[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 57 (Wednesday, March 25, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14481-14482]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-7812]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-327 and 50-328]


Tennessee Valley Authority Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 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-77 and DPR-79, 
issued to The Tennessee Valley Authority (the licensee), for operation 
of the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, located in Hamilton 
County, Tennessee.

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 (SNM) is handled, used, or stored, a monitoring system that 
will energize clear audible alarms if accidental criticality occurs.

[[Page 14482]]

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 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 December 5, 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 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 at a commercial nuclear power plant is 
in the form of nuclear fuel; the quantity of other forms of SNM 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 SNM 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 SNM 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 Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 
and 2 Technical Specifications (TS), 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. TS 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 Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, as identified in the 
TS and the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). Sequoyah TS 
Section 5.6.1.2 states that the new fuel storage racks are designed for 
dry storage of unirradiated fuel assemblies having a U-235 enrichment 
less than or equal to 5.0 weight percent, while maintaining a k-
effective of less than or equal to 0.98 under the most reactive 
condition. UFSAR Section 9.1.1, New Fuel Storage, for both Units 1 and 
2 specify that the fuel racks are designed to provide sufficient 
spacing between fuel assemblies to maintain a subcritical (k-effective 
less than or equal to 0.98) array assuming the most reactive condition, 
and under all design loadings including the safe shutdown earthquake. 
The UFSAR also specifies that the new fuel racks are designed to 
preclude the insertion of a new fuel assembly between cavities.
    The proposed exemption would not result in any significant 
radiological impacts. The proposed exemption would not affect 
radiological plant effluent 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 non-radiological plant effluents and 
has no other environmental impact. Accordingly, the Commission 
concludes that there are no significant non-radiological 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 
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 Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2,'' dated February 13, 
1974.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on January 30, 1998, the 
Commission staff consulted with the State of Tennessee Official (Joelle 
Key) 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 December 5, 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, D.C., and at 
the local public document room located at the Chattanooga-Hamilton 
County Library, 1001 Broad Street, Chattanooga, Tennessee.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day of March 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. 98-7812 Filed 3-24-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P