47522 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 1997 / Notices

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 in any given

location 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 extremely

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 likely be precluded

through compliance with the Virgil C.

Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1,

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 Virgil C.

Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1, as

identified in the TS. The Virgil C.

Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1, TS

Section 5.6.1.2 states that the new fuel

storage racks are designed for dry

storage of fuel assemblies having a U–

235 enrichment less than or equal to 5.0

weight percent, while maintaining a keffective of less than or equal to 0.95 if

flooded with unborated water and less

than or equal to 0.98 for low density

optimum moderation conditions. FSAR

Section 9.1.1.1, New Fuel Storage,

specifies that the fuel racks are designed

to provide sufficient spacing between

fuel assemblies to maintain a subcritical

array assuming the most reactive

condition, and under all design loadings

including the safe shutdown

earthquake. FSAR Section 9.1.1.3 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 designed to

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 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 Virgil C.

Summer Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1,’’

dated January 1973, and ‘‘Final

Environmental Statement Related to the

Operation of the Virgil C. Summer

Nuclear Station, Unit 1,’’ dated May

1981.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on August 26, 1997, the staff consulted

with the South Carolina State official,

Mr. Virgil Autry of the Bureau of Solid

and Hazardous Waste Management,

Department of Health and

Environmental Control, 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 July 17, 1997, and supplemental

letter dated August 6, 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

Fairfield County Library, 300

Washington Street, Winnsboro, SC.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day

of August 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Vernon L. Rooney,

Acting Director, Project Directorate II–1,

Division of Reactor Projects—I/II, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–23984 Filed 9–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Nuclear

Regulatory Commission.

DATE: Weeks of September 8, 15, 22, and

29, 1997.

PLACE: Commissioners’ Conference

Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,

Maryland.

STATUS: Public and Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

Week of September 8

There are no meetings scheduled for

the week of September 8.

Week of September 15—Tenative

Wednesday, September 17

9:00 a.m. Briefing by DOE on Strategy

for MOX Fuel Fabrication and

Irradiation Services (PUBLIC

MEETING) (Contact: Ted Sherr,

301–415–7218)

10:30 a.m. Affirmation Session

(PUBLIC MEETING) (if needed)

Friday, September 19

10:00 a.m. Briefing on Improvements

in Senior Management Assessment

Process for Operating Reactors
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 1997 / Notices 47523

(PUBLIC MEETING) (Contact: Bill

Borchardt, 301–415–1257)

1:30 p.m. Briefing by DOE and NRC on

Regulatory Oversight of DOE

Nuclear Facilities (Public Meeting)

(Contact: John Austin, 301–415–

7275)

Week of September 22—Tentative

There are no meetings scheduled for

the week of September 22.

Week of September 29—Tentative

There are no meetings scheduled for

the week of September 29.

THE SCHEDULE FOR COMMISSION

MEETINGS IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE ON

SHORT NOTICE. TO VERIFY THE STATUS

OF MEETINGS CALL (RECORDING)—(301)

415–1292. CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE

INFORMATION: Bill Hill (301) 415–1661.

The NRC Commission Meeting

Schedule can be found on the Internet

at: http://www.nrc.gov/SECY/smj/

schedule.htm

This notice is distributed by mail to

several hundred subscribers: if you no

longer wish to receive it, or would like

to be added to it, please contact the

Office of the Secretary. Attn: Operations

Branch, Washington, D.C. 20555 (301–

415–1661).

In addition, distribution of this

meeting notice over the internet system

is available. If you are interested in

receiving this Commission meeting

schedule electronically, please send an

electronic message to wmh@nrc.gov or

dkw@nrc.gov.

Dated: September 5, 1997.

William M. Hill, Jr.,

SECY Tracking Officer, Office of the

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–23993 Filed 9–5–97; 3:00 pm]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–213]

Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power

Company; Issuance of Director’s

Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206

Notice is hereby given that the

Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation, has issued a Director’s

Decision concerning a Petition dated

March 11, 1997, filed by Ms. Rosemary

Bassilakis pursuant to Title 10 of the

Code of Federal Regulations Section

2.206 (10 CFR 2.206) on behalf of the

Citizens Awareness Network and the

Nuclear Information and Resource

Service (Petitioners). The petition

requests that, on the basis of the

repeated failures of the radiation

protection program at the plant, the

NRC (1) commence enforcement action

against the Connecticut Yankee Atomic

Power Company (CY) by means of a

large civil penalty to ensure compliance

with safety-based radiological control

routines, (2) modify CY’s license for the

Haddam Neck plant pursuant to 10 CFR

2.202 to prohibit any decommissioning

activity, which would include

decontamination or dismantling, until

CY manages to conduct routine

maintenance at the facility without any

contamination events for at least 6

months, and (3) place the Haddam Neck

plant on the NRC Watch List.

The Director, Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation, has determined that

the Petition should be deferred in part

and denied in part for the reasons stated

in the ‘‘Director’s Decision Under 10

CFR 2.206’’ (DD–97–19), the complete

text of which follows this notice and is

available for public inspection at the

Commission’s Public Document Room

at 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC,

and at the Local Public Document Room

for the Haddam Neck Plant at the

Russell Library, 123 Broad Street,

Middletown, Connecticut.

A copy of this decision has been filed

with the Secretary of the Commission

for the Commission’s review. As

provided by 10 CFR 2.206(c), this

decision will become final action of the

Commission 25 days after issuance

unless the Commission, on its own

motion, institutes a review of the

decision within that time.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day

of September 1997.

For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Samuel J. Collins,

Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. 50–213 (10 CFR 2.206)]

In the Matter of Connecticut Yankee

Atomic Power Company, (Haddam Neck

Plant)

Partial Director’s Decision Under 10

CFR 2.206

I. Introduction

On March 11, 1997, Ms. Rosemary

Bassilakis submitted a petition pursuant

to Title 10 of the Code of Federal

Regulations Section 2.206 (10 CFR

2.206) on behalf of the Citizens

Awareness Network and the Nuclear

Information and Resource Service

(Petitioners) requesting that the NRC (1)

commence enforcement action against

the Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power

Company (CY) by means of a large civil

penalty to assure compliance with

safety-based radiological control

routines, (2) modify CY’s license for the

Haddam Neck plant, pursuant to 10 CFR

2.202, to prohibit any decommissioning

activity, which would include

decontamination or dismantling, until

CY manages to conduct routine

maintenance at the facility without any

contamination events occurring for at

least 6 months, and (3) place the

Haddam Neck plant on the NRC Watch

List.

In support of their requests, the

Petitioners claimed that of particular

concern was Northeast Utilities’

inability to maintain proper radiological

controls at the Connecticut Yankee

(Haddam Neck) nuclear reactor. The

Petitioners quoted an NRC press release

describing continuing problems at the

Haddam Neck facility, and stated that in

their view the facility’s management

was making empty verbal assurances to

the NRC that contamination problems

were being properly controlled. The

Petitioners also alleged that the NRC

Confirmatory Action Letter (CAL) of

March 4, 1997, discussing radiological

controls at the Haddam Neck plant, is

clearly insufficient.

II. Background

The NRC staff shares the Petitioners’

concerns regarding the failures of the

Haddam Neck radiological controls

program and has detailed these

concerns in Inspection Reports 50–213/

96–12 (December 19, 1996) and 50–213/

97–02 (March 21, 1997), and in the

aforementioned CAL (discussed in more

detail below). In summary, these

failures resulted in the unplanned

exposure of two individuals,

longstanding discrepancies in the

calibration of several radiation monitors

that are used to monitor and control

radiological effluent releases, and the

inadequate control of radioactive

material that resulted in the undetected

release of contaminated equipment to a

non-licensed vendor.

In response, the NRC has taken

comprehensive and significant actions

to resolve its concerns in the area of

radiological controls, including the

aforementioned CAL, a required

licensee response to the findings in

Inspection Reports 96–12 and 97–02, a

management meeting with the former

CY management held at the NRC Region

I office, and a second management

meeting with the new CY management

held on May 28, 1997, in the NRC

Region I offices on these same issues.

This second management meeting gave

NRC regional and headquarters staff an

opportunity to meet the new Haddam

Neck management and confirm their

commitment to resolve the above

problems. The meetings were open to