Arizona Public Service Company, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 3; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact, 52045-52046 [2010-20915]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 24, 2010 / Notices
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
dispositioned as separate amendment
requests. The amendments associated
with this notice revise the PBAPS Units
2 and 3 Technical Specifications (TS) to
incorporate Technical Specification
Task Force (TSTF) Traveler 439,
‘‘Elimination of Second Completion
Times Limiting Time From Discovery of
Failure To Meet an LCO [Limiting
Condition for Operation],’’ Revision 2.
The TS amendments modify Section 1.3
of the PBAPS Unit 2 and 3 TSs to alter
the discussion contained in Example
1.3–3 to eliminate second completion
times. Consistent with this change, the
second completion times associated
with TS 3.1.7, ‘‘Standby Liquid Control
(SLC) System,’’ required actions A.2 and
B.1, TS 3.8.1, ‘‘AC Sources—Operating,’’
required action A.3, and TS 3.8.7,
‘‘Distribution Systems—Operating,’’
required actions C.1 and D.1 are also
deleted.
Date of issuance: July 30, 2010.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days from the date of
issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 277 and 280.
Renewed Facility Operating License
Nos. DPR–44 and DPR–56: Amendments
revised the License and Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: May 5, 2009 (74 FR 20744).
The supplements dated May 7, 2009,
and January 19, 2010, clarified the
application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed,
and did not change the initial proposed
no significant hazards consideration
determination.
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendments is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated July 30, 2010.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company,
Docket Nos. 50–275 and 50–323, Diablo
Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos.
1 and 2, San Luis Obispo County,
California
Date of application for amendments:
December 14, 2009, as supplemented by
letters dated April 23, June 11, and July
2, 2010.
Brief description of amendments: The
amendments approved the licensee’s
request to incorporate a revision to the
Final Safety Analyses Report Update
Section 3.7.1.3 to allow for the use of a
damping value of 5 percent of the
critical damping value for the structural
dynamic qualification of the control rod
drive mechanism pressure housings on
the replacement reactor vessel head for
the design earthquake, the double
design earthquake, the Hosgri
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:00 Aug 23, 2010
Jkt 220001
earthquake, and the loss-of-coolant
accident loading conditions.
Date of issuance: July 30, 2010.
Effective date: As of its date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 180 days from the date of
issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1–207; Unit
2–209.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–
80 and DPR–82: The amendments
revised the Facility Operating Licenses
and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: March 23, 2010 (75 FR
13790). The supplemental letters dated
April 23, June 11, and July 2, 2010,
provided additional information that
clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally
noticed, and did not change the staff’s
original proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination as
published in the Federal Register.
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendments is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated July 30, 2010.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 13th day
of August 2010.
For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Robert A. Nelson,
Deputy Director, Division of Operating
Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2010–20694 Filed 8–23–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[NRC–2010–0281; Docket No. STN 50–530]
Arizona Public Service Company, Palo
Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Unit
3; Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is considering
issuance of a temporary exemption from
the requirements of Title 10 of the Code
of Federal Regulations, part 50 (10 CFR
50), section 50.46, ‘‘Acceptance criteria
for emergency core cooling systems for
light-water nuclear power reactors,’’ and
10 CFR part 50, appendix K, ‘‘ECCS
Evaluation Models,’’ for Facility
Operating License No. NPF–74, issued
to Arizona Public Service Company
(APS, the licensee), for operation of Palo
Verde Nuclear Generating Station
(PVNGS), Unit 3, located in Maricopa
County, Arizona. Therefore, as required
by 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC has
performed an environmental
assessment. Based on the results of the
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
52045
environmental assessment, the NRC is
issuing a finding of no significant
impact.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action:
The proposed action would permit
the use of fuel rods with Optimized
ZIRLOTM cladding to be inserted into
PVNGS, Unit 3’s core for Operating
Cycles 16, 17, and 18. Since the
requirements in 10 CFR 50.46,
specifically, and 10 CFR part 50,
appendix K, implicitly, refer to the use
of zircaloy or ZIRLO cladding, a
temporary exemption is required to
allow the use of fuel rods clad with an
advanced zirconium-based alloy that is
neither zircaloy nor ZIRLO. The
temporary exemption would allow up to
eight lead fuel assemblies (LFAs)
manufactured by Westinghouse with
fuel rods clad with Optimized ZIRLOTM
to be inserted into the PVNGS, Unit 3
core during the fall 2010 refueling
outage. The temporary exemption
would allow the LFAs to be used for up
to three operating cycles (Cycles 16, 17,
and 18).
The proposed action is in accordance
with the licensee’s application dated
November 2, 2009 (Agencywide
Documents Access and Management
System (ADAMS) Accession No.
ML093160596), as supplemented by
letter dated May 12, 2010 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML101410262).
The Need for the Proposed Action:
The proposed temporary exemption is
needed by APS, as explained in its
application dated November 2, 2009, in
order ‘‘to evaluate cladding for future
fuel assemblies that may need to be of
a more robust design than current fuel
assemblies to allow for possible higher
duty and/or extended burnup.’’ The
regulations specify standards and
acceptance criteria only for fuel rods
clad with zircaloy or ZIRLO. Consistent
with 10 CFR 50.46, a temporary
exemption is required to use fuel rods
clad with an advanced alloy that is not
zircaloy or ZIRLO. Therefore, the
licensee needs a temporary exemption
to insert up to eight LFAs containing
Optimized ZIRLOTM cladding material
into the PVNGS Unit 3 core for up to
three cycles of operation.
Environmental Impacts of the
Proposed Action:
The NRC has completed its evaluation
of the proposed action and concludes
that the proposed exemption will not
present any undue risk to the public
health and safety. The NRC-approved
Westinghouse Electric Company LLC
(Westinghouse) topical reports, WCAP–
16500–P–A Revision 0, ‘‘CE
[Combustion Engineering] 16x16 Next
E:\FR\FM\24AUN1.SGM
24AUN1
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
52046
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 24, 2010 / Notices
Generation Fuel Core Reference Report’’
(Proprietary), dated August 2007, and
WCAP–12610–P–A and CENPD–404–P–
A, ‘‘Optimized ZIRLOTM’’ (Proprietary),
dated July 2006, have demonstrated that
predicted chemical, mechanical, and
material performance characteristics of
the Optimized ZIRLOTM alloy cladding
are bounded by those approved for
zircaloy under anticipated operational
occurrences (AOOs) and postulated
accidents. The LFAs shall be placed in
non-limiting core regions as required by
PVNGS, Unit 3 Technical Specification
4.2.1, ‘‘Fuel Assemblies.’’ Also, APS and
Westinghouse utilize NRC approved
methods for the reload design process
for the PVNGS reload cores containing
Optimized ZIRLOTM fuel rod cladding.
Therefore, the environmental impact,
due to the unlikely event of an LFA clad
failure, would be minimal and would be
bounded by the environmental impacts
associated with previous accident
analyses.
The details of the NRC 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.
The proposed action will not
significantly increase the probability or
consequences of accidents. No changes
are being made in the types of effluents
that may be released offsite. There is no
significant increase in the amount of
any effluent released offsite. There is no
significant increase in occupational or
public radiation exposure. Therefore,
there are no significant radiological
environmental impacts associated with
the proposed action.
Based on the nature of the exemption,
the proposed action does not result in
changes to land use or water use, or
result in changes to the quality or
quantity of non-radiological effluents.
No changes to the National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System permit
are needed. No effects on the aquatic or
terrestrial habitat in the vicinity of the
plant, or to threatened, endangered, or
protected species under the Endangered
Species Act, or impacts to essential fish
habitat covered by the MagnusonStevens Act are expected. There are no
impacts to the air or ambient air quality.
There are no impacts to historic and
cultural resources. There would be no
noticeable effect on socioeconomic
conditions in the region. Therefore, no
changes or different types of nonradiological environmental impacts are
expected as a result of the proposed
action. Accordingly, the NRC concludes
that there are no significant
environmental impacts associated with
the proposed action.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:00 Aug 23, 2010
Jkt 220001
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 the Palo
Verde Nuclear Generating Station,
NUREG–0841, dated February 1982.
Agencies and Persons Consulted:
In accordance with its stated policy,
on July 8, 2010, the NRC staff consulted
with the Arizona State official, Aubrey
Godwin of the Arizona Radiation
Regulatory Authority 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 letter
dated November 2, 2009, as
supplemented by letter dated May 12,
2010. 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 Agencywide
Documents Access and Management
System (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.resource@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day
of August 2010.
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nageswaran Kalyanam,
Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch IV,
Division of Operating Reactor Licensing,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2010–20915 Filed 8–23–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
Development of U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission Safety Culture
Policy Statement: Public Meeting
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC).
ACTION: Notice of public meeting.
AGENCY:
The NRC plans to hold a
public meeting on September 28, 2010,
in its Las Vegas, Nevada hearing facility
to solicit comments on the revision of
its draft safety culture policy statement,
including the revised definition and
traits. The revision has been developed
as a result of the NRC staff’s evaluation
of the public comments submitted in
response to the draft policy statement
(74 FR 57525, November 6, 2009;
ML093030375), the results of the NRC’s
February 2010 workshop (February
workshop) on safety culture, and
additional comments that stakeholders
and other interested parties have
provided to the staff at the various
outreach activities that have occurred
since February. The draft policy
statement focuses on the unique aspects
of nuclear safety and security and
highlights the Commission’s
expectations that the policy applies to
individuals and organizations
performing or overseeing NRC-regulated
activities.
As part of the NRC staff’s outreach
activities which have focused on
engaging a broad range of stakeholders
including the Agreement States, the
NRC held a 3-day Safety Culture
Workshop in February 2010 at NRC
headquarters in which participants were
asked to reach alignment on (1) a
common definition of safety culture and
(2) high level descriptions or traits of
areas important to safety culture. The
February workshop also provided an
additional venue for interested parties
to provide comments on the draft policy
statement that had been published in
the Federal Register. Workshop
panelists successfully aligned on a
common definition of safety culture and
developed a list of traits that they
believe exist in a positive safety culture.
Following the February workshop, the
NRC staff participated in various
industry forums in order to obtain
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\24AUN1.SGM
24AUN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 163 (Tuesday, August 24, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52045-52046]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-20915]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2010-0281; Docket No. STN 50-530]
Arizona Public Service Company, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating
Station, Unit 3; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant
Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering
issuance of a temporary exemption from the requirements of Title 10 of
the Code of Federal Regulations, part 50 (10 CFR 50), section 50.46,
``Acceptance criteria for emergency core cooling systems for light-
water nuclear power reactors,'' and 10 CFR part 50, appendix K, ``ECCS
Evaluation Models,'' for Facility Operating License No. NPF-74, issued
to Arizona Public Service Company (APS, the licensee), for operation of
Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS), Unit 3, located in
Maricopa County, Arizona. Therefore, as required by 10 CFR 51.21, the
NRC has performed an environmental assessment. Based on the results of
the environmental assessment, the NRC is issuing a finding of no
significant impact.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action:
The proposed action would permit the use of fuel rods with
Optimized ZIRLOTM cladding to be inserted into PVNGS, Unit
3's core for Operating Cycles 16, 17, and 18. Since the requirements in
10 CFR 50.46, specifically, and 10 CFR part 50, appendix K, implicitly,
refer to the use of zircaloy or ZIRLO cladding, a temporary exemption
is required to allow the use of fuel rods clad with an advanced
zirconium-based alloy that is neither zircaloy nor ZIRLO. The temporary
exemption would allow up to eight lead fuel assemblies (LFAs)
manufactured by Westinghouse with fuel rods clad with Optimized
ZIRLOTM to be inserted into the PVNGS, Unit 3 core during
the fall 2010 refueling outage. The temporary exemption would allow the
LFAs to be used for up to three operating cycles (Cycles 16, 17, and
18).
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's
application dated November 2, 2009 (Agencywide Documents Access and
Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML093160596), as supplemented
by letter dated May 12, 2010 (ADAMS Accession No. ML101410262).
The Need for the Proposed Action:
The proposed temporary exemption is needed by APS, as explained in
its application dated November 2, 2009, in order ``to evaluate cladding
for future fuel assemblies that may need to be of a more robust design
than current fuel assemblies to allow for possible higher duty and/or
extended burnup.'' The regulations specify standards and acceptance
criteria only for fuel rods clad with zircaloy or ZIRLO. Consistent
with 10 CFR 50.46, a temporary exemption is required to use fuel rods
clad with an advanced alloy that is not zircaloy or ZIRLO. Therefore,
the licensee needs a temporary exemption to insert up to eight LFAs
containing Optimized ZIRLOTM cladding material into the
PVNGS Unit 3 core for up to three cycles of operation.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action:
The NRC has completed its evaluation of the proposed action and
concludes that the proposed exemption will not present any undue risk
to the public health and safety. The NRC-approved Westinghouse Electric
Company LLC (Westinghouse) topical reports, WCAP-16500-P-A Revision 0,
``CE [Combustion Engineering] 16x16 Next
[[Page 52046]]
Generation Fuel Core Reference Report'' (Proprietary), dated August
2007, and WCAP-12610-P-A and CENPD-404-P-A, ``Optimized
ZIRLOTM'' (Proprietary), dated July 2006, have demonstrated
that predicted chemical, mechanical, and material performance
characteristics of the Optimized ZIRLOTM alloy cladding are
bounded by those approved for zircaloy under anticipated operational
occurrences (AOOs) and postulated accidents. The LFAs shall be placed
in non-limiting core regions as required by PVNGS, Unit 3 Technical
Specification 4.2.1, ``Fuel Assemblies.'' Also, APS and Westinghouse
utilize NRC approved methods for the reload design process for the
PVNGS reload cores containing Optimized ZIRLOTM fuel rod
cladding. Therefore, the environmental impact, due to the unlikely
event of an LFA clad failure, would be minimal and would be bounded by
the environmental impacts associated with previous accident analyses.
The details of the NRC 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.
The proposed action will not significantly increase the probability
or consequences of accidents. No changes are being made in the types of
effluents that may be released offsite. There is no significant
increase in the amount of any effluent released offsite. There is no
significant increase in occupational or public radiation exposure.
Therefore, there are no significant radiological environmental impacts
associated with the proposed action.
Based on the nature of the exemption, the proposed action does not
result in changes to land use or water use, or result in changes to the
quality or quantity of non-radiological effluents. No changes to the
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit are needed. No
effects on the aquatic or terrestrial habitat in the vicinity of the
plant, or to threatened, endangered, or protected species under the
Endangered Species Act, or impacts to essential fish habitat covered by
the Magnuson-Stevens Act are expected. There are no impacts to the air
or ambient air quality. There are no impacts to historic and cultural
resources. There would be no noticeable effect on socioeconomic
conditions in the region. Therefore, no changes or different types of
non-radiological environmental impacts are expected as a result of the
proposed action. Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no
significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
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
the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, NUREG-0841, dated February
1982.
Agencies and Persons Consulted:
In accordance with its stated policy, on July 8, 2010, the NRC
staff consulted with the Arizona State official, Aubrey Godwin of the
Arizona Radiation Regulatory Authority 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 letter dated November 2, 2009, as supplemented by letter
dated May 12, 2010. 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 Agencywide Documents Access and Management
System (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.resource@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day of August 2010.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nageswaran Kalyanam,
Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch IV, Division of Operating
Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2010-20915 Filed 8-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P