ML20210Q107
| ML20210Q107 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 08/22/1997 |
| From: | Gundrum L NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20210Q114 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9708280108 | |
| Download: ML20210Q107 (5) | |
Text
. _ -...
I
!~
769041 i
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REpULATORY COMMISSION l
6GQldBAgy DOCKET NOS. 50 266 AND SC@i POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT. UN,TS 1 AND 2 f
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPAQT i
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering granting '
i i
en exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 70.24(a) to Wisconsin Electric Power 3
i Company, (the licensee), in connection with the operation of the Point Beach Nuclear Plant l
(P8NP), Units 1 and 2, located in Manitowoc County, Wisconsin, under Facility Operating Lloonses Nos. DPR 24 and DPR.27, I
L mgggtg identification of Pronosed Action:
The proposed action would exempt the licensee from the requirements of 10 CFR 70.24(a), which requires a monitoring system that will energize clear audible alarms if accidental crtticality occurs in each area in which special nuclear material is handled, used, or j
stored. The proposed action woJid also exempt the licensee from the requirements to i
maintain emergency procedures for each area in which this licensed special re: War material is handled, used, or stored to ensure that all personnel withdraw to an area of safety upon the sounding of the alarm, ta familiarize personnel with the evacuation plan, and to designate responsible indMduals for determining the cause of the alarm, and to place radiation survey 4
instruments in =-awa locations for use in such an omorgency.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's application for exemption dated June 7,1997.
T F
9708290108 97 PDR ADOCK O 66 P
?
N.N..
Y N.
~~T:=:= r Y N $ Y 5 O =.-.A.Y N,$..,
4 2-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 concemed 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 she is small enough to preclude achieving a critical mass. Because the fuel is not l
enriched beyond 5.0 weight percent Uranium 235 arid 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 nucient materials at commercial power reactors.
Environmentalimoncts of the Proposed Action:
The Commission has completed !!s evaluation of the proposed action and concludes 1
that there is no significant environmental impact if the exemption is granted, inadvertent or accidental criticality will be precluded through compliance with the PBNP, Units 1 and 2, Technical Specifications, the design of the fuel storage racks providing geometric spacing of fuel assemblies in their storage locations, and adm6nistrative controls imposed on fuel handling procedures. Technical Specifications requirements spec.4y reactivity limits for the fuel storage rocks and minimum spacing between the fuel assemblies in the storage rocks.
I
-+*-w
-w = m,+ me
l j
Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 50, " General Design Criteria for Nucisar Power Plants,"
l CrMekn 82, requires that ortticality in the fuel storage and handling system shall be prevented by physioni systems or processes, preferably by use of geometrically safe i
configurations. This is met at P8NP, as identifled in the Technical Specifloations and the Fie,al Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). P8NP Technical Specifications Section 15.5.4," Fuel Storage," states that 'The new and spent fuel storage racks are designed so that it is impossible to stort assemblies in other than the prescribed storage locations. The fuel is
)
stored vertically in an array with sufRcient center to center distance between assemblies to assure K, < 0.g5...." FSAR Section g.5, " Fuel Handling System," Subsection g.5.1, " Design I
l j
Basis," states the Point Beach general design criterion for prevention of fuel storage ortticality l
is " Criticality in the new and spent fuel storage pits shall be prevented by physical systems or -
j processes. Such means as geometrically safe configurations shall be emphasized over
\\
procedural controls."
The proposed action would not rosult in any significant radiological impacts. The 4
l, proposed action would not a#ect radiological plant ofnuents nor cause any significant i
l-occupational exposures since the Technical Spoolfications, design controls (including geometric spacing of fuel assembly storage spaces), and administrative controls preclude l
l inadvettent ortticality. The amount of radiosdive waste would not be changed by the proposed action.
l The proposed action does not result in any significant nonrediological environmental 4
i impacts. The proposed action involves features located entirely within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.= lt does not affect nonrediological plant effluents and has no other env: onmental impact. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no significant i
I nonradiological enviroiimental impacts associated with the proposed action.
l l
[
l.
p
. --.a.-
v.
i l
4 i
6tiematives to the Prooosed Action:
Since the Commission has concluded that there is no measurable environmental imped associated with the proposed action, any attematives with equal or greater i
environmental impact need not be evaluated. As an altemotive to the proposed action, 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 tho proposed action and the attemative action are similar.
Altemative 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 Point Beach Nuclear Plant,"
dated May 1972.
l Aaencies and Persons Consulted:
In accordance with its stated policy, on July 29,1997, the staff consulted with the Wisconsin State official, Ms. Sarah Jenkins of the Wisconsin Public Service Commission I
regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. The State official had no
- comments, flNDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Based upon the environmental assessment, the Commission concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effed 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 detalis with respect to the proposed action, see the licensee's letter dated June 6,1997, 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
O s
5-Washington, D. C., and at the local public document room loceted at The Lester Public Library,1001 Adams Street,Two Rivers, WI 54241.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd day of August 1997.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION w /w d4%
Linda L. Gundrum, Project Manager Pro}ect Directorate lil 1 Division of Reactor Projects Ill/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation J
e 4
4 f
-+=r****--,
-o, u m c.
s-.w war. -...
v-
~..---+m m-%
e