[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 136 (Monday, July 15, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36914-36916]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17939]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366]


Georgia Power Company, et al.; Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, 
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. DPR-57 and NPF-5, 
issued to Georgia Power Company, et al. (the licensee), for operation 
of the Edwin I. Hatch (Hatch) Nuclear Plants, Units 1 and 2, located in 
Appling County, Georgia.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of Proposed Action

    The proposed action would exempt the licensee from the requirements 
of 10 CFR 70.24, which requires, in each area in which special nuclear 
material is handled, used, or stored, a monitoring system that will 
energize clearly audible alarms if accidental criticality occurs. 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 June 4, 1996.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    Power reactor license applications 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 Hatch. 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

[[Page 36915]]

environmental impact if the exemption is granted. Inadvertent or 
accidental criticality will be precluded through compliance with the 
Hatch 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 is precluded through compliance with the Hatch 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 a nuclear fuel is stored in one of two locations--the spent 
fuel pool or the new fuel vault. The spent fuel pool is used to store 
irradiated fuel under water after its removal from the reactor. The 
pool is designed to store 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 vault 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 vault is designed to store new fuel in a geometric array that 
precludes criticality. In addition, existing safety evaluations 
demonstrate that an effective multiplication factor is maintained less 
than or equal to 0.95 when the new fuel racks are fully loaded and dry 
or flooded with unborated water, or in the event of a fuel handling 
accident.
    New fuel is shipped in a plastic wrap. When the fuel is removed 
from its transportation cask, the wrap is removed and the fuel is 
placed in the fuel inspection stand. Following inspection, the new fuel 
can either be placed in the new fuel storage vault or in the spent fuel 
pool (typically placed in the spent fuel pool). In no case is the 
plastic wrap reinserted on the fuel. Removal of the wrap requires it to 
be slit down the length of the new fuel assembly, thereby making its 
reuse highly unlikely. Therefore, there is no concern that the plastic 
wrap used as part of the new fuel package will be capable of holding 
water from flooding from overhead sources. Additionally, as discussed 
above, the new fuel storage racks were analyzed for a postulated 
flooded condition, and the results show 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 vault. In addition, fuel movements into the facility and within 
the reactor vessel and 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 demonstrate that a fuel handling accident (i.e., a dropped 
fuel element) will not create conditions that exceed design 
specifications. In addition, the Technical Specifications and Technical 
Requirements Manuals specifically address refueling operations and 
limit the handling of fuel to ensure against an accidental criticality 
and preclude certain movements over the spent fuel pool and the reactor 
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 Hatch 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 requirements, and the design of the fuel storage racks 
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 
an operating license for the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, and 
of a construction permit for Unit 2, dated October 1972, and the Final 
Environmental Statement related to the operation of Edwin I. Hatch 
Nuclear Plant, Unit 2, dated March 1978.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on June 24, 1996, the staff 
consulted with the Georgia State official, Mr. James L. Setser, of the 
Georgia Department of Natural Resources, 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 4, 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

[[Page 36916]]

Appling County Public Library, 301 City Hall Drive, Baxley, Georgia.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day of July 1996.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Kahtan N. Jabbour,
Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate II-2, Division of Reactor 
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 96-17939 Filed 7-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P