[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 246 (Friday, December 22, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66567-66568]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-31158]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414]


Duke Power Co. 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

    By letter dated September 5, 1995, Duke Power Company submitted a 
proposal for amendments of the Facility Operating Licenses that would 
allow the Catawba Units 1 and 2 Containment Airborne Particulate 
Radiation Monitors (CAPRMs, 1/2 EMF38(L)) to be reclassified in the 
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) as non-seismic Category I.
    The Catawba operating license Safety Evaluation Report (SER, NUREG-
0954), Section 5.2.5, states that the CAPRMs are designed to seismic 
Category I requirements. The basis for this determination was Section 
5.2.5 of the Catawba UFSAR, which currently states that the CAPRMs 
would remain functional during and following a safe shutdown earthquake 
(SSE) as recommended in Position C.6 of Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.45 
``Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary Leakage Detection Systems.''
    By letter dated September 8, 1994, the licensee informed the staff 
that sufficient documentation did not exist to show that the subject 
monitors were seismically qualified to withstand the SSE. By letter 
dated September 5, 1995, the licensee stated that the matter involved 
an unreviewed safety question and requested amendments to its Facility 
Operating Licenses including proposed changes to the UFSAR, which would 
clarify that the CAPRMs are not designed to remain functional following 
the SSE. The licensee has proposed an alternative to Position C.6 of RG 
1.45 by showing that adequate instrumentation and procedures will be 
available to assess conditions inside containment following a seismic 
event comparable to an SSE and that, accordingly, the seismic 
qualification requirement for the CAPRMs may be deleted from the UFSAR.
    The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's 
application for amendments dated September 5, 1995.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    The proposed action is needed so that the appropriate seismic 
qualification for the CAPRMs can be reflected in the UFSAR.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed 
revisions to the UFSAR. The proposed revisions would permit the 
Containment Airborne Particulate Radiation Monitors (1/2EMF38(L)) at 
Catawba Units 1 and 2 to be classified as non-seismic Category I. The 
safety considerations associated with this re-classification have been 
evaluated by the NRC staff. The staff has concluded that the licensee 
has demonstrated an acceptable alternative to Position C.6 of RG 1.45 
by showing that adequate instrumentation and procedures will be 
available to assess conditions inside containment following a seismic 
event comparable to an SSE. 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.
    Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no significant 
radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed 
amendments.
    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. 

[[Page 66568]]
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 November 30, 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 5, 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 York County Library, 138 East Black 
Street, Rock Hill, South Carolina.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day of December 1995.

    For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Leonard A. Wiens, Acting Director,
Project Directorate II-2, Division of Reactor Projects - I/II, Office 
of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 95-31158 Filed 12-21-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P