[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 240 (Thursday, December 14, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64182-64183]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30457]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 64183]]


NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-302]


Florida Power Company, Crystal River Nuclear Generating Plant, 
Unit 3; 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-72 issued to Florida Power Compant (the licensee) for operation of 
Crystal River Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit 3, located in Citrus 
County, Florida.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of Proposed Action

    The proposed amendment would include provisions in Technical 
Specifications (TS) Section 3.7 which allow for the storage of fuel 
with an enrichment not to exceed 5.0 w/o U-235 in the new and spent 
fuel storage racks. The proposed action is in accordance with the 
licensee's application for amendment dated January 26, 1995, as 
supplemented March 9, 1995, and May 24, 1995.

The Need for Proposed Action

    The proposed changes are needed so that the licensee can use higher 
fuel enrichment to provide the flexibility of extending the fuel 
irradiation and to permit operation for longer fuel cycles.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed 
revisions to the TS. The proposed revisions would permit use of fuel 
enriched to a nominal 5.0 weight percent Uranium 235. The safety 
considerations associated with reactor operation with higher enrichment 
and extended irradiation have been evaluated by the NRC staff. The 
staff has concluded that such changes would not adversely affect plant 
safety. The proposed changes have no adverse effect on the probability 
of any accident. The higher enrichment, with fuel burnup to 60,000 
megawatt days per metric ton uranium, may slightly change the mix of 
fission products that might be released in the event of a serious 
accident, but such small changes would not significantly affect the 
consequences of serious accidents. No changes are being made in the 
types or amounts of any radiological effluents that may be released 
offsite. There is no significant increase in the allowable individual 
or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
    With regard to potential nonradiological impacts of reactor 
operation with higher enrichment and extended irradiation, the proposed 
changes to the TS involve systems located within the restricted area, 
as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. They do not affect nonradiological plant 
effluents and have no other environmental impact.
    The environmental impacts of transportation resulting from the use 
of higher enrichment fuel and extended irradiation were published and 
discussed in the staff assessment entitled, ``NRC Assessment of the 
Environmental Effects of Transportation Resulting from Extended Fuel 
Enrichment and Irradiation,'' dated July 7, 1988, and published in the 
Federal Register (53 FR 30355) on August 11, 1988. As indicated 
therein, the environmental cost contribution of the proposed increase 
in the fuel enrichment and irradiation limits are either unchanged or 
may, in fact, be reduced from those summarized in Table S-4 as set 
forth in 10 CFR 51.52(c). Accordingly, the Commission concludes that 
there are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated 
with the proposed amendment.
    With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed 
action does involve features located entirely within the restricted 
area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. It does not affect non-radiological 
plant effluents and has no other environmental impact. Accordingly, the 
Commission concludes that there are no significant non-radiological 
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

Alternative to the Proposed Action

    Since the Commission concluded that there are no significant 
environmental effects that would result from the proposed action, any 
other alternative would have equal or greater environmental impacts and 
need not be evaluated.
    The principal alternative would be to deny the requested 
amendments. This would not reduce the environmental impact of plant 
operations and would result in reduced operational flexibility.

Alternative Use of Resources

    This action does not involve the use of any resources not 
previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement related to 
operation of the Crystal River Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit 3.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on November 16, 1995, the NRC 
staff consulted with the Florida State official, Dr. Lyle Jerrett of 
the State Office of Radiation Control, regarding the environmental 
impact of the proposed action. The State official had no comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

    The Commission has determined not to prepare an environmental 
impact statement for the proposed license amendments.
    Based upon the foregoing environmental assessment, we conclude that 
the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality 
of the human environment.
    For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment dated January 26, 1995, and supplements to 
the application dated March 9, 1995, and May 24, 1995. These documents 
are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document 
Room, The Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20555, 
and at the local public document room for the Crystal River Nuclear 
Generating Station, Unit 3, located at the Coastal Region Library, 8619 
W. Crystal Street, Crystal River, Florida 32629.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day of December 1995.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
David B. Matthews,
Director, Project Directorate II-1, Division of Reactor Projects I/II, 
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 95-30457 Filed 12-13-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P