[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 217 (Thursday, November 9, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56622-56623]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-27773]



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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 317]


Baltimore Gas and Electric Company; Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power 
Plant, Unit No. 1; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No 
Significant Impact

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is 
considering issuance of a temporary exemption from the provisions of 10 
CFR 50.44, 10 CFR 50.46, and Appendix K to 10 CFR Part 50 to Baltimore 
Gas and Electric Company (the licensee), for the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear 
Power Plant, Unit No. 1 (CC1), located in Calvert County, Maryland.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    This Environmental Assessment has been prepared to address 
potential environmental issues related to the licensee's application of 
July 13, 1995. The proposed action would allow the licensee to use four 
lead fuel assemblies with advanced cladding material, zirconium-based 
alloys, that do not meet the definition of Zircaloy or ZIRLO which are 
referred to in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The lead 
fuel assemblies are scheduled to be 

[[Page 56623]]
loaded into the CC1 reactor core during the upcoming refueling outage 
and will remain in the core for Cycles 13, 14, and 15.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    The proposed temporary exemption from 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 
of uranium oxide pellets enclosed in zircaloy or ZIRLO tubes. A new 
zirconium-based alloy cladding has been developed, which is not the 
same chemical composition as zircaloy or ZIRLO, and the licensee wants 
to insert assemblies with the new cladding material into the CC1 
reactor core and test them during power operation.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    With regard to potential radiological impacts to the general 
public, the proposed temporary exemption involves features located 
entirely within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. The 
lead fuel assemblies, with the zirconium-based alloy cladding, meet the 
same design basis as the Zircaloy-4 fuel which is currently in the CC1 
reactor core. No safety limits will be changed or setpoints altered as 
a result of using the lead fuel assemblies. The Updated Final Safety 
Analysis Report (UFSAR) analysis are bounding for the lead fuel 
assemblies as well as the remainder of the core. The mechanical 
properties and behavior of the lead fuel assemblies during postulated 
loss-of-coolant-accidents (LOCA) and non-LOCA transients and 
operational transients will be essentially the same. In addition, the 
four lead fuel assemblies represent a small portion of the total core 
and will be placed in non-limiting core locations which experience no 
more than 0.95 of the core power density during operation. The small 
number of lead fuel assemblies, in conjunction with the similarity of 
the chemical and material characteristics with the existing fuel, 
ensures that hydrogen production will not be significantly different 
from previous assessments.
    Therefore, the proposed temporary exemption, which would allow the 
operation of CC1 with four lead fuel assemblies in its reactor core, 
will not significantly affect the consequences of radiological 
accidents previously considered.
    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. As an alternative to the proposed action, the NRC staff 
considered denial of the proposed action. Denial of the application 
would deny the licensee the operational flexibility to demonstrate any 
improved cladding material performance and would not reduce the 
environmental impacts.

Alternative Use of Resources

    This action does not involve the use of any resources not 
previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for CC1.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on October 24, 1995, the 
staff consulted with the Maryland State official, Mr. Richard McLean of 
the Department of Natural Resources, 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 July 13, 1995, 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 Calvert County Library, Prince Frederick, 
Maryland 20678.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day of November 1995.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Ledyard B. Marsh,
Director, Project Directorate I-1, Division of Reactor Projects--I/II, 
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 95-27773 Filed 11-8-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P