Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 162 / Thursday, August 21, 1997 / Notices 44495

occur in SNM handling or storage areas

at St. Lucie, Units 1 and 2.

The purpose of the criticality

monitors required by 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. The staff has

determined that it is extremely unlikely

that such an accident could occur;

furthermore, the licensee has radiation

monitors, as required by General Design

Criterion 63, in fuel storage and

handling areas. These monitors will

alert personnel to excessive radiation

levels and allow them to initiate

appropriate safety actions. The low

probability of an inadvertent criticality,

together with the licensee’s adherence

to General Design Criterion 63,

constitutes good cause for granting an

exemption to the requirements of 10

CFR 70.24.

IV

The Commission has determined that,

pursuant to 10 CFR 70.14, this

exemption is authorized by law, will not

endanger life or property or the common

defense and security, and is otherwise

in the public interest. Therefore, the

Commission hereby grants the Florida

Power and Light Company, et al., an

exemption from the requirements of 10

CFR 70.24.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the

Commission has determined that the

granting of this exemption will have no

significant impact on the environment

(62 FR 43363).

This exemption is effective upon

issuance.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day

of August 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Samuel J. Collins,

Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–22178 Filed 8–20–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–U

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–269, 50–270, and 50–287]

Duke Power Company; Oconee

Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3;

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. DPR–38,

DPR–47, and DPR–55, issued to Duke

Power Company (the licensee), for

operation of the Oconee Nuclear

Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 located in

Oconee 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.’’

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

Oconee 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, or procedures of the three units

at the Oconee Nuclear Station. Other

than the name change, no other changes

will be made to the facility operating

licenses.

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 not involve the use

of any resources not previously

considered in the Final Environmental

Statement related to the Oconee Nuclear

Station.

Agencies and Persons Contacted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on August 12, 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 Oconee County Library,

501 West South Street, Walhalla, South

Carolina.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day

of August 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Herbert N. Berkow,

Director, Project Directorate II–2, Division of

Reactor Projects—I/II, Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–22180 Filed 8–20–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–U

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–280 and 50–281]

Virginia Electric and Power Company,

Surry Power Station; Environmental

Assessment and Finding of No

Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is
44496 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 162 / Thursday, August 21, 1997 / Notices

considering issuance of an exemption

from certain requirements of its

regulations for Facility Operating

License No. DPR–32 and Facility

Operating License No. DPR–37, issued

to Virginia Electric and Power Company

(the licensee), for operation of the Surry

Power Station located in Surry County,

Virginia.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of Proposed Action

The proposed action would exempt

Virginia Electric and Power Company

from the requirements of 10 CFR

70.24(a), which requires a monitoring

system that will energize clear 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 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, 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 January 28, 1997, as

supplemented March 24, 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 special nuclear

material, 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 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

4.1 weight percent Uranium-235 and

because commercial nuclear plant

licensees have procedures and features

designed to prevent inadvertent

criticality, the staff has determined that

inadvertent criticality is not likely to

occur due to the handling of special

nuclear material at a commercial power

reactor. The requirements of 10 CFR

70.24(a), 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 Surry Power

Station 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

that 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 Surry

Units 1 and 2, as identified in the TS.

Surry TS Section 5.4, Fuel Storage,

states that the new fuel assemblies are

stored vertically in an array with a

distance of 21 inches between

assemblies to assure that the effective

neutron multiplication factor, Keff, will

remain ≤ 0.95 if fully flooded with

unborated water, and to assure Keff ≤

0.98 under conditions of low-density

optimum moderation. The spent fuel

assemblies are stored vertically in an

array with a distance of 14 inches

between assemblies to assure Keff ≤ 0.95

if fully flooded with unborated water.

The proposed exemption would not

result in any significant radiological

impacts. The proposed exemption

would not affect radiological plant

effluents 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 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 for the Surry Power Station.’’

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy

the NRC staff consulted with Mr.

Foldesi of the Virginia Department of

Health on August 15, l997, 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 28, 1997, as

supplemented March 24, 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 Swem

Library, College of William and Mary,

Williamsburg, Virginia.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day

of August 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Herbert N. Berkow,

Director, Project Directorate II–2, Division of

Reactor Projects I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–22179 Filed 8–20–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–U