ML20216E782
| ML20216E782 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry  |
| Issue date: | 03/06/1998 |
| From: | Edison G NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20216E786 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9803180156 | |
| Download: ML20216E782 (4) | |
Text
.A 7590-01-P UNITED STATES NUCI FAR REGULATORY COMMISSION VIRGINIA Ft FCTRIC AND POWER COMPANY DOCKET NOS. 50-280 AND 50-281 SURRY POWER STATION ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of amendments to Facility Operating Licenses Nos. DPR-32 and DPR-37, issued to Virginia Electric and Power Company, (the licensee), for operation of the Surry Power Station (SPS) located in Suny County, Virginia.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Identification of the Pronosed Action:
By 'eetter dated November 5,1997, as supplemented by letter dated January 28,1998, the licensee proposed to change the technical specifications (TS) to allow an increase in fuel enrichment (Uranium 235, U-235) to 4.3 weight percent. Surry TS currently limit fuel in the spent fuel pool and reactor to a maximum enrichment of 4.1 weight percent of U-235.
The Need for the Pronosed Action:
The licensee intends, in the future, to use the more highly enriched fuel to support longer
- fuel cycles. Currently, TS 5.3.A.3 and 5.4.B limit the enrichmea of reload fuel for the reactor core and the spent fuel storage racks to 4.1 weight percent U-235. The amendment is needed to give the licensee the flexibility to use more highly enriched fuel to support longer fuel cycles.
9803180156 980306 PDR ADOCK 05000280 P
PDR l
2
a
),
1
- Environmentalimonets of the Pronosed Ardian
The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed revision to the TS and concludes that storage and use of fuel enriched with U-235 up to'4.3 weight is acceptable. The safety considerations associated with higher enrichmer:ts were evaluated by the NRC staff and the staff concluded that such changes would not adversely affect plant safety. The proposed changes will not increase the probability of any eccident. The higher enrichment and 'reased fuel bumup 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 accidents.
No changes are being made in the types or quantity of any effluents that may be released offsite, no changes are being made to the authorized power level, and there is no significant increase in the allowable individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
The environmentalimpacts of transportation resulting from the use of higher enrichment and extended irradiation are 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. This sssessment was published in the Federal Register on August 11,1988 (53 FR 30355) as corrected on August 24,1988 (53 FR 32322) h connection with an Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant impact related to the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1. As indicated therein, the environments! cost contribution of an increase in fuel enrichment of up to 5 weight percent U-235 and irradiation limits of up to 60 gigawatt days per metric ton (GWDMT) are either unchanged, or may in fact be reduced from those summarized in Table S4 asset forth in 10 CFR 51.52(c). These findings are applicable l
to these proposed cmendments for Surry Power Station, Units 1 and 2, given that the proposal involves less than 5% enrichment and bumup of less than 60 GWDMT. Accordingly, the
T
,,k-4 3-l l
Commission concludes that this proposed action would result in no significant radiological environmentalimpact.
p 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 Commission concludes that there are no significant nonradiological environmental impacts L
associated with the proposed oction.
1 Alternatives to the Prooosed Action:
1 Since the Commission has concluded there is no significant environmental impact associated with the proposed action, any attematives with equal or greater environmental impact need not be evaluated. As an altemative to the proposed action, the staff considered denial of the proposed action. Denial of the. application would result in no change in current environmental impacts of plant operation and would result in reduced operational flexibility.
Altemative Use of Resogggg; This action does not involve the use of any resources not previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for the Surry Power Station.
Aaencles and Persons Consulted.
In accordance with its stated policy, on February 4,1998, the staff consulted with the Virginia State official, Mr. L Foldese of the Virginia Department of Health, regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. The State official had no comments.
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Based upon ihe environmental assessment, the Commission concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.
I 4
.., m.
4 Accordingly, the Commission has determined not to prepare an environmental impact str.. ament for the proposed action.
For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the licensee's letter dated November 5,1997, as supplemented by letter dated January 28,1998, which are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, The Gelman Building,2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the local public document room located at The Swem Library, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virgiais 23185.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day of March 1998.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Gordon E. Edison, Sr. Project Manager Project Directorate 11-1 Division of Reactor Projects -1/Il ONice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation l-}