Commonwealth Edison Company; Zion Nuclear Power Station, Uni
Commonwealth Edison Company; Zion Nuclear Power Station, Uni
[Federal Register: June 15, 1995 (Volume 60, Number 115)] [Notices]
[Page 31521-31522]
>From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-295 and 50-304]
Commonwealth Edison Company; Zion Nuclear Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is [[Page 31522]] considering issuance of amendments to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-39 and DPR-48, issued to Commonwealth Edison Company (the licensee), for operation of Zion Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, located in Lake County, Illinois.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would allow the storage of fuel in the new fuel storage vault with an enrichment up to and including 4.65 weight percent U-235, revise the description of the enrichment of the fuel in the reactor core, and add references to three previously approved documents in the Technical Specifications (TSs).
The Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed action is needed since future core designs will incorporate fuel enrichments up to 4.65 weight percent U-235. Use of the higher enrichment fuel will permit increased flexibility in planning fuel cycles, with the potential for longer fuel cycles or higher burnup rates.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed revisions to the TSs. The proposed revisions would permit storage of fuel enriched to a nominal 4.65 weight U-235. The safety considerations associated with storing new and spent fuel of a higher enrichment 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. 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. 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 corrected on August 24, 1988 (53 FR 32322) in connection with Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1: Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact. 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 nonradiological impacts of reactor operation with the higher enrichment fuel, the proposed changes to the TS involve systems located entirely within the restricted area, as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. They do not affect nonradiological plant effluents and have 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.
Alternative Use of Resources
This action does not involve the use of any resources not previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for Zion Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on May 31, 1995, the staff consulted with the Illinois State official, Mr. Frank Niziolek; Head, Reactor Safety Section; Division of Engineering; Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety; 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 and environmental impact statement for the proposed action.
For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the licensee's letter dated December 23, 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 Waukegan Public Library, 128 N. County Street, Waukegan, Illinois 60085.Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 8th day of June 1995.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Robert A. Capra,
Director, Project Directorate III-2, Division of Reactor Projects III/ IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. 95-14669 Filed 6-14-95; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif)