Environmental statements; availability, etc.: Baltimore Gas and Electric Co.,
[Federal Register: January 2, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 1)]
[Notices]
[Page 114-115]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr02ja98-71]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318]
Baltimore Gas and Electric Company; Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of an exemption from certain requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, General Design Criterion 2, ``Design Basis for Protection Against Natural Phenomena,'' to Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (the licensee), for operation of the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit
[[Page 115]]
Nos. 1 and 2, located in Calvert County, Maryland.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed exemption would allow relief from General Design Criterion 2 (GDC-2) during the upgrading of the Unit 1 emergency diesel generator (EDG) No. 1B. The proposed exemption will permit the temporary removal of two steel doors which provide protection for the EDG No. 1B, which will be out of service to allow modifications which will increase its load capacity, and also provides protection to the operating Calvert Cliffs Unit No. 2 EDG No. 2A and the support systems common to Unit 1 EDG 1B and the operating Unit 2 EDGs 2A and 2B. The support systems are required to be operable to support the operation of Unit 2.
The upgrading of the Unit 1 EDG No. 1B will be performed during the upcoming Unit 1 refueling outage (RFO-14). RFO 14 is scheduled to commence on April 3, 1998, and be completed in early June 1998. The two steel missile doors will be required to be removed about 4 times during the outage. Only one door will be removed at a time. The licensee estimates that each of the removals will last for about 24 hours, which will result in a total removal time of about 100 hours during the scheduled 60-day RFO-14.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed temporary exemption is needed to permit the completion of the highly desirable upgrade to the Unit 1 EDG No. 1B without an unnecessary unit shutdown.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action and concludes that the proposed action involves features located entirely within the protected area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.
The proposed action will not result in an increase in the probability or consequences of accidents or result in a change in occupational or offsite dose. Therefore, there are no radiological impacts associated with the proposed action.
The proposed action will not result in a change in nonradiological plant effluents and will have no other nonradiological environmental impact.
Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no environmental impacts associated with this 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.
The principal alternative to requesting the temporary exemption for implementation of the EDG upgrade would be to comply with the restrictive requirements of GDC-2. However, the alternative would not significantly enhance the protection of the environment and would result in significant loss of power generation since a dual unit outage would be required.
Alternative Use of Resources
This action does not involve the use of any resources not previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement dated April 1973 for the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on October 2, 1997, the staff consulted with the Maryland State official, Richard J. 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
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 action.
For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the licensee's letter dated September 12, 1997, as supplemented November 3, 1997, 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 Calvert County Library, Prince Frederick, Maryland.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23d day of December 1997.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Darl S. Hood, Acting Director, Project Directorate I-1, Division of Reactor Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 97-34170Filed12-31-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
