ML18005A603
| ML18005A603 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 07/29/1988 |
| From: | Scinto J NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Miraglia F Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18005A602 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8809280167 | |
| Download: ML18005A603 (11) | |
Text
July 29, 1988 NOTE TO:
Frank J. Miraglia, Associate Director for Projects, NRR
SUBJECT:
STATEYEYT ON TPANSPORTATION OF.".'GP BUPNUP FUEL We agree that the materials prepared by NRR relating to environmental impacts of transportation of high burnup fuels transmitted by your Memorandum of'uly 7,
- 1988, can be used 'to satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR 51.52(b),
cal ling for a
detailed analysi s of the environmental effects of transportation of fuel and waste for r eac tors us ing fuel s exceeding 4X enrichment and/or 33,000 MWD/T burnup. [But not exceeding 5X or 60,000MWD/T.]
For those applications currently in processirig, we would not object to its use initially by the Staff to support an environmental assessment supporting licensing actions for use of high burnup fuels.
Up until
- now, there was little staff guidance on what a 51.52(b) statement should contain.
- However, for any new applications this information should be in a
statement by the licensee.
Therefore, for any new application the licensee should either ADOPT the staff statement with a
statement that it is in fact properly applicable to the licensee's facility and its fuel use or the licensee should provide its own statement under 51.52(b).
If the licensee submits its own independent statement under 51.52(b) the staff will need to determine whether it is consistent with the staff statement or whether the differences are in fact correct for the particular facility.
The statement on transportation should be used in conjunction with an EA and finding of no significant environmental impact (if that be the case) under 51.32, rather than in connection with the categorical exclusions.
We have worked with the staff to develop a fairly simple EA referencing the transportation statement.
Although this statement would satisfy the requirement of 51.52(b) for transportation impacts, it is still essential, as reflected in Bill Olmstead's numerous memos to complete the rulemakir<g on high enrichment-high burnup fuels.
Until that is proper ly completed, there remains the problem with S-3.
DISTRIBUTION:
STreby OGC R/F 3FC Joseph F. Scinto Acting Assistant General Counsel for Hearings GC 0
C OGC PGC
~ww
- Qoldbera
'. ERei c
~-- ~
/
0 /88
/
/88
- 7 /pc/88 0
VAME 0
DATE:
/
88 1 /Qc/88
/
/88
/
/88 We make the following minor suggestions concerning the NRR assessment.
It should be titled something like "NRR [or NRC'1 Assessment of the Environmental Effects...."
It should be dated and any changes should be properly controlled.
We recommend that the statement be physically attached to the EA for the first use.
Thereafter, it can be simply incorporated in the other EAs by reference to the FR citation.
We have marked a
few other minor changes on the attached copy.
88p9'28pf 67 g8ppi6 ADQC+ p5pppqpp
~NU
~i
ENCLOSURE 2
FederttI Register / VoL 53. No. 155 / Thursday.
ti0tgast 11, 1988 / Notices
Title:
ChaQenge IIIGrant AIspbcation Guidelines for FY 199L Frequency af CaljrrctiarL One-time.
Re~ndsiats: Stats m local goveristeents; Non-profit institutions.
User Guideline instructions and applications elicit relevant information from non-profit organizations and State and local arts agencies that apply for funding under specific Challenge Ill program categories. This information is necessary for the accurate, fair and thorough consideration of competing proposais in the peer review process.
Estimated Number ofRespondents:
150.
Average Burden Hours per Responser 8tL Tatal Estimated Burden: 12AXXL Murray R. Welsh.
Directon Administrative Services Division, National Endowment forthe Arts.
(FR Doc. 88-18157 Filed 8-10-8L LWS sm)
SILUHO coos rssr<1w NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMJSSION IDockat No. 50-400)
Carolina Power 8 Light Coet al Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant impact The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-83 to the Carolina Power g Light Company (CPhL or the licensee), for the Shearon Hams Nuclear Power Plant.
Unit 1, located in Wake and Chatham Counties. North Carolina.
Environmental Assessment identification ofProposed Action The proposed amendment would revise the provisions in the Technical Specifications (TS) relating to fuel enrichment.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's appfications dated February 1 and February 8. 198tL and previous submittals dated May 28, and November 2, 1987.
The Need forthe Proposed Action The proposed changes are needed so that the licensee can use higher enrichment fuel, and provides the flexibilityof extending the fuel irradiation and parsuitting operation of longer fuel cycles.
Envirannsental Impacts ofthe Prrrposed Actr'oa The Coaunissioa has completed its evaluation of the proposed revfsioas to the Technical Specifications. The proposed revisions would permit use of fuel enriched with Uranium 235 in excess of 4 weight percent and up to 42 weight percent and the license would expect the fuel to be irradiated to levels above 33 gigwatt days per metric ton (GWD/MT)but not to exceed 80 GWD/
MT. The safety considerations associated withreactor operation with higfsac enriclsraant and extended irradIaSon have been evaluated by the NRC staff. The staff has conduded that such changes waul net adversely affect plant safety. The pro~changes have no adverse effect on the probability of any accident. The increased burnup may slightly change the mix of fission products that might be released in the event of a serious accident but such small changes would not signifIcantly affect the consequences ofserious accidents. No changes are being made in the types or amounts of any radiological effluents that may be released offsite.
There is no significant increase in the allowable individual or cumuht tive occupational radiation exposure.
With regard to potential nonradiological impacts ofreactor operation-with higher enrichment and extended irradiation, the proposed changes to the TS involve systems located within the restricted area, as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.11iey do not affect nonradiological plant effluents and have no other environmental impact.
The enviromnental impacts of transportation resulting from the use of higher enrichment fuel and extended irradiation are discussed in the attached staff assessment entitled. "NRC Assessment of the Environmental Effects ofTransportation Resulting from Extended Fuel Enrichment and Irradlatioa" dated July 7, 198L As indicated therein. the environmental cost contribution of the proposed increase in the fuel enrichment and irradiation limits are either unchanged or may in fact be reduced from those summarized in Table S-4 asset forth in 10 CFR 51.52(c).
Therefore. the Commission concludes that there are no significant radiological or nonradiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed amendment.
Alternative ta the Proposed Action Since the Commissioa concluded that there are no significant environmental effects that would result from the proposed action. any alternatives with equal or greater envirairnantal impacts need not be evtduated.
The principled alternative would be to deny the requested ameadiaeriL This would not reduce environmental impacts of plant operation and would result in reduced operational flexibility.
Alternative Use ofResources This action does n'ot involve the use of any resources not previously considered in the "Final Environmental Statement related to the operation of the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant. Units 1 and 2." dated October 1983.
Agencies and Persons Consulted The NRC staff reviewed the licensee's request and did not consult other agencies or persons.
Hndlng of No Significant Impact The Commission has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed license amendmeat.
Based upon the foregoing environtnental assessment.
we concluded that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.
For further details with respect to this action. see the application for amendment dated February 1. and February 8, 198tL and submit tais May 28 and November 2, 1987, which are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room.
1717 H Street NW.. Washington, DC and at the Richard B. Hamson Library. 1313 New Bern Avenue, Raleigh, North Carolina 27810.
Dated at Rockville. Maryland. ihi~ 3rd day of August 188L For the Nudear Regulatory Conimisston.
Edward A. Reeves.,
ActingDirecton project Directorate ll-t.
DivisionofReactor Projects I/ll.Officeof Nuclear Reactor Regvtatian.
NRC Assessment of the Essvfroamental Effects ofTransportation Resulthg From Extended Fuel Enrichtuent and Irradiation Introduction Several Licensees of light water reactors (LWRs) have submitted proposed license amendments to permit use of enriched fuel in excess of four (4) weight-percent uranium=235 and to extend fuel irradiation from the current limitof 33 Gigawatt Days/Metric Ton (GWD/MT)up+80 GWD/MT. It is anticipated that. in time. ahnost all licensees of light'water reactors will request approval to adopt increases ia
'a 30356 Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 1988 / Notices irradiation levels and fuel enrichment.
Paragraph (b) of10 CFR ~2 states.
among other things, that the reactors using fuel enrichment greater than 4 weight-percent uranium-235 or where fuel irradiation exceeds 33 GWD/MT.
the licensee shall provide a full description and detailed analysis of the environmental effects to transportation of fuel and wastes to and from the reactor. including values for the environmental impact under normal conditions of transport and for the environmental risk from accidents in transport. The Statement shall indicate that the values determined by the analysis represent the contribution of such effects to the environmental costs of licensing the reactor.
With respect to the issue. the staff published a Notice of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for extended burnup fuel use in Commercial LWRs in the Federal Register (53 FR 6040), dated February 29. 1988. In the above cited notice, the staff concluded that the environmental impacts summarized in Table S-4 of10CFR51.52 for the burnup level of 33 GWD/MTare conservative and bound the corresponding impacts for burnup level up to 60 GWD/MTand uranium-235 enrichments up to five percent by weight. The staff also concluded that there are no significant adverse radiological or non-radiological impacts associated with the use of extended fuel burnup and/or increased enrichment. and that this use willnot signifIcantly affect the quality of the human environment. Moreover, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.31. the Commission determined that an environmental impact statement need not be prepared for this action.
The Staff is in the process of revising the regulations at 10 CFR 51.52 to reflect the findings published in the above cited Federal Register Notice. In the interim, in connection with its review of proposed license amendments to permit use of fuel enriched with uranium 235 in excess of 4 percent and u'p to 5 percent by weight and irradiated to levels above 33 GWD/MTand up to 60 GWD/MT, and pursuant to 10 CFR 51.52(b), the staff proposes to accept the following analysis of the environmental effects of the transportatio of such fuel and waste until such time as the revision to the rule is issued.
Environmental Impacts of Transportation In evaluating the environmental impacts of the,use of extended irradiation of high enrichment, fuel, the Commission has relied upon the followingfour studies dealing with the transportation bnpacts:
(1) Pacific Northwest Laboratories'eport NUREG/CR-5009, "Assessment of the Use of Extended Burnup Fuel in Light Water Power Reactors." dated February 1988, prepared for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission; (2) Nuclear Regulatory Commission's report WASH-1238. "Environmental Survey ofTransportation of Radioactive Materials to and from Nuclear Power Plants, dated December 1972; (3) Envirosphere Company Report AIF/NESP-032, "The Environmental Consequences of Higher Fuel Burnup,"
dated June 1985. prepared for National Environmental Studies Project (NESP) and the Atomic Industrial Forum. Inc..a with the participation of the Commission's staff; and (4) Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) Draft Report NUREG/CR-2325.
'The Transportation of Radiactive Material (RAM)To and From U.S.
Nuclear Power Plants." dated December 1983.
Allfour studies present the results of evaluation of transportation impacts for postulated traffic models. The results are presented for traffic density, radiological occupational risks, radiological public risks of normal transportation, and risks of transportation accidents. The Pacific Northwest Laboratories (PNL) report and the Envirosphere Company report present the environmental impacts for fuel irradiation levels extending up to 60 GWD/MTand enrichments up to 5 weight percent uranium-235. The PNL results appear to have been derived from the analysis presented in the NESP feporte Table I summarizes the results of traffic densities for transportation of fresh fuel, spent fuel, and other solid waste by truck, rail and barge used in the four studies.
TABLEI.TRAFFIC DENSITIES SHIPMENTS PER REACTOR YEAR Transporlaton mode 33 GWO/
MT 50 GWO/
MT NUREG/CR-5009 IPNL) 33 GWO/
MT eo GWO/
MT NESP~2 WASH-123S 33 GWO/
MT SNL I 33 GWO/MT TRUCK RAIL.
BARGE 112 10 5
92 5
3 112 10 5
92 6
3 112 10 122 2.3
'he report does not clearlv state the assumptions regarding tuel enrichment and irradiason levels. However, since Table s-s In 10 cFR 51.52 is based on 33 GWO/MT. the stall has assumed that SNL analysis must be based on the assumpoons conrarned in 10 CFR 51.52, Table &4.
The comparison of the results of traffic density analysis shows that there is a reasonable good correlation between the total number of shipments shown in SNL results and that shown in other reports for 33 GWD/MT. Both the PNL study and the NESP study show that there wil)be a reduction in the total number of shipments (fresh fuel, spent fuel, and low level wastes) when higher levels of irradiation (60 GWD/MT)are assumed.
Such high irradiation levels may require that fuel enrichment be, increased up to a maximum of 5 weight percent. The reduction in the shipments is due to the fact that there willbe fewer outages for fuel reloads resulting in reduced fuel shipments to the reactor and reduced spent fuel shipments from the reactor. However. there willbe an increase in the shipment of low level solid wastes. Even when this increase in low level waste shipment is included with the shipment of fresh fuel and spent fuel. the total shipments for higher irradiation (60 GWD/MT)are still somewhat reduced from those at 33 GWD/MT.As a result of the reduction in number of shipments, there should be some reduction in the estimated number of persons exposed. There should also be no significant change ln heat generated per irradiated fuel cask and the weight restriction for transporting vehicle.
The discharged spent fuel at higher irradiation (60 GWD/MT)willhave more long lived radionuclides per unit mass compared with the spent fuel irradiated at 30 GWD/MT.However.
there is a smaller amount of annual spent fuel discharged. Since each spent
Federal Register / VOL 53, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11. 1988 / Notices fuel package willmeet the surface radiation level limits imposed by the transportation regulations and there are fewer packages being shipped. there will be an overall reduction in the impacts of normal transportation of spent fuel at higher imdiation levels. However. the normal transportation impacts of low level wastes willincrease with increased irradiation level. This is due to the fact that slight increases in cooling water activity codd occur through increased tnventory and gap release fraction. Because this activity would need to be removed to keep cooling water activity within licensed technical specification limits, a small increase in the quantity of low level wastes is estimated to occur. Both NUREG/CR-5009 and NESP-0032 conservatively assume a 20% increase in solid mete at 60 GWD/MTirradiatioft.
Table llsummarizes the combined" environmental impacts of nonttal transportation of spfM)t fueL low level waste and new fuel activities at 33 GWD/MTand 60 GWD/MTas presented in NUREG/CR-5009 and NESP-032.
TaeLE II,NQRMALTRANsPQRTATIDN RADIOLQGICALExPosURE RlsK PERsoN REM/REACTDR YEAR NUREG/CR-5009 (PLN)
NESPEQ2 Exposure type Occupa Senal.
General Public..
Total (Normal Transportation Exposures)....
33 GWOI MT 42 r 3.2
'.4 60 GWO/MT 3
2.5 5.5 33 GWOI MT 4,2 32 7.4 60 GWO/MT 3
2.0
'hese vrdues are identical to the rounded olf values reported in Table S-4 of 10 CFR 5).52. and form the basis of the Ccmrrxssrcn's deteminaten of no srorsficant adverse envxonmentaf impacts of transportabon of fuel and wastes to and (rem nursear reactor srtes.
The above results show that there is in fact an overall reduction in the radiological impacts of normal transportation (the calculated impacts are lower than the values reported in Table S-4) ~
Environmental impacts also result from transportation accidents. The extended irradiation of fuel willresult in an increase in the actinide and fission product inventory in the fuel. Since the spent fuel in transported after an extended storage at the site (5 years),
only the long lived fission products and antinides would remain to contribute to the risk. The PNL analysis shows that the overall effect of a higher inventory of antinides and long lived fission products would be to increase the projected dose in the event of an accident involving spent fuel by a factor of about 2.7. when irradiation is increased from 33 GWD/MTto 60 GWD/MT.However. because the increased irradiation will correspondingly decrease the amount of the spent fuel discharged. the probability of a transportation accident willbe reduced by an amount roughly equal to the ratio of irradiation levels.
The overall effect of the increase in irradiation to 60 GWD/MTwould be to increase the radiological risk of spent fuel transportation accidents by about 50%.
As stated earlier. the amount of low level waste is conservatively assumed to increase by about 20% when irradiation levels are increased to 60 GWD/MT.No significant change in composition of low level wastes is expected. Therefore. the transportation accident risks of low level waste shipment would increase by 20%. The transportation risk associated with new fuel shipments would decrease as shipments decreased due to extended burnup.
Although Table S-4 indicates that the radiological risk of accidents is smaH and not capable of quantification, the radiological risks of trattsportation accidents were calculated in NUREG/
CR-232$. For the 1985 traaspor tation model, the SNL calculated radiological risk of 1.8 person~/reactor year. The staff has conservatively assumed from the PNL analyses that the higher irradiation (60 GWD/MT)would result in a 50 percent increase in radiological risks due to transportation of all kinds of radioactive waste (even though for low level waste the increase in expected to be 20% or less and for new fuel the risk would decrease with the assumption). SNL calculated risk of 1.8 person-rem/reactor year could increase to 2.1 person-rem/reactor year at 60 GWD/MTirradiation level ~ When accident risks at 33 GWD/MT(SNL value) and 60 GWD/MT(Scaled SNL value) are added to normal impacts (PNL and NESP~ value in Table Il).
the overall radiological risks at higher irradiation levels are still lower than the risks at 33 GWD/MTirradiation levels.
This is shown on Table III.
The analyses presented in NESP-032 show that the radiological environmental impacts of transportation acciden(3 are smail at 33 GWD/MTand remain small at 60 GWD/MT.The NESP-032 finding is consistent with finding in WASH-1238 and the results summarized in Table S-4 of 10 CFR 51.52.
TaeLE iil.
TRANSPORTATION RADIOLDGICALExPosURE RtsK PERsoN REM/REACTOR YEAR NUREG/CR-5009 (PNL)
NESP~2 Norma Transportascn Exposures........
Acodent Exposures (from SNL).
33 GWOI MT 7.4 t.e 60 GWD/
MT 5.5 2.7 8.2 33 GWOI MT 7.4 1.8 9.2 60 GWO/
MT 5.0 2.7 4 7.7
30358 Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 155 / Thursday. August 11, 1988 / Notices TABLEIV.
SUMMARY
COMPARISON OF TRANSPORTATlON IMPACTS Table &4 80 GWD/MT andup to 5 porcett Bnnctlrnrtnt Tiatrc Density Truck.................
Less than 1
prrr dsy, Rail....................
Less tnan 3 per month.
Radiological Risk-Person REM petr year.
Normal Transportb-tio.
Accidents............
Total................
No increase.
No incrBsso.
5.0-5.5 2.7 7.7-8.2 Non Rsc'logical Risk.
1 Fatstity/100 Reactor Years.
1 Non Fatal injury/10 Reactor Yeras.
5475 Property Damage/
Reactor Year.
No increase.
No increase.
The above evaluation sets forth the changes resulting from increased enrichment (up to 5 weight percent) and extended irradiation (up to 60 GWD/
MT). in the environmental impacts of transportation of fuel and wastes to and from the light water ractors set forth in The non-radiological impacts of transportation accidents arapresented in Table S-4 as follows:
(a) 1 fatality in 100 reactor years.
(b) 1 non-fatal injury in 10 reactor years.
(c) $475 property damage per reactor year.
As seen in Table 1. the overall shipments of fresh fuel. spent fuel, and low level waste are slightly reduced.
Therefore. the likelihood of an accident would decrease with the decreased number of shipments. while the non-radiological consequences of transportation accidents would remain unchanged.
In summary. the environmental impacts of extended irradiation up to 60 GWD/MTand increased enrichment up to 5 weight percent are bounded by the impacts reproted in Table S-4 of 10 CFR Part 51. Table IVshows the summary of the comparison of impacts. Table IV also supports the staffs conclusions concerning transportation impacts in the Federal Register Notice 53 FR 6040.
Table S-4. 10 CFR Part 51. The values set forth in this detailed analysis represent the contribution of the environmental effects of transportation of fuel enriched with uranium 235 above 4 weight percent and up to 5 weight percent. and irradiated to levels above 33 GWD/MTand up to 60 GWD/MTto the environmental costs of operating the reactors. As shown above, the environmental cost contributions of the stated increases in fuel enrichment and irradiation limits are either unchanged or may in fact be reduced from those summarized in Table S-4. as set out in 10 CFR 51.52(c).
Dated: July 7. 1988.
(FR Doc. 88-18175 Filed 8-10-88: 8:45 arnl btLUko COOE 7$004MI IDocket No. 50-341I Detroit Edison Co., Nolverlne Power Supply Cooperative, Inc.;
Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-43, issued to the Detroit Edison Company (DECo) and the Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative, Incorporated (the licensees) for the operation of Fermi-2 located in Monroe County, Michigan.
Environmental Assessment ldentificotion ofProposed Action The Proposed amendment would revise provisions in the Fermi-2 Technical Specifications (TSs) relating to the Standby Gas Treatment System (SGTS) Radiation Monitors and the Containment High Range Radiation Monitor.
The Need forthe Proposed Action The proposed changes to the TSs are required in order to remove the potential for an unmonitored release for fission products from the plant and to revise Action Statement 81 to make it consistent with NRC Generic LetterI-38.
Environmentol impacts ofthe Proposed Action The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed revision to the TSs. The proposed revision would require a minimum of two channels.
instead of one, of the SGTS Radiation Monitors to be operable to ensure that appropriate compensatory actions are taken to preclude conditions which have the potential for allowing unmonitored releases of noble gases. In addition. the proposed amendment would (1) revise the associated Action Statement 81 in Table 3.3.7.5-1 for the SGTS Radiation Monitors and Containment High Range Radiation Monitor to extend the time period before the licensees are required to submit a Special Report to the Commission (pursuant to 8.9.2 of the TSs) as recommended by NRC Generic Letter 83-36: and (2) make appropriate changes in the TS Bases for Accident Monitoring Instrumentation as a result of the changes. Therefore, the proposed changes do not increase the probability or consequences of any accidents, no changes are being made 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 Commission concludes that this proposed action would result in no significant radiological impact and could result in the reduction of the radiological impacts.
With regard to potential nonradiological impacts. the proposed changes to the TSs involve systems located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. They do not affect nonradiological plant effluents and have no other environmental impact. Therefore. the Commission concludes that there are no significant nonradiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed amendment.
The Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment and Opportunity for Hearing in connection with this action was published in the Federal Register on March 10, 1988 (53 FR 7819). No request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene was filed following this notice.
Alternotives tn the Proposed Action Because the Commission has concluded that there is no significant environmental impact associated with the proposed amendment. any alternative would have either no or greater environmental impact. The principal alternative would be to deny the requested amendment. This may increase the environmental impacts attributed to the facilitydue to allowing the potential for unmonitored releases from the facility.
Alternotive Use ofResources This action involves no use of resources not previously considered in connection with the "Final Environmental Statement Related to
Corrections Federal Register Vol. 53. No. 184 Wednesday, August 24. 1988 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains ediloIial corrections of previously published Presidenfial,
- Rule, Proposed Rule.
and Notice documents and volumes of the Code of Federal Regulations.
These corrections are prepared by the Office of the Federal RegIster.
Agency prepared corrections are issued as signed documents and appear in the appropnate document categories elsewhere in the Issue.
ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 156 and 170
[Docket Ko. DPP-300164; FRL 331M)
Worker Protection Standards for Agricultural Pestle[des Correction In proposed rule document 88-15416 beginning on page 25970 in the issue of Friday. July 8, 1988, make the following corrections:
- 1. On page 25978, ln the first column, in the second line. "proposal" should read "proposed"; and in the eighth line, "is the" should read "in this".
- 2. On page 25978, in the third column, in the second complete paragraph, in the 13th line. "5 170.79b)(1)" should read
"$ 170./(b)(1)".
- 3. On page 25979, in the second column. in the first complete paragraph.
in the 15th line. insert a comma after the word "necessary".
- 4. On page 25986, in the third column, in the third complete paragraph. in the 11th line, after the word "exposure" insert "could",
- 5. On page 26007. in the second column. in the second line. "Association offournai'hould read "Association fournat'.
$ 170.1
[Corrected)
- 8. On page 26012. In the second column, in 5 170.1(b)(3). in the second line, "prorection" should read "protection".
sILLIIIOCOOE IaOa4Hl ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION AGENCY
[OPT&44514; FALL%)
TSCA Chemical Testing; Receipt of Test Data Correction In notice document 88-17247 beginning on page 28909 in the issue of Monday, August 1. 1988, make the following correction:
On page 28909, in the third column.
under 8VPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION,in the second line. after "4(d)", remove the letter "n".
SILLSIO COOE 150$414l DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHAND HUMANSERVICES Food and Drug Admlnletratlon
[Docket Ko. 83C4129)
Color AddNvee; Denial of Pet)t[on for Uetlng of D6 C Red No. 19 for Uee In Externally Appi)ed Drugs and Cosmet)ca Conectian In notice document 88-16042 beginning on page 28881 in the issue ofFriday, July 15, 1988, make the followingcorrection:
On page 28882. in the first column, in the first complete paragraph, in the fourth line, after "Inc." insert "(now the Cosmet)c Toiletry and Fragrance Association. Inc.".
SILUNO COOE 18%41&
DEPARTMENTOF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wild[)feService 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Technical Amendments to the Sea Otter Translocation Regulations Correction In proposed rule document 88-18868 beginning on page 31/22 in the issue of Friday, August 19. 1988, make the following correction:
On page 31722, in the first column, under "DATa", in the second line, "September 29. 1988" should read "August 29, 1988".
SIILNO COOE 150$41%
LEGALSERVICES CORPORATION 45 CFR Part 1607 Governing Bod[as Conecti an In rule document 88-18351 beginning on page 30678 in the issue of Monday, August 15. 1988. make the following corrections:
- 1. On page 30679, in the second column, in the second complete paragraph, in the 17th line, "from" should read "form".
- 2. On the same page, in the same column. in the next to last line, "commenter" should read "comments".
- 3. On the same page. in the third column, in the second paragraph. in the first line, "Pub. I 100-201" should read "Pub. I 100-202".
eILUIIO COOE 1404414 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No,~)
Carolina Power 8 Ught Coet al.,
Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Sign)ficant Impact Canection In notice document 88-181/5 beginning on page 30355 in the issue ofThursday, August 11, 1988, make the following corrections:
- 1. On page 30358, in the first column, in the ninth line. "to" should read "of".
- 2. On the same page, in the same column, in the first complete paragraph, in the first line "to the" should read "to this".
- 3. On the same page. in the second column. in the first complete paragraph.
in the 14th line, "transportation" was misspelled.
- 4. On the same page. in the third column, in paragraph (3), in the sixth line. remove "a".
- 5. On the same page. in the first column under Table I. in the third line, "reasonable" should read "reasonably".
Federal Rer
/ Vol. gg. No. 164 / Wednesday, Ft 24, tggg / Corrections 32323
- 8. On the same page. in the third column under Table L in the first complete paragraph. in the fifthline.
"30" should read "33".
- 7. On page 30357, in the first column, in the second complete paragraph, under Table II. in the sixth line, "in"should read "is".
- 8. On the same page, in the third column under Table II, in the fifthline, "in"should read "is".
- 9. On page 30358, in the first column.
in the last line. "ractors" should read "reactors".
elLL/NlCOOE 150$414l OFFICE OF THE UNITEDSTATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE Trade Policy Staff Committee; Articles Being Considered for Possible Duty Removal Conection In notice document 88-18424 beginning on page 30920 in the issue ofTuesday, August 18. 1988, make the following corrections:
On page 30921. in the first column. in the table under Plants, Vegetable Materials, Lacs. etc., "1401.10.00" should read "1401.10.00'". On the same page, in the third column, in the table under VQ.
Jute and Hard Fibers, "5305.19.00" should read "5305.19.00'".
S/LLS4O CODE 1$0$4H)
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 31 CFR Part 103 Proposed Amendments to the Bank Secrecy Act Regulations Regarding Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements by Casinos Conection In proposed rule document 88-18830 beginning on page 31370 in the issue of Thursday. August 18. 1988. make the followingcorrections:
- 1. On page 31371, in the first column.
under SUPPLEMENTARY IitFORMATlOH,in the 17th line, "of'hould read "on".
- 2. On the same page, in the third column, in the fourth line, "cash totalling" should read "cash in totalling".
- 3. On page 31373, in the first column, in the fourth line. "device" should read "advice'", and in the eighth line, the first "oi" should read "or".
- 4. On the same page. in the same column, in the last paragraph, in the 15th line, remove "the".
- 5. On the same page, in the second column, in the second complete paragra ph, in the 18th line. "tha t" should read "what".
8.0n page 31374. in the second column, in the second complete paragraph, in the fourth line, "anticipated" was misspelled; and in the eighth line. "individuals" should read "individual".
510%22 ICorrectedl
- 7. On page 31375, in the first column, in 5,10322(a)(2) [i)(A),"Purchase" should read "Purchases".
- 8. On the same page. in the second column, in f 103.22(a)(2)(iii) introductory text. in the fifthline. "totalling"was misspelled.
$ 103.38 ICorrectedl
- 9. On page 31378. in the first column.
in 5 103.36(b)(9)(iv)(B), the third line should read "(b)(9): and".
- 10. On the same page. in the same column. in $ 103.38(b)(9)(iv)(C). in the third line. the language beginning with "the casino" through the end of the paragraph should appear as a flush paragraph.
- 11. On the same page. in the second column. in 5 103.36(b)(11)(viii). in the eighth line. "ete." should read "etc.".
- 12. On the same page, in the same column, in $ 103.36(b)(12), in the 12th line "name of casino" should read "name or casino".
$ 103.54 ICorrectedl
- 13. On the same page, in the third column. in $ 103.54(b)(1)(i), in the third line, add a comma after "currency",
- 14. On page 31377. in the first column.
in 5 103.54(b)(2)(i)(A), in the second line, "currency ofchips" should read "currency or chips".
- 15. On the same page. in the same column, in 5 103.54(b)[2)(ii). in the ninth line, "number of taxpayer" should read "number or taxpayer".
- 18. On the same page, in the second column. in 5 103.54(b)(3), in the 3rd line.
add a comma after "section"; and in the 15th line. "name of casino" should read "name or casino".
1/. On the same page. in the same column, in 5 103.54[b)(4) [i), in the second line, remove the comma before "of this section".
- 18. On the same page. in the same column. in $ 103.54(b)(4)(iii). in the 13th line, "alien. the date" should read "alien:
the date"; and in the 18th line "name of casino" should read "name or casino".
elLU/do COOE 1505414
-8" 2.7 DESIGN BASIS ACCIDENT ANALYSIS RELATIVE TO EXTEND FUEL BURNUP The licensee has requested authorization to increase fuel enrich-ment to 4. 2 weight percent of U-235 and to allow fuel burnup up to 60,000 megawatt days per metric ton (MWO/MT).
The staff and licensee evaluated the potential impact of this change on the radio-logical assessment of design basis accidents (OBA) which were previously analyzed in the licensing of the Shearon Harris Unit 1 nuclear power plant.
The licensee, in their submittals of May 26 and November 2, 1987, concluded that the design basis accidents previously analyzed by the licensee in their FSAR bound any potential radiological consequences of OBA that could result with the extended fuel burnup fuel.
The staff reviewed the licensee's submittals and also reviewed a
publication which was prepared for the NRC entitled, "Assessment of the Use of Extended Burnup Fuel in Light Water Reactors,"
NUREG/CR
- 5009, February 1988.
The NRC contractor, the Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL) of Battelle Memorial Institute, examined the changes that could result in the NRC OBA assumptions, described in the various appropriate SRP sections and/or'egulatory Guides, that could result from the use of extended burnup fuel (up to 60,000 MWD/MT).
The staff agrees that the only OBA that could be affected by the use of extended burnup fuel, even in a minor way, would be the potential thyroid doses that could result from a fuel handling accident.
PNL estimates that I"131 fuel gap activity in the peak fuel rod with 60,000 MWD/MT burnup could be as high as 12K.
This value is approxi-mately 20K higher than the value normally used by the staff in evaluating fuel handling accidents (Regulatory Guide 1.25, "Assump-tions Used for Evaluating the Potential Radiological Consequences of a Fuel Handling Accident in the Fuel Handling and Storage Facilities for Boiling and Pressurized Water Reactors).
The staff, therefore, reevaluated the fuel handling accidents for the Shearon Harris Unit 1 facility with an increase in iodine gap activity in the fuel damaged in a fuel handling accident.
Table 1
presents the fuel handling accident thyroid doses presented in the operating licensing Safety Evaluation Report, dated November 1983, and the increased thyroid doses (by 20K) resulting from extended burnup fuel.
EllCLC".U,.E 3 Table 1
Thyroid Doses as a Consequence of OBA Fuel Handling Accidents Exclusion Area Low Po ulation Zone Fuel Handling Accident In Fuel Building In Reactor Building Thyroid Dose (Rem)
A lgl B lgilit 5.5 6.6 5.0 6.0 Thyroid Dose (Rem)
AlR B*lii
- 1. 5 1.8 5.0 6.0 "A SER dose
- "B Extended fuel burnup dose J
The staff concludes that the only potential increased doses poten-tially resulting from DBA with extended fuel burnup to 60,000 HN)/MT is the thyroid dose resulting from fuel handling accidents and these doses remain well within the 300 Rem thyroid exposure guideline values set forth in 10 CFR Part 100 and that this small calculated increase is not significant.
3.0
SUMMARY
The staff has reviewed the information submitted by Carolina Power &
Light Company, the licensee for the Shearon Harris Unit 1 plant, to support proposed Technical Specification changes required for the operation of Cycle 2.
The proposed amendment affects the configuration of control rod Bank-0, requested increases in the values of the radial and total peaking factors, proposed a boron dilution sliding/shutdown margin, requested changes in the INCORE/EXCORE surveillance and calibration intervals, requested changes in the description of the fuel assembly, and finally requested a change in the bases of the rod bow penalty.
Our evaluation indicates that the requested amendments are acceptable.
The change in TS 5.3. 1 regarding the rod bow penalty is an administrative change in the reference and affects the bases but not the Technical Specification and, therefore, is acceptable.
- 4. 0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.21, 51.32, and 51.35, an environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact have been prepared and published in the Federal
~Re ister (53 FR 30355) on August 11, 1988.
Accordingly, based upon the environmental assessment, the Commission has determined that the issuance of this amendment will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.