[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
