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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 156 / Wednesday, August 13, 1997 / Notices 43365

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 not involve the use

of any resources not previously

considered in the Final Environmental

Statement for the Point Beach Nuclear

Plant, Units 1 and 2.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on July 29, 1997, the staff consulted

with the Wisconsin State official, Ms.

Sarah Jenkins of the Wisconsin Public

Service Commission, 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 January 24, 1997, as

supplemented by letter dated May 15,

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 the local public document room

located at The Lester Public Library,

1001 Adams Street, Two Rivers, WI

54241.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day

of August 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Linda L. Gundrum,

Project Manager, Project Directorate III–1,

Division of Reactor Projects—III/IV, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–21360 Filed 8–12–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Biweekly Notice

Applications and Amendments to

Facility Operating LicensesInvolving

No Significant Hazards Considerations

I. Background

Pursuant to Public Law 97-415, the

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(the Commission or NRC staff) is

publishing this regular biweekly notice.

Public Law 97-415 revised section 189

of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as

amended (the Act), to require the

Commission to publish notice of any

amendments issued, or proposed to be

issued, under a new provision of section

189 of the Act. This provision grants the

Commission the authority to issue and

make immediately effective any

amendment to an operating license

upon a determination by the

Commission that such amendment

involves no significant hazards

consideration, notwithstanding the

pendency before the Commission of a

request for a hearing from any person.

This biweekly notice includes all

notices of amendments issued, or

proposed to be issued from July 19,

1997, through August 1, 1997. The last

biweekly notice was published on July

30, 1997, (62 FR 40843).

Notice Of Consideration Of Issuance Of

Amendments To Facility Operating

Licenses, Proposed No Significant

Hazards Consideration Determination,

And Opportunity For A Hearing

The Commission has made a

proposed determination that the

following amendment requests involve

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. The basis for this

proposed determination for each

amendment request is shown below.

The Commission is seeking public

comments on this proposed

determination. Any comments received

within 30 days after the date of

publication of this notice will be

considered in making any final

determination.

Normally, the Commission will not

issue the amendment until the

expiration of the 30-day notice period.

However, should circumstances change

during the notice period such that

failure to act in a timely way would

result, for example, in derating or

shutdown of the facility, the

Commission may issue the license

amendment before the expiration of the

30-day notice period, provided that its

final determination is that the

amendment involves no significant

hazards consideration. The final

determination will consider all public

and State comments received before

action is taken. Should the Commission

take this action, it will publish in the

Federal Register a notice of issuance

and provide for opportunity for a

hearing after issuance. The Commission

expects that the need to take this action

will occur very infrequently.

Written comments may be submitted

by mail to the Chief, Rules Review and

Directives Branch, Division of Freedom

of Information and Publications

Services, Office of Administration, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555-0001, and

should cite the publication date and

page number of this Federal Register

notice. Written comments may also be

delivered to Room 6D22, Two White

Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike,

Rockville, Maryland from 7:30 a.m. to

4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. Copies of

written comments received may be

examined at the NRC Public Document

Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L

Street, NW., Washington, DC. The filing

of requests for a hearing and petitions

for leave to intervene is discussed

below.

By September 12, 1997, the licensee

may file a request for a hearing with

respect to issuance of the amendment to

the subject facility operating license and

any person whose interest may be

affected by this proceeding and who

wishes to participate as a party in the

proceeding must file a written request

for a hearing and a petition for leave to

intervene. Requests for a hearing and a

petition for leave to intervene shall be

filed in accordance with the

Commission’s ‘‘Rules of Practice for

Domestic Licensing Proceedings’’ in 10

CFR Part 2. Interested persons should

consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.714

which is available at the Commission’s

Public Document Room, the Gelman

Building, 2120 L Street, NW.,

Washington, DC and at the local public

document room for the particular

facility involved. If a request for a

hearing or petition for leave to intervene

is filed by the above date, the

Commission or an Atomic Safety and

Licensing Board, designated by the

Commission or by the Chairman of the

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

Panel, will rule on the request and/or

petition; and the Secretary or the

designated Atomic Safety and Licensing

Board will issue a notice of a hearing or

an appropriate order.

As required by 10 CFR 2.714, a

petition for leave to intervene shall set

forth with particularity the interest of

the petitioner in the proceeding, and

how that interest may be affected by the

results of the proceeding. The petition

should specifically explain the reasons