ML040650531

Environmental Assessment, Finding of No Significant Impact Related to a Proposed Amendment to Increase Maximum Enrichment of Fuel Assemblies in Spent Fuel Pool

ML040650531
Person / Time
Site:	Calvert Cliffs
Issue date:	04/02/2004
From:	Vissing G NRC/NRR/DLPM/LPD1
To:	Vanderheyden G Calvert Cliffs
Vissing G, NRR/DLPM, 415-1441
References
TAC MB8896
Download: ML040650531 (8)

Text

April 2, 2004 Mr. George Vanderheyden, Vice President Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Inc.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 1650 Calvert Cliffs Parkway Lusby, MD 20657-4702

SUBJECT:

CALVERT CLIFFS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNIT NO. 1 -

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT RELATED TO A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO INCREASE MAXIMUM ENRICHMENT OF FUEL ASSEMBLIES IN SPENT FUEL POOL (TAC NO. MB8896)

Dear Mr. Vanderheyden:

Enclosed is a copy of the Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact related to your application for amendment dated May 1, 2003, as supplemented September 25, 2003, November 3, 2003, and February 25, 2004. The proposed amendment would allow for increased enrichment of U235 in fuel assemblies stored in the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, spent fuel pool while accounting for soluble boron credit. This action will modify Technical Specifications Section 4.3.1 Criticality, add a new Section 3.7.16, Spent Fuel Pool Boron Concentration, and add a license condition to require the development of a long-term coupon surveillance program for the carborundum samples.

The assessment is being forwarded to the Office of Federal Register for publication.

Sincerely,

/RA/

Guy S. Vissing, Senior Project Manager, Section 1 Project Directorate 1 Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-317

Enclosure:

Environmental Assessment cc: w/encl: See next page

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 cc:

President Patricia T. Birnie, Esquire Calvert County Board of Co-Director Commissioners Maryland Safe Energy Coalition 175 Main Street P.O. Box 33111 Prince Frederick, MD 20678 Baltimore, MD 21218 James M. Petro, Esquire Mr. Loren F. Donatell Counsel NRC Technical Training Center Constellation Energy Group, Inc. 5700 Brainerd Road 750 East Pratt Street, 5th floor Chattanooga, TN 37411-4017 Baltimore, MD 21202 Jay E. Silberg, Esquire Shaw, Pittman, Potts, and Trowbridge 2300 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20037 Mark Geckle Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 1650 Calvert Cliffs Parkway Lusby, MD 20657-4702 Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 287 St. Leonard, MD 20685 Mr. Richard I. McLean, Manager Nuclear Programs Power Plant Research Program Maryland Dept. of Natural Resources Tawes State Office Building, B3 Annapolis, MD 21401 Regional Administrator, Region I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 Kristen A. Burger, Esquire Maryland People's Counsel 6 St. Paul Centre Suite 2102 Baltimore, MD 21202-1631

ML040650531 *EA provoded - no significant changes made OFFICE PDI-1/PM PDI-1/LA RELP* OGC PDI-1/SC NAME GVissing SLIttle JTappert LZaccari RLaufer DATE 3/18/04 3/18/04 2/23/04 3/24/04 3/31/04 7590-01-P UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION CALVERT CLIFFS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, INC DOCKET NO. 50-317 CALVERT CLIFFS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. DPR-53, issued to Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Inc. (the licensee), for operation of the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1 (CCNPP1), located in Calvert County, MD. 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 the Proposed Action:

The proposed action would increase the maximum enrichment limit of fuel assemblies stored in the CCNPP1 spent fuel pool from 4.52 weight percent U235 to 5.00 weight percent U235.

This would be accomplished by the licensee taking credit for soluble boron in maintaining acceptable margins of subcriticality. The proposed action only relates to Unit 1 because the storage racks in the Unit 2 spent fuel pool are of a different design, and require different controls. The Unit 2 spent fuel pool will remain at the current enrichment level of 4.52 weight percent U235. The proposed action will result in modification of Technical Specification (TS) Section 4.3.1, Criticality, addition of a new Section 3.7.16, Spent Fuel Pool Boron Concentration, and addition of a license condition to require the development of a long-term coupon surveillance program for the Carborundum samples.

The proposed action is in accordance with the licensees application dated May 1, 2003, as supplemented September 25, 2003, November 3, 2003, and February 25, 2004.

The Need for the Proposed Action:

The proposed action would allow the number of fresh fuel assemblies per cycle to be decreased, through allowing the maximum enrichment for fresh fuel to be increased to 5.00 weight percent U235 and allowing credit for soluble boron in the spent fuel pool. Through decreasing the number of fresh fuel assemblies per cycle, Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation storage requirements will decrease, permanent Department of Energy storage requirements will decrease, and fuel cycle costs will decrease. Currently, TS Section 4.3.1, Criticality, limits the maximum enrichment for fuel assemblies to 4.52 weight percent U235, and does not allow the licensee to take credit for soluble boron in the spent fuel pool. Thus, the proposed changes to the TSs were requested.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action:

The NRC has completed its safety evaluation of the proposed action and concludes that the storage and use of fuel enriched with U235 up to 5.00 weight percent at CCNPP1, is acceptable. The staffs safety evaluation addresses safety considerations at the higher enrichment level, and the staff has concluded that the proposed action will not adversely effect plant safety.

The proposed action will not significantly increase the probability or consequences of accidents. Even though there will be a higher enrichment of U235 in the fuel rods, accident consequences will not increase. According to the TSs, the spent fuel pool will contain enough soluble boron to ensure both subcriticality in the event of a dropped rod or accidental misloading, and significant negative reactivity in the event of a loss of normal spent fuel pool cooling.

No changes are being made in the types of effluents that may be released off site.

Water and soluble boron will continue to be the materials used to ensure subcriticality in the spent fuel pool. There is no significant increase in the amount of any effluent released off site.

Due to the higher enrichment of fuel, the boron concentration in the spent fuel pool will increase from the current value of 300 ppm to 350 ppm to safely store the higher enrichment fuel in the spent fuel pool. The addition of 50 ppm boron is approximately a 15-percent increase in boron concentration, but this is not a significant increase in the amount of radioactive waste. Boron will continue to be collected on the spent fuel pool filters as the water in the spent fuel pool is purified. The filters are replaced periodically and treated as low-level waste. There is no significant increase in occupational or public radiation exposure. Doses to workers will not increase from their current level due to the increased soluble boron concentration absorbing neutrons from the higher enrichment fuel rods in the spent fuel pool. Therefore, there are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed action does not have a potential to affect any historic sites. It does not affect non-radiological plant effluents and has no other environmental impact. Therefore, there are no significant non-radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

Accordingly, the NRC 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 resources than those previously considered in the Final Environmental Impact Statement for CCNPP1 dated April 1973, and the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (NUREG-1437, Supplement 1) dated October 1999.

Agencies and Persons Consulted:

On August 21, 2003, the staff consulted with the Maryland State official, Richard McLean of the Department of the Environment, 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 licensees letters dated May 1, 2003, September 23, 2003, November 3, 2003, and February 25, 2004. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRCs 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 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 at 1-800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737, or send an e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day of April 2004.

FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

/RA/

Guy S. Vissing, Senior Project Manager,Section I Project Directorate I Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation