Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 1997 / Notices 47521

because the State and local counties

within the emergency planning zone

have requested relief from the Federal

Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA) from participation in the offsite

portion of the scheduled 1997 exercise

due to hardships caused by recent

natural disasters.

The Need for the Proposed Action

The proposed action is deemed

necessary since the requirement for the

State and local counties to participate in

the offsite portion of the exercise is

beyond the licensee’s control. The

licensee requested this one-time

exemption in support of the State of

Minnesota’s request for relief from

FEMA requirements in 10 CFR Part 44

to biennially exercise offsite emergency

plans. The State and local counties

requested relief from FEMA

requirements (in accordance with

Section 350.9.c of 10 CFR Part 44) due

to the hardships caused by recent

natural disasters. In a letter dated

August 12, 1997, to FEMA Region V, the

State of Minnesota provided the specific

justifications for its relief request.

Section 50.54(q) of 10 CFR Part 50

requires a licensee authorized to operate

a nuclear power reactor to follow and

maintain in effect emergency plans that

meet the standards of 10 CFR 50.47(b)

and the requirements of Appendix E to

10 CFR Part 50. Section IV.F.2.c of

Appendix E requires that offsite plans

for each site shall be exercised

biennially with full participation by

each offsite authority having a role

under the plan. The NRC may, however,

grant exemptions from the requirements

of the regulations which, pursuant to 10

CFR 50.12(a), are (1) Authorized by law,

will not present an undue risk to the

public health and safety, and are

consistent with the common defense

and security, and (2) present special

circumstances.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The proposed action involves

administrative activities unrelated to

plant operation. The proposed action

will not increase the types or amounts

of effluents that may be released offsite,

nor increase occupational or offsite

radiation exposure. The proposed action

will not increase the probability or

consequences of accidents. Therefore,

the Commission concludes that there

are no radiological environmental

impacts associated with the proposed

action. The proposed action will not

result in a change in nonradiological

plant effluents and will have no other

nonradiological environmental impact.

Accordingly, the Commission concludes

that there are no nonradiological

environmental impacts associated with

the proposed action. The Commission

concludes that granting this one-time

exemption would not result in any

significant environmental impact.

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 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 Monticello Nuclear

Generating Plant dated November 22,

1972.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on September 3, 1997, the staff

consulted with the Minnesota State

official, Mr. Michael McCarthy of the

Department of Public 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 August 18, 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

Minneapolis Public Library, Technology

and Science Department, 300 Nicollet

Mall, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day

of September 1997.

For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Beth A. Wetzel,

Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate

III–1, Division of Reactor Projects—III/IV,

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–23822 Filed 9–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–395]

South Carolina Electric and Gas

Company (Virgil C. Summer Nuclear

Station, Unit No. 1); 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 No. NPF–12, issued to South

Carolina Electric and Gas Company (the

licensee), for operation of the Virgil C.

Summer Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1,

located in Fairfield County, South

Carolina.

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 July 17, 1997, as

supplemented August 6, 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
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