[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 145 (Tuesday, July 29, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40553-40554]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-19933]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414]
Duke Power Company, et al.; Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 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 its
regulations to Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-35 and NPF-52,
issued to Duke Power Company, et al. (the licensee), for operation of
the Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, located in York County,
South Carolina.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of Proposed Action
The proposed action would exempt the licensee from the requirements
of 10 CFR 70.24, which requires a monitoring system that will energize
clear audible alarms if accidental criticality occurs in each area in
which special nuclear material is handled, used, or stored. The
proposed action would also exempt the licensee from the requirements to
maintain emergency procedures for each area in which this licensed
special nuclear material is handled, used, or stored to ensure that all
personnel withdraw to an area of safety upon the sounding of the alarm,
to familiarize personnel with the evacuation plan, and to designate
responsible individuals for determining the cause of the alarm, and to
place radiation survey instruments in accessible locations for use in
such an emergency.
The proposed action is in response to the licensee's application
dated February 4, 1997, as supplemented by letter on March 19, 1997.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The purpose of 10 CFR 70.24 is to ensure that if a criticality were
to occur during the handling of special nuclear material, personnel
would be alerted to that fact and would take appropriate action. At a
commercial nuclear power plant the inadvertent criticality with which
10 CFR 70.24 is concerned could occur during fuel handling operations.
The special nuclear material that could be assembled into a critical
mass at a commercial nuclear power plant is in the form of nuclear
fuel; the quantity of other forms of special nuclear material that is
stored on site is small enough to preclude achieving a critical mass.
Because the fuel is not enriched beyond 5.0 weight percent Uranium-235
and because commercial nuclear plant licensees have procedures and
features designed to prevent inadvertent criticality, the staff has
determined that it is unlikely that an inadvertent criticality could
occur due to the handling of special nuclear material at a commercial
power reactor. The requirements of 10 CFR 70.24, therefore, are not
necessary to ensure the safety of personnel during the handling of
special nuclear materials at commercial power reactors.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action
and concludes that there is no significant environmental impact if the
exemption is granted. Inadvertent or accidental criticality will be
precluded through compliance with the Catawba Nuclear Station Technical
Specifications, the design of the fuel storage racks providing
geometric spacing of fuel assemblies in their storage locations, and
administrative controls imposed on fuel handling procedures. Technical
Specifications requirements specify reactivity limits for the fuel
storage racks and minimum spacing between the fuel assemblies in the
storage racks.
Appendix A of 10 CFR part 50, ``General Design Criteria for Nuclear
Power Plants,'' Criterion 62, requires the criticality in the fuel
storage and handling system to be prevented by physical systems or
processes, preferably by use of geometrically safe configurations. This
is met at Catawba, as identified in the Technical Specification Section
3.9 and in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) Section
9.1, by detailed procedures that must be available for use by refueling
personnel. Therefore, as stated in the Technical Specifications, these
procedures, the Technical Specifications requirements, and the design
of the fuel handling equipment with built-in interlocks and safety
features, provide assurance that no incident could occur during
refueling operations that would result in a hazard to public health and
safety. In addition, the design of the facility does not include
provisions for storage of fuel in a dry location.
UFSAR Section 9.1.1, New Fuel Storage, states that new fuel will
normally be stored in the spent fuel pool serving the respective unit
and that it may also be stored in the fuel transfer canal. The fuel
assemblies are stored in five racks in a row having a nominal center-
to-center distance of 2 feet 1\3/4\ inches. New fuel may also be stored
in shipping containers. (Note that in none of these locations would
criticality be possible.)
The proposed exemption would not result in any significant
radiological impacts. The proposed exemption would not affect
radiological plant effluents nor cause any significant occupational
exposures since the Technical Specifications, design controls
(including geometric spacing and design of fuel assembly storage
spaces) and administrative controls preclude inadvertent criticality.
The amount of radioactive waste would not be changed by the proposed
exemption.
The proposed exemption does not result in any significant
nonradiological environmental impacts. The proposed exemption involves
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 exemption, the staff
considered denial of the requested exemption. Denial of the exemption
would result in no change in current environmental impacts. The
environmental impacts of the proposed
[[Page 40554]]
action and this alternative action are similar.
Alternative Use of Resources
This exemption does not involve the use of any resources not
previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement related to
the Catawba Nuclear Station.
Agencies and Persons Contacted
In accordance with its stated policy, on July 7, 1997, the staff
consulted with the South Carolina State official, Virgil Autrey of the
Bureau of Radiological Health, South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control, regarding the environmental impact of the
proposed exemption. The State official had no comments.
Finding of No Significant Impact
Based upon the foregoing environmental assessment, the Commission
concludes that the proposed exemption 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 exemption.
For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the
licensee's request for the exemption dated February 4, 1997, as
supplemented by letter dated March 19, 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 York County Library, 138 East Black
Street, Rock Hill, South Carolina.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd day of July 1997.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Herbert N. Kerkow,
Director, Project Directorate II-2, Division of Reactor Projects--I/II,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 97-19933 Filed 7-28-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P