[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 166 (Monday, August 28, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44513-44514]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-21270]



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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414]


Duke Power Company, 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

    The proposed action would change the Technical Specifications (TS) 
to (a) allow the maximum enrichment for fuel stored in the fuel pools 
to increase from a nominal value of 4.0 to 5.0 weight percent Uranium-
235, (b) establish new loading patterns for new and irradiated fuel in 
the spent fuel pool consistent with associated burnup criteria up to a 
maximum value of 60 GWD/MTU to accommodate this increase, (c) add a TS 
to establish a limit for boron concentration for all modes of 
operation, (d) add BASES to correspond to the TS that were added, (e) 
add TS to reflect limits for fuel storage criticality analysis, and (f) 
reformat the TS to bring them more in line with the standard format in 
the NRC report NUREG-1431, ``Standard Technical Specifications 
Westinghouse Plants.''
    The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's 
application for amendments dated September 19, 1994, as supplemented by 
letters dated April 26 and June 19, 1995.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    The proposed action is needed so that the licensee can use higher 
fuel enrichment to provide additional flexibility in the licensee's 
reload design efforts and to increase the efficiency of fuel storage 
cell use in the spent fuel pools.

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 
fuel enriched to a nominal 5.0 weight percent Uranium-235. The safety 
considerations associated with reactor operation with higher enrichment 
and extended irradiation 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 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 environmental impacts associated with the proposed 
amendment. 

[[Page 44514]]

    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. 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 July 21, 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 19, 1994, as supplemented by letters dated April 
26 and June 19, 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 York County Library, 138 East Black Street, Rock Hill, South 
Carolina.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day of August 1995.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Herbert N. Berkow,
Director, Project Directorate II-2, Division of Reactor Projects--I/II, 
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 95-21270 Filed 8-25-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P