[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 57 (Thursday, March 23, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15659-15660]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-7237]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[DOCKET NOS. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287]
Duke Energy Corporation; Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and
3 Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering
issuance of an exemption from certain requirements of Title 10 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Section 50.44, 10 CFR 50.46, and
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix K to the Duke Energy Corporation (the
licensee/Duke) for operation of the Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2,
and 3, Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55,
respectively, located in Oconee County, Seneca, South Carolina.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would exempt the licensee from certain
requirements of 10 CFR 50.44, 10 CFR 50.46, and Appendix K of 10 CFR
Part 50 to allow the use of Framatome Cogema Fuels (FCF) ``M5''
advanced alloy as a fuel rod cladding material.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's
application for an exemption dated September 15, 1999.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed action is needed to allow the use of Framatome Cogema
Fuels (FCF) ``M5'' advanced alloy as a fuel rod cladding material. The
exemption is necessary since the chemical composition of M5 differs
from the Zircaloy and ZIRLO cladding material specified in the
regulations. The M5 alloy is a proprietary zirconium-based alloy,
composed primarily of zirconium and niobium, that has demonstrated
superior corrosion resistance and reduced irradiation growth relative
to both standard and low-tin Zircaloy. Since the chemical composition
of the M5 alloy differs from the specifications for Zircaloy or ZIRLO,
an exemption is required for the use of the M5 alloy as a fuel cladding
material at Oconee. The regulations set forth in 10 CFR 50.44, 10 CFR
50.46 and Appendix K to 10 CFR Part 50 contain acceptance and
analytical criteria regarding the light water nuclear reactor system
performance during and following a postulated loss-of-coolant accident.
These regulations specify the use of only two types of fuel cladding
material, Zircaloy and ZIRLO.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The proposed action to implement the exemption described above is
designed to enhance fuel rod performance characteristics over that of
Zircaloy or ZIRLO clad fuel rods. The proposed action does not exempt
the licensee from complying with the acceptance and analytical criteria
of 10 CFR 50.44, 10 CFR 50.46 and Appendix K to 10 CFR Part 50
applicable to the M5 alloy cladding. The exemption solely allows the
criteria set forth in these regulations to apply to the M5 cladding
material. The staff has concluded that the proposed action will not
significantly increase the probability or consequences of accidents,
there are no changes being made in the types of any effluents that may
be released offsite, and there is no significant increase in
occupational or public radiation exposure because this exemption will
not change the criteria set forth in the present regulations, since the
M5-clad fuel has been shown by the licensee to be capable of meeting
this criteria. Therefore, the Commission concludes that there are no
significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the
proposed action.
With regard to potential nonradiological environmental impacts, the
proposed action does not involve any historic sites. It does not affect
nonradiological plant effluents and has no other environmental impact.
Therefore, there are no significant nonradiological environmental
impacts associated with the proposed action.
[[Page 15660]]
Accordingly, the NRC 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. 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 Statement for the
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on March 14, 2000, the staff
consulted with the South Carolina State official, Mr. Virgil L. Autry
of the Division of Radiological Waste Management, Bureau of Land and
Waste Management, Department of Health and Environmental Control,
regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. The State
official had no comments.
Finding of No Significant Impact
On the basis of the environmental assessment, the NRC concludes
that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the
quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC 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 September 15, 1999, which is available for
public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, The Gelman
Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC. Publically available
records are accessible electronically from the ADAMS Public Library
component on the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov (the Electronic
Reading Room).
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day of March 2000.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Richard L. Emch, Jr.,
Section Chief, Section 1, Project Directorate II, Division of Licensing
Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 00-7237 Filed 3-22-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P