41102 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 147 / Thursday, July 31, 1997 / Notices

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 is small enough to

preclude achieving a critical mass.

Because the fuel is not enriched beyond

4.75 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 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 McGuire Nuclear

Station Technical Specifications, 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. Technical

Specifications 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 to be prevented by

physical systems or processes,

preferably by use of geometrically safe

configurations. This is met at McGuire,

as identified in the Technical

Specification Sections 3/4.9 and 5.6 and

in the Updated Final Safety Analysis

Report (UFSAR) Section 9.1, by detailed

procedures that must be available for

use by refueling personnel. Therefore, as

stated in the Technical Specifications,

these procedures, the Technical

Specifications requirements, and the

design of the fuel handling equipment

with built-in interlocks and safety

features, provide assurance that it is

unlikely that an inadvertent criticality

could occur during refueling. In

addition, the design of the facility does

not include provisions for storage of fuel

in a dry location.

UFSAR Section 9.1.1, New Fuel

Storage, states that new fuel is stored in

the New Fuel Storage Racks located

within a New Fuel Storage Vault at each

McGuire unit. The new fuel storage

racks are arranged to provide dry

storage. The racks consist of vertical

cells grouped in parallel rows, six rows

wide and 16 cells long, which provide

support for the new fuel assemblies and

maintain a minimum center-to-center

distance of 21 inches between

assemblies. (Note that in none of these

locations would criticality be possible.)

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

Technical Specifications, design

controls (including geometric spacing

and design 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 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 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. 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 Operation of

McGuire Nuclear Station Units 1, 2, and

3’’ dated March 1972.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on July 12, 1997, the staff consulted

with the North Carolina State official,

Richard Fry of the Division of Radiation

Protection, North Carolina Department

of Environment, Health, and Natural

Resources, regarding the environmental

impact of the proposed exemption. 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 4, 1997, and supplement

dated March 19, 1997, which are

available for public inspection at the

Commission’s Public Document Room,

The Gelman Building, 2120 L Street,

NW., Washington, DC, and at local

public document room located at the J.

Murrey Atkins Library, University of

North Carolina at Charlotte, 9201

University City Boulevard, North

Carolina.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day

of July 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Peter S. Tam,

Acting Director, Project Directorate II–2,

Division of Reactor Projects—I/II, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–20190 Filed 7–30–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–413 and 50–414]

Duke Power Company, et al.; Catawba

Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2,

Environmental Assessment and

Finding of No Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of amendments to

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–35

and NPF–52, issued to Duke Power

Company, et al. (the licensee), for

operation of the Catawba Nuclear

Station, Units 1 and 2, located in York

County, South Carolina.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of Proposed Action

The proposed action would amend

the licenses to reflect the licensee’s

name change from ‘‘Duke Power

Company’’ to ‘‘Duke Energy

Corporation.’’
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 147 / Thursday, July 31, 1997 / Notices 41103

The proposed action is in response to

the licensee’s application dated June 12,

1997.

The Need for the Proposed Action

Duke Power Company changed its

name to ‘‘Duke Energy Corporation.’’

The facility operating licenses for

Catawba were issued to indicate the

name of the licensee as ‘‘Duke Power

Company,’’ and therefore need to be

amended to substitute the new name of

the licensee. The proposed action is

purely administrative.

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

amendments are granted. No changes

will be made to the design and licensing

bases, and procedures of the two units

at Catawba Nuclear Station. Other than

the name change, no other changes will

be made to the facility operating

licenses, including the Technical

Specifications.

The change will not increase the

probability or consequences of

accidents, no changes are being made in

the types of any effluents that may be

released offsite, and there is no

significant increase in the allowable

individual or cumulative occupational

radiation exposure. Accordingly, the

Commission concludes that there are no

significant radiological environmental

impacts associated with the proposed

action.

With regard to potential

nonradiological impacts, the proposed

action 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

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 action, the staff considered

denial of the proposed action. Denial of

the application 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 did not involve the

use of any resources not previously

considered in the Final Environmental

Statement related to the Catawba

Nuclear Station.

Agencies and Persons Contacted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on July 11, 1997, the staff consulted

with the South Carolina State official,

Virgil Autrey of the Bureau of

Radiological Health, South Carolina

Department of Health and

Environmental Control, regarding the

environmental impact of the proposed

amendments. The State official had no

comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

Based upon the foregoing

environmental assessment, the

Commission concludes that the

proposed amendments 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

amendments.

For further details with respect to the

proposed action, see the licensee’s

request for the amendments dated June

12, 1997, 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 York County Library, 138

East Black Street, Rock Hill, South

Carolina.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day

of July 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Peter S. Tam,

Acting Director, Project Directorate II–2,

Division of Reactor Projects—I/II, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–20188 Filed 7–30–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Updated Standard Review Plan

Chapter 7: Issuance, Availability

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC) has prepared an update to

Chapter 7, Instrumentation and

Controls, of NUREG–0800, ‘‘Standard

Review Plan for the Review of Safety

Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power

Plants,’’ (SRP). The updated SRP

Chapter 7, Revision 4, incorporates

changes in the NRC review criteria in

the area of instrumentation and control

(I&C) systems, particularly digital

computer-based I&C systems of nuclear

power plants that have occurred since

the last major revision of the SRP in

1981.

The revisions were derived from the

following programmatic areas: NRC

regulatory documents issued after the

1981 SRP revision; NRC staff positions

related to digital I&C system retrofits at

operating nuclear power plants as

documented in relevant safety

evaluation reports; NRC staff

endorsement of industry consensus

standards applicable to I&C systems;

NRC staff positions related to

evolutionary and advanced light water

reactor design reviews as presented in

SECY–91–292, ‘‘Digital Computer

Systems for Advanced Light Water

Reactors,’’ and the Staff Requirements

Memorandum on SECY–93–087,

‘‘Policy, Technical, and Licensing Issues

Pertaining to Evolutionary and

Advanced Light Water Reactor (ALWR)

Designs;’’ NRC design certification

safety evaluation reports for the General

Electric Advanced Boiling Water

Reactor Design and the ABB-CE System

80+ Design; and nuclear power plant

operating experience. The revised text

for the SRP Chapter 7 update includes

the resolution of public comments

received in response to the draft version

issued on December 6, 1996.

The updated SRP Chapter 7 is a

‘‘rule’’ for the purposes of the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act (5 U.S.C., Chapter 8). The

staff believes that SRP Chapter 7,

Revision 4 is a non-major rule and is in

the process of confirming this with the

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB).

The updated SRP Chapter 7, Revision

4 does not, by itself, establish any new

or revised requirements. It incorporates

previously established NRC staff

positions, and lessons learned from the

completed reviews of I&C systems in the

advanced light water reactors and

digital I&C system retrofits of operating

reactors. The review guidance described

in the updated SRP Chapter 7 will be

used by the NRC staff in the evaluation

of future submittals in connection with

applications for construction permits,

standard design certifications and

design approvals, combined operating

licenses, and operating plant license

amendments.

The updated SRP Chapter 7, Revision

4, is being made available to the public

as part of the NRC’s policy to inform the

nuclear industry and the general public

of regulatory procedures and policies.

SRP Chapter 7 will be revised

periodically, as appropriate, to

accommodate future new technologies,

information, and experience. The NRC

encourages comments from interested

parties. Comments and suggestions will