[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 186 (Friday, September 25, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51380-51381]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-25692]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-313 and 50-368]
Entergy Operations, Inc.; Arkansas Nuclear One, 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-51 and NPF-6 issued
to Entergy Operations, Inc. (the licensee), for operation of Arkansas
Nuclear One, Units 1 and 2 (ANO-1 and ANO-2), located in Pope County,
Arkansas.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of Proposed Action
The proposed action would exempt the licensee from the requirements
of 10 CFR 70.24(a) as it pertains to the handling and storage of
unirradiated fuel at ANO-1 and ANO-2. The requirements of 10 CFR
70.24(a) include (1) having a monitoring system that will energize
clear audible alarms if accidental criticality occurs in each area in
which special nuclear material is handled, used, or stored and (2)
having emergency procedures and conducting related drills to
familiarize personnel with the evacuation plan, for each area in which
this licensed special nuclear material is handled, used, or stored.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's
application for exemption dated October 31, 1997.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The purpose of 10 CFR 70.24 is to ensure that if a criticality
event (or accident) were to occur during the handling of special
nuclear material, 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 special nuclear material
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 special nuclear material that is stored on site in any given
location 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 design
features that prevent inadvertent criticality, the staff has determined
that it is unlikely that an inadvertent criticality could occur due to
the handling of special nuclear material 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 special nuclear
materials 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 ANO-1 and ANO-2 Technical
Specifications (TSs), the design of the new fuel storage area, and
administrative controls imposed on fuel handling procedures. TSs
requirements specify reactivity limits for new fuel assemblies and key
design features for the new fuel storage racks, including the minimum
spacing between the unirradiated fuel assemblies.
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 ANO-1 and ANO-2, as identified in the TSs and the Updated
Safety Analysis Reports (USARs). The TSs for storage racks and limits
on fuel enrichment for ANO-1 and ANO-2 are such that the ratio of
neutron production to neutron absorption and leakage (k-effective) will
not exceed 0.98 assuming optimum moderation by an aqueous foam and will
not exceed 0.95 when the storage area is flooded with unborated water.
The proposed exemption would not result in any significant
radiological impacts. The proposed exemption would not affect
radiological plant effluents since the handling and storage of new fuel
does not impact the normal operations of the plant that generate
radioactive wastes and design and administrative controls previously
described provide adequate controls to preclude accidental releases
from an inadvertent criticality. The proposed exemption would not cause
any significant occupational exposures since the TSs, design controls
(including geometric spacing of fuel assembly storage spaces) and
administrative controls preclude inadvertent criticality. Existing
programs at ANO-1 and ANO-2 also provide reasonable confidence that
personnel would be alerted to and would know how to respond to a
radiological accident involving the handling and storage of fuel
assemblies. 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 (no-action alternative).
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 for Arkansas
Nuclear One, Units 1 and 2.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on August 19, 1998, the staff
consulted with Mr. Bernie Bevell, Director, Division of Radiation
Control and Emergency Management, regarding the environmental impact of
the proposed action. The State official had no comments.
[[Page 51381]]
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 October 31, 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 Tomlinson Library, Arkansas
Tech University, Russellville, AR 72801.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day of September 1998.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
William D. Reckley,
Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate IV-1, Division of Reactor
Projects III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 98-25692 Filed 9-24-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
