Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 126 / Friday, June 28, 1996 / Notices 33781

proceeding, a petitioner shall file a

supplement to the petition to intervene

which must include a list of the

contentions which are sought to be

litigated in the matter. Each contention

must consist of a specific statement of

the issue of law or fact to be raised or

controverted. In addition, the petitioner

shall provide a brief explanation of the

bases of the contention and a concise

statement of the alleged facts or expert

opinion which support the contention

and on which the petitioner intends to

rely in proving the contention at the

hearing. The petitioner must also

provide references to those specific

sources and documents of which the

petitioner is aware and on which the

petitioner intends to rely to establish

those facts or expert opinion. Petitioner

must provide sufficient information to

show that a genuine dispute exists with

the applicant on a material issue of law

or fact. Contentions shall be limited to

matters within the scope of the

amendment under consideration. The

contention must be one which, if

proven, would entitle the petitioner to

relief. A petitioner who fails to file such

a supplement which satisfies these

requirements with respect to at least one

contention will not be permitted to

participate as a party.

Those permitted to intervene become

parties to the proceeding, subject to any

limitations in the order granting leave to

intervene, and have the opportunity to

participate fully in the conduct of the

hearing, including the opportunity to

present evidence and cross-examine

witnesses.

If a hearing is requested, the

Commission will make a final

determination on the issue of no

significant hazards consideration. The

final determination will serve to decide

when the hearing is held.

If the final determination is that the

amendment request involves no

significant hazards consideration, the

Commission may issue the amendment

and make it immediately effective,

notwithstanding the request for a

hearing. Any hearing held would take

place after issuance of the amendment.

If the final determination is that the

amendment request involves a

significant hazards consideration, any

hearing held would take place before

the issuance of any amendment.

A request for a hearing or a petition

for leave to intervene must be filed with

the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention:

Docketing and Services Branch, or may

be delivered to the Commission’s Public

Document Room, the Gelman Building,

2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, by

the above date. Where petitions are filed

during the last 10 days of the notice

period, it is requested that the petitioner

promptly so inform the Commission by

a toll-free telephone call to Western

Union at 1–(800) 248–5100 (in Missouri

1–(800) 342–6700). The Western Union

operator should be given Datagram

Identification Number N1023 and the

following message addressed to William

H. Bateman, Director, Project Directorate

IV–2: petitioner’s name and telephone

number, date petition was mailed, plant

name, and publication date and page

number of this Federal Register notice.

A copy of the petition should also be

sent to the Office of the General

Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001, and to M. H. Phillips Jr., Esq.,

Winston & Strawn, 1400 L Street NW,

Washington, DC 20005–3512, attorney

for the licensee.

Nontimely filings of petitions for

leave to intervene, amended petitions,

supplemental petitions and/or requests

for hearing will not be entertained

absent a determination by the

Commission, the presiding officer or the

presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing

Board that the petition and/or request

should be granted based upon a

balancing of the factors specified in 10

CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i)–(v) and 2.714(d).

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application for

amendment dated June 6, 1995, as

supplemented by letter dated April 22,

1996, which is available for public

inspection at the Commission’s Public

Document Room, the Gelman Building,

2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC,

and at the local public document room

located at the Richland Public Library,

955 Northgate Street, Richland,

Washington 99352.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day

of June 1996.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Timothy G. Colburn,

Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate

IV–2, Division of Reactor Projects III/IV, Office

of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 96–16556 Filed 6–27–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

[Docket Nos. 50–348 and 50–364]

Southern Nuclear Operating Company,

Inc.; Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plants,

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. NPF–2 and NPF–8, issued

to Southern Nuclear Operating

Company, Inc. (the licensee), for

operation of the Joseph M. Farley

(Farley) Nuclear Plants, Units 1 and 2,

located in Houston County, Alabama.

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 clearly audible

alarms if accidental criticality occurs in

each area in which special nuclear

material is handled, used, or stored. The

proposed action would also exempt the

licensee from the requirements of 10

CFR 70.24(a)(3) to maintain emergency

procedures for each area in which this

licensed special nuclear material is

handled, used, or stored to ensure that

all personnel withdraw to an area of

safety upon the sounding of the alarm

and to conduct drills and designate

responsible individuals for such

emergency procedures.

The proposed action is in accordance

with the licensee’s application for

exemption dated May 31, 1996.

The Need for the Proposed Action

Power reactor license applicants are

evaluated for the safe handling, use, and

storage of special nuclear materials. The

proposed exemption from criticality

accident requirements is based on the

original design for radiation monitoring

at Farley. Exemptions from the

requirements of 10 CFR 70.24(a)

‘‘Criticality Accident Requirements’’

were granted in the Special Nuclear

Material (SNM) licenses for each unit as

part of the 10 CFR Part 70 license.

However, with the issuance of the Part

50 license this exemption expired

because it was inadvertently omitted in

that license. Therefore, the exemption is

needed to clearly define the design of

the plant as evaluated and approved for

licensing.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The NRC staff 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 Farley Technical

Specifications, the geometric spacing of

fuel assemblies in the new fuel storage

facility and spent fuel storage pool, and

administrative controls imposed on fuel

handling procedures.

Inadvertent or accidental criticality of

SNM while in use in the reactor vessel
33782 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 126 / Friday, June 28, 1996 / Notices

is precluded through compliance with

the Farley Technical Specifications,

including reactivity requirements (e.g.,

shutdown margins, limits on control rod

movement), instrumentation

requirements (e.g., reactor power and

radiation monitors), and controls on

refueling operations (e.g., control rod

interlocks and source range monitor

requirements). In addition, the

operators’ continuous attention directed

toward instruments monitoring behavior

of the nuclear fuel in the reactor assures

that the facility is operated in such a

manner as to preclude inadvertent

criticality. Finally, since access to the

fuel in the reactor vessel is not

physically possible while in use and is

procedurally controlled during

refueling, there are no concerns

associated with loss or diversion of the

fuel.

SNM as nuclear fuel is stored in one

of two locations—the spent fuel pool or

the new fuel storage area. The spent fuel

pool is used to store irradiated fuel

under water after its discharge from the

reactor. The pool is designed to store the

fuel in a geometric array that precludes

criticality. In addition, existing

Technical Specification limits on keff are

maintained less than or equal to 0.95,

even in the event of a fuel handling

accident.

The new fuel storage area is used to

receive and store new fuel in a dry

condition upon arrival on site and prior

to loading in the reactor. The new fuel

storage area is designed to store new

fuel in a geometric array that precludes

criticality. In addition, existing safety

evaluations demonstrate that keff is

maintained less than or equal to 0.95

when the new fuel racks are fully

loaded and dry or flooded with

unborated water and less than or equal

to 0.98 for optimum moderation

conditions (e.g., because of the presence

of aqueous foam or mist) or in the event

of a fuel handling accident.

Fresh fuel is shipped in a plastic

wrap. In some cases the fuel is stored in

the new fuel storage racks with the

plastic wrap in place and in other cases

the plastic wrap is removed prior to

storage. In all cases where fuel is stored

with the plastic wrap in place, the wrap

either cannot hold water due to its

design or it is rendered incapable of

holding water prior to fuel storage.

Therefore, there is no concern that the

plastic wrap used as part of fresh fuel

storage will hold water from flooding

from overhead sources. Additionally, as

discussed above, the new fuel storage

racks have been analyzed for a

postulated flooded condition and the

results showed that keff is maintained

less than or equal to 0.95.

Both irradiated and unirradiated fuel

is moved to and from the reactor vessel,

and the spent fuel pool to accommodate

refueling operations. Also, unirradiated

fuel can be moved to and from the new

fuel storage area. In addition,

movements of fuel into the facility and

within the reactor vessel or within the

spent fuel pool occur. In all cases, fuel

movements are procedurally controlled

and designed to preclude conditions

involving criticality concerns.

Moreover, previous accident analyses

have demonstrated that a fuel handling

accident (i.e., a dropped fuel element)

will not create conditions which exceed

design specification. In addition, the

Technical Specifications specifically

address the refueling operations and

limit the handling of fuel to ensure

against an accidental criticality and to

preclude certain movements over the

spent fuel pool and the rector vessel.

In summary, exemptions from the

requirements of 10 CFR Part 70, Section

70.24 approved by the NRC in

connection with the SNM licenses for

Farley Units 1 and 2 were based upon

NRC’s finding that the inherent features

associated with the storage and

inspection of unirradiated fuel

established good cause for granting the

exemption and that granting such an

exemption at this time will not

endanger public life or property or the

common defense and security and is

otherwise in the public interest. The

training provided to all personnel

involved in fuel handling operations,

the administrative controls, the

Technical Specifications on new and

spent fuel handling and storage, and the

design of the new and spent fuel storage

racks in place preclude inadvertent or

accidental criticality. Since the

facilities, storage, and inspection and

procedures currently in place are

consistent with those in place at the

time the exemptions were granted in

connection with the SNM licenses, an

exemption from 10 CFR 70.24 is

appropriate.

The proposed exemption will not

affect radiological plant effluents nor

cause any significant occupational

exposures. Only a small amount, if any,

of radioactive waste is generated during

the receipt and handling of new fuel

(e.g., smear papers or contaminated

packaging material). The amount of

waste would not be changed by the

exemption.

With regard to potential

nonradiological impacts, the proposed

exemption involves systems located

within the restricted area as defined in

10 CFR Part 20. It does not affect

nonradiological plant effluents and has

no other environmental impact.

Accordingly, the Commission concludes

that there are no significant

nonradiological 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. The

principal alternative would be to deny

the requested exemption. 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 operation of

Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1

and 2, dated June 1972.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on June 14, 1996, the staff consulted

with the Alabama State official, Mr. Kirk

Whatley, of the Alabama Department of

Public Health, 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 May 31, 1996, which is available

for public inspection at the

Commission’s Public Document Room,

The Gelman Building, 2120 L Street,

NW., Washington, DC and at the local

public document room located at the

Houston-Love Memorial Library, 212 W.

Burdeshaw Street, Post Office Box 1369,

Dolthan, Alabama.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day

of June 1996.

For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Byron L. Siegel,

Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate

II–2, Division of Reactor Projects—I/II, Office

of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 96–16554 Filed 6–27–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P