[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 147 (Tuesday, July 30, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39672-39673]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-19319]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316]
Indiana Michigan Power Company; Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant,
Unit Nos. 1 and 2 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 10
CFR 70.24 for Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-58 and DPR-74, issued
to Indiana Michigan Power Company, (the licensee), for operation of the
D. C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, located in Berrien County,
Michigan.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the 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
clearly 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 of
10 CFR 70.24(a)(3) 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 and to conduct drills and designate
responsible individuals for such emergency procedures.
This environmental assessment has been prepared to address
potential environmental issues related to the licensee's application of
April 8, 1996.
The Need for the Proposed Action
Power reactor license applicants are evaluated for the safe
handling, use, and storage of special nuclear materials. The proposed
exemption from criticality accident requirements is based on the
original design for fuel storage and handling at the D. C. Cook Nuclear
Plant, Units 1 and 2. The exemption was granted with the original Unit
2 Special Nuclear Material (Part 70) license, but it expired with the
issuance of the Part 50 license when the exemption was inadvertently
not included in that license. Therefore, the exemption is needed to
clearly define the design of the plant as evaluated and approved for
licensing.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The NRC staff 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 Cook Technical Specifications,
the geometric spacing of fuel assemblies in the new fuel storage
facility and spent fuel storage pool, and administrative controls
imposed on fuel handling procedures. Technical specification controls
include reactivity requirements (e.g., shutdown margins, limits on
control rod movement), instrumentation requirements (e.g., power and
radiation monitors), and controls on refueling operations (e.g.,
refueling boron concentration and source range monitor requirements.)
Geometrically, the spent fuel pool is designed to store the fuel in an
array that precludes criticality. Existing technical specifications
require the effective neutron multiplication factor, Keff, to be
maintained less than or equal to 0.95. The new fuel vault has also been
analyzed to maintain keff less than or equal to 0.95, including
uncertainties, under full water density flooded conditions and less
than or equal to 0.98 under optimum moderation conditions.
In summary, the training provided to all personnel involved in fuel
handling operations, the design of the fuel handling equipment, the
administrative controls, the technical specifications on new and spent
fuel handling and storage, and the design of the new and spent fuel
storage racks preclude inadvertent or accidental criticality. In
accordance with the NRC's Regulatory Position in Regulatory Guide 8.12,
Revision 1, ``Criticality Accident Alarm Systems,'' dated January 1981,
an exemption from 10 CFR 70.24 is appropriate.
The proposed exemption will not affect radiological plant effluents
nor cause any significant occupational exposures. Only a small amount,
if any, radioactive waste is generated during the receipt and handling
of new fuel
[[Page 39673]]
(e.g., smear papers or contaminated packaging material). The amount of
waste would not be changed by the exemption.
The change will not increase the probability or consequences of
accidents, no changes are being made in the types or amounts of any
effluents that may be released offsite, and there is no significant
increase in the allowable individual or cumulative occupational
radiation exposure. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there
are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with
the proposed action.
With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed
action does involve 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 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 NRC staff
considered denial of the proposed action. 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 the Final Environmental Statement for D.C.
Cook, Units 1 and 2, dated August 1973.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on July 8, 1996, the NRC
staff consulted with the Michigan State official, Dennis Hahn, of the
Michigan Department of Public Health, Nuclear Facilities and
Environmental Monitoring, 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 April 8, 1996, which is available for public
inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, The Gelman
Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the local public
document room located at the Maud Preston Palenske Memorial Library,
500 Market Street, St. Joseph, Michigan 49085.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day of July 1996.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John B. Hickman,
Project Manager, Project Directorate III-1, Division of Reactor
Projects--III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 96-19319 Filed 7-29-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
