49540 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 183 / Monday, September 22, 1997 / Notices

point when not in use. The security

officers at each entrance station use the

photograph on the badge to visually

identify the individual requesting

access. The badges for Southern Nuclear

employees and contractor personnel

who have been granted unescorted

access are given to the individuals at the

entrance location upon entry and are

returned upon exit. In accordance with

10 CFR 73.55(d)(5), the badges are not

allowed to be taken offsite.

The licensee proposes to implement

an alternate unescorted access control

system that would eliminate the need to

issue and retrieve badges at the entry

point and would allow all individuals

with unescorted access to keep their

badges when departing the site. An

exemption from 10 CFR 73.55(d)(5) is

required to permit contractors to take

their badges offsite instead of returning

them when exiting the site.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

Because the proposed action involves

administrative matters within the

protected area as defined in 10 CFR Part

20, the Commission concludes that this

proposed action would result in no

significant radiological impacts. With

regard to potential nonradiological

impacts, the proposed action does not

affect nonradiological plant effluents

and has no other environmental impact.

Therefore, the Commission concludes

that there are no significant

environmental impacts associated with

the proposed action.

Alternative to the Proposed Action

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 operation of the

Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit 1

dated October 1972, and Unit 2 dated

March 1978.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on August 22, 1997, the staff consulted

with the Georgia State official, Mr.

James Setser of the Environmental

Protection Division, Georgia Department

of Natural Resources, regarding the

environmental impact of the proposed

action. The State official had no

comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

Based upon the foregoing

environmental assessment, the

Commission has determined not to

prepare an environmental impact

statement for the proposed exemption.

Accordingly, the Commission has

concluded that the proposed action will

not have a significant effect on the

quality of the human environment.

For further details with respect to this

action, see the request for exemption

dated July 2, 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

Burke County Public Library, 412

Fourth Street, Waynesboro, Georgia.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day

of September 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. 97–25081 Filed 9–19–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–338 AND 50–339]

Virginia Electric and Power Company;

North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and

2 Environmental Assessment and

Finding of No Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of an exemption

from the provisions of 10 CFR 70.24(a)

to Virginia Electric and Power Company

(the licensee) for North Anna Power

Station, Units 1 and 2 (NPS1&2), located

in Louisa County, Virginia.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of Proposed Action

The proposed action would exempt

the licensee from the requirements of 10

CFR 70.24(a), which require 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 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(a) is to

ensure that if a criticality were to occur

during the handling, use, or storing of

SNM, 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

SNM that could be assembled into a

critical mass is in the form of nuclear

fuel. The quantity of other forms of

special nuclear materials that is stored

onsite is small enough to preclude

achieving critical mass. Since the fuel is

not enriched beyond 4.3 weight percent

Uranium-235 and commercial nuclear

power plant licensees have procedures

and features that are designed to prevent

inadvertent criticality, the staff has

determined that inadvertent criticality is

not likely to occur during the handling

of the special nuclear material. 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 plants.

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 the

design of the fuel racks providing

geometric spacing of fuel assemblies in

their storage locations, compliance with

the NPS Technical Specifications (TS),

and administrative controls imposed on

fuel handling procedures.

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 NPS1&2,

as identified in section 5.6 of the TS.

Section 5.6.1.1 of the TS states the

geometrically safe configurations for
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 183 / Monday, September 22, 1997 / Notices 49541

new fuel stored in the new fuel pit

storage racks or spent fuel storage racks.

The new fuel storage area at North

Anna is used to receive and store new

fuel in a dry condition upon arrival

onsite and prior to loading into the

reactor. The new fuel is stored vertically

in an array with a distance of 21 inches

between assemblies to assure Keff is less

than or equal to 0.98 with fuel of the

highest anticipated enrichment in place

assuming optimum moderation, e.g., an

aqueous foam envelopment as a result of

local fire fighting operations. Both

irradiated and unirradiated fuel are

moved to and from the reactor vessel

and the spent fuel pool to accommodate

refueling operations, as well as within

the reactor vessel and spent fuel pool.

Unirradiated fuel is also moved into the

Fuel Building for storage and to and

from the new fuel storage area. In every

case, fuel movement is procedurally

controlled and designed to preclude

criticality concerns. In addition, the TS

specifically address refueling operations

and impose restrictions on fuel

movement to preclude an accidental

criticality, as well as limit the

movement of certain loads over the

spent fuel in the reactor vessel and the

spent fuel pool.

The proposed exemption would not

result in any significant radiological

impacts. The proposed exemption

would not affect radiological 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 has 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 resources not previously considered

in connection with the Final

Environmental Statement related to the

operation of North Anna Power Station,

Units 1 and 2, issued by the

Commission in April 1973.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

the NRC staff consulted with Mr.

Foldesi of the Virginia Department of

Health on July 14, 1997, regarding the

environmental impact of the proposed

action. Mr. Foldesi had no comments on

behalf of the Commonwealth of

Virginia.

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 exemption.

For further details with respect to this

action, see the request for exemption

dated January 28, 1997, as

supplemented March 3, 1997, which is

available for public inspection at the

Commission’s Public Document Room,

2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC

20555 and at the local public document

room located at the Alderman Library,

Special Collections Department,

University of Virginia, Charlottesville,

Virginia 22903–2498.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 16th day

of September, 1997.

For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Gordon E. Edison,

Acting Director, Project Directorate II–1,

Division of Reactor Projects—I/II, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–25079 Filed 9–19–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Advisory Committee on Reactor

Safeguards Subcommittee Meeting on

Reactor Fuels, Onsite Fuel Storage,

and Decommissioning; Notice of

Meeting

The ACRS Subcommittee on Reactor

Fuels, Onsite Fuel Storage, and

Decommissioning will hold a meeting

on October 9, 1997, Room T–2B3, 11545

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.

The entire meeting will be open to

public attendance.

The agenda for the subject meeting

shall be as follows:

Thursday, October 9, 1997—8:30 a.m.

until the conclusion of business.

The Subcommittee will discuss the

basis of the NRC proposed fuel failure

criterion for high burnup conditions,

and the behavior and adequacy of NRC

fuel codes under accident conditions.

The Electric Power Research Institute

representatives will present their views

on this matter. The purpose of this

meeting is to gather information,

analyze relevant issues and facts, and to

formulate proposed positions and

actions, as appropriate, for deliberation

by the full Committee.

Oral statements may be presented by

members of the public with the

concurrence of the Subcommittee

Chairman; written statements will be

accepted and made available to the

Committee. Electronic recordings will

be permitted only during those portions

of the meeting that are open to the

public, and questions may be asked only

by members of the Subcommittee, its

consultants, and staff. Persons desiring

to make oral statements should notify

the cognizant ACRS staff engineer

named below five days prior to the

meeting, if possible, so that appropriate

arrangements can be made.

During the initial portion of the

meeting, the Subcommittee, along with

any of its consultants who may be

present, may exchange preliminary

views regarding matters to be

considered during the balance of the

meeting.

The Subcommittee will then hear

presentations by and hold discussions

with representatives of the Electric

Power Research Institute, Nuclear

Energy Institute, the NRC staff, their

consultants, and other interested

persons regarding this review.

Further information regarding topics

to be discussed, whether the meeting

has been cancelled or rescheduled, the

Chairman’s ruling on requests for the

opportunity to present oral statements

and the time allotted therefor can be

obtained by contacting the cognizant

ACRS staff engineer, Dr. Medhat ElZeftawy (telephone 301/415–6889)

between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (EDT).

Persons planning to attend this meeting

are urged to contact the above named

individual one or two working days

prior to the meeting to be advised of any

potential changes in the proposed

agenda, etc., that may have occurred.