ML20141B047

Environ Assessment & Finding of No Significant Impact Re Request for Exemption from 10CFR70.24, Criticality Accident Requirements, for Plant

ML20141B047
Person / Time
Site:	Beaver Valley
Issue date:	06/18/1997
From:	Poslusny C NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:
Shared Package
ML20141B050	List: ML20141B047
References
NUDOCS 9706230260
Download: ML20141B047 (5)

Text

-

7590-01-P l

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DUOVESNE LIGHT COMPANY OHIO EDISON COMPANY PENNSYLVANIA POWER COMPANY DOCKET NO. 50-334 BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION. UNIT NO. 1 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of an exemption frem certain requirements of its regulations for Facility Operating License No. DPR-66, issued to Duquesne Light Company, et al. (the licensee), for operation of tne Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No.

1 (BVPS-1), located in Beaver County, Pennsylvania.

ENVIRONMENIAL. ASSESSMENT Identification of Pronosed Action:

The proposed action would exempt the licensee from the requirements of 10 CFR 70.24, which require 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 s+ored. 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, I

l and to place radiation survey instruments in accessible locations for use in 1

such an emergency.

i 9706230260 970618 PDR ADOCK 05000334 P

PDR l-

~

l l

The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's application for i

)

l exemption dated December 18, 1996, as supplemented by letters dated April 10 t

and June 11, 1997.

The Need for the Procosed 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 i

1 alerted to that fact and would take appropriate action. At a comercial i

nuclear power plant the inadvertent criticality with which 10 CFR 70.24 is J

concerned could occur during fuel handling operations.

The special nuclear-material that could be assembled into a critical mass at a commercial nuclear t

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 l

achieving a critical mass.

Because the fuel is not enriched beyond a nominal 5.0 weight percent Uranium-235 and because comercial nuclear plant licensees have procedures and design features that prevent inadvertent criticality, the staff has determined that an inadvertent criticality is highly unlikely as a result of 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 comercial power reactors.

Environmental Imoacts of the Procosed Action:

The Comission 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 BVPS-1 Technical Specifications (TSs), the design of the 4

l i-

~.

fuel storage racks providing geometric spacing of fuel assemblies in their storage locations, and administrative controls imposed on fuel handling procedures. TSs 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 that the criticality in the fuel storage and handling system be prevented by physical systems or processes, preferably by use of geometrically-safe configurations.

This is met at BVPS-1, as identified in the TSs and the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR).

BVPS-1 TS 5.3.1.2 states that the new fuel storage racks are designed and l

shall be maintained with a nominal 21-inch center-to-center distance between 1

fuel assemblies placed in the storage racks. This spacing requirement ensures j

that k,,, will be s 0.95 if the loaded new fuel storage racks are flooded with l

unborated water and that k,,, will be s 0.98 if the loaded new fuel storage racks are moderated by aqueous foam. UFSAR Section 9.12.1.1 (Preventation of l

Fuel Storage Criticality) states that new fuel assemblies will be stored dry and vertically in the new fuel storage racks with a minimum center-to-center spacing of 21-inches.

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 TSs, design controls (including geometric spacing of fuel assembly storage spaces) and administrative controls preclude inadvertent criticality. The amount of radioactive waste would not be changed by the proposed exemption.

Accordingly, the Commission concludes that the proposed action would result in no significant radiological environmental impact.

The proposed exemption does not result in any significant non-radiological environmental impacts. The proposed exemption involves features located entirely within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.

It l

does not affect non-radiological plant effluents and has no other environmental impact. Accordingl'y, the Commission concludes that there are no i

l significant non-radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

i Alternative to the Prooosed Action:

Since the Commission has concluded that there is no measurable environmental impact associated with the proposed action, ar 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 request would result in no change in l

current environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action and the altern'ative action are similar.

8.lternative Use of Resources-This action does not involve the use of any resources not previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for the Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No.1, dated July 1973.

Aaencies and Persons Consulted:

In accordance with its stated policy, on June 3, 1997, the staff s

consulted with the Pennsylvania State official, Mr. Richard Janati of the i

I l

i 9

,,,,s.

~

.s.

- Bureau of Radiation Protection, Department of Environmental Protection, regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. The State official had no comments.

FINDING 0F 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 t

licensee's letter dated December 18, 1996, as supplemented April 10 and June 11, 1997, which is available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, which is located at The Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the local public document room located at the B.

F. Jones Memorial Library, 663 Franklin Avenue, Aliquippa, Pennsylvania 15001.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day of June, 1997.

I' FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION tohfl

^ Auk

^

Chester Poslusny, eting Director Project Directorate I-2 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 1

l

)

}

d I

1

.