97-13271. Duquesne Light Company; Ohio Edison Company; Pennsylvania Power Company; Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No. 1; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact  

  • [Federal Register Volume 62, Number 98 (Wednesday, May 21, 1997)]
    [Notices]
    [Pages 27791-27792]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 97-13271]
    
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
    
    [Docket No. 50-334]
    
    
    Duquesne Light Company; Ohio Edison Company; Pennsylvania Power 
    Company; Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No. 1; Environmental 
    Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact
    
        The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is 
    considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. 
    DPR-66, issued to Duquesne Light Company, et al. (the licensee), for 
    operation of the Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No. 1 (BVPS-1), 
    located in Beaver County, Pennsylvania.
    
    Environmental Assessment
    
    Identification of the Proposed Action
    
        The proposed amendment would revise BVPS-1 Technical Specification 
    (TS) 5.3.1.2 to allow storage of new reactor fuel in the new fuel 
    storage racks with an enrichment not to exceed a nominal 5.0 weight 
    percent Uranium-235.
        The proposed amendment is in accordance with the licensee's 
    application for dated February 27, 1997.
    
    The Need for the Proposed Action
    
        The proposed changes to the Facility Operating License are needed 
    so that the licensee can store and use more highly enriched fuel, and 
    thereby provide the flexibility of extending the fuel irradiation/
    burnup to permit longer fuel cycles (i.e., longer continuous period of 
    operation). Use of the proposed more highly enriched fuels would 
    require the use of fewer fuel assemblies over the remaining life of the 
    plant.
    
    Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
    
        The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed 
    revisions to the TS. The proposed revisions would permit storage of new 
    fuel in the new fuel storage racks and subsequent use of fuel enriched 
    with Uranium-235 (U-235) to a nominal 5.0 weight percent (5.0 weight 
    percent plus a tolerance of 0.05 weight percent). The safety 
    considerations associated with the storage of and subsequent reactor
    
    [[Page 27792]]
    
    operation with higher enriched fuel have been evaluated by the NRC 
    staff. Based on its review, the NRC staff has concluded that such 
    changes would not adversely affect plant safety. The proposed changes 
    have no adverse affect on the probability of any accident. The higher 
    enrichment, with increased fuel burnup, may slightly change the mix of 
    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. Accordingly, the 
    Commission concludes that the proposed action would result in no 
    significant radiological environmental impact.
        The environmental impacts of transportation resulting from the use 
    of higher enrichment fuel and extended irradiation were published and 
    discussed in the staff assessment entitled ``NRC Assessment of the 
    Environmental Effects of Transportation Resulting from Extended Fuel 
    Enrichment and Irradiation,'' dated July 7, 1988. This assessment was 
    published in connection with an Environmental Assessment related to the 
    Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, which was published in the 
    Federal Register (53 FR 30355) on August 11, 1988, as corrected on 
    August 24, 1988 (53 FR 32322). As indicated therein, the environmental 
    cost contribution of an increase in the fuel enrichment of up to 5.0 
    weight percent Uranium-235 and irradiation limits of up to 60,000 
    gigawatt-days-per-metric-ton (GWD/MT) are either unchanged or may, in 
    fact, be reduced from those summarized in Table S-4 as set forth in 10 
    CFR 51.52(c). These findings are applicable to the proposed increase at 
    BVPS-1 given that the proposal involves 5% and burnup of less than 
    60,000 GWD/MT. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no 
    significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the 
    proposed amendment.
        With regard to potential nonradiological impacts of reactor 
    operation with higher enrichment and extended irradiation, 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.
    
    Alternative to the Proposed Action
    
        Since the Commission has concluded that there are no significant 
    environmental effects that would result from the proposed action, any 
    other alternative would have equal or greater environmental impacts and 
    need not be evaluated.
        The principal alternative would be to deny the requested amendment. 
    This would not reduce environmental impact of plant operations and 
    would result in reduced operational flexibility.
    
    Alternative Use of Resources
    
        The action does not involve the use of any resources not previously 
    considered in the Final Environmental Statement for the Beaver Valley 
    Power Station, Unit No. 1 dated July 1973.
    
    Agencies and Persons Consulted
    
        In accordance with its stated policy, on April 14, 1997, the staff 
    consulted with the Pennsylvania State official, Mr. Michael P. Murphy 
    of the Bureau of Radiation Protection, Department of Environmental 
    Protection, regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. 
    The State official had no comments.
    
    Finding of No Significant Impact
    
        The Commission has determined not to prepare an environmental 
    impact statement for the proposed license amendment.
        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 proposed action, see the 
    application for amendment dated February 27, 1997, that 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--5- room located at the B. F. Jones Memorial Library, 
    663 Franklin Avenue, Aliquippa, Pennsylvania 15001.
    
        Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day of May 1997.
    
        For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
    John F. Stolz,
    Director, Project Directorate I-2, Division of Reactor Projects--I/II, 
    Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
    [FR Doc. 97-13271 Filed 5-20-97; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    
    
    

Document Information

Published:
05/21/1997
Department:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Entry Type:
Notice
Document Number:
97-13271
Pages:
27791-27792 (2 pages)
Docket Numbers:
Docket No. 50-334
PDF File:
97-13271.pdf