[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
