[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 183 (Monday, September 22, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49540-49541]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-25079]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-338 AND 50-339]
Virginia Electric and Power Company; North Anna Power Station,
Units 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 the provisions of 10 CFR
70.24(a) to Virginia Electric and Power Company (the licensee) for
North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2 (NPS1&2), located in Louisa
County, Virginia.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of Proposed Action
The proposed action would exempt the licensee from the requirements
of 10 CFR 70.24(a), which require a monitoring system that will
energize clear audible alarms if accidental criticality occurs in each
area in which special nuclear material (SNM) 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 SNM is handled, used, or stored to ensure that all
personnel withdraw to an area of safety upon 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 January 28, 1997, as supplemented March
24, 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, use, or storing of SNM, 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 SNM that could be assembled into a critical mass is in the form of
nuclear fuel. The quantity of other forms of special nuclear materials
that is stored onsite is small enough to preclude achieving critical
mass. Since the fuel is not enriched beyond 4.3 weight percent Uranium-
235 and commercial nuclear power plant licensees have procedures and
features that are designed to prevent inadvertent criticality, the
staff has determined that inadvertent criticality is not likely to
occur during the handling of the special nuclear material. 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 plants.
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 the design of the fuel racks providing geometric
spacing of fuel assemblies in their storage locations, compliance with
the NPS Technical Specifications (TS), and administrative controls
imposed on fuel handling procedures.
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 NPS1&2, as identified in section 5.6 of the TS. Section
5.6.1.1 of the TS states the geometrically safe configurations for
[[Page 49541]]
new fuel stored in the new fuel pit storage racks or spent fuel storage
racks.
The new fuel storage area at North Anna is used to receive and
store new fuel in a dry condition upon arrival onsite and prior to
loading into the reactor. The new fuel is stored vertically in an array
with a distance of 21 inches between assemblies to assure
Keff is less than or equal to 0.98 with fuel of the highest
anticipated enrichment in place assuming optimum moderation, e.g., an
aqueous foam envelopment as a result of local fire fighting operations.
Both irradiated and unirradiated fuel are moved to and from the reactor
vessel and the spent fuel pool to accommodate refueling operations, as
well as within the reactor vessel and spent fuel pool. Unirradiated
fuel is also moved into the Fuel Building for storage and to and from
the new fuel storage area. In every case, fuel movement is procedurally
controlled and designed to preclude criticality concerns. In addition,
the TS specifically address refueling operations and impose
restrictions on fuel movement to preclude an accidental criticality, as
well as limit the movement of certain loads over the spent fuel in the
reactor vessel and the spent fuel pool.
The proposed exemption would not result in any significant
radiological impacts. The proposed exemption would not affect
radiological effluents 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 has
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 resources not previously
considered in connection with the Final Environmental Statement related
to the operation of North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2, issued by
the Commission in April 1973.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, the NRC staff consulted with
Mr. Foldesi of the Virginia Department of Health on July 14, 1997,
regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. Mr. Foldesi
had no comments on behalf of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
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 exemption.
For further details with respect to this action, see the request
for exemption dated January 28, 1997, as supplemented March 3, 1997,
which is available for public inspection at the Commission's Public
Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20555 and at the
local public document room located at the Alderman Library, Special
Collections Department, University of Virginia, Charlottesville,
Virginia 22903-2498.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 16th day of September, 1997.
For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Gordon E. Edison,
Acting Director, Project Directorate II-1, Division of Reactor
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 97-25079 Filed 9-19-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
