[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 21 (Friday, January 31, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5054-5056]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-2310]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370]
Duke Energy Corporation, McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2;
Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering the re-
issuance of an exemption from certain requirements of its regulations
for Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-9 and NPF-17, issued to the
Duke Power Company (the licensee), for operation of the McGuire Nuclear
Station (McGuire), Units 1 and 2, located in Mecklenberg County, North
Carolina.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of Proposed Action
The proposed action would continue to authorize an exemption that
was granted to the licensee on July 31, 1997, 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 continue to 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.
The proposed action is in response to the licensee's application
for an exemption from 10 CFR 70.24 dated February 4, 1997, as
supplemented by letter dated March 19, 1997, and reflects the
licensee's letters dated April 18, August 7 and October 9, 2002, and
January 15, 2003, wherein the licensee revised a portion of the
technical basis supporting its request for the exemption.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The purpose of 10 CFR 70.24 is to ensure that, if a criticality
were to occur
[[Page 5055]]
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 provisions of 10 CFR 70.24 relate to an
inadvertent criticality event that 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.
By letter dated April 18, 2002, as supplemented by letters dated
August 7 and October 9, 2002, and January 15, 2003, the licensee
submitted an application for revisions to the McGuire Technical
Specifications (TSs) to address the spent fuel pool Boraflex
degradation issues. The analysis supporting this application proposed
to take partial credit for boron in the spent fuel pool water.
Therefore, a part of the technical basis for the granting of the
exemption from 10 CFR 70.24 on July 31, 1997, is revised. Accordingly,
the exemption and the associated environmental assessment are being
reissued to reflect the revision in the design basis assumptions for
the spent fuel pool in the calculation of the limiting value of the
criticality parameter, k-effective. Because the fuel is not enriched
beyond 4.75 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.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The NRC 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 McGuire TSs, the design of the
fuel storage racks that provide geometric spacing of fuel assemblies in
their storage locations, and administrative controls imposed on fuel
handling procedures. The TS 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 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 McGuire, as identified in the TS Section 4.3 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 theTSs, these procedures, the TS requirements,
and the design of the fuel handling equipment with built-in interlocks
and safety features, provide assurance that it is unlikely that an
inadvertent criticality could occur during refueling. In addition, the
design of the facility does not include provisions for storage of spent
fuel in a dry location within the fuel storage building.
UFSAR Section 9.1.1, ``New Fuel Storage,'' states that new fuel is
stored in the New Fuel Storage Racks located within a New Fuel Storage
Vault at each McGuire unit. The new fuel storage racks are arranged to
provide dry storage. The racks consist of vertical cells grouped in
parallel rows, 6 rows wide and 16 cells long, which provide support for
the new fuel assemblies and maintain a minimum center-to-center
distance of 21 inches between assemblies. (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 effluents nor cause any significant occupational
exposures since the TSs, 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 proposed exemption.
The proposed exemption does not result in any significant
nonradiological environmental impacts. The proposed exemption 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 Proposed 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 action, the staff
considered denial of the proposed action (i.e., the ``no-action''
alternative). Denial of the application 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 NUREG-0063, ``Final Environmental Statement
Related to the Operation of William B. McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1
and 2,'' April 1976, and the Addendum to NUREG-0063 issued in January
1981.
Agencies and Persons Contacted
In accordance with its stated policy, on January 27, 2003, the
staff consulted with the North Carolina State official, Mr. Johnny
James of the Division of Environmental Health, Radiation Protection
Section, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, regarding the environmental impact of the proposed
amendments. The State official had no comments.
Finding of No Significant Impact
On the basis of the environmental assessment, the NRC concludes
that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the
quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC 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 requesting an exemption that was dated February 4,
1997, and supplemented by letter dated March 19, 1997, and the
licensee's letters dated April 18, August 7, October 9, 2002, and
January 15, 2003, proposing a revision in certain design basis
assumptions related to the issuance of the exemption from 10 CFR 70.24.
Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public
Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area
O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the
Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have access to
ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in
ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by
[[Page 5056]]
telephone at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to
[email protected].
Dated at Rockville, MD, this 27th day of January, 2003.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Allen G. Howe,
Chief, Section 2 , Project Directorate II, Division of Licensing
Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 03-2310 Filed 1-30-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P