986.

9.0 ACKNOWLEDGMENT This environmental assessment was prepared by Darl Hood, PWRf4 Date: December 16, 1986 L

E