[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 7, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 30120]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-13976]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323]:
Pacific Gas and Electric Company Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power
Plant, 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.
DPR-80 and DPR-82, issued to Pacific Gas and Electric Company (the
licensee), for operation of Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit
Nos. 1 and 2, located in San Luis Obispo County, California.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would allow the storage of fuel in new and
spent fuel racks with enrichments up to and including 5.0 weight
percent U-235, would clarify that substitution of fuel rods with filler
rods is acceptable for fuel designs that have been analyzed with
applicable NRC-approved codes and methods, and would allow the use of
ZIRLO fuel cladding in the future in addition to Zircaloy-4. The
proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's application for
amendment dated February 6, 1995, as supplemented by letters dated
March 23, and May 22, 1995.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed action is needed so that the licensee can use higher
fuel enrichment to provide the flexibility of extending the fuel
irradiation and to permit future operation with longer fuel cycles.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed
revisions to the technical specifications. The proposed revisions would
permit storage of fuel enriched to a nominal 5.0 weight percent Uranium
235. The safety considerations associated with storing new and spent
fuel of a higher enrichment have been evaluated by the NRC staff. The
staff has concluded that such changes would not adversely affect plant
safety. 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.
The environmental impacts of transportation resulting from the use
of higher enrichment fuel and extended irradiation (an enveloping case
for the Diablo Canyon Power Plant since burnup remains unchanged) 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,
and published in the Federal Register (53 FR 30355) on August 11, 1988,
as corrected on August 24, 1988 (53 FR 32322) in connection with
Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1: Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact. As indicated therein, the
environmental cost contribution of the proposed increase in the fuel
enrichment and irradiation limits 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). Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no
significant radiological environment impacts associated with the
proposed amendment.
With regard to potential nonradiological impacts of reactor
operation with higher enrichment, 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 staff
considered denial of the proposed action. 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
This action does not involve the use of any resources not
previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for Diablo
Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on May 22, 1995, the staff
consulted with the California State official, Mr. Steve Hsu of the
Department of Health Services, 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 February 6, 1995, as supplemented by letters
dated March 23, and May 22, 1995, which are 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 California Polytechnic State University,
Robert E. Kennedy Library, Government Documents and Maps Department,
San Louis Obispo, California 93407.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day of June 1995.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
William H. Bateman,
Director, Project Directorate IV-2, Division of Reactor Projects III/
IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 95-13976 Filed 6-6-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
