[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 241 (Monday, December 17, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71449-71450]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-24399]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-317]
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Inc.; Calvert Cliffs Nuclear
Power Plant, Unit No. 1; 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) Part 50.46 and Appendix K to Part 50 for Renewed
Facility Operating License No. DPR-53, issued to Calvert Cliffs Nuclear
Power Plant, Unit No. 1 (Calvert Cliffs 1), located in Calvert County,
Maryland. 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 Proposed Action
The proposed exemption would allow the licensee to reinsert up to
four lead fuel assemblies (LFAs), two of which contain cladding with
advanced zirconium-based alloys manufactured by Westinghouse Electric
Company (Westinghouse), and two of which contain cladding with M5\TM\
alloy manufactured by AREVA, into the Unit 1 core during Cycle 19. The
four LFAs were previously inserted into the Unit 2 core in April of
2003. The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's
application dated February 23, 2007.
The Need for the Proposed Action
10 CFR 50.46 and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix K make no provisions for
use of fuel rods clad in a material other than Zircaloy or ZIRLO. Since
the material specifications of the advanced zirconium-based and M5\TM\
alloys differ from the specification for Zircaloy or ZIRLO, a plant-
specific exemption is required to support the use of the four LFAs for
Calvert Cliffs 1. If the exemption were not approved, the licensee
would not gain practical experience in order to assess performance of
the cladding material at higher burnups. The proposed action is needed
to support future fuel load capabilities by allowing the use of higher
enriched fuel, which can provide the flexibility of extending fuel
irradiation.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The NRC has completed its evaluation of the proposed action and
concludes that the exemption described above would continue to satisfy
the underlying purpose of 10 CFR 50.46 and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix K
and will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety.
Previously, the Westinghouse safety evaluation (WCAP-15874-NP, Revision
0, ``Safety Analysis Report for Use of Improved Zirconium-based
Cladding Materials in Calvert Cliffs Unit 2 Batch T Lead Fuel
Assemblies,'' dated April 2002) and approved Framatome ANP topical
report (BAW-10227P-A, ``Evaluation of Advanced Cladding and Structural
Material (M5) in PWR [Pressurized Water Reactor] Reactor Fuel,''
Framatome Cogema Fuels, February 2000) demonstrated that the predicted
chemical, mechanical, and material performance of the advanced
zirconium and M5\TM\ cladding are acceptable under all anticipated
operational occurrences and postulated accidents. The LFAs will be
placed in core locations to permit higher burnups to be achieved for
these LFAs. In the event that cladding failures occur in the LFAs, the
environmental impact would be minimal and is bounded by the previous
environmental assessments.
The exemption, which would be effective during the Unit 1 Cycle 19
fuel cycle, would allow the fuel to be irradiated to levels above 60
gigawatt days per metric ton (GWd/MTU), but not to exceed 70 GWd/MTU.
The safety considerations associated with reactor operation with
extended irradiation have been evaluated by the NRC staff.
The NRC staff has concluded that such changes would not adversely
affect plant safety, and would have no adverse effect on the
probability of any accident. For accidents in which the core remains
intact, fuel rod integrity has been shown to be unaffected by the
extended burnup under consideration; therefore, the probability of an
accident will not be affected. For accidents that involve damage or
melting of the fuel in the reactor core, the increased burnup may
slightly change the mix of fission products that could be released in
the event of a serious accident, but because the radionuclides
contributing most to the dose are short-lived, increased burnup would
not have an effect on the consequences of a serious accident beyond
those accident scenarios previously evaluated. Increases in projected
consequences of postulated accidents associated with fuel burnup up to
70 GWd/MTU are not considered significant, and remain well below
regulatory limits.
Regulatory limits on radiological effluent releases are independent
of burnup. The requirements of 10 CFR 50.36a and Appendix I to 10 CFR
Part 50 ensure that any release of gaseous, liquid, or solid
radiological effluents to unrestricted areas are kept ``as low as
reasonably achievable.'' Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that during
routine operations, there will be no significant increase in the amount
of gaseous radiological effluents released into the environment as a
result of the proposed action, nor will there be a significant increase
in the amount of liquid radiological effluents or solid radiological
effluents released into the environment.
No significant increase in the allowable individual or cumulative
occupational radiation exposure will occur. The impact to workers is
expected to be reduced with higher irradiation due to the need for less
frequent outages for fuel changes and less frequent fuel shipments to
and from reactor sites.
The use of extended irradiation will not change the potential
environmental impacts of incident-free transportation of spent nuclear
fuel or the accident risks associated with spent fuel transportation if
the fuel is cooled for 5 years after discharge from the reactor. A
report by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) for the NRC
(NUREG/CR-6703, ``Environmental Effects of Extending Fuel burnup Above
60 Gwd/MTU,'' January 2001), concluded that doses associated with
incident-free transportation of spent fuel with burnup to 75 GWd/MTU
are bounded by the doses given in 10 CFR 51.52, Table S-4, for all
regions of the country if dose rates from the shipping casks are
maintained within regulatory limits. Increased fuel burnup will
decrease the annual discharge of fuel to the spent fuel pool, which
will postpone the need to remove spent fuel from the pool.
With regard to potential non-radiological environmental impacts of
reactor operation with extended irradiation, the proposed changes
involve systems located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR
Part 20. Therefore, the proposed action does not result in any
significant changes to land use or water use, or result in any
significant changes to the quality or quantity of effluents. The
proposed action does not affect non-radiological
[[Page 71450]]
plant effluents, and no changes to the National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System permit are needed. No effects on the aquatic or
terrestrial habitat in the vicinity or the plant, or to endangered or
threatened species, or to the habitats of endangered or threatened
species are expected. The proposed action does not have a potential to
affect any historical or archaeological sites.
The proposed action will not change the method of generating
electricity or the method of handling any influents from the
environment or non-radiological effluents to the environment.
Therefore, no changes or different types of non-radiological
environmental impacts are expected as a result of the amendments.
Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
For more detailed information regarding the environmental impacts
of extended fuel burnup, please refer to the study conducted by Pacific
Northwest National Laboratories for the NRC, which is entitled,
``Environmental Effects of Extending Fuel Burnup Above 60 GWd/MTU''
(NUREG/CR-6703, PNL-13257, January 2001).
The details of the staff's safety evaluation will be provided in
the exemption that will be issued as part of the letter to the licensee
approving the exemption to the regulation.
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 resources than
those previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for
Calvert Cliffs 1 and 2, dated April 1973, and the Generic Environmental
Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 1,
Regarding the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant (NUREG-1437,
Supplement 1), dated October 1999.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on November 20, 2007, the
staff consulted with the Maryland State official, Mr. R. McLean of the
Maryland Department of Natural Resources, 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 letters dated February 23, 2007, available in the NRC's
Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) (Accession
Number ML070580103 and ML070580107). 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 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 send an e-mail to [email protected].
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day of December, 2007.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Douglas V. Pickett,
Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch I-1, Division of
Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E7-24399 Filed 12-14-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P