Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 72 / Tuesday, April 15, 1997 / Notices 18371

security, and is otherwise in the public

interest. Therefore, the Commission

hereby grants the requested exemption

from the requirements of 10 CFR

73.55(d)(5) to allow individuals not

employed by the licensee (e.g.,

contractors) to take their photo

identification badges offsite, provided

that the proposed hand geometry

biometrics system is in effect to control

access into protected areas at the

Oconee, Catawba, and McGuire nuclear

stations.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the

Commission has determined that the

granting of this exemption will not

result in any significant adverse

environmental impact (62 FR 17221).

For further details with respect to this

action, see the request for exemption

dated August 23, 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 rooms located at the

Oconee County Library, 501 West South

Broad Street, Walhalla, South Carolina,

for the Oconee Nuclear Station; the York

County Library, 138 East Black Street,

Rock Hill, South Carolina, for the

Catawba Nuclear Station; and the J.

Murrey Atkins Library, University of

North Carolina at Charlotte, 9201

University City Boulevard, North

Carolina, for the McGuire Nuclear

Station.

This exemption is granted for the

Oconee, Catawba, and McGuire nuclear

stations with the condition that the

corresponding modifications,

procedures, training, and revisions to

the Physical Security Plans necessary

for implementation of the hand

geometry biometrics system at the

facilities will be submitted to the NRC

staff for review and approval.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day

of April 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Samuel J. Collins,

Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–9659 Filed 4–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–390]

Tennessee Valley Authority; Watts Bar

Nuclear Plant, Unit 1; Environmental

Assessment and Finding of No

Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of an amendment

to Facility Operating License No. NPF–

90, issued to Tennessee Valley

Authority, (the licensee), for operation

of the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 1,

located in Rhea County, Tennessee.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

The current spent fuel pool storage

capacity at the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant

(WBN) is 1312 fuel assembly storage

locations of which 484 are usable. The

Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)

requested an amendment to the WBN

Unit 1 operating license that would

increase the storage capacity of the

spent fuel pool to 1835 assemblies. The

proposal consists of replacing the

existing racks with spent fuel storage

racks that were designed, manufactured,

and used until 1995 in the Sequoyah

Nuclear Plant, increasing the maximum

initial enrichment of fuel to 5.0 weight

percent (wt%) U–235, changing the

spacing of stored fuel assemblies;

adding limiting condition for operation

(LCO) requirements for the combination

of initial enrichment and burnup in an

acceptable burnup domain, and

requiring the boron concentration to be

greater than or equal to 2000 parts per

million (ppm) during fuel movement.

The submittal also proposed

surveillance requirements to verify the

initial enrichment and burnup and

require chemical analysis to verify

boron concentration. The proposed

action is in accordance with the

licensee’s application for amendment

dated October 23, 1996, as

supplemented by letters dated

December 11, 1996, January 31,

February 10 and 24, and March 11 and

, 1997.

The Need for the Proposed Action

WBN is in its first operating cycle;

therefore, the spent fuel pool is dry and

no fuel assemblies are stored in it.

Under current conditions, the spent fuel

pool capacity will support three to four

cycles of operation before losing the

capacity for a full core offload (193 fuel

assemblies). However, taking into

account loading new fuel into the pool

and component shuffling during an

outage, the ability to accept a discharge

of one full core off-load could be

impacted as early as the year 2000.

There are no commercial independent

spent fuel storage facilities operating in

the U.S., nor are there any domestic

reprocessing facilities; therefore, the

projected loss of storage capacity in the

WBN pool would affect TVA’s ability to

operate WBN. The proposed

amendment is needed to ensure the

capability of full core offload is

available for some time in the future.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

The licensee considered several wet

and dry storage alternatives to the

proposed action. The following wet

storage alternatives were considered by

the licensee: reracking with new ultra

high density racks, rod consolidation,

and transshipment (pool-to-pool). The

following dry storage alternatives were

considered by the licensee: metal casks,

concrete casks, concrete vaults, and

multi-purpose canisters/overpacks. The

licensee considered several factors

when evaluating the options: effects on

plant systems and operations; impacts

on safety, including fuel handling;

radiation exposure; industry experience;

subsequent actions for further

increasing onsite spent fuel storage

capacity; flexibility for ultimate disposal

of spent fuel; and overall costs. Based

on these considerations, the licensee

determined that reuse of the Sequoyah

Nuclear Plant storage racks was the

most viable option.

In 1975, the staff prepared a Generic

Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS)

on spent fuel storage. The findings were

documented in NUREG–0575, ‘‘Final

Generic Environmental Impact

Statement (FGEIS) on Handling and

Storage of Spent Light Water Power

Reactor Fuel.’’ The storage of spent fuel,

as discussed in the NUREG, is

considered to be an interim action, not

a final solution to permanent disposal.

The methods of expanding spent fuel

storage capacity considered in the

FGEIS identified negligible differences

in the environmental impacts and costs

of the different alternatives, with the

exception that expansion of the spent

fuel pool was less costly and did not

involve transportation issues. The

FGEIS noted that since there are

variations in storage design and

limitations caused by spent fuel already

stored in the pools, licensing reviews

should be performed on a case-by-case

basis to resolve plant-specific concerns.

The staff evaluated the licensee’s list

of alternatives as well as other

alternatives. The following alternatives

were considered by the staff:

Shipment of Fuel to a Permanent

Federal Fuel Storage/Disposal Facility

Shipment of spent fuel to a high-level

radioactive storage facility is an

alternative to increasing the onsite spent

fuel storage capacity. However, the U.S.

Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) highlevel radioactive waste repository is not

expected to begin receiving spent fuel

until approximately 2010, at the earliest.

In October 1996, the Administration did
18372 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 72 / Tuesday, April 15, 1997 / Notices

commit DOE to begin storing wastes at

a centralized location by January 31,

1998. However, no location has been

identified and an interim federal storage

facility has yet to be identified in

advance of a decision on a permanent

repository. Therefore, shipping spent

fuel to the DOE repository is not

considered an alternative to increased

onsite spent fuel storage capacity at this

time.

Shipment of Fuel to a Reprocessing

Facility

Reprocessing of spent fuel from the

WBN facility is not a viable alternative

since there are no operating commercial

reprocessing facilities in the United

States. Therefore, spent fuel would have

to be shipped to an overseas facility for

reprocessing. However, this approach

has never been used and it would

require approval by the Department of

State as well as other entities.

Additionally, the cost of spent fuel

reprocessing is not offset by the salvage

value of the residual uranium;

reprocessing represents an added cost.

Shipment of Fuel to Another Utility or

Site for Storage

The shipment of fuel to another utility

for storage would provide short-term

relief from the storage problem at WBN.

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act and 10

CFR Part 53, however, clearly places the

responsibility for the interim storage of

spent fuel with each owner or operator

of a nuclear plant. The shipment of fuel

to another source is not an acceptable

alternative because of increased fuel

handling risks and additional

occupational radiation exposure, as well

as the fact that no additional storage

capacity would be created.

Reduction of Spent Fuel Generation

Improved usage of fuel and/or

operation at a reduced power level

would decrease the amount of fuel being

stored in the pool and thus increase the

amount of time before full core off-load

capacity is lost. With extended burnup

of fuel assemblies, the fuel cycle would

be extended and fewer offloads would

be necessary. The licensee is planning

on operating on an 18-month refueling

cycle, and, as part of this proposed

amendment, the licensee plans on

increasing its fuel enrichment to 5

percent. Operating the plant at a

reduced power level would not make

effective use of available resources, and

would cause unnecessary economic

hardship on TVA and its customers.

Therefore, reducing the amount of spent

fuel generated by increasing burnup

further or reducing power is not

considered a practical alternative.

Development of Onsite Independent

Storage Facility

An independent spent fuel storage

installation (ISFSI) is licensed under 10

CFR Part 72. It is a passive storage

system which stores spent fuel in dry

casks on a concrete platform in a

secured area. There are no commercial

ISFSIs operating in the United States.

Although use of an ISFSI provides many

benefits, the site-specific development

of an independent dry fuel storage

facility at WBN was deemed undesirable

by the licensee compared to the use of

the already existing, licensed spent fuel

racks. Furthermore, construction of such

a facility would not use the existing

expansion capacity of the existing pool,

would not use the existing spent fuel

racks taken out of the Sequoyah plant,

and would have the potential to cause

additional and different environmental

impacts due to activities related to

construction and operation.

Development of a site-specific ISFSI at

this time and in rsponse to TVA’s

current needs would waste available

resources.

No Action Taken

If no action were taken, the storage

capacity could be lost as early as 2000

and WBN would have to shut down.

This alternative is considered a waste of

available resources and is not

considered viable.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action:

Radiological Impact

The WBN has waste treatment

systems designed to collect and process

waste that may contain radioactive

material. The radioactive waste

treatment systems were evaluated in the

Final Environmental Statement (FES)

and its supplement. The Spent Fuel

Pool Cooling and Cleaning System is

designed to remove the decay heat

generated by stored spent fuel

assemblies and to clarify and purify the

water to permit unrestricted access to

the plant fuel storage area and maintain

optical clarity of the spent fuel pool

water. It is not expected that there will

be an increase in the liquid release of

radionuclides from the plant as a result

of the spent fuel pool expansion.

Although the amount of activity in the

spent fuel pool cleanup system may

increase due to the increased number of

spent fuel assemblies and the

enrichment, after processing by the

liquid radioactive waste system, the

amount of activity released to the

environment as a result of the proposed

change is expected to be negligible. The

proposed amendment will not involve

any change in the radioactive waste

treatment systems or flowrates

described in the FES and its

supplement.

Because the racks are being removed

from the WBN plant before any spent

fuel has been stored in them, they are

not contaminated and they will not

contribute to the volume of solid

radioactive waste. Additionally, the

Sequoyah racks are being reused and are

not classified as solid radioactive waste

at this time. No additional low specific

activity waste output is generated and

less solid waste will be generated due to

the reuse of the spent fuel racks and

removal of the existing racks before they

become contaminated.

In addition to the spent fuel

assemblies themselves, the only other

solid radioactive waste generated by the

spent fuel pool is the spent fuel pool

polisher resin which is used for water

clarity. These resins are replaced

approximately once per refueling cycle.

No additional resins are expected to be

generated by the pool cleanup system;

therefore, no significant increase in the

volume of solid radioactive waste is

expected with the proposed

amendment.

The proposed amendment is not

expected to significantly affect the doses

to the workers in the fuel storage area.

The licensee stated that pressurized

water reactor experience has shown that

area radiation dose rates are

approximately 1–3 millirem/hour. Dose

rates on the pool bridge crane platform

are approximately 4–5 mrem/hr. During

refueling operations, these rates may

increase slightly. During the reracking

procedures, the occupational exposure

to the workers will be much less if the

amendment is granted at this time rather

than if the racks are taken out in the

future, after spent fuel is stored in them.

No increases are expected to the

concentration of airborne radioactivity

as a result of expanded storage capacity.

The environmental impacts on the

uranium fuel cycle and transportation

resulting from the use of higher

enrichment fuel and extended

irradiation were published in NUREG/

CR–5009, ‘‘Assessment of the Use of

Extended Burnup Fuels in Light Water

Power Reactors,’’ and discussed in the

staff Environmental Assessment and

Finding of No Significant Impact

published in the Federal Register on

February 29, 1988 (53 FR 6040). The

staff concluded that no significant

adverse effects will be generated by

increasing the burnup levels as long as

the maximum rod average burnup level

of any fuel rod is no greater than 60

Gwd/MtU. The staff also stated that the

environmental impacts summarized in
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 72 / Tuesday, April 15, 1997 / Notices 18373

Table S–3 and S–4 for a burnup level of

33 Gwd/MtU are conservative and

bound the corresponding impacts for

burnup levels up to 60 Gwd/MtU and

uranium-235 enrichments up to 5 wt%.

Based on the above, the staff

concludes that there are no significant

radiological environmental impacts

associated with the proposal.

Non-Radiological Impact

The proposed amendment does not

modify land use at the site; no new

facilities or laydown areas are needed to

support the rerack or operation after

rerack; therefore, the proposal does not

affect land use or land with historical or

archeological sites.

As a result of the proposal, steady

state pool bulk temperature remains

within the limits prescribed for the

spent fuel pool to satisfy pool structural

strength constraints. The increased

spent fuel inventory results in a

maximum bulk pool temperature

increase of less than 10 °F. This increase

in temperature results in an increase in

pool water evaporation rate. The

original analysis was performed

assuming two unit operation. The

licensee reanalyzed the effects of the

increased temperature and evaporation

rate and found the increases were well

within the capacity of the existing

HVAC system and continued to be

bounded by the original analysis. The

total heat load for the unplanned

emergency core off-load is less then 35

million BTU/hr, which is less than one

percent of the total plant heat loss.

The proposal does not affect nonradiological plant effluents and no

changes to the National Pollution

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)

permit are needed. The proposal does

not result in any significant changes to

land use or water use, or result in any

significant changes to the quantity or

quality of effluents; no effects on

endangered or threatened species or on

their habitat are expected.

The proposal will not change the

method of generating electricity nor the

method of handling any influent from

the environment or non-radiological

effluents to the environment. Therefore,

no changes or different types of nonradiological environmental impacts are

expected as a result of the amendment.

Accident Considerations

In its application, the licensee

evaluated the possible consequences of

postulated accidents and described the

means for mitigating these

consequences should they occur. This

evaluation included spent fuel handling

accidents. A fuel handling accident may

be viewed as a reasonably foreseeable

design basis event which the pool and

associated structure, systems, and

components are designed and

constructed to prevent. On the basis of

its analysis, the licensee concluded that

the effects of the proposed TS changes

are small and that the calculated

consequences are within regulatory

requirements and staff guideline dose

values.

The staff evaluated the consequences

of operation at a bounding value of

burnup (60,000 MWD/T) because of the

licensee’s reference to the use of more

highly enriched fuel (up to 5.0 weight

percent U-235). The staff concluded that

the only potential increased radiological

consequences resulting from a fuel

handling accident associated with

extended burnup and higher fuel

enrichment are the thyroid doses; these

doses remain well within the

acceptance criteria given in NUREG–

0800 and are, therefore, acceptable. The

environmental impacts of the accident

were found not to be significant.

The staff has considered accidents

whose consequences might exceed a

fuel handling accident that is beyond

design basis events. The licensee and

staff, as part of the operating license

review, performed an analysis of

installation of severe accident

mitigation design alternatives

(SAMDAs) in the environmental impact

review. The staff concluded that none of

the five design improvements warranted

implementation at WBN.

The staff believes that the probability

of severe structural damage occurring at

WBN is extremely low. This belief is

based on the Commission’s

requirements for the design and

construction of the spent fuel pool and

the contents and on the licensee’s

adherence to approved industry codes

and standards. Therefore, the staff

concludes that the potential for

environmental impact from severe

accidents is negligible.

Summary

The Commission has completed its

evaluation of the proposed action. The

change will not increase the probability

or consequences of accidents, no

changes are being made in the types 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.

Alternative Use of Resources

This action does not involve the use

of any resources not previously

considered in the FES for WBN Units 1

and 2, dated April 1995.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on March 24, 1997 the staff consulted

with the Tennessee State official, Ms. E.

Flanagan of the Division of Radiological

Health, regarding the environmental

impact of the proposed action. The State

official had no comments.

Findings of No Significant Impact

The staff has reviewed the proposed

spent fuel pool modification to WBN

Unit 1 relative to the requirements set

forth in 10 CFR Part 51. Based upon the

environmental assessment, the staff has

concluded that there are no significant

radiological or non-radiological impacts

associated with the proposed action and

that the proposed license amendment

will not have a significant effect on the

quality of the human environment.

Therefore, the Commission has

determined, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.31,

not to prepare an environmental impact

statement for the proposed amendment.

For further details with respect to the

proposed action, see the licensee’s letter

dated October 23, 1996, as

supplemented by letters dated

December 11, 1996, January 31,

February 10 and 24, March 11 and April

4, 1997, which are 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 Chattanooga-Hamilton

County Library, 1001 Broad Street,

Chattanooga, Tennessee.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day

of April 1997.

For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Frederick J. Hebdon,

Director, Project Directorate II–3, Division of

Reactor Projects—I/II, Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–9661 Filed 4–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P