[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