[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