[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 126 (Friday, June 28, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33781-33782]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16554]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-364]


Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.; Joseph M. Farley 
Nuclear Plants, 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 certain requirements of its 
regulations for Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-2 and NPF-8, issued 
to Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (the licensee), for 
operation of the Joseph M. Farley (Farley) Nuclear Plants, Units 1 and 
2, located in Houston County, Alabama.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of 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.
    The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's 
application for exemption dated May 31, 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 radiation monitoring at Farley. Exemptions from the 
requirements of 10 CFR 70.24(a) ``Criticality Accident Requirements'' 
were granted in the Special Nuclear Material (SNM) licenses for each 
unit as part of the 10 CFR Part 70 license. However, with the issuance 
of the Part 50 license this exemption expired because it was 
inadvertently omitted 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 Farley 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.
    Inadvertent or accidental criticality of SNM while in use in the 
reactor vessel

[[Page 33782]]

is precluded through compliance with the Farley Technical 
Specifications, including reactivity requirements (e.g., shutdown 
margins, limits on control rod movement), instrumentation requirements 
(e.g., reactor power and radiation monitors), and controls on refueling 
operations (e.g., control rod interlocks and source range monitor 
requirements). In addition, the operators' continuous attention 
directed toward instruments monitoring behavior of the nuclear fuel in 
the reactor assures that the facility is operated in such a manner as 
to preclude inadvertent criticality. Finally, since access to the fuel 
in the reactor vessel is not physically possible while in use and is 
procedurally controlled during refueling, there are no concerns 
associated with loss or diversion of the fuel.
    SNM as nuclear fuel is stored in one of two locations--the spent 
fuel pool or the new fuel storage area. The spent fuel pool is used to 
store irradiated fuel under water after its discharge from the reactor. 
The pool is designed to store the fuel in a geometric array that 
precludes criticality. In addition, existing Technical Specification 
limits on keff are maintained less than or equal to 0.95, even in 
the event of a fuel handling accident.
    The new fuel storage area is used to receive and store new fuel in 
a dry condition upon arrival on site and prior to loading in the 
reactor. The new fuel storage area is designed to store new fuel in a 
geometric array that precludes criticality. In addition, existing 
safety evaluations demonstrate that keff is maintained less than 
or equal to 0.95 when the new fuel racks are fully loaded and dry or 
flooded with unborated water and less than or equal to 0.98 for optimum 
moderation conditions (e.g., because of the presence of aqueous foam or 
mist) or in the event of a fuel handling accident.
    Fresh fuel is shipped in a plastic wrap. In some cases the fuel is 
stored in the new fuel storage racks with the plastic wrap in place and 
in other cases the plastic wrap is removed prior to storage. In all 
cases where fuel is stored with the plastic wrap in place, the wrap 
either cannot hold water due to its design or it is rendered incapable 
of holding water prior to fuel storage. Therefore, there is no concern 
that the plastic wrap used as part of fresh fuel storage will hold 
water from flooding from overhead sources. Additionally, as discussed 
above, the new fuel storage racks have been analyzed for a postulated 
flooded condition and the results showed that keff is maintained 
less than or equal to 0.95.
    Both irradiated and unirradiated fuel is moved to and from the 
reactor vessel, and the spent fuel pool to accommodate refueling 
operations. Also, unirradiated fuel can be moved to and from the new 
fuel storage area. In addition, movements of fuel into the facility and 
within the reactor vessel or within the spent fuel pool occur. In all 
cases, fuel movements are procedurally controlled and designed to 
preclude conditions involving criticality concerns. Moreover, previous 
accident analyses have demonstrated that a fuel handling accident 
(i.e., a dropped fuel element) will not create conditions which exceed 
design specification. In addition, the Technical Specifications 
specifically address the refueling operations and limit the handling of 
fuel to ensure against an accidental criticality and to preclude 
certain movements over the spent fuel pool and the rector vessel.
    In summary, exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR Part 70, 
Section 70.24 approved by the NRC in connection with the SNM licenses 
for Farley Units 1 and 2 were based upon NRC's finding that the 
inherent features associated with the storage and inspection of 
unirradiated fuel established good cause for granting the exemption and 
that granting such an exemption at this time will not endanger public 
life or property or the common defense and security and is otherwise in 
the public interest. The training provided to all personnel involved in 
fuel handling operations, 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 in place preclude 
inadvertent or accidental criticality. Since the facilities, storage, 
and inspection and procedures currently in place are consistent with 
those in place at the time the exemptions were granted in connection 
with the SNM licenses, 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, of radioactive waste is generated during the receipt and 
handling of new fuel (e.g., smear papers or contaminated packaging 
material). The amount of waste would not be changed by the exemption.
    With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed 
exemption involves systems located 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. The principal alternative would be to deny the requested 
exemption. 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 Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, dated 
June 1972.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on June 14, 1996, the staff 
consulted with the Alabama State official, Mr. Kirk Whatley, of the 
Alabama Department of Public Health, 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 May 31, 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 Houston-Love Memorial Library, 212 W. 
Burdeshaw Street, Post Office Box 1369, Dolthan, Alabama.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day of June 1996.

    For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Byron L. Siegel,
Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate II-2, Division of Reactor 
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 96-16554 Filed 6-27-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P