Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 1995 / Notices 7799

be operated safely with the use of the

5.0 w/o nominal U–235 fuel with its

slightly different length and weight and

the changes in this package associated

with the WRB-1 correlation, the

limitation on void fraction, the

uncertainties associated with LHGR, or

the administrative changes to Section

5.0 and 6.9, since plant operation and

fuel placement are still predicated on

the limitations contained in the TSs,

Technical Report for Supporting Cycle

Operation and plant procedures. The

use of the Westinghouse methodologies

for Cycle 19 operation are an

application of a generically approved

methodology by the NRC. The staff has

reviewed the plant specific application

to assure that the cycle specific

parameters have been chosen to ensure

the plant is operated safely.

The proposed TS change will not

increase the probability or consequences

of accidents, no changes are being made

in the types of any effluents that may be

released offsite, and there is no

significant increase in the allowable

individual or cumulative occupational

radiation exposure. Accordingly, the

Commission concludes that there are no

significant radiological environmental

impacts associated with this proposed

TS amendment.

With regard to potential

nonradiological impacts, the proposed

amendment does involve features

located entirely within the restricted

area as defined in 10 CFR part 20. It

does not affect nonradiological plant

effluents and has no other

environmental impact. Accordingly, the

Commission concludes that there are no

significant nonradiological

environmental impacts associated with

the proposed amendment.

The environmental impacts of

transportation resulting from the use of

more highly enriched fuel and extended

burnup rates have been discussed in the

generic stafff 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 on

August 11, 1988 (53 FR 30355) as

corrected on August 24, 1988 (53 FR

32322). As indicated therein, the

environmental cost contribution of the

proposed increase in 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).

Therefore, the staff concludes that

there are no significant radiological or

nonradiological environmental impacts

associated with the proposed

amendment.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

Since the Commission has concluded

there is no measurable environmental

impact associated with the proposed

amendment, any alternatives with equal

or greater environmental impact need

not be evaluated. As an alternative to

the proposed action, the staff considered

denial of the proposed action. 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

This action does not involve the use

of resources not considered previously

in the Final Environmental Statement

for the Haddam Neck Plant.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

the staff consulted with the Connecticut

State official 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 Commission concludes

that the proposed action will not have

a significant effect on the quality of the

human environment. Accordingly, the

Commission has determined not to

prepare an environmental impact

statement for the proposed amendment.

For further details with respect to this

proposed action, see the licensee’s letter

dated May 17, 1994, as supplemented

September 9, 1994, which are available

for public inspection at the

Commission’s Public Document Room,

the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street,

NW., Washington, DC and at the local

public document room located at the

Russell Library, 123 Broad Street,

Middletown Connecticut 06547.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day

of February 1995.

For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Phillip F. McKee,

Director, Project Directorate I–4, Division of

Reactor Projects—I/II, Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–3231 Filed 2–8–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power

Co.; Haddam Neck Plant;

Environmental Assessment and

Finding of No Significant Impact

[Docket No. 50–213]

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the ‘‘Commission’’) is

considering issuance of an amendment

to Facilitate Operating License No.

DPR–61, issued to Connecticut Yankee

Atomic Power Company (CYAPCO, the

licensee), for operation of the Haddam

Neck Plant, located in Middlesex

County, Connecticut.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

The proposed amendment would

revise Technical Specifications (TS)

3.1.1.3, ‘‘Shutdown Margin,’’ and TS

3.3.3.9, ‘‘Boron Dilution Alarm,’’ and

their associated Bases sections and add

a new TS 3.1.1.4, ‘‘Shutdown Margin.’’

TSs 3.1.2.2, 3.1.2.4, and 3.1.2.6, will be

revised to reference TS 3.1.1.3 rather

than specify the required shutdown

margin at 200° F. In addition, editorial

changes will be made to a reference on

TS pages 3/4 1–13 and 14 to reletter

surveillance specification 4.5.1.c.3 to

4.5.1.b.3. The proposed action is in

accordance with the licensee’s

amendment request dated September 7,

1994.

The Need for Proposed Action

During the development of the core

design for the upcoming Cycle 19,

CYAPCO determined that the incore

neutron sources would have to be

relocated during the refueling outage

due to mechanical considerations

concerning the new fuel design. As part

of the determination of the new

locations for these sources, a review of

the adequacy of the existing source

locations was made. This review

identified that the incore neutron

sources were located too close to the

excore detectors. As a result of the

current incore neutron locations, the

response of the excore detectors to a

dilution event did not bound the

response assumed in the safety analysis.

The time allowed for operator action to

terminate an inadvertent boron dilution

event was less than the required 15

minutes from the time of the alarm to

criticality. TS changes are being

proposed to the shutdown margin

requirements for Modes 4 and 5 and the

boron dilution setpoint to assure that

the required margin for operator action

in a boron dilution accident is met. The

associated Bases sections will be

modified to reflect the new shutdown

margin and boron dilution setpoint. In

addition, an administrative change to

three TSs will be made to reference the

shutdown margin TS rather than

provide the shutdown margin

requirements and two editorial changes

to correct two references to surveillance

specifications 4.5.1.c.3 that had been
7800 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 1995 / Notices

related to 4.5.1.b.3 in a previous TS

change.

Environmental Impacts to the Proposed

Action

The proposed changes will provide

additional time for operator action in a

boron dilution event to assure that there

is at least 15 minutes between the time

to boron dilution alarm assuming an

alarm penalty of 1.3 and the time to

criticality for Modes 1 through 5 and 30

minutes for Mode 6 for operator action.

The Commission has completed its

evaluation of the proposed TS changes

and concludes that the combination of

the shutdown margin increases and the

lower credited boron dilution alarm

setpoint assuming an alarm penalty

factor of 1.3 will provide assurance that

the criteria for operator action will be

met. In addition, the neutron sources

will be moved further away from the

excore detectors for the Cycle 19 startup

(approximately March 1995). This will

provide additional margin in the alarm

setpoint as the need for any penalty

factor will be significantly reduced or

completely eliminated. In addition, the

staff agrees that the change in references

in TS 3.1.2.2, 3.1.2.4, and 3.1.2.6, and

Surveillance Specifications 4.1.2.3.1

and 4.1.2.4.1 are editorial in nature.

The proposed TS change will not

increase the probability or consequences

of accidents, no changes are being made

in the types of any effluents that may be

released offiste, and there is no

significant increase in the allowable

individual or cumulative occupational

radiation exposure. Accordingly, the

Commission concludes that there are no

significant radiological environmental

impacts associated with this proposed

TS amendment.

With regard to potential

nonradiological impacts, the proposed

amendment does involve features

located entirely within the restricted

area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. It

does not affect nonradiological plant

effluents and has no other

environmental impact. Accordingly, the

Commission concludes that there are no

significant nonradiological

environmental impacts associated with

the proposed amendment.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

Since the Commission has concluded

there is no measurable environmental

impact associated with the proposed

amendment, any alternatives with equal

or greater environmental impact need

not be evaluated. As an alternative to

the proposed action, the staff considered

denial of the proposed action. Denial of

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

This action does not involve the use

of resources not considered previously

in the Final Environmental Statement

for the Haddam Neck Plant.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

the staff consulted with the Connecticut

State official regarding the

environmental impact of the proposed

action. The State official has no

comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

Based upon the environmental

assessment, the Commission concludes

that the proposed action will not have

a significant effect on the quality of the

human environment. Accordingly, the

Commission has determined not to

prepare an environmental impact

statement for the proposed amendment.

For further details with respect to this

proposed action, see the licensee’s letter

dated September 7, 1994, which is

available for public inspection at the

Commission’s Public Document Room,

the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street,

NW., Washington, DC, and at the local

public document room located at the

Russell Library, 123 Broad Street,

Middletown, CT 06547.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day

of February 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Phillip F. McKee,

Director, Project Directorate I–4, Division of

Reactor Projects—I/II, Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–3232 Filed 2–8–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

Northeast Nuclear Energy Company;

Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit

No. 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. NPF–

49, issued to Northeast Nuclear Energy

Company (the licensee), for operation of

the Millstone Nuclear Power Station,

Unit No. 3, located in New London

County, Connecticut.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

The proposed action would revise

Technical Specification (TS) 3.5.2.a by

granting a one-time extension of the

allowable Residual Heat Removal (RHR)

pump outage time for mechanical seal

replacement and related modifications

from 72 hours to 120 hours. This

exception would only be used one time

per pump and expire on April 30, 1995.

The amendment would clearly define

the times in which each RHR pump and

associated RHR heat exchanger must be

restored to an operable state.

The proposed action is in accordance

with the licensee’s application for

amendment dated August 16, 1994, as

supplemented by letter dated January

10, 1995.

The Need for the Proposed Action

The proposed action would reduce

the potential for an unnecessary plant

shutdown, thus, eliminating a source of

unnecessary challenges to the plant’s

safety systems.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The Commission has completed its

evaluation of the proposed action and

concludes that one-time extension of the

RHR pump outage time from 72 hours

to 120 hours to acceptable.

The change will not increase the

probability or consequences of

accidents, no changes are being made in

the types of any effluents that may be

released offsite, and there is no

significant increase in the allowable

individual or cumulative occupational

radiation exposure. Accordingly, the

Commission concludes that there are no

significant radiological environmental

impacts associated with the proposed

action.

With regard to potential

nonradiological impacts, the proposed

action does involve features located

entirely within the restricted area as

defined in 10 CFR part 20. It does not

affect nonradiological plant effluents

and has no other environmental impact.

Accordingly, the Commission concludes

that there are no significant

nonradiological environmental impacts

associated with the proposed action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

Since the Commission has concluded

there is no measurable environmental

impact associated with the proposed

action, any alternatives with equal or

greater environmental impact need not

be evaluated. As an alternative to the

proposed action, the staff considered

denial of the proposed action. 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.