[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 127 (Monday, July 3, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34559-34560]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-16248]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-289]


GPU Nuclear Corporation; Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 
1 Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is 
considering issuance of an exemption from the provisions of 10 CFR 
50.44, 10 CFR 50.46, and appendix K to 10 CFR part 50 to GPU Nuclear 
Corporation (GPUN, the licensee) for Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, 
Unit 1 (TMI-1), located in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of Proposed Action

    The proposed action would enable the licensee to use demonstration 
fuel assemblies that contain some fuel rods whose zirconium-based 
cladding composition is somewhat different from the zirconium based 
compound named zircaloy. These demonstration assemblies would be loaded 
into TMI-1 during the upcoming September 1995 refueling outage and 
irradiated through fuel Cycles 11, 12, and 13.
    The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's 
application for exemption of June 1, 1995.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    The proposed exemption to 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 or uranium 
oxide pellets enclosed in zircaloy tubes. Zircaloy is a zirconium-based 
alloy currently in use as cladding for fuel pellets. A new zirconium-
based cladding has been developed which is not the same chemical 
composition as 

[[Page 34560]]
zircaloy, and which the licensee wants to test in reactor operation. 
Since 10 CFR 50.46 and 10 CFR part 50, appendix K limit Emergency Core 
Cooling System (ECCS) calculations to zircaloy and 10 CFR 50.44 relates 
to the generation of hydrogen gas from a metal-water reaction with 
zircaloy, an exemption is required in order to place two demonstration 
assemblies in the core. The staff has reviewed the chemical composition 
of the new cladding and found no significant difference between the new 
composition and zircaloy. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, a 
special circumstance exists in which application of these regulations 
is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the regulations. 
The NRC staff finds that granting the requested exemption is authorized 
by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, 
and is consistent with the common defense and security. Thus, an 
exemption is authorized by 10 CFR 50.12. The underlying purpose of 10 
CFR 50.46 and 10 CFR 50 appendix K is to establish requirements for 
calculations of emergency core cooling systems. The licensee addressed 
the safety impact of the demonstration assemblies on emergency core 
cooling system performance as part of the application for exemption and 
demonstrated that the new zirconium based cladding does not affect the 
ECCS calculations. The underlying purpose of 10 CFR 50.44 is to ensure 
that means are provided for the control of hydrogen gas that may be 
generated following a postulated loss-of-coolant accident. The licensee 
previously addressed hydrogen generation following a loss-of-coolant 
accident. The licensee's proposed action has no significant effect on 
the previous assessment of hydrogen gas production.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    With regard to potential radiological impacts to the general 
public, the proposed exemption involves features located entirely 
within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR part 20. It does not 
affect the potential for radiological accidents and does not affect 
radiological plant effluents. The demonstration assemblies meet the 
same design bases as the fuel which is currently in the reactor. No 
safety limits have been changed or setpoints altered as a result of the 
use of these assemblies. The Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) 
analyses are bounding for the demonstration assemblies as well as the 
remainder of the core. The advanced zirconium-based alloys have been 
shown through testing to perform satisfactorily under conditions 
representative of a reactor environment. In addition, the relatively 
small number of fuel rods involved does not represent a prohibitively 
large inventory of radioactive material which could be released into 
the reactor coolant in the event of cladding failure. The only credible 
consequence of this change would be a failure of the demonstration 
claddings. Even in the case of gross fuel failure, the number of rods 
involved is less than 1% of the core and, thus, sufficiently small that 
environmental impact would be negligible and is bounded by previous 
assessments. The small number of fuel rods involved in conjunction with 
the chemical similarity of the demonstration cladding to zircaloy 
cladding ensures that hydrogen production would not be significantly 
different from previous assessments. As a result, the proposed 
exemption does not affect the consequences of radiological accidents. 
Consequently, the Commission concludes that there are no significant 
radiological impacts associated with the proposed exemption.
    With regard to the potential environmental impacts associated with 
the transportation of the demonstration assemblies, the advanced 
cladding have no impact on previous assessments determined in 
accordance with 10 CFR 51.52. With regard to potential nonradiological 
impacts, the proposed exemption does not affect nonradiological plant 
effluents and has no other environmental impact. Therefore, the 
Commission concludes that there are no significant nonradiological 
environmental impacts associated with the proposed exemption.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    Because the Commission's staff has concluded that there is no 
significant environmental impact associated with the proposed 
exemption, any alternative to the proposed exemption will have either 
no significantly different environmental impact or greater 
environmental impact. The principal alternative would be to deny the 
requested exemption. This would not reduce environmental impacts as a 
result of plant operations.

Alternative Use of Resources

    This action does not involve the use of resources not previously 
considered in connection with the Final Environmental Statement related 
to the operation of Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, 
issued by the Commission in December 1972.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, the NRC staff consulted with 
Richard Janati of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 
Resources on June 9, 1995, regarding the environmental impact of the 
proposed action. Mr. Janati had no comments on behalf of the 
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Finding of No Significant Impact

    Accordingly, the Commission has determined not to prepare an 
environmental impact statement for the proposed exemption.
    Based upon the foregoing environmental assessment, the Commission 
concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect 
on the quality of the human environment.
    For further details with respect to this action, see the request 
for exemption dated June 1, 1995, which is available for public 
inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, 
NW., Washington, DC 20555 and at the local public document room located 
at the Law/Government Publication Section, State Library of 
Pennsylvania, (Regional Depository) Walnut Street and Commonwealth 
Avenue, Box 1601, Harrisburg, PA 17105.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 26th day of June, 1995.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Ronald W. Hernan,
Acting Director, Project Directorate I-3, Division of Reactor 
Projects--I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 95-16248 Filed 6-30-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-1-M