[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 143 (Friday, July 25, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40122-40123]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-19635]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287


Duke Power Company Oconee; Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 
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 Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47, and 
DPR-55 issued to Duke Power Company (the licensee), for operation of 
the Oconee Nuclear Station Units 1, 2, and 3, located in Oconee County, 
South Carolina.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of Proposed Action

    The proposed action would exempt the licensee 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 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 response to the licensee's application 
dated February 4, 1997, as supplemented on March 19, 1997.

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 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 
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. The proposed 
exemption is needed, however, for Oconee to continue to operate in 
accordance with its license and Commission regulations.

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 Oconee Nuclear Station Technical 
Specifications, 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. Technical 
Specifications 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 the criticality in the fuel 
storage and handling system to be prevented by physical systems or 
processes, preferably by use of geometrically safe configurations. This 
is met at Oconee, as identified in the Technical Specification Section 
3.8 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 the Technical Specifications, these 
procedures, the Technical Specifications requirements, and the design 
of the fuel handling equipment with built-in interlocks and safety 
features, provide assurance that no incident could occur during 
refueling operations that would result in a hazard to public health and 
safety. In addition, the design of the facility does not include 
provisions for storage of fuel in a dry location.
    UFSAR Section 9.1.1, New Fuel Storage, states that new fuel will 
normally be stored in the spent fuel pool serving the respective unit 
and that it may be also be stored in the fuel transfer canal. The fuel 
assemblies are stored in five racks in a row having a nominal center-
to-center distance of 2 feet 1\3/4\ inches. New fuel may also be stored 
in shipping containers. (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 effluent nor cause any significant occupational 
exposures since the Technical Specifications, design controls 
(including geometric spacing and design of fuel assembly storage 
spaces) and administrative controls

[[Page 40123]]

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 Oconee Nuclear Station Units 1, 2, and 3'' dated March 
1972.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on July 17, 1997, the staff 
consulted with the South Carolina State official, Mr. Henry Porter of 
the Bureau of Radiological Health, South Carolina Department of Health 
and Environmental Control, regarding the environmental impact of the 
proposed exemption. 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 4, 1997, and supplement dated March 
19, 1997, which are available for public inspection at the Commission's 
Public Document Room, The Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., 
Washington, DC, and at local public document room located at the Oconee 
County Library, 501 West South Broad Street, Walhalla, South Carolina.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day of July 1997.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Herbert N. Berkow,
Director, Project Directorate II-2, Division of Reactor Projects--I/II, 
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 97-19635 Filed 7-24-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P