[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 156 (Wednesday, August 13, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43363-43364]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-21359]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389]
Florida Power and Light Company (St. Lucie 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-67 and NPF-16,
issued to Florida Power and Light Company, et. al. (the licensee), for
operation of the St. Lucie Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, located in St.
Lucie County, Florida.
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
clear audible alarms if accidental criticality occurs in each area in
which special nuclear material (SNM) is handled, used, or stored. 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 February 19, 1997, and supplemented
July 10, 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 St. Lucie, 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 the 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 St. Lucie, Units 1 and 2, as identified in the TS and the
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). St. Lucie TS Section
5.6.1.c (Unit 1) and 5.6.1.b (Unit 2), state 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 4.5 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 non-
radiological 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
[[Page 43364]]
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 St. Lucie Plant Unit No. 1,'' dated June 1973, and ``Final
Environmental Statement Related to the Construction of St. Lucie Plant
Unit No. 2,'' dated May 1974.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on July 16, 1997, the
Commission staff consulted with Mr. William Passetti, Acting Chief of
the Bureau of Radiation Control, Florida Department of Health and
Rehabilitative Services, 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 February 19, 1997, and supplement dated July
10, 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, DC, and at the local public document room
located at the Indian River College Library, 3209 Virginia Avenue, Fort
Pierce, Florida 34981-5599.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day of August 1997.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
L.A. Wiens,
Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate II-3, Division of Reactor
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 97-21359 Filed 8-12-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
