ML20149H314
| ML20149H314 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 07/21/1997 |
| From: | Berkow H NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20149H316 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9707240325 | |
| Download: ML20149H314 (5) | |
Text
_ _ _ _
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DUKE POWER COMPANY QQGKET NOS. 50-269. 50-270. AND 50-287 OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION. UNITS 1. 2. AND 3 5
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 for Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55 issued to Duke Power Company (the licensee), for operation of the Oconee Nuclear Station Units 1, 2, and 3, located in Oconee 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 on March 19, 1997.
9707240325 970721 PDR ADOCK 05000269 P
. The Need for the Prooosed 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. The proposed exemption is needed, however, for Oconee to continue to operate in accordance with its license and Commission regulations.
Environmental Imoacts 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 Oconee 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
4 reactivity limits for the fuel storage racks and minimum spacing between the
)
fsel 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 j
by use of geometrically safe configurations. This is met at Oconee, as identified in the Technical Specification Section 3.8 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 i
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 be 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 effluent 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
_ ~. -
_4 proposed exemption.
The proposed exemption does not result in any significant nonradiological environmental impacts.
The proposed e.xemption 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 Prooosed Action:
Since the Commission has concluded that 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 request 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 Related to the Operation of Oconee Nuclear Station Units 1, 2, and 3" dated March 1972.
Aaencies and Persons Consulted:
In accordance with its stated policy, on July 17, 1997, the staff consulted with the South Carolina State official, Mr. Henry Porter 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.
a '
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 February 4,1997, and supplement 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 local public document room located at the Oconee County Library, 501 West South Broad Street, Walhalla, South Carolina.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day of July 1997.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION erbert N. Berkow, Director Project Directorate II-2 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation