45882 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 168 / Friday, August 29, 1997 / Notices

Location: Crary Lab, McMurdo

Station, Antarctica.

Dates: October 1, 1997–December 31,

1997.

Permit Application No. 98–012

6. Applicant: Donald B. Siniff, Dept. of

Ecology, Evolution and Behavior, 100

Ecology Building, University of

Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota 55108

Activity for Which Permit is

Requested: Taking. Import into the U.S.

The applicant plans to tag and release

approximately 350 Weddell adult seals

and approximately 550 Weddell pups as

part of a continuing investigation of the

McMurdo Sound Weddell seal

population, which was begun in the

early 1960’s and has continued to the

present. In addition, blood and tissue

samples will be taken from up to 300

individuals and imported to the U.S. for

DNA extraction and toxins analysis.

These samples are primarily to

supplement future research into the

paternity and genetic characteristics of

the McMurdo populations specifically

and Antarctic seals in general. Aspects

of this research are: (1) To continue the

long-term tagging studies by tagging all

pups born into the McMurdo Sound

population and to replace tags on

previously tagged individuals so they

will not be lost from the tagged

population; (2) to update estimates of

population parameters annually, using

mark-recapture surveys, to continue the

analyses and test of hypotheses

associated with this data base; (3)

collect blood and tissue samples for

research examining the social structure

and behavioral ecology of Weddell

seals. The samples will be analyzed at

the Universities of Minnesota and

Alberta for DNA fingerprinting; (4)

Previous research of stomach samples

from harvested seals indicated that

Antarctic silver fish is the major prey

constituent during the austral summer.

Since stomach content is no longer a

viable option, and otoliths from fecal

samples are often too eroded for

accurate age estimation, lavage

techniques (performed under

supervision of a marine mammal

veterinarian) offer a non-lethal

technique of obtaining this data; and (5)

VHF radio transmitters will be used to

monitor the activity of territorial males

during the breeding season in

conjunction with the studies of

behavioral ecology and paternity. The

radio transmitters will be attached with

marine epoxy and removed after use. If

animals cannot be recaptured, the radios

will fall off during their annual molt.

Location: McMurdo Sound vicinity,

Antarctica.

Dates: October 1, 1997–September 30,

1998.

Permit Application No. 98–013

7. Applicant: Donald B. Siniff, Dept. of

Ecology, Evolution and Behavior, 100

Ecology Building, University of

Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota 55108

Activity for Which Permit is

Requested: Take. Import into the U.S.

Enter Site of Special Scientific Interest.

The applicant proposes the enter the

White Island Site of Special Scientific

Interest (SSSI#18) to tag up to 15 adult

Weddell seals, and tag and draw blood

samples from approximately 5–8

Weddell pups, as part of a continuing

population biology study. The White

Island seal population has been a focus

of interest dating to the early 1960’s.

This group of seals represents an

isolated population that is very small

and the evidence suggests it has very

limited exchange of individuals with

the McMurdo Sound population. Since

intensive censusing was begun in the

late 1980’s, no new (tagged) adults have

appeared in the population. Thus, the

genetics of this population is of interest

because it will increase understanding

of such concepts as inbreeding

depression and genetic drift.

Location: SSSI#18—North-west White

Island, McMurdo Sound, Antarctica.

Dates: October 1, 1997–September 30,

1998.

Nadene G. Kennedy,

Permit Officer, Office of Polar Programs.

[FR Doc. 97–22985 Filed 8–28–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555–01–M

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 21, 1997, the

licensee proposed to change Technical

Specification (TS) 15.6.11, ‘‘Radiation

Protection Program’’ by revising all

references to 10 CFR part 20, section

20.203 to section 20.1601, and by

revising the footnote associated with

this TS to indicate dose rates are those

measured at no more than 30

centimeters from the source of

radioactivity in accordance with 10 CFR

20.1601(a)(1).

The Need for the Proposed Action

The proposed action is needed for the

licensee to be consistent with 10 CFR

part 50, Appendix I, in implementing

the revised 10 CFR part 20.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The Commission has completed its

evaluation of the proposed revision to

the TS and concludes that the

administrative changes associated with

updating the references to 10 CFR part

20 will not increase the types or

amounts of effluents that may be

released offsite, nor increase individual

or cumulative occupational radiation

exposure. 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

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.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 168 / Friday, August 29, 1997 / Notices 45883

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 21, 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

Lester Public Library, 1001 Adams

Street, Two Rivers, WI 54241.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd

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. 97–23042 Filed 8–28–97; 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 granting an exemption from

the requirements of 10 CFR 70.24(a) to

Wisconsin Electric Power Company,

(the licensee), in connection with the

operation of the Point Beach Nuclear

Plant (PBNP), Units 1 and 2, located in

Manitowoc County, Wisconsin, under

Facility Operating Licenses Nos. DPR–

24 and DPR–27.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of Proposed Action

The proposed action would exempt

the licensee 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 June 7, 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

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 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 PBNP, Units 1 and

2, 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

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 PBNP, as

identified in the Technical

Specifications and the Final Safety

Analysis Report (FSAR). PBNP

Technical Specifications Section 15.5.4,

‘‘Fuel Storage,’’ states that ‘‘The new

and spent fuel storage racks are

designed so that it is impossible to store

assemblies in other than the prescribed

storage locations. The fuel is stored

vertically in an array with sufficient

center-to-center distance between

assemblies to assure Keff<0.95 * * *.’’

FSAR Section 9.5, ‘‘Fuel Handling

System,’’ Subsection 9.5.1, ‘‘Design

Basis,’’ states the Point Beach general

design criterion for prevention of fuel

storage criticality is ‘‘Criticality in the

new and spent fuel storage pits shall be

prevented by physical systems or

processes. Such means as geometrically

safe configurations shall be emphasized

over procedural controls.’’

The proposed action would not result

in any significant radiological impacts.

The proposed action would not affect

radiological plant effluents nor cause

any significant occupational exposures

since the Technical Specifications,

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 action.

The proposed action does not result

in any significant nonradiological

environmental impacts. The proposed

action 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.