[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 217 (Thursday, November 9, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56622-56623]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-27773]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 317]
Baltimore Gas and Electric Company; Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power
Plant, Unit No. 1; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No
Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is
considering issuance of a temporary exemption from the provisions of 10
CFR 50.44, 10 CFR 50.46, and Appendix K to 10 CFR Part 50 to Baltimore
Gas and Electric Company (the licensee), for the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear
Power Plant, Unit No. 1 (CC1), located in Calvert County, Maryland.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
This Environmental Assessment has been prepared to address
potential environmental issues related to the licensee's application of
July 13, 1995. The proposed action would allow the licensee to use four
lead fuel assemblies with advanced cladding material, zirconium-based
alloys, that do not meet the definition of Zircaloy or ZIRLO which are
referred to in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The lead
fuel assemblies are scheduled to be
[[Page 56623]]
loaded into the CC1 reactor core during the upcoming refueling outage
and will remain in the core for Cycles 13, 14, and 15.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed temporary exemption from 10 CFR 50.44, 10 CFR 50.46,
and Appendix K to 10 CFR Part 50 is needed because these regulations
specifically refer to light-water reactors containing fuel consisting
of uranium oxide pellets enclosed in zircaloy or ZIRLO tubes. A new
zirconium-based alloy cladding has been developed, which is not the
same chemical composition as zircaloy or ZIRLO, and the licensee wants
to insert assemblies with the new cladding material into the CC1
reactor core and test them during power operation.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
With regard to potential radiological impacts to the general
public, the proposed temporary exemption involves features located
entirely within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. The
lead fuel assemblies, with the zirconium-based alloy cladding, meet the
same design basis as the Zircaloy-4 fuel which is currently in the CC1
reactor core. No safety limits will be changed or setpoints altered as
a result of using the lead fuel assemblies. The Updated Final Safety
Analysis Report (UFSAR) analysis are bounding for the lead fuel
assemblies as well as the remainder of the core. The mechanical
properties and behavior of the lead fuel assemblies during postulated
loss-of-coolant-accidents (LOCA) and non-LOCA transients and
operational transients will be essentially the same. In addition, the
four lead fuel assemblies represent a small portion of the total core
and will be placed in non-limiting core locations which experience no
more than 0.95 of the core power density during operation. The small
number of lead fuel assemblies, in conjunction with the similarity of
the chemical and material characteristics with the existing fuel,
ensures that hydrogen production will not be significantly different
from previous assessments.
Therefore, the proposed temporary exemption, which would allow the
operation of CC1 with four lead fuel assemblies in its reactor core,
will not significantly affect the consequences of radiological
accidents previously considered.
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 associated with the proposed action.
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Since the Commission has concluded there is no measurable
environmental impact associated with the proposed action, any
alternatives with equal or greater environmental impact need not be
evaluated. As an alternative to the proposed action, the NRC staff
considered denial of the proposed action. Denial of the application
would deny the licensee the operational flexibility to demonstrate any
improved cladding material performance and would not reduce the
environmental impacts.
Alternative Use of Resources
This action does not involve the use of any resources not
previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for CC1.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on October 24, 1995, the
staff consulted with the Maryland State official, Mr. Richard McLean of
the Department of Natural Resources, regarding the environmental impact
of the proposed action. The State official had no comments.
Finding of No Significant Impact
Based upon the environmental assessment, the Commission concludes
that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the
quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the Commission 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 July 13, 1995, which is 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 Calvert County Library, Prince Frederick,
Maryland 20678.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day of November 1995.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Ledyard B. Marsh,
Director, Project Directorate I-1, Division of Reactor Projects--I/II,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 95-27773 Filed 11-8-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
