[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 207 (Wednesday, October 25, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63900-63902]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-27384]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-275]


Pacific Gas and Electric Co.; Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Unit 1; 
Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is 
considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. 
DPR-80, issued to Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E, or the 
licensee), for operation of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 
1 (DCNPP), located in San Luis Obispo County, California.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of Proposed Action

    The proposed action would allow PG&E to increase the maximum 
reactor core power level from 3338 megawatts thermal (MWt) to 3411 MWt, 
which is an increase of 2.2 percent of rated core thermal power for 
DCNPP Unit 1.

[[Page 63901]]

    The proposed action is in accordance with PG&E's application for 
amendment dated December 31, 1999, as supplemented by letters dated 
January 18, July 7, September 22, and September 29, 2000.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    The proposed action would permit an increase in the licensed core 
thermal power from 3338 MWt to 3411 MWt and would provide the 
flexibility to increase the potential electrical output of DCNPP Unit 
1.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    PG&E has submitted an environmental evaluation supporting the 
proposed power uprate and provided a summary of its conclusions 
concerning both the radiological and non-radiological environmental 
impacts of the proposed action. Based on the NRC's independent analyses 
and the evaluation performed by the licensee, the staff concludes that 
the proposed increase in power is not expected to result in a 
significant environmental impact.

Radiological Environmental Assessment

Radwaste Systems
    The reactor coolant contains activated corrosion products, which 
are the result of metallic materials entering the water and being 
activated in the reactor region. Under power uprate conditions, the 
feedwater flow increases with power and the activation rate in the 
reactor region increases with power. The net result may be an increase 
in the activated corrosion product production. However, the total 
volume of processed waste is not expected to increase appreciably.
    Non-condensible radioactive gas from the main condenser, along with 
air in-leakage, normally contains activation gases (principally N-16, 
O-19 and N-13) and fission product radioactive noble gases. This is the 
major source of radioactive gas (greater than all other sources 
combined). These non-condensible gases, along with non-radioactive air, 
are continuously removed from the main condensers which discharge into 
the offgas system. The gaseous effluents will remain within the 
original limits following implementation of the power uprate.
    PG&E has concluded that the operation of the radwaste systems at 
DCNPP will not be impacted by operation at uprated power conditions and 
the slight increase in effluents discharged would continue to meet the 
requirements of Part 20 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 
(10 CFR) and 10 CFR part 50, appendix I. Therefore, the power uprate 
will not appreciably affect the licensee's ability to process liquid or 
gaseous radioactive effluents and there are no significant 
environmental effects from radiological releases.
Dose Consideration
    PG&E evaluated the effects of power uprate on the radiation sources 
within the plant and radiation levels during normal and post-accident 
conditions. Post-operation radiation levels in most areas of the plant 
are expected to increase by no more than the percentage increase in 
power level. In a few areas near the spent fuel pool cooling system 
piping and the reactor water piping, where accumulation of corrosion 
product crud is expected, as well as near some liquid radwaste 
equipment, the increase could be slightly higher. In this regard, 
procedural controls are expected to compensate for increased radiation 
levels. Occupational doses for normal operations will be maintained 
within acceptable limits by the site's as-low-as-reasonably-achievable 
program, which is required by 10 CFR 20.1101(b).
    The power uprate would not involve significant increases in offsite 
doses to the public from noble gases, airborne particulates, iodine, 
tritium, or liquid effluents. A review of the normal radiological 
effluent doses shows that, at the current power level, doses are less 
than one percent of the doses allowed by the plant's technical 
specifications (TS). Present offsite radiation levels are a negligible 
portion of background radiation. Therefore, the normal offsite doses 
would not be significantly affected by operation at the uprated power 
level and would remain below the limits of 10 CFR part 20 and 10 CFR 
part 50, appendix I.
    The change in core inventory that would result from the power 
uprate is expected to increase post-accident radiation levels by no 
more than the percentage increase in power level. The licensee 
reanalyzed the large break loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA), the small 
break LOCA, the overtemperature and overpressure T 
(OTT/OPT) setpoint calculation, and the accidental 
reactor coolant system (RCS) depressurization event. The residual heat 
removal (RHR) cooldown calculation and main steam line break at full 
power were also reanalyzed as part of the uprate project. The slight 
increase expected in the post-accident radiation levels would have no 
significant effect on the plant nor on the habitability of the control 
room envelope, the Emergency Operations Facility, or the Technical 
Support Center. Thus, the licensee has determined that access to areas 
requiring post-accident occupancy would not be significantly affected 
by the power uprate. The licensee evaluated the whole body and thyroid 
doses at the exclusion area boundary that might result from the 
postulated design basis LOCA and determined that expected doses remain 
below established regulatory limits. Therefore, the results of the 
radiological analyses remain below the 10 CFR Part 100 guidelines and 
all radiological safety margins would be maintained if the amendment 
were granted.
Summary
    The proposed power uprate would not significantly increase the 
probability or consequences of accidents, would not involve any new 
radiological release pathways or would not result in a significant 
increase in occupational or public radiation exposure, and would not 
result in significant additional fuel cycle environmental impacts. 
Accordingly, the NRC staff concludes that there are no significant 
radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

Non-Radiological Environmental Assessment

    The licensee reviewed the non-radiological environmental impacts of 
the requested power uprate based on information submitted in the 
Environmental Report, Operating License Stage, the NRC Final 
Environmental Statement (FES), and the requirements of the 
Environmental Protection Plan. Based on this review, the licensee 
concluded that the proposed power uprate would have no significant 
effect on the non-radiological elements of concern and the plant will 
be operated in an environmentally acceptable manner as established by 
the FES. In addition, the licensee states that existing Federal, State, 
and local regulatory permits presently in effect accommodate the power 
uprate without modification.
    The cooling water systems at DCNPP (e.g., circulating water and 
auxiliary saltwater systems) are drawn from the ultimate heatsink, 
Diablo Cove, part of the Pacific Ocean. DCNPP has determined that the 
power uprate would not cause any change to the DCNPP Environmental 
Protection Plan, however, it would reduce the margin between DCNPP 
performance and the allowable heat rejection to the Pacific Ocean. The 
licensee is allowed a maximum of 22  deg.F between the cooling water 
intake and outflow between the two units. The outflows of both units

[[Page 63902]]

mix together, therefore a 2.2 percent uprate of DCNPP Unit 1 will tend 
to increase the temperature change by 1.1 percent, or approximately 0.2 
 deg.F.
    DCNPP operates in compliance with a National Pollution Discharge 
Elimination System (NPDES) Permit, which requires all effluents to be 
closely monitored to assure compliance with the permit levels. DCNPP 
does not expect any effluent increases due to the power uprate of DCNPP 
Unit 1. With regards to potential non-radiological impacts, the 
proposed action would not change the method of operation at DCNPP or 
the methods of handling effluents. No changes to land use would result 
and the proposed action does not involve any historic sites. Therefore, 
no new or different types of non-radiological environmental impacts are 
expected. Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant 
non-radiological 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, but would reduce the operational flexibility 
that would be afforded by the proposed change. The environmental 
impacts of the proposed action and the alternative action are not 
significantly different.

Alternative Use of Resources

    This action does not involve the use of any resources not 
previously considered in the FES for DCNPP.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on October 3, 2000, the staff 
consulted with the California State official, Mr. Steve Hsu, of the 
Radiologic Health Branch of the State Department of Health Services, 
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 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 December 31, 1999, as supplemented by letters 
dated January 18, July 7, September 22, and September 29, 2000, which 
may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document 
Room, located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first 
floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be 
accessible electronically from the ADAMS Public Library component on 
the NRC Web site (the Electronic Reading Room).

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 19th day of October 2000.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Stephen Dembek,
Chief, Section 2, Project Directorate IV & Decommissioning, Division of 
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 00-27384 Filed 10-24-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P