ML20245H536
| ML20245H536 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 04/25/1989 |
| From: | Knighton G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20245H541 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8905030426 | |
| Download: ML20245H536 (4) | |
Text
_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
o--
.,, c ;
4 7590-01 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY DOCKETS NOS. 50-275 AND 50-323 DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) is
.c 4
considering issuance of amendments to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82, issued to Pacific Gas and Electric Company (the licensee), for operation of.the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units Nos. I and 2, located in San Luis Obispo County, California.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Identification of Proposed Action:
The proposed amendments would revise the combined Technical Specifications (TS) to permit the use of Vantage 5 fuel in the facility.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's application for amendments dated November 29, 1988, as supplemented by submittals filed on December 9,1988 and February 17,1989(ReferenceLAR88-08).
The Need for the Proposed Action:
The proposed amendments are needed so that the licensee can use the improved fuel design for longer fuel cycles, which may involve the use of higher enrichment fuel and extended fuel irradiation, rgS88se$s88ll;s P
l.
.g.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action:
The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed revisions to the TS. The proposed revisions would permit the fuel to be irradiated to levels above 33 gigawatt days per metric ton (GWD/MT), but not to exceed 60 GWD/MT. 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 effect on the probability of any accident. The increased burnup may slightly change the mix or 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 amounts 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 poter,tial 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 nc other environmental impact.
The environmental impacts of transportation resulting from the use of higher enrichment fuel and extended irradiation are discussed in the NRC staff's assessment entitled "NRC Assessment of the Environmental Effects of Transportation Resulting from Extended Fuel Enrichment and Irradiation, "
3 o dated July 7, 1988. This assessment was published in the August 11, 1988 Federal Register (53 FR 30355) as part of the Carolina Power & Light Co.,
et al., Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Environmental Impact Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for the. utilization of higher enriched fuel and extended fuel irradiation and is hereby referenced for this Environmental Impact Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact. As
... indicated therein, the environmental cost contributions of the proposed increase in the fuel enrichment and irradiation limits will either cause no change in, or may, in fact, reduce the environmental cost contributions summarizedinTableS-4,assetforthin10CFR51.52(c). Therefore, the Commission concludes that there are no significant radiological or non-radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed amendments.,
Alternative to the Proposed Action:
I
)
l-Since the Commission concluded that there are no significant environmental effects that would result from the proposed action, any alternatives would have equal or greater environmental impacts.
l I
The principal alternative would be tc deny the requested amendments. This would not reduce environmental impacts of plant operation and would result in i-reduced operational flexibility.
Alternative Use of Resources:
This action does not involve the use of any resources not previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement related to the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant dated May 1973, and its Addendum, dated May 1976.
1
g
. Agencies and Persons Consulted:
The Commission's staff reviewed the licensee's request and did not consult other agencies or persons.
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 amendments dated November 29, 1988, and the supplemental submittals dated December 9,1988 and February 17, 1989, which are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20555, and at the California Polytechnic State University Library, Government Documents and Maps Department, San Luis Obispo, California 93407.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day of April 1989.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f
r George'. Knight.-[ Director Project Directorate V,
Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV, V & Special Projects l
.