95-31158. Duke Power Co. et al.; Catawba Nuclear Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact  

  • [Federal Register Volume 60, Number 246 (Friday, December 22, 1995)]
    [Notices]
    [Pages 66567-66568]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 95-31158]
    
    
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
    [Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414]
    
    
    Duke Power Co. et al.; Catawba Nuclear Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 
    Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact
    
        The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is 
    considering issuance of amendments to Facility Operating License Nos. 
    NPF-35 and NPF-52, issued to Duke Power Company, et al. (the licensee), 
    for operation of the Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, located in 
    York County, South Carolina.
    
    Environmental Assessment
    
    Identification of the Proposed Action
    
        By letter dated September 5, 1995, Duke Power Company submitted a 
    proposal for amendments of the Facility Operating Licenses that would 
    allow the Catawba Units 1 and 2 Containment Airborne Particulate 
    Radiation Monitors (CAPRMs, 1/2 EMF38(L)) to be reclassified in the 
    Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) as non-seismic Category I.
        The Catawba operating license Safety Evaluation Report (SER, NUREG-
    0954), Section 5.2.5, states that the CAPRMs are designed to seismic 
    Category I requirements. The basis for this determination was Section 
    5.2.5 of the Catawba UFSAR, which currently states that the CAPRMs 
    would remain functional during and following a safe shutdown earthquake 
    (SSE) as recommended in Position C.6 of Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.45 
    ``Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary Leakage Detection Systems.''
        By letter dated September 8, 1994, the licensee informed the staff 
    that sufficient documentation did not exist to show that the subject 
    monitors were seismically qualified to withstand the SSE. By letter 
    dated September 5, 1995, the licensee stated that the matter involved 
    an unreviewed safety question and requested amendments to its Facility 
    Operating Licenses including proposed changes to the UFSAR, which would 
    clarify that the CAPRMs are not designed to remain functional following 
    the SSE. The licensee has proposed an alternative to Position C.6 of RG 
    1.45 by showing that adequate instrumentation and procedures will be 
    available to assess conditions inside containment following a seismic 
    event comparable to an SSE and that, accordingly, the seismic 
    qualification requirement for the CAPRMs may be deleted from the UFSAR.
        The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's 
    application for amendments dated September 5, 1995.
    
    The Need for the Proposed Action
    
        The proposed action is needed so that the appropriate seismic 
    qualification for the CAPRMs can be reflected in the UFSAR.
    
    Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
    
        The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed 
    revisions to the UFSAR. The proposed revisions would permit the 
    Containment Airborne Particulate Radiation Monitors (1/2EMF38(L)) at 
    Catawba Units 1 and 2 to be classified as non-seismic Category I. The 
    safety considerations associated with this re-classification have been 
    evaluated by the NRC staff. The staff has concluded that the licensee 
    has demonstrated an acceptable alternative to Position C.6 of RG 1.45 
    by showing that adequate instrumentation and procedures will be 
    available to assess conditions inside containment following a seismic 
    event comparable to an SSE. The proposed changes have no adverse effect 
    on the probability of any accident. 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.
        Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no significant 
    radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed 
    amendments.
        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. 
    
    [[Page 66568]]
    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. The principal alternative to this action would be to deny 
    the requested amendments. Such action would not reduce the 
    environmental impacts of plant operations.
    
    Alternative Use of Resources
    
        This action does not involve the use of resources not previously 
    considered in the ``Final Environmental Statement Related to the 
    Operation of Catawba Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2,'' dated January 
    1983.
    
    Agencies and Persons Consulted
    
        In accordance with its stated policy, on November 30, 1995, the NRC 
    staff consulted with the South Carolina State official, Mr. V. Autrey 
    of the Bureau of Radiological Health, Department of Health and 
    Environmental Controls, 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 license amendments.
        For further details with respect to this action, see the licensee's 
    letter dated September 5, 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 York County Library, 138 East Black 
    Street, Rock Hill, South Carolina.
    
        Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day of December 1995.
    
        For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
    Leonard A. Wiens, Acting Director,
    Project Directorate II-2, Division of Reactor Projects - I/II, Office 
    of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
    [FR Doc. 95-31158 Filed 12-21-95; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    
    

Document Information

Published:
12/22/1995
Department:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Entry Type:
Notice
Document Number:
95-31158
Pages:
66567-66568 (2 pages)
Docket Numbers:
Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414
PDF File:
95-31158.pdf