[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 189 (Thursday, September 30, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52802-52803]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-25469]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414]
Duke Energy Corporation; Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2
Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is
considering issuance of an exemption to 10 CFR Section 54.17(c), for
Facility Operating Licenses No. NPF-35 and NPF-52, issued to Duke
Energy Corporation (the licensee) for operation of Catawba Nuclear
Station, Units 1 and 2, located in York County, South Carolina.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of Proposed Action
The proposed action would exempt the licensee from certain
requirements of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR)
Section 54.17(c), which specifies that a licensee may not apply for a
renewed operating license earlier than 20 years before the expiration
of the operating license currently in effect. Catawba Nuclear Station,
Units 1 and 2, will not have met this schedular requirement by June 13,
2001 (the earliest date the licensee may apply concurrently for renewed
licenses for the Catawba and McGuire units, see below). The proposed
action is in response to the licensee's application dated June 22,
1999.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The licensee requested an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR
54.17(c), which requires that an application for a renewed license may
not be submitted to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
earlier than 20 years before the expiration of the operating license
currently in effect. The current operating license for McGuire, Unit 1,
expires on June 12, 2021, and for McGuire, Unit 2, on March 3, 2023.
The current operating license for Catawba, Unit 1, expires on December
6, 2024, and for Catawba, Unit 2, on February 24, 2026. If the licensee
submits the renewal applications on the earliest possible date, June
13, 2001, when McGuire, Unit 1, meets the 20-year limit contained in
Section 54.17(c), McGuire, Unit 2, will have approximately 18.3 years
of operating experience and Catawba, Units 1 and 2, approximately 16.5
years and 15.3 years operating experience, respectively.
In its request, the licensee stated that business considerations
dictate preparation and submission of concurrent license renewal
applications for McGuire and Catawba. Further, the licensee stated that
submission of such renewal applications in 2001, as opposed to some
time thereafter, is necessary to obtain the full amount of the
potential cost savings. To support preparation of the July 1998 Oconee
Nuclear Station renewal applications, the licensee assembled a team of
individuals with relevant experience in necessary disciplines to
prepare the applications and to remain dedicated to the renewal effort
throughout the period of NRC staff review. According to the licensee,
granting the exemption request would allow it to use this same team of
qualified and experienced professionals to prepare its McGuire and
Catawba renewal applications. Thus, the licensee states that it can
avoid redeployment costs that would arise if it were unable to proceed
promptly with preparation of additional renewal applications.
The licensee's submittal of June 22, 1999, addressed both sites and
all four units, but specifically sought schedular exemptions for
Catawba, Units 1 and 2 and McGuire Unit 2. This Environmental
Assessment only addresses the licensee's request for schedular
exemption for Catawba, Units 1 and 2.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The staff has completed its evaluation of the environmental impacts
of the proposed exemption. The exemption, if granted, will permit the
licensee to apply for renewal of the existing operating licenses sooner
than would be allowed under the schedule specified by 10 CFR 54.17(c).
Should the licensee apply to renew the licenses for the Catawba units,
the environmental impacts of operating them under the renewed licenses
would then be evaluated by the licensee and the staff. In short,
granting of the exemption will not necessitate, or lead to, changes to
the as-built plant design or existing procedures at the two Catawba
units.
The staff evaluated potential radiological environmental impacts
associated with granting the requested exemption. Since no plant design
change or procedure change will be made, no new accident causal
mechanisms would be introduced. For the same reason, the proposed
exemption will not increase the probability or consequences of
accidents previously evaluated by the staff (Catawba Safety Evaluation
Report, NUREG-0954 dated February 1983 and supplements), will not
change the types of effluents that may be released offsite,
[[Page 52803]]
and will not increase the allowable individual or public radiation
exposure (Catawba Final Environmental Impact Statement, NUREG-0921
dated January 1983). Therefore, there are no significant radiological
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
The staff also evaluated potential nonradiological impacts. On the
basis that the proposed exemption involves no plant design change or
procedure change, the staff finds that the proposed exemption does not
affect any historic sites, does not increase or decrease
nonradiological plant effluents, and has no other environmental impact
from those previously evaluated by the staff (Catawba Final
Environmental Impact Statement, NUREG-0921). Therefore, there are no
significant nonradiological environmental impacts associated with the
proposed action.
Accordingly, the staff concludes that there are no significant
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
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. Thus, 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 Impact Statement
related to the Catawba Nuclear Station (NUREG-0921).
Agencies and Persons Contacted
In accordance with its stated policy, on September 22, 1999, the
staff consulted with the South Carolina State official, Mr. Virgil
Autrey, of the Bureau of Land and Waste Management, Department of
Health and Environmental Control, regarding the environmental impact of
the proposed action. Mr. Autrey had no comments.
Finding of No Significant Impact
On the basis of the environmental assessment, the staff concludes
that the proposed exemption will not have a significant effect on the
quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the staff 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 request for the exemptions dated June 22, 1999, 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 24th day of September 1999.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Peter S. Tam,
Senior Project Manager, Section 1, Project Directorate II, Division of
Licensing and Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 99-25469 Filed 9-29-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
