[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 200 (Tuesday, October 16, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52644-52645]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-25954]



[[Page 52644]]

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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. STN 50-530]


Arizona Public Service Co., et al., Palo Verde Nuclear Generating 
Station, Unit 3; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant 
Impact

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering 
issuance of an exemption from Title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (10 CFR) Secs. 50.44, 50.46, and part 50, appendix K for 
Facility Operating License No. NPF-74, issued to Arizona Public Service 
Company (APS or the licensee), for operation of the Palo Verde Nuclear 
Generating Station, Unit 3 (PVNGS), located in Maricopa County, 
Arizona. Therefore, as required by 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC is issuing 
this environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    The proposed action would continue to temporarily exempt Arizona 
Public Service Company from requirements of 10 CFR 50.44, 10 CFR 50.46, 
and 10 CFR part 50, Appendix K for PVNGS, Unit 3. The Code of Federal 
Regulations specifically refers to or presumes use of zircaloy or ZIRLO 
cladding for controlling hydrogen generation, emergency core cooling 
system performance, and bounding post-loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) 
senarios. The proposed action would allow APS to continue testing a 
lead fuel assembly (LFA) containing fuel rods fabricated with an 
advanced zirconium based cladding material, Alloy A. The cladding 
material had been previously approved for limited use and testing at 
PVNGS for seven cycles of burnup, which ended with Cycle 9 for Unit 3. 
The proposed action would allow the Unit 3 LFA to continue an 
additional cycle to Cycle 10 (U3C10).
    The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's 
application dated March 2, 2001, as supplemented by letters dated 
August 28, 2001, and September 25, 2001.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    The proposed action is needed because Alloy A does not fall within 
the specifically defined cladding material stated in the Code of 
Federal Regulations. The proposed exemption is based on the latest 
Westinghouse report documenting the results of data confirming the 
superior performance of Alloy A and justifying the continued 
irradiation of this clad material in Unit 3 Cycle 10, ``Performance of 
Alloy A Clad Rods and LFA in Palo Verde Unit 3,'' February 2001. The 
first and second exemptions allowing use of Alloy A were based on 
Westinghouse Report CEN-411(V)-P, ``Safety Evaluation Report for Use of 
Advanced Zirconium Based Cladding Materials in PVNGS Unit 3 Batch F 
Demonstration Assemblies,'' December 1991, and Westinghouse Report CEN-
429-P, ``Safety Analysis Report for Use of Advanced Zirconium Based 
Cladding Material in PVNGS Unit 3 Lead Fuel Assemblies,'' August 1996, 
respectively. The reports described, and the staff agrees, that the 
intent of the regulations would continue to be met since Alloy A falls 
within the range of the properties for Zircaloy 4. Thus, the proposed 
action is necessary to allow the irradiation of the LFA containing 
Alloy A.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The NRC has completed its evaluation of the proposed action and 
concludes that there is no significant environmental impact if the 
exemption is granted. The predicted chemical, mechanical, and material 
performance characteristics of Alloy A cladding have been within those 
approved for zircaloy cladding over the past seven cycles. A detailed 
analysis will be performed on the assembly prior to its use in U3C10. 
Additionally, a poolside inspection will be performed prior to the 
assembly being reloaded. The lead fuel assembly will be placed in a 
core location which does not experience the highest power density 
throughout the cycle. Therefore, continued use of the LFA in Cycle 10, 
and the proposed exemption will not present any undue risk to public 
health and safety.
    The proposed action will not significantly increase the probability 
or consequences of accidents, no changes are being made in the types of 
effluents that may be released off site, and there is no significant 
increase in occupational or public radiation exposure. Therefore, there 
are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with 
the proposed action.
    With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed 
action does not have a potential to affect 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.
    Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant 
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

Environmental Impacts of the 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

    The action does not involve the use of any different resource than 
those previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for 
the Palo Verde, Unit 3, dated February 1982 (NUREG-0841).

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    On October 9, 2001, the staff consulted with the Arizona State 
official, Mr. William Wright of the Arizona Radiation Regulatory 
Agency, 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 March 2, 2001, as supplemented by letters dated 
August 28, 2001, and September 25, 2001. Documents may be examined, 
and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), 
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, http://www.nrc.gov (the Public Electronic Reading Room). If you 
do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the 
documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC PDR Reference staff at 1-
800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737, or by e-mail at [email protected].

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day of October 2001.


[[Page 52645]]


    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Stephen Dembek,
Chief, Section 2, Project Directorate IV, Division of Licensing Project 
Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 01-25954 Filed 10-15-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P