[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 30 (Monday, February 14, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7401-7402]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-3339]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Dockets 72-4 and 72-40]


Duke Energy Corporation, Oconee Nuclear Site; Issuance of 
Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact Regarding 
the Proposed Exemption From Certain Requirements of 10 CFR Part 72

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) is 
considering issuance of an exemption, pursuant to 10 CFR 72.7, from the 
provisions of 10 CFR 72.212(a)(2) and 72.214 to Duke Energy Corporation 
(Duke). The requested exemption would allow Duke to store burnable 
poison rod assemblies (BPRAs) in the NUHOMS-24P storage 
system at the Oconee Nuclear Site Independent Spent Fuel Storage 
Installation (ISFSI).

Environmental Assessment (EA)

Identification of Proposed Action

    By letter dated August 30, 1999, Duke requested an exemption from 
the requirements of 10 CFR 72.212(a)(2) and 72.214 to store BPRAs in 
the NUHOMS-24P storage system at the Oconee Nuclear Site 
ISFSI. Duke is a general licensee, authorized by NRC to use spent fuel 
storage casks approved under 10 CFR part 72, Subpart K. Furthermore, 
Duke is using the NUHOMS-24P storage system design approved 
by NRC under Certificate of Compliance (CoC) No. 1004 to store only 
spent fuel at the ISFSI.
    By exempting Duke from both 10 CFR 72.214 and 72.212(a)(2), Duke 
will be authorized to use its general license to store BPRAs in casks 
approved under part 72, as exempted. The proposed action before the 
Commission is whether to grant these exemptions under 10 CFR 72.7.
    The ISFSI is located 30 miles west of Greenville, SC, on the Oconee 
Nuclear Power Plant site. The Oconee Nuclear Site ISFSI is an existing 
facility constructed for interim dry storage of spent nuclear fuel.
    On July 26, 1999, the cask designer, Transnuclear West Inc. (TN 
West), submitted a CoC amendment request to NRC to address the storage 
of Babcock and Wilcox (B&W) 15x15 and Westinghouse 17x17 fuel assembly 
types with BPRAs. TN West provided additional information and revised 
calculations on November 29, 1999, in response to the NRC staff's 
request. The NRC staff has reviewed the application and determined that 
storing B&W 15x15 and Westinghouse 17x17 fuel assembly types with BPRAs 
in the NUHOMS-24P storage system would have minimal impact on 
the design basis and would not be inimical to public health and safety.

Need for the Proposed Action

    Duke has an imminent need to reduce the inventory of spent nuclear 
fuel assemblies at the Oconee Nuclear Site prior to an upcoming 
refueling activity that requires empty fuel storage locations in the 
spent fuel pool. Furthermore, Duke must load spent fuel containing 
BPRAs to accommodate the number of planned and potential refueling 
activities that require empty spent fuel storage locations scheduled 
for the first calendar quarter of 2000. Because the 10 CFR part 72 
rulemaking to amend the CoC will not be completed prior to the date 
that Duke needs to begin loading the NUHOMS-24P with fuel 
containing BPRAs, the NRC is granting this exemption based on the 
staff's technical review of information submitted by Duke and TN West.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The potential environmental impact of using the NUHOMS-
24P storage system was initially presented in the Environmental 
Assessment (EA) for the Final Rule to add the NUHOMS-24P to 
the list of approved spent fuel storage casks in 10 CFR 72.214 (59 FR 
65898 (1994)). Furthermore, each general licensee must assess the 
environmental impacts of the specific ISFSI in accordance with the 
requirements of 10 CFR 72.212(b)(2). This section also requires the 
general licensee to perform written evaluations to demonstrate 
compliance with the environmental requirements of 10 CFR 72.104, 
``Criteria for radioactive materials in effluents and direct radiation 
from an ISFSI or MRS [Monitored Retrievable Storage Installation].''
    The NUHOMS-24P storage system is designed to mitigate the 
effects of design basis accidents that could occur during storage. 
Design basis accidents account for human-induced events and the most 
severe natural phenomena reported for the site and surrounding area. 
Postulated accidents analyzed for an ISFSI include tornado winds and 
tornado generated missiles, design basis earthquake, design basis 
flood, accidental cask drop, lightning effects, fire, explosions, and 
other incidents.
    Special cask design features of the NUHOMS-24P storage 
system include a horizontal canister system composed of a steel dry 
shielded canister (DSC), a reinforced concrete horizontal storage 
module (HSM) and a transfer cask (TC). The welded DSC provides 
confinement and criticality control for the storage and transfer of 
spent nuclear fuel. The concrete module provides radiation shielding 
while allowing cooling of the DSC and fuel by natural convection during 
storage. The TC is used for transferring the DSC from/to the spent fuel 
pool building to/from the HSM.
    Considering the specific design requirements for each accident 
condition, the design of the cask would prevent loss of containment, 
shielding, and criticality control. Without the loss of either 
containment, shielding, or criticality control, the risk to public 
health and safety is not compromised.
    The staff performed a detailed safety evaluation of the proposed 
exemption request and the CoC amendment request and found that the 
addition of the BPRAs to the B&W 15 x 15 and Westinghouse 17 x 17 fuel 
types does not reduce the safety margin. In addition, the staff has 
determined that the storage of BPRAs in the NUHOMS-24P 
storage system does not pose any increased risk to public health and 
safety. Furthermore, the proposed action now under consideration would 
not change the potential environmental effects assessed in the initial 
rulemaking (59 FR 65898 (1994)).
    Therefore, the staff has determined that there is no reduction in 
the safety margin nor significant environmental impacts as a result of 
storing B&W 15 x 15 or Westinghouse 17 x 17 fuel types with BPRAs in 
the NUHOMS-24P storage system.

Alternative to the Proposed Action

    The staff evaluated other alternatives involving removal of the 
BPRAs from the fuel assemblies and found that these alternatives 
produced a greater occupational exposure, increased handling and 
storage costs, and an

[[Page 7402]]

increased environmental impact as a result of handling the BPRAs 
separately as low-level waste. The alternative to the proposed action 
would be to deny approval of the exemption and, therefore, require Duke 
to disassemble and store the BPRAs as low-level waste in separate 
containers.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    On January 24, 2000, the Division of Radiation Control, South 
Carolina Department of Health, was contacted about the EA for the 
proposed action and had no concerns.

Finding of No Significant Impact

    The environmental impacts of the proposed action have been reviewed 
in accordance with the requirements set forth in 10 CFR part 51. Based 
upon the foregoing EA, the Commission finds that the proposed action of 
granting an exemption from 10 CFR 72.212(a)(2) and 72.214 so that Duke 
may store spent nuclear fuel containing BPRAs in the NUHOMS-
24P storage system will not significantly impact the quality of the 
human environment. Accordingly, the Commission has determined not to 
prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed exemption.
    For further details with respect to this exemption request, see the 
Duke exemption request dated August 30, 1999, which is docketed under 
10 CFR part 72, Docket Nos. 72-4 and 72-40.
    The exemption request is available for public inspection at the 
Commission's Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW, Washington, DC 
20555.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day of February 2000.
    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
E. William Brach,
Director, Spent Fuel Project Office, Office of Nuclear Material Safety 
and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. 00-3339 Filed 2-11-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P