Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 156 / Wednesday, August 13, 1997 / Notices 43363

person other than Mr. Nevin. If a person

other than Mr. Nevin requests a hearing,

that person shall set forth with

particularity the manner in which that

person’s interest is adversely affected by

this Order and shall address the criteria

set forth in 10 CFR 2.714(d).

If a hearing is requested by Mr. Nevin

or a person whose interest is adversely

affected, the Commission will issue an

Order designating the time and place of

any hearing. If a hearing is held, the

issue to be considered at such hearing

shall be whether this Order should be

sustained.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(i), Mr.

Nevin may, in addition to demanding a

hearing, at the time the answer is filed

or sooner, move the presiding officer to

set aside the immediate effectiveness of

the Order on the ground that the Order,

including the need for immediate

effectiveness, is not based on adequate

evidence but on mere suspicion,

unfounded allegations, or error.

In the absence of any request for

hearing, or written approval of an

extension of time in which to request a

hearing, the provisions specified in

Section IV above shall be final 20 days

from the date of this Order without

further order or proceedings. If an

extension of time for requesting a

hearing has been approved, the

provisions specified in Section IV shall

be final when the extension expires if a

hearing request has not been received.

An answer or a request for hearing shall

not stay the immediate effectiveness of

this order.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day

of August 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Ashok C. Thadani,

Acting Deputy Executive Director for

Regulatory Effectiveness.

[FR Doc. 97–21362 Filed 8–12–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

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 keffective 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 (keffective 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 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
43364 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 156 / Wednesday, August 13, 1997 / Notices

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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–266 and 50–301]

Wisconsin Electric Power Company

(Point Beach Nuclear Plant, 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 Licenses Nos. DPR–

24 and DPR–27, issued to Wisconsin

Electric Power Company, (the licensee),

for operation of the Point Beach Nuclear

Plant, Units 1 and 2, located in

Manitowoc County, Wisconsin.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

By letter dated January 24, 1997, as

supplemented by letter dated May 15,

1997, the licensee proposed to change

the technical specifications (TSs) to

allow an increase in fuel enrichment

(Uranium 235, U–235) to 5.0 weight

percent and to require the use of integral

fuel burnable absorbers for assemblies

with enrichments greater than 4.6

weight percent U–235. Point Beach TSs

currently limit fuel in the spent fuel

pool and new fuel storage racks to a

maximum enrichment of 44.8 grams of

U–235 per axial centimeter

(approximately 4.0 weight percent of a

standard fuel assembly and 46.8 grams

of U–235 per axial centimeter

(approximately 4.75 weight percent) of

an Optimized Fuel Assembly (OFA).

The Need for the Proposed Action

The licensee intends, in the future, to

use the more highly enriched fuel to

support longer fuel cycles. Currently, TS

15.5.4 limits the enrichment of fuel

assemblies stored in the spent fuel pool

and new fuel storage racks. Before the

licensee extends plant operating cycles,

it plans on receiving shipments of 5.0

weight percent fuel. Thus, the change to

the TSs was requested.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The Commission has completed its

evaluation of the proposed revision to

the TSs and concludes that storage and

use of fuel enriched with U–235 up to

5.0 weight percent at Point Beach

Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 is

acceptable. The safety considerations

associated with higher enrichments

were evaluated by the NRC staff and the

staff concluded that such changes

would not adversely affect plant safety.

The environmental impacts of

transportation resulting from the use of

higher enrichment are discussed in the

staff assessment entitled ‘‘NRC

Assessment of the Environmental

Effects of Transportation Resulting from

Extended Fuel Enrichment and

Irradiation,’’ dated July 7, 1988. This

assessment was published in the

Federal Register on August 11, 1988 (53

FR 30355), as corrected on August 24,

1988 (53 FR 32322) in connection with

an Environmental Assessment and

Finding of No Significant Impact related

to the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power

Plant, Unit 1. As indicated therein, the

environmental cost contribution of an

increase in fuel enrichment of up to 5

weight percent U–235 and irradiation

limits of up to 60 gigawatt days per

metric ton (GWD/MT) are either

unchanged, or may in fact be reduced

from those summarized in Table S–4 as

set forth in 10 CFR 51.52(c). These

findings are applicable to the proposed

amendments for Point Beach Nuclear

Plant, Units 1 and 2. Accordingly, the

Commission concludes that this

proposed action would result in no

significant radiological environmental

impact.

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, no changes are being

made to the authorized power level, 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 involve 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

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