Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Inc.; Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact, 71449-71450 [E7-24399]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 241 / Monday, December 17, 2007 / Notices
Issued at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th
day of December 2007.
E. Roy Hawkens,
Chief Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety
and Licensing Board Panel.
[FR Doc. E7–24387 Filed 12–14–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50–317]
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant,
Inc.; Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power
Plant, Unit No. 1; Environmental
Assessment and Finding of No
Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is considering
issuance of an exemption from Title 10
of the Code of Federal Regulations (10
CFR) Part 50.46 and Appendix K to Part
50 for Renewed Facility Operating
License No. DPR–53, issued to Calvert
Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1
(Calvert Cliffs 1), located in Calvert
County, Maryland. Therefore, as
required by 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC is
issuing this environmental assessment
and finding of no significant impact.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of Proposed Action
The proposed exemption would allow
the licensee to reinsert up to four lead
fuel assemblies (LFAs), two of which
contain cladding with advanced
zirconium-based alloys manufactured
by Westinghouse Electric Company
(Westinghouse), and two of which
contain cladding with M5TM alloy
manufactured by AREVA, into the Unit
1 core during Cycle 19. The four LFAs
were previously inserted into the Unit 2
core in April of 2003. The proposed
action is in accordance with the
licensee’s application dated February
23, 2007.
ebenthall on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES
The Need for the Proposed Action
10 CFR 50.46 and 10 CFR Part 50,
Appendix K make no provisions for use
of fuel rods clad in a material other than
Zircaloy or ZIRLO. Since the material
specifications of the advanced
zirconium-based and M5TM alloys differ
from the specification for Zircaloy or
ZIRLO, a plant-specific exemption is
required to support the use of the four
LFAs for Calvert Cliffs 1. If the
exemption were not approved, the
licensee would not gain practical
experience in order to assess
performance of the cladding material at
higher burnups. The proposed action is
needed to support future fuel load
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:28 Dec 14, 2007
Jkt 214001
capabilities by allowing the use of
higher enriched fuel, which can provide
the flexibility of extending fuel
irradiation.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed
Action
The NRC has completed its evaluation
of the proposed action and concludes
that the exemption described above
would continue to satisfy the
underlying purpose of 10 CFR 50.46 and
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix K and will
not present an undue risk to the public
health and safety. Previously, the
Westinghouse safety evaluation
(WCAP–15874–NP, Revision 0, ‘‘Safety
Analysis Report for Use of Improved
Zirconium-based Cladding Materials in
Calvert Cliffs Unit 2 Batch T Lead Fuel
Assemblies,’’ dated April 2002) and
approved Framatome ANP topical
report (BAW–10227P–A, ‘‘Evaluation of
Advanced Cladding and Structural
Material (M5) in PWR [Pressurized
Water Reactor] Reactor Fuel,’’
Framatome Cogema Fuels, February
2000) demonstrated that the predicted
chemical, mechanical, and material
performance of the advanced zirconium
and M5TM cladding are acceptable
under all anticipated operational
occurrences and postulated accidents.
The LFAs will be placed in core
locations to permit higher burnups to be
achieved for these LFAs. In the event
that cladding failures occur in the LFAs,
the environmental impact would be
minimal and is bounded by the previous
environmental assessments.
The exemption, which would be
effective during the Unit 1 Cycle 19 fuel
cycle, would allow the fuel to be
irradiated to levels above 60 gigawatt
days per metric ton (GWd/MTU), but
not to exceed 70 GWd/MTU. The safety
considerations associated with reactor
operation with extended irradiation
have been evaluated by the NRC staff.
The NRC staff has concluded that
such changes would not adversely affect
plant safety, and would have no adverse
effect on the probability of any accident.
For accidents in which the core remains
intact, fuel rod integrity has been shown
to be unaffected by the extended burnup
under consideration; therefore, the
probability of an accident will not be
affected. For accidents that involve
damage or melting of the fuel in the
reactor core, the increased burnup may
slightly change the mix of fission
products that could be released in the
event of a serious accident, but because
the radionuclides contributing most to
the dose are short-lived, increased
burnup would not have an effect on the
consequences of a serious accident
beyond those accident scenarios
PO 00000
Frm 00105
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
71449
previously evaluated. Increases in
projected consequences of postulated
accidents associated with fuel burnup
up to 70 GWd/MTU are not considered
significant, and remain well below
regulatory limits.
Regulatory limits on radiological
effluent releases are independent of
burnup. The requirements of 10 CFR
50.36a and Appendix I to 10 CFR Part
50 ensure that any release of gaseous,
liquid, or solid radiological effluents to
unrestricted areas are kept ‘‘as low as
reasonably achievable.’’ Therefore, the
NRC staff concludes that during routine
operations, there will be no significant
increase in the amount of gaseous
radiological effluents released into the
environment as a result of the proposed
action, nor will there be a significant
increase in the amount of liquid
radiological effluents or solid
radiological effluents released into the
environment.
No significant increase in the
allowable individual or cumulative
occupational radiation exposure will
occur. The impact to workers is
expected to be reduced with higher
irradiation due to the need for less
frequent outages for fuel changes and
less frequent fuel shipments to and from
reactor sites.
The use of extended irradiation will
not change the potential environmental
impacts of incident-free transportation
of spent nuclear fuel or the accident
risks associated with spent fuel
transportation if the fuel is cooled for 5
years after discharge from the reactor. A
report by Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory (PNNL) for the NRC
(NUREG/CR–6703, ‘‘Environmental
Effects of Extending Fuel burnup Above
60 Gwd/MTU,’’ January 2001),
concluded that doses associated with
incident-free transportation of spent fuel
with burnup to 75 GWd/MTU are
bounded by the doses given in 10 CFR
51.52, Table S–4, for all regions of the
country if dose rates from the shipping
casks are maintained within regulatory
limits. Increased fuel burnup will
decrease the annual discharge of fuel to
the spent fuel pool, which will postpone
the need to remove spent fuel from the
pool.
With regard to potential nonradiological environmental impacts of
reactor operation with extended
irradiation, the proposed changes
involve systems located within the
restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part
20. Therefore, the proposed action does
not result in any significant changes to
land use or water use, or result in any
significant changes to the quality or
quantity of effluents. The proposed
action does not affect non-radiological
E:\FR\FM\17DEN1.SGM
17DEN1
71450
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 241 / Monday, December 17, 2007 / Notices
plant effluents, and no changes to the
National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System permit are needed.
No effects on the aquatic or terrestrial
habitat in the vicinity or the plant, or to
endangered or threatened species, or to
the habitats of endangered or threatened
species are expected. The proposed
action does not have a potential to affect
any historical or archaeological sites.
The proposed action will not change
the method of generating electricity or
the method of handling any influents
from the environment or nonradiological effluents to the
environment. Therefore, no changes or
different types of non-radiological
environmental impacts are expected as
a result of the amendments.
Accordingly, the NRC concludes that
there are no significant environmental
impacts associated with the proposed
action.
For more detailed information
regarding the environmental impacts of
extended fuel burnup, please refer to the
study conducted by Pacific Northwest
National Laboratories for the NRC,
which is entitled, ‘‘Environmental
Effects of Extending Fuel Burnup Above
60 GWd/MTU’’ (NUREG/CR–6703,
PNL–13257, January 2001).
The details of the staff’s safety
evaluation will be provided in the
exemption that will be issued as part of
the letter to the licensee approving the
exemption to the regulation.
Environmental Impacts of the
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As an alternative to the proposed
action, the staff considered denial of the
proposed action (i.e., the ‘‘no-action’’
alternative). Denial of the application
would result in no change in current
environmental impacts. The
environmental impacts of the proposed
action and the alternative action are
similar.
ebenthall on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES
Alternative Use of Resources
The action does not involve the use of
any different resources than those
previously considered in the Final
Environmental Statement for Calvert
Cliffs 1 and 2, dated April 1973, and the
Generic Environmental Impact
Statement for License Renewal of
Nuclear Plants, Supplement 1,
Regarding the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear
Power Plant (NUREG–1437, Supplement
1), dated October 1999.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy,
on November 20, 2007, the staff
consulted with the Maryland State
official, Mr. R. McLean of the Maryland
Department of Natural Resources,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:28 Dec 14, 2007
Jkt 214001
regarding the environmental impact of
the proposed action. The State official
had no comments.
Finding of No Significant Impact
On the basis of the environmental
assessment, the NRC concludes that the
proposed action will not have a
significant effect on the quality of the
human environment. Accordingly, the
NRC has determined not to prepare an
environmental impact statement for the
proposed action.
For further details with respect to the
proposed action, see the licensee’s
letters dated February 23, 2007,
available in the NRC’s Agencywide
Documents Access and Management
System (ADAMS) (Accession Number
ML070580103 and ML070580107).
Documents may be examined, and/or
copied for a fee, at the NRC’s Public
Document Room (PDR), located at One
White Flint North Public File Area O1–
F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),
Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available
records will be accessible electronically
from the ADAMS Public Electronic
Reading Room on the Internet at the
NRC Web site: https://www.nrc.gov/
reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who
do not have access to ADAMS or who
encounter problems in accessing the
documents located in ADAMS should
contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by
telephone at 1–800–397–4209 or 301–
415–4737, or send an e-mail to
pdr@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day
of December, 2007.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Douglas V. Pickett,
Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing
Branch I–1, Division of Operating Reactor
Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. E7–24399 Filed 12–14–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50–387 and 50–388]
PPL Susquehanna, LLC; Susquehanna
Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2
Final Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact
Related to the Proposed License
Amendment To Increase the Maximum
Reactor Power Level; Correction
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC).
ACTION: Final Environmental
Assessment and Finding of No
Significant Impact; Correction.
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00106
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
SUMMARY: This document corrects an
Environmental Assessment appearing in
the Federal Register on December 5,
2007 (72 FR 68598). This action is
necessary to correctly declare the
Environmental Assessment as a final
document (in lieu of a draft) with no
action for noticing for public comment.
The corrected Environmental
Assessment is provided as follows:
The NRC has prepared a final
Environmental Assessment as part of its
evaluation of a request by PPL
Susquehanna, LLC for a license
amendment to increase the maximum
thermal power at Susquehanna Steam
Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 (SSES 1
and 2), from 3,489 megawatts-thermal
(MWt) to 3,952 MWt at each unit. This
represents a power increase of
approximately 13 percent thermal
power. As stated in the NRC staff’s
position paper dated February 8, 1996,
on the Boiling-Water Reactor Extended
Power Uprate (EPU) Program, the NRC
staff (the staff) will prepare an
environmental impact statement if it
believes a power uprate would have a
significant impact on the human
environment. The staff did not identify
any significant impact from the
information provided in the licensee’s
EPU application for Susquehanna Steam
Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, or the
staff’s independent review; therefore,
the staff is documenting its
environmental review in an
Environmental Assessment. Also, in
accordance with the position paper, the
final Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact is
being published in the Federal Register.
The NRC published a draft
Environmental Assessment and finding
of no significant impact on the proposed
action for public comment in the
Federal Register on August 21, 2007 (72
FR 46670). One set of comments were
received on the draft Environmental
Assessment from PPL Susquehanna,
LLC by letter dated September 19, 2007
(Agencywide Documents Access and
Management System (ADAMS)
Accession No. ML072820283). These
comments were clarifications and
editorial corrections to the draft
Environmental Assessment. Based on
these comments, the NRC staff revised
the appropriate sections of the final
Environmental Assessment.
Environmental Assessment
Plant Site and Environs
SSES is located just west of the
Susquehanna River approximately 5
miles northeast of Berwick, in Luzerne
County, Pennsylvania. In total, SSES
majority owner and licensed operator,
E:\FR\FM\17DEN1.SGM
17DEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 241 (Monday, December 17, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71449-71450]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-24399]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-317]
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Inc.; Calvert Cliffs Nuclear
Power Plant, Unit No. 1; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No
Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering
issuance of an exemption from Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50.46 and Appendix K to Part 50 for Renewed
Facility Operating License No. DPR-53, issued to Calvert Cliffs Nuclear
Power Plant, Unit No. 1 (Calvert Cliffs 1), located in Calvert County,
Maryland. Therefore, as required by 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC is issuing
this environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of Proposed Action
The proposed exemption would allow the licensee to reinsert up to
four lead fuel assemblies (LFAs), two of which contain cladding with
advanced zirconium-based alloys manufactured by Westinghouse Electric
Company (Westinghouse), and two of which contain cladding with M5\TM\
alloy manufactured by AREVA, into the Unit 1 core during Cycle 19. The
four LFAs were previously inserted into the Unit 2 core in April of
2003. The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's
application dated February 23, 2007.
The Need for the Proposed Action
10 CFR 50.46 and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix K make no provisions for
use of fuel rods clad in a material other than Zircaloy or ZIRLO. Since
the material specifications of the advanced zirconium-based and M5\TM\
alloys differ from the specification for Zircaloy or ZIRLO, a plant-
specific exemption is required to support the use of the four LFAs for
Calvert Cliffs 1. If the exemption were not approved, the licensee
would not gain practical experience in order to assess performance of
the cladding material at higher burnups. The proposed action is needed
to support future fuel load capabilities by allowing the use of higher
enriched fuel, which can provide the flexibility of extending fuel
irradiation.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The NRC has completed its evaluation of the proposed action and
concludes that the exemption described above would continue to satisfy
the underlying purpose of 10 CFR 50.46 and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix K
and will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety.
Previously, the Westinghouse safety evaluation (WCAP-15874-NP, Revision
0, ``Safety Analysis Report for Use of Improved Zirconium-based
Cladding Materials in Calvert Cliffs Unit 2 Batch T Lead Fuel
Assemblies,'' dated April 2002) and approved Framatome ANP topical
report (BAW-10227P-A, ``Evaluation of Advanced Cladding and Structural
Material (M5) in PWR [Pressurized Water Reactor] Reactor Fuel,''
Framatome Cogema Fuels, February 2000) demonstrated that the predicted
chemical, mechanical, and material performance of the advanced
zirconium and M5\TM\ cladding are acceptable under all anticipated
operational occurrences and postulated accidents. The LFAs will be
placed in core locations to permit higher burnups to be achieved for
these LFAs. In the event that cladding failures occur in the LFAs, the
environmental impact would be minimal and is bounded by the previous
environmental assessments.
The exemption, which would be effective during the Unit 1 Cycle 19
fuel cycle, would allow the fuel to be irradiated to levels above 60
gigawatt days per metric ton (GWd/MTU), but not to exceed 70 GWd/MTU.
The safety considerations associated with reactor operation with
extended irradiation have been evaluated by the NRC staff.
The NRC staff has concluded that such changes would not adversely
affect plant safety, and would have no adverse effect on the
probability of any accident. For accidents in which the core remains
intact, fuel rod integrity has been shown to be unaffected by the
extended burnup under consideration; therefore, the probability of an
accident will not be affected. For accidents that involve damage or
melting of the fuel in the reactor core, the increased burnup may
slightly change the mix of fission products that could be released in
the event of a serious accident, but because the radionuclides
contributing most to the dose are short-lived, increased burnup would
not have an effect on the consequences of a serious accident beyond
those accident scenarios previously evaluated. Increases in projected
consequences of postulated accidents associated with fuel burnup up to
70 GWd/MTU are not considered significant, and remain well below
regulatory limits.
Regulatory limits on radiological effluent releases are independent
of burnup. The requirements of 10 CFR 50.36a and Appendix I to 10 CFR
Part 50 ensure that any release of gaseous, liquid, or solid
radiological effluents to unrestricted areas are kept ``as low as
reasonably achievable.'' Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that during
routine operations, there will be no significant increase in the amount
of gaseous radiological effluents released into the environment as a
result of the proposed action, nor will there be a significant increase
in the amount of liquid radiological effluents or solid radiological
effluents released into the environment.
No significant increase in the allowable individual or cumulative
occupational radiation exposure will occur. The impact to workers is
expected to be reduced with higher irradiation due to the need for less
frequent outages for fuel changes and less frequent fuel shipments to
and from reactor sites.
The use of extended irradiation will not change the potential
environmental impacts of incident-free transportation of spent nuclear
fuel or the accident risks associated with spent fuel transportation if
the fuel is cooled for 5 years after discharge from the reactor. A
report by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) for the NRC
(NUREG/CR-6703, ``Environmental Effects of Extending Fuel burnup Above
60 Gwd/MTU,'' January 2001), concluded that doses associated with
incident-free transportation of spent fuel with burnup to 75 GWd/MTU
are bounded by the doses given in 10 CFR 51.52, Table S-4, for all
regions of the country if dose rates from the shipping casks are
maintained within regulatory limits. Increased fuel burnup will
decrease the annual discharge of fuel to the spent fuel pool, which
will postpone the need to remove spent fuel from the pool.
With regard to potential non-radiological environmental impacts of
reactor operation with extended irradiation, the proposed changes
involve systems located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR
Part 20. Therefore, the proposed action does not result in any
significant changes to land use or water use, or result in any
significant changes to the quality or quantity of effluents. The
proposed action does not affect non-radiological
[[Page 71450]]
plant effluents, and no changes to the National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System permit are needed. No effects on the aquatic or
terrestrial habitat in the vicinity or the plant, or to endangered or
threatened species, or to the habitats of endangered or threatened
species are expected. The proposed action does not have a potential to
affect any historical or archaeological sites.
The proposed action will not change the method of generating
electricity or the method of handling any influents from the
environment or non-radiological effluents to the environment.
Therefore, no changes or different types of non-radiological
environmental impacts are expected as a result of the amendments.
Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
For more detailed information regarding the environmental impacts
of extended fuel burnup, please refer to the study conducted by Pacific
Northwest National Laboratories for the NRC, which is entitled,
``Environmental Effects of Extending Fuel Burnup Above 60 GWd/MTU''
(NUREG/CR-6703, PNL-13257, January 2001).
The details of the staff's safety evaluation will be provided in
the exemption that will be issued as part of the letter to the licensee
approving the exemption to the regulation.
Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered
denial of the proposed action (i.e., the ``no-action'' alternative).
Denial of the application would result in no change in current
environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action
and the alternative action are similar.
Alternative Use of Resources
The action does not involve the use of any different resources than
those previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for
Calvert Cliffs 1 and 2, dated April 1973, and the Generic Environmental
Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 1,
Regarding the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant (NUREG-1437,
Supplement 1), dated October 1999.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on November 20, 2007, the
staff consulted with the Maryland State official, Mr. R. McLean of the
Maryland Department of Natural Resources, regarding the environmental
impact of the proposed action. The State official had no comments.
Finding of No Significant Impact
On the basis of the environmental assessment, the NRC concludes
that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the
quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined
not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed
action.
For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the
licensee's letters dated February 23, 2007, available in the NRC's
Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) (Accession
Number ML070580103 and ML070580107). Documents may be examined, and/or
copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at
One White Flint North Public File Area O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike
(first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be
accessible electronically from the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room
on the Internet at the NRC Web site: https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
adams.html. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter
problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the
NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737,
or send an e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day of December, 2007.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Douglas V. Pickett,
Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch I-1, Division of
Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E7-24399 Filed 12-14-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
