[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 168 (Friday, August 29, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45883-45884]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-23043]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301]


Wisconsin Electric Power Company; Point Beach Nuclear Plant, 
Units 1 and 2; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant 
Impact

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is 
considering granting an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 
70.24(a) to Wisconsin Electric Power Company, (the licensee), in 
connection with the operation of the Point Beach Nuclear Plant (PBNP), 
Units 1 and 2, located in Manitowoc County, Wisconsin, under Facility 
Operating Licenses Nos. DPR-24 and DPR-27.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of Proposed Action

    The proposed action would exempt the licensee 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 June 7, 1997.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    The purpose of 10 CFR 70.24 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 
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 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 PBNP, Units 1 and 2, Technical 
Specifications, 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. Technical 
Specifications 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 PBNP, as identified in the Technical Specifications and the 
Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). PBNP Technical Specifications 
Section 15.5.4, ``Fuel Storage,'' states that ``The new and spent fuel 
storage racks are designed so that it is impossible to store assemblies 
in other than the prescribed storage locations. The fuel is stored 
vertically in an array with sufficient center-to-center distance 
between assemblies to assure K<INF>eff</INF><0.95 * * *.'' FSAR Section 
9.5, ``Fuel Handling System,'' Subsection 9.5.1, ``Design Basis,'' 
states the Point Beach general design criterion for prevention of fuel 
storage criticality is ``Criticality in the new and spent fuel storage 
pits shall be prevented by physical systems or processes. Such means as 
geometrically safe configurations shall be emphasized over procedural 
controls.''
    The proposed action would not result in any significant 
radiological impacts. The proposed action would not affect radiological 
plant effluents nor cause any significant occupational exposures since 
the Technical Specifications, 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 action.
    The proposed action does not result in any significant 
nonradiological environmental impacts. The proposed action 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.

[[Page 45884]]

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 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 Point Beach Nuclear Plant,'' dated May 1972.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on July 29, 1997, the staff 
consulted with the Wisconsin State official, Ms. Sarah Jenkins of the 
Wisconsin Public Service Commission, 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 June 6, 1997, which is 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 Lester Public Library, 1001 
Adams Street, Two Rivers, WI 54241.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd day of August 1997.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Linda L. Gundrum,
Project Manager, Project Directorate III-1, Division of Reactor 
Projects--III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 97-23043 Filed 8-28-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-U