Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 133 / Monday, July 13, 1998 / Notices 37597

accounting records created and

maintained in the Centers pertaining to

revenue collection and accounting;

processing, analysis, and disposition of

tax returns, tax information and related

records; mailing of tax forms,

transcription of statistical information

and preparation of reports.

16. Department of Treasury, Internal

Revenue Service, Office of the Chief,

Management and Administration;

Assistant Commissioner, Support

Services; Office of the Chief,

Headquarters Operations; Office of the

Director, Support Services; Regional

Commissioners (N1–058–97–9, 42

items, 36 temporary items). The records

proposed for disposal consist largely of

administrative records pertaining to

such matters as air quality management,

building renovation projects,

management improvement studies,

operating plans, space planning, parking

programs, work information tracking,

and membership in professional

organizations.

17. Department of Treasury, Internal

Revenue Service, Service Centers (N1–

058–98–11, 1 item, 1 temporary item). A

reduction in the retention period for

Posting, Payment, and Adjustment

Documents, which were previously

approved for disposal.

18. Department of Treasury, Under

Secretary, Domestic Finance, Office of

Federal Financing Bank (N1–056–98–1,

4 items, 2 temporary items). A reduction

in the retention period for Federal

Financing Note and Obligation Files and

Transaction Files, which were

previously approved for disposal.

19. African Development Foundation,

Office of Programs and Field Operations

(N1–487–98–1, 4 items, 4 temporary

items). Master Grant Documentation

Files, including electronic versions of

records created by electronic mail and

word processing applications.

20. Environmental Protection Agency,

Laboratory Records (N1–412–97–5, 1

item, 1 temporary item). Employee

Occupational Exposure to Ionizing

Radiation records consisting of quarterly

employee exposure reports, lists of

approved radioactive isotope users,

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

correspondence, policies regarding

handling of radiation, questionnaires

and requisitions for and inventories of

radioactive materials. These files will be

maintained for 75 years after the

termination of the NRC license.

21. Federal Emergency Management

Agency (FEMA), Agency-wide (N1–311–

97–2, 4 items, 2 temporary items).

Records of external committees and

conferences sponsored by other

agencies.

22. National Archives and Records

Administration (N1–GRS–98–1, 2 items,

2 temporary items). An addition to

General Records Schedule 1, applicable

to all Federal agencies, providing

disposition authority for records

documenting positive drug test results

for Federal employees and job

applicants.

23. Central Intelligence Agency,

Agency-wide (N1–263–98–1, 3 items, 2

temporary items). The temporary

records include agency posters

produced in support of routine events

and subjects and pre-production

materials. Mission related posters are

proposed for permanent retention.

24. Tennessee Valley Authority, Chief

Engineer (N1–142–98-14, 2 items, 1

temporary item). Temporary files of the

Chief Engineer consisting of field

engineering log books, concreting

operations records, progress reports,

blasting records and administrative

records. Project files relating to water

control and related photographs,

fatalities at TVA facilities, and Townlift

correspondence are proposed for

permanent retention.

Dated: July 2, 1998.

Geraldine N. Phillips,

Acting Assistant Archivist for Record

Services—Washington, DC.

[FR Doc. 98–18458 Filed 7–10–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7515–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–348 and 50–364]

Southern Nuclear Operating Company,

Inc., et al. (Joseph M. Farley Nuclear

Plant, Units 1 and 2); exemption

I

Southern Nuclear Operating

Company, Inc., et al. (the licensee) is the

holder of Facility Operating License

Nos. NPF–2 and NPF–8, for the Joseph

M. Farley Nuclear Plant (FNP), Units 1

and 2, respectively. The licenses

provide, among other things, that the

licensee is subject to all rules,

regulations, and orders of the

Commission now or hereafter in effect.

The FNP facility consists of two

pressurized-water reactors located at the

licensee’s site in Houston County,

Alabama.

II

Title 10 of the Code of Federal

Regulations (10 CFR), Section 50.71,

‘‘Maintenance of records, making of

reports,’’ paragraph (e)(4) states, in part,

that ‘‘Subsequent revisions [to the

Updated Final Safety Analysis Report

(UFSAR)] must be filed annually or 6

months after each refueling outage

provided that the interval between

successive updates [to the UFSAR] does

not exceed 24 months.’’ The FNP, Units

1 and 2, share a common UFSAR;

therefore, this rule requires the licensee

to update the same document within 6

months after a refueling outage for

either unit. By letter dated January 19,

1998, the licensee requested an

exemption from the requirements of 10

CFR 50.71(e)(4).

III

Section 50.12(a) of 10 CFR, ‘‘Specific

exemptions,’’ states that:

The Commission may, upon application by

any interested person, or upon its own

initiative, grant exemptions from the

requirements of the regulations of this part,

which are (1) Authorized by law, will not

present an undue risk to the public health

and safety, and are consistent with the

common defense and security. (2) The

Commission will not consider granting an

exemption unless special circumstances are

present.

Section 50.12(a)(2)(ii) of 10 CFR states

that special circumstances are present

when ‘‘Application of the regulation in

the particular circumstances would not

serve the underlying purpose of the rule

or is not necessary to achieve the

underlying purpose of the rule * * *.’’

As noted in the staff’s supporting Safety

Evaluation, the licensee’s proposed

schedule for UFSAR updates will

ensure that the FNP UFSAR will be

maintained current within 24 months of

the last revision and the interval for

submission of the 10 CFR 50.59 design

change report will not exceed 24

months. The proposed schedule fits

within the 24-month duration specified

by 10 CFR 50.71(e)(4). Literal

application of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(4) would

require the licensee to update the same

document within 6 months after a

refueling outage for either unit; a more

burdensome requirement than intended.

Accordingly, the Commission has

determined that special circumstances

are present as defined in 10 CFR

50.12(a)(2)(ii). The Commission has

further determined that, pursuant to 10

CFR 50.12, the exemption is authorized

by law, will not present an undue risk

to public health and safety, and is

consistent with the common defense

and security. The Commission hereby

grants the licensee an exemption from

the requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(4).

The licensee will be required to submit

updates to the FNP UFSAR within 6

months after the Unit 1 refueling outage.

With the current length of fuel cycles,

UFSAR updates would be submitted
37598 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 133 / Monday, July 13, 1998 / Notices

every 18 months, but not to exceed 24

months from the last submittal.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the

Commission has determined that the

granting of this exemption will have no

significant effect on the quality of the

human environment (63 FR 35985 dated

July 1, 1998).

This exemption is effective upon

issuance.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day

of July 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Samuel J. Collins,

Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–18548 Filed 7–10–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–483]

Union Electric Company Notice of

Consideration of Issuance of

Amendment to Facility Operating

License, Proposed No Significant

Hazards Consideration Determination,

and Opportunity for a Hearing

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of an amendment

to Facility Operating License No. NPF–

30 issued to Union Electric Company

(the licensee) for operation of the

Callaway Plant, Unit 1 located in

Callaway County, Missouri.

The proposed amendment would

support a modification to the plant to

increase the storage capacity of the

spent fuel pool.

Before issuance of the proposed

license amendment, the Commission

will have made findings required by the

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended

(the Act) and the Commission’s

regulations.

The Commission has made a

proposed determination that the

amendment request involves no

significant hazards consideration. Under

the Commission’s regulations in 10 CFR

50.92, this means that operation of the

facility in accordance with the proposed

amendment would not (1) involve a

significant increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of

a new or different kind of accident from

any accident previously evaluated; or

(3) involve a significant reduction in a

margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR

50.91(a), the licensee has provided its

analysis of the issue of no significant

hazards consideration, which is

presented below:

1. The proposed change does not

involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of an

accident previously evaluated.

In the analysis of the safety issues

concerning the expanded pool storage

capacity, the following previously

postulated accident scenarios have been

considered:

a. A spent fuel assembly drop in the

Spent fuel pool

b. Loss of Spent fuel pool cooling flow

c. A seismic event

d. Misloaded fuel assembly

The probability that any of the

accidents in the above list can occur is

not significantly increased by the

modification itself. The probabilities of

a seismic event or loss of spent fuel pool

cooling flow are not influenced by the

proposed changes. The probabilities of

accidental fuel assembly drops or

misloadings are primarily influenced by

the methods used to lift and move these

loads. The method of handling loads

during normal plant operations is not

significantly changed, since the same

equipment (i.e., Spent Fuel Handling

Machine) and procedures will be used.

A new offset handling tool will be

required to assess some storage rack

cells located adjacent to the pool walls.

The grapple mechanism, procedures,

and fuel manipulation methods will be

very similar to those used by the

standard fuel handling tool. Therefore,

this tool does not represent a significant

change in the methods used to lift or

move fuel. Since the methods used to

move loads during normal operations

remain nearly the same as those used

previously, there is no significant

increase in the probability of an

accident.

During rack removal and installation,

all work in the pool area will be

controlled and performed in strict

accordance with specific written

procedures. Any movement of fuel

assemblies required to be performed to

support the modification (e.g., removal

and installation of racks) will be

performed in the same manner as during

normal refueling operations. Shipping

cask movements will not be performed

during the modification period.

Accordingly, the proposed

modification does not involve a

significant increase in the probability of

an accident previously evaluated.

The consequences of the previously

postulated scenarios for an accidental

drop of a fuel assembly in the spent fuel

pool have been re-evaluated for the

proposed change. The results show that

the postulated accident of a fuel

assembly striking the top of the storage

racks will not distort the racks

sufficiently to impair their functionality.

The minimum subcriticality margin, Keff

less than or equal to 0.95, will be

maintained. The structural damage to

the Fuel Building, pool liner, and fuel

assembly resulting from a fuel assembly

drop striking the pool floor or another

assembly located within the racks is

primarily dependent on the mass of the

falling object and the drop height. Since

these two parameters are not changed by

the proposed modification, the

structural damage to these items

remains unchanged. Cycle specific

calculations, using core specific

parameters continue to ensure that the

radiological dose at the exclusion area

boundary remain within the limits

documented in the Callaway FSAR

[Final Safety Analysis Report]. Dose

levels will remain ‘‘well within’’ the

levels required by 10 CFR 100,

paragraph 11, as defined in Section

15.7.4.II.1 of the Standard Review Plan.

Thus, the results of the postulated fuel

drop accidents remain acceptable and

do not represent a significant increase in

consequences from any of the

previously evaluated accidents that

have been reviewed and found

acceptable by the NRC.

The consequences of a loss of spent

fuel pool cooling have been evaluated

and found to have no increase. The

concern with this accident is a

reduction of spent fuel pool water

inventory from bulk pool boiling

resulting in uncovering fuel assemblies.

This situation would lead to fuel failure

and subsequent significant increase in

offsite dose. Loss of spent fuel pool

cooling at Callaway is mitigated by

ensuring that a sufficient time lapse

exists between the loss of forced cooling

and uncovering fuel. This period of time

is compared against a reasonable period

to re-establish cooling or supply an

alternative water source. Evaluation of

this accident usually includes

determination of the time to boil. The

time allowed for operator actions is

much less than the onset of any

significant increase in offsite dose, since

once boiling begins it would have to

continue unchecked until the pool

surface was lowered to the point of

exposing active fuel. The time to boil

represents the onset of loss of pool

water inventory and is commonly used

as a gage for establishing the

comparison of consequences before and

after a reracking project. The heat up

rate in the Spent fuel pool is a nearly

linear function of the fuel decay heat

load. The fuel decay heat load will

increase subsequent to the proposed

changes because of the increase in the

number of assemblies. The methodology