ML20198M906

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

ML20198M906
Person / Time
Site:	Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png
Issue date:	01/09/1998
From:	Eaton R NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:
Shared Package
ML20198M910	List: ML20198M906
References
NUDOCS 9801200159
Download: ML20198M906 (4)

Text

_..-. _ _ __ _.__ _. _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

7590-01-P f

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION DOCKET NO. 50-271 VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANTiMPACT The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuanoe of an exemption from oc.t!. ::;a!rsments ofits regulations for Facility Operating License No.

DPR 28, issued to Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation (the licensee), for operation of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station located in Windham County, Vermont.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT identification of the Pronomad Action:

The proposed action would exempt the licensee from the requirements of 10 CFR 70.24, which requires in each area in which specia! nuclear material is handled, used, or stored a monitoring system that will energize clear audible alarms if accidental criticality occurs 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 f

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 accordanos with the imensee's appleation for exemption dated December 16,1997.

PDR.

g

2 The Naad for the Pronosed Action-The purpose of 10 CFR 70.24 is to ensure that if a criticaldy were to occur during the handling of i

special nuclear material, personnel would be alerted to that fact and would take appropriate actiors. At a i

i commercial nuclear power plant the inadvertent criticality with which 10 CFR 70.24 is concemed could occur during fuel handling operations. The 6pecia' nuclear material that could be assembled into a j

critical mass at a commercial nuclear pouter plant is in the form of nuclear fuel; the quantity of other j

I forms of special nuclear material that is stored on site in any given location is small enough to preclude achieving a critical mass. Because the fuel is not enriched beyond 5.0 weight percent Uranium 235 and i

because commercial nuclear plant licensees have procedures and design features that prevent p

inadvertent criticality, the staff has determined that it is unlikely that an inadvartent criticality cou!d occur l

due to the handling of special nuclear material at a commercial power 7sclor. The requirements of 1

10 CFR 70.24, therefore, are not necessary to ensure the safety of personnel during the handling of special nuclear material at commercial power reactors.

Environmentalimpacts 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 Vermont Yankee Technical Specifications, the desigri of the fuel I

storage racks providing geometric spacing of fuel assemblies in their storage locations, and i

administrative controls imposed on fuel handling procedures. Technical Specificatums requirements specify reactivity limits for the fuel storage rocks and minimum spacing between the fuel assemblies in i

the storage rocks.

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 shall be prevented by physical systems or l

3 L

m 6%---

--e-we&

or e -,mi m-=

r-wey e

e-,-r,-es,w-we

-ew---e.,

ere*,------=w-

.vm.,

w.n+,c-cr-

,-w e w =rm -,

,w -y g>rm

,w,-,vg

, e s v, ew, w-p s. y v.

i.e,,rw

j

\\

3 processes, preferably by use of geometrically safe configurations. This is met at the Vermont Yarkee Station, as identified in the Technical Specifications and the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR).

The change will not increase the probability or oo.wyuences of accidents, no changes are being ma4 in the types of any effluents that may be released offsite, and there is no significant increase in the allowable individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. Accordingly, the Conimission F

concludes chat there are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed action does involve features located entirely within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. It does not affect nonradiological plant l

effluents and has no other environmental impact. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no significant nonradiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

Altamatives to the Proposed Action:

Since the Commission has concluded that there is no measurable environmental impact associated with the proposed action, any altematives with equal or greater environment 91 impact need not be evaluated. As an altemative to the proposed action, the staff considered denial of the proposed action.

Denial of the application would result in no change in current invironmental impacts, The environmental impacts of the proposed action and the altamative action are similar.

Altamative Une of Resourcma:

- This action does not involve the use of any resou cos not previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station.

1

[

.,,.n..

s,,,,,.m.

,,, -.,w-

,.,_,,,..nl.,,.

4 w

,,.. ~ -. -, _.

,,_,,,n,

.,,._:L_,

4 Agencias and Persons Consulted.

In accordance with I s stated policy, on January 9,1998, the staff consulted with the Vermont State official, Mr. William K. Sherman, of the Department of Public Service, regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. The State official had no comments.

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT lMPACT Based upc,n the environmental assessmant, the Commission concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effec

• on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the Commission has determined not to prwpare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action.

For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the licensee's letter dated December 16, 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, D. C., and at the local public document room located at the Brooks Memorial Library,224 Main Street, Brattleboro, VT.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day of January 1998.

FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ffaf Ronald B. Eaton, Acting Director Project Directorate 13 Division of Reactor Projects - t/Il Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

.