[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 
K<INF>eff</INF> 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