Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 208 / Tuesday, October 28, 1997 / Notices 55837

also identify the specific aspect(s) of the

subject matter of the proceeding as to

which petitioner wishes to intervene.

Any person who has filed a petition for

leave to intervene or who has been

admitted as a party may amend the

petition without requesting leave of the

Board up to two weeks prior to the first

prehearing conference scheduled in the

proceeding, but such an amended

petition must satisfy the specificity

requirements described above.

Not later than 15 days prior to the first

prehearing conference scheduled in the

proceeding, a petitioner shall file a

supplement to the petition to intervene

which must include a list of the

contentions which are sought to be

litigated in the matter. Each contention

must consist of a specific statement of

the issue of law or fact to be raised or

controverted. In addition, the petitioner

shall provide a brief explanation of the

bases of the contention and a concise

statement of the alleged facts or expert

opinion which support the contention

and on which the petitioner intends to

rely in proving the contention at the

hearing. The petitioner must also

provide references to those specific

sources and documents of which the

petitioner is aware and on which the

petitioner intends to rely to establish

those facts or expert opinion. Petitioner

must provide sufficient information to

show that a genuine dispute exists with

the applicant on a material issue of law

or fact. Contentions shall be limited to

matters within the scope of the

amendment under consideration. The

contention must be one which, if

proven, would entitle the petitioner to

relief. A petitioner who fails to file such

a supplement which satisfies these

requirements with respect to at least one

contention will not be permitted to

participate as a party.

Those permitted to intervene become

parties to the proceeding, subject to any

limitations in the order granting leave to

intervene, and have the opportunity to

participate fully in the conduct of the

hearing, including the opportunity to

present evidence and cross-examine

witnesses.

If the amendment is issued before the

expiration of the 30-day hearing period,

the Commission will make a final

determination on the issue of no

significant hazards consideration. If a

hearing is requested, the final

determination will serve to decide when

the hearing is held.

If the final determination is that the

amendment request involves no

significant hazards consideration, the

Commission may issue the amendment

and make it immediately effective,

notwithstanding the request for a

hearing. Any hearing held would take

place after issuance of the amendment.

If the final determination is that the

amendment request involves a

significant hazards consideration, any

hearing held would take place before

the issuance of any amendment.

A request for a hearing or a petition

for leave to intervene must be filed with

the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention:

Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff,

may be delivered to the Commission’s

Public Document Room, the Gelman

Building, 2120 L Street, NW.,

Washington, DC, by the above date. A

copy of the petition should also be sent

to the Office of the General Counsel,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001, and to M.

J. Michael McGarry, III, Winston and

Strawn, 1200 17th Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20036, attorney for the

licensee.

Nontimely filings of petitions for

leave to intervene, amended petitions,

supplemental petitions and/or requests

for hearing will not be entertained

absent a determination by the

Commission, the presiding officer or the

presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing

Board that the petition and/or request

should be granted based upon a

balancing of the factors specified in 10

CFR 2.714(a)(1)(I)-(v) and 2.714(d).

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application for

amendments dated October 20, 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 Broad Street, Walhalla, South

Carolina.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd

day of October 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

David E. LaBarge,

Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate

II–2, Division of Reactor Projects—I/II, Office

of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–28529 Filed 10–27–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–416]

Entergy Operations, Inc., System

Energy Resources, Inc., South

Mississippi Electric Power

Association, Entergy Mississippi, Inc.;

Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1;

Environmental Assessment and

Finding of No Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC or the Commission)

is considering the issuance of an

exemption to Facility Operating License

No. NPF–29, which was issued to

Entergy Operations, Inc. (the licensee),

for operation of the Grand Gulf Nuclear

Station, Unit 1, (GGNS) located in

Claiborne County, Mississippi.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

The proposed action would exempt

the licensee from the criticality

monitoring requirement in 10 CFR

70.24(a), ‘‘Criticality Accident

Requirements,’’ 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 is for monitoring the storage of

SNM in the form of (1) not-in-use incore nuclear instrumentation (e.g.,

source range monitors), which contain

very small quantities of SNM, and (2)

unirradiated fuel. For the unirradiated

fuel, the exemption is requested for the

unirradiated fuel that is packaged in

accordance with 10 CFR Part 71,

‘‘Packaging and Transportation of

Radioactive Material,’’ while the fuel is

onsite and taken from the shipping

trucks to the spent fuel pool area to be

removed from the packaging, and the

unirradiated fuel that is stored in the

new fuel vault. The unirradiated fuel

that would be stored in the spent fuel

pool would have the required 70.24(a)

criticality accident monitoring system.

The proposed action is in accordance

with the licensee’s application dated

July 15, 1996, as supplemented by the

letters dated March 7 and April 29,

1997.

The Need for the Proposed Action

The proposed action would allow the

licensee an exemption from the

requirement to provide criticality

accident monitoring for the above two

forms of SNM, listed in its application,

while the forms are being stored at the

site within the security fence in

different plant areas (in-core nuclear
55838 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 208 / Tuesday, October 28, 1997 / Notices

instrumentation), or in the new fuel

vault (unirradiated fuel), or while the

unirradiated fuel is being transferred

from shipping trucks to the spent fuel

pool area to be removed from the Part

71 packaging.

The licensee stated that compliance to

the criticality accident monitoring

system requirements of 10 CFR 70.24(a)

would result in a considerable

expenditure of resources to install,

maintain and operate a criticality

monitoring system for the storage of the

two forms of SNM, and there should be

no concern about criticality ever

occurring with the two forms of SNM as

they are being stored onsite. There is too

small a quantity of SNM, in the form of

very thin coatings, present in the

nuclear instrumentation for criticality,

and unirradiated fuel assemblies would

only be removed from the NRCapproved (i.e., Part 71) packaging before

being stored in the spent fuel pool

where criticality monitors are in use, or

in the new fuel vault where there are no

criticality monitors.

In the new fuel vault, the unirradiated

fuel would be stored in racks which are

designed, as Safety Class 2 and Seismic

Category I, to withstand all credible

loadings to prevent damage and

distortion of the racks, and to keep the

subcriticality margin of at least 0.95

whether the vault is dry or flooded with

water. The new fuel vault is in a

concrete, Seismic Category I building

that is designed to preclude the

deleterious effects on the fuel by natural

phenomena such as earthquakes,

tornados, hurricanes, tornado missiles

and floods.

The Part 71 package design ensures

that a geometrically safe configuration

for the fuel is maintained during

transport, handling, storage and

accident conditions, and precludes

introduction of any moderating agents

due to leak-tight construction, and;

therefore, criticality is precluded due to

the construction of the package and the

storage configuration of the fuel in the

package.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The Commission has completed its

evaluation of the proposed action and

concludes that there is no significant

environmental impacts if the exemption

is granted. Inadvertent or accidental

criticality will be precluded through

compliance with the Technical

Specifications (TS), the design of the

fuel storage racks providing geometric

spacing of unirradiated fuel assemblies

in their storage locations, and

administrative controls imposed on fuel

handling procedures and the in-core

nuclear instrumentation. TS

requirements specify reactivity limits

for the fuel storage racks and minimum

spacing between the fuel assemblies in

the storage racks.

The proposed exemption to 10 CFR

70.24(a) does not affect the design or

operation of the plant, does not involve

any modifications to the plant or any

increase in the licensed power for the

plant, and will not create any new or

unreviewed environmental impacts that

were not considered in the Final

Environmental Statement (FES) related

to the operation of GGNS, NUREG–

0777, dated September 1981. The

proposed action will not increase the

probability or consequences of any

accidents. No changes are being made to

any structure, system, or component in

the plant, to how the plant is operated,

in the types or amounts of any effluents

that may be released offsite, and in the

allowable individual or cumulative

occupational radiation exposure for the

plant. The amount of radioactive waste

would not be changed by the proposed

exemption. Accordingly, the

Commission concludes that the

proposed exemption would not result in

any significant radiological impacts.

With regard to potential

nonradiological impacts, the proposed

action involves features located entirely

within the restricted area as defined in

10 CFR Part 20. It does not affect the

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 Actions

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 FES for the GGNS.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on October 20, 1997, the staff consulted

with the Mississippi State official,

Robert Goff of the Division of

Radiological Health, State Board of

Health, 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

letters dated July 15, 1996, March 7 and

April 29, 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 Judge

George W. Armstrong Library, 220 S.

Commerce Street, Natchez, Mississippi

39120.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day

of October, 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

David L. Wigginton,

Acting Director, Project Directorate IV–1,

Division of Reactor Projects III/IV, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–28531 Filed 10–27–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION.

[Docket No. 40–1162]

Western Nuclear, Inc.; Final Finding of

No Significant Impact; Notice of

Opportunity for Hearing

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) proposes to amend

NRC Source Material License SUA–56,

issued to Western Nuclear, Inc. (WNI),

by removing reference to the Day Loma

uranium heap leach site. To document

its review of the potential

environmental impacts associated with

the proposed action, the NRC staff

prepared an Environmental Assessment

in accordance with the requirements of

10 CFR Part 51. The conclusion of the

Environmental Assessment is a Finding

of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the

proposed licensing action.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Robert D. Carlson of the Uranium

Recovery Branch, Mail Stop TWFN 7–

J9, Division of Waste Management,

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and

Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555.

Telephone 301/415–8165.