[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 136 (Wednesday, July 16, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42136-42137]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-17958]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414]


Duke Energy Corporation, North Carolina Electric Membership 
Corporation, Saluda River Electric Cooperative, Inc., Catawba Nuclear 
Station, Units 1 and 2; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No 
Significant Impact

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering 
issuance of exemptions from Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 
(10 CFR) part 50, section 50.44, section 50.46, and Appendix K, for 
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 (CNS), Units 1 and 2, located in York County, South Carolina. 
Therefore, pursuant to 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 exempt the Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 
1 and 2, from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.44, 10 CFR 50.46 and 10 CFR 
part 50, Appendix K, to allow the use of eight Lead Test Assemblies 
(LTAs) fabricated with a cladding material that contains a nominally 
lower tin content than previously approved cladding materials.
    The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's 
application dated December 3, 2002, as supplemented by letter dated 
April 8, 2003.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    As the nuclear industry pursues longer operating cycles with 
increased fuel discharge burnups and more aggressive fuel management, 
the corrosion performance specifications for the nuclear fuel cladding 
become more demanding. Industry data indicates that corrosion 
resistance improves for cladding with a lower tin content. The optimum 
tin level provides a reduced corrosion rate while maintaining the 
benefits of mechanical strengthening and resistance to accelerated 
corrosion from abnormal chemistry conditions. In addition, fuel rod 
internal pressures (resulting from the increased fuel duty, use of 
integral fuel burnable absorbers and corrosion/temperature feedback 
effects) have become more limiting with respect to fuel rod design 
criteria. By reducing the associated corrosion buildup, and thus, 
minimizing temperature feedback effects, additional

[[Page 42137]]

margin to fuel rod internal pressure design criteria is obtained.
    As part of a program to address these issues, the Westinghouse 
Electric Company has developed an LTA program in cooperation with the 
licensee that includes a ZIRLO fuel cladding with a tin content lower 
than the currently licensed range for ZIRLO. The NRC's regulations in 
10 CFR 50.44, 10 CFR 50.46 and in 10 CFR part 50, Appendix K, make no 
provision for use of fuel rods clad in a material other than Zircalloy 
or ZIRLO. The licensee has requested the use of an LTA with a tin 
composition that is less than that specified in the licensing basis for 
ZIRLO, as defined in Westinghouse design specifications. Therefore, use 
of the LTA calls for exemptions from 10 CFR 50.44, 10 CFR 50.46 and 10 
CFR part 50, Appendix K. As part of this program, the licensee's 
current plans are to include eight LTAs in the Catawba Nuclear Station, 
Unit 1, Cycle 15, core in non-limiting core locations during the 
refueling outage currently scheduled to begin in the Fall of 2003. The 
licensee has requested the exemption for both Catawba units, and the 
staff finds the exemption request for a total of up to eight LTAs to be 
applicable to either of the Catawba units.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The NRC staff has completed its environmental evaluation of the 
proposed action and concludes that the proposed exemptions would not 
increase the probability or consequences of accidents previously 
analyzed and would not affect facility radiation levels or facility 
radiological effluents.
    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 offsite, 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 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.
    Accordingly, the NRC staff 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 Impact Statement 
for the CNS, Units 1 and 2, NUREG-0921--``Final Environmental Impact 
Statement Related to the Operation of Catawba Nuclear Station; Units 1 
and 2'', U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, dated January 1983.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    On July 9, 2003, the staff consulted with the South Carolina State 
official, Mr. Henry Porter, of the 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 December 3, 2002, as supplemented by letter 
dated April 8, 2003. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a 
fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White 
Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first 
floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be 
accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and 
Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the 
Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. 
Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in 
accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR 
Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or by 
e-mail to [email protected].

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this tenth day of July, 2003.
    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Leonard N. Olshan,
Acting Chief, Section I, Project Directorate II, Division of Licensing 
Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 03-17958 Filed 7-15-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P