[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 128 (Thursday, July 3, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36084-36085]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-17463]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-289]


GPU Nuclear Corporation, Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 
1; 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 No. DRP-50 issued to GPU 
Nuclear Corporation (the licensee), for operation of Three Mile Island 
Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (TMI-1) located in Dauphin County, 
Pennsylvania.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of Proposed

    The proposed action would exempt the GPU Nuclear Corporation from 
the requirements of 10 CFR 70.24(a), 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 accordance with the licensee's 
application for exemption dated February 7, 1997, as supplemented March 
26 and June 5, 1997.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    The purpose of 10 CFR 70.24(a) 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 design features that prevent inadvertent 
criticality, the staff has determined that inadvertent criticality is 
not likely to occur due to the handling of special nuclear material at 
a commercial power reactor. The requirements of 10 CFR 70.24(a), 
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 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 TMI-1 Technical Specifications 
(TS), 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. 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 shall be prevented by physical systems or 
processes, preferably by use of geometrically safe configurations. This 
is met at TMI-1, as identified in Section 5.4.1 of the TS. TMI-1 TS 
Section 5.4-1 states that new fuel will normally be stored in the fuel 
storage vault or spent fuel pools.
    For the new fuel storage vault, the fuel assemblies are stored in 
racks in parallel rows having a nominal center to center distance of 
21\1/8\ inches in both directions. The spacing in the new fuel storage 
vault is sufficient to maintain Keff less than 0.95 based on 
storage of fuel assemblies in clean unborated water or less than 0.98 
based on storage in an optimum hypothetical low density moderator (fog 
or foam) for fuel assemblies with a nominal enrichment of 5.0 weight 
percent U235. When fuel is being stored in the new fuel 
storage vault, twelve (12) storage locations (aligned in two rows of 
six locations each; transverse row numbers four and eight) must be left 
vacant of fissile or moderating material to provide sufficient neutron 
leakage to satisfy the NRC maximum allowable reactivity value under the 
optimum low moderator density condition.
    For Spent Fuel Pool ``A,'' the fuel assemblies are stored in racks 
in parallel rows, having a nominal center to center distance of 11.1 
inches in both directions for the Region I racks and 9.2 inches in both 
directions for the Region II racks. The spacing in the Spent Fuel Pool 
``A'' storage locations for both Regions I and II is adequate to 
maintain Keff less than 0.95. Region I will store fuel with 
a maximum 5.0 percent initial enrichment. Region II will store new fuel 
with low enrichment. When fuel is being moved in or over the Spent Fuel 
Storage Pool ``A'' and fuel is being stored in the pool, a boron 
concentration of at least 600 ppmb must be maintained to meet the NRC 
maximum allowable reactivity value under the postulated accident 
condition.
    For Spent Fuel Pool ``B,'' the fuel assemblies are stored in racks 
in parallel rows, having nominal center to center distance of 13\5/8\ 
inches in both directions. This spacing is sufficient to maintain a 
Keff less than 0.95 based on fuel assemblies with a maximum 
enrichment of 4.37 weight percent U235. When fuel is being 
moved in or over the Spent Fuel Storage Pool ``B'' and fuel is being 
stored in the pool, a boron concentration of at least 600 ppmb must be 
maintained to meet the NRC maximum allowable reactivity value

[[Page 36085]]

under the postulated accident condition.
    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 TS, design controls, including geometric spacing 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 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 TMI-1 dated December 1972.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on June 27, 1997, the staff 
consulted with the Pennsylvania State official, Mr. Maingi, Department 
of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Radiation Protection, regarding 
the environmental impact of the proposed action. The State official had 
no comments.

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 7, 1997, as supplemented March 26 and 
June 5, 1997, which are available for public inspection at the 
Commission's Public Document Room, which is located at The Gelman 
Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the local public 
document room located at the Law/Government Publications Sections, 
State Library of Pennsylvania, Walnut Street and Commonwealth Avenues, 
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day of June 1997.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Bart C. Buckley,
Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate I-3, Division of Reactor 
Projects I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 97-17463 Filed 7-2-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P