Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 1998 / Notices 25885

participate fully in the conduct of the

hearing, including the opportunity to

present evidence and cross-examine

witnesses.

If a hearing is requested, the

Commission will make a final

determination on the issue of no

significant hazards consideration. 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.

Normally, the Commission will not

issue the amendment until the

expiration of the 30-day notice period.

However, should circumstances change

during the notice period such that

failure to act in a timely way would

result, for example, in derating or

shutdown of the facility, the

Commission may issue the license

amendment before the expiration of the

30-day notice period, provided that its

final determination is that the

amendment involves no significant

hazards consideration. The final

determination will consider all public

and State comments received. Should

the Commission take this action, it will

publish in the Federal Register a notice

of issuance and provide for opportunity

for a hearing after issuance. The

Commission expects that the need to

take this action will occur very

infrequently.

A request for a hearing or a petition

for leave to intervene that seeks to

invoke the hybrid hearing procedures in

accordance with this notice must be

filed with the Secretary of the

Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001, Attention: Rulemakings and

Adjudications Staff, or 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 Mr. Arthur H.

Domby, Troutman Sanders,

NationsBank Plaza, Suite 5200, 600

Peachtree Street, NE., Atlanta, Georgia,

attorney for the licensee.

Untimely 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 September 4, 1997,

as supplemented by letter dated

November 20, 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

Burke County Public Library, 412

Fourth Street, Waynesboro, Georgia.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day

of May 1998.

For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

David H. Jaffe,

Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate

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

of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–12392 Filed 5–8–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–280 AND 50–281]

Virginia Electric and Power Company;

Surry Power Station 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. DPR–32 and Facility

Operating License No. DPR–37, issued

to Virginia Electric and Power Company

(the licensee), for operation of the Surry

Power Station located in Surry County,

Virginia.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of Proposed Action

The proposed action would exempt

Virginia Electric and Power Company

from the requirements of 10 CFR

70.24(a), which requires, in each area in

which special nuclear material is

handled, used, or stored, a monitoring

system that will energize clear audible

alarms if accidental criticality occurs.

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 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 January 14, 1998.

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

4.3 weight percent Uranium-235 and

because commercial nuclear plant

licensees have procedures and features

designed to prevent inadvertent

criticality, the staff has determined that

inadvertent criticality is not likely to

occur due to the handling of special

nuclear material at a commercial power

reactor. 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 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 Surry Power

Station 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
25886 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 1998 / Notices

physical systems or processes,

preferably by use of geometrically safe

configurations. This is met at Surry

Units 1 and 2, as identified in the TS.

Surry TS Section 5.4, Fuel Storage,

states that the new fuel assemblies are

stored vertically in an array with a

distance of 21 inches between

assemblies to assure that the effective

neutron multiplication factor, Keff, will

remain ≤ 0.95 if fully flooded with

unborated water, and to assure Keff ≤

0.98 under conditions of low-density

optimum moderation. The spent fuel

assemblies are stored vertically in an

array with a distance of 14 inches

between assemblies to assure Keff ≤ 0.95

if fully flooded with unborated water.

The proposed exemption would not

result in any significant radiological

impacts. The proposed exemption

would not affect radiological plant

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 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 for the Surry Power Station.’’

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy

the NRC staff consulted with Mr.

Foldesi of the Virginia Department of

Health on April 22, 1998, 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 14, 1998, which is

available for public inspection at the

Commission’s Public Document Room,

which is located at The Gelman

Building, 2120 L Street, NW.,

Washington, DC, and at the local public

document room located at the Swem

Library, College of William and Mary,

Williamsburg, Virginia.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day

of May 1998.

For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Pao-Tsin Kuo,

Acting Director, Project Directorate II–1,

Division of Reactor Projects I/II, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–12393 Filed 5–8–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Nuclear

Regulatory Commission.

DATE: Wednesday, May 13, 1998.

PLACE: Commissioners’ Conference

Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,

Maryland.

STATUS: Public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

Wednesday, May 13

10:30 a.m. Affirmation Session (Public

Meeting)

a. Final Rule: Amendments to 10 CFR

Parts 30, 40, 50, 70, and 72-SelfGuarantee of Decommissioning

Funding by Non-Profit and NonBond Issuing Licensee.

b. Final Rule: Revision of 10 CFR

32.14 (D) to Place Timepieces

Containing Gaseous Tritium Light

Sources on the Same Regulatory

Basis as Timepieces Containing

Tritium Paint (Contact: Ken Hart,

301–415–1659).

* 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.

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–

415–1963).

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: May 6, 1998.

William M. Hill, Jr.,

Secretary, Tracking Officer, Office of the

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–12528 Filed 5–7–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–335, 50–389, 50–250, 50–

251 License Nos. DPR–67, NPF–16, DPR–

31, DPR–41]

Florida Power and Light; Receipt of

Petition for Director’s Decision Under

10 CFR 2.206

Notice is hereby given that by

Petitions dated February 26 and 27,

March 6, 15, 17, 29, and 30, and April

4, 1998, Thomas J. Saporito, Jr. and

National Litigation Consultants

(Petitioners) have requested that the

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC) take action with regard to Florida

Power and Light’s (FPL’s) St. Lucie

Plant, Units 1 and 2, and Turkey Point

Plant, Units 3 and 4.

Petitioners request that the NRC take

numerous actions, including certain

immediate actions, with regard to the

FPL St. Lucie and Turkey Point

facilities. These actions include that the

NRC: (1) Take escalated enforcement

action, including modifying,

suspending, or revoking FPL’s operating

licenses until it demonstrates that there

is a work environment which

encourages employees to raise safety

concerns directly to the NRC, and the

issuance of civil penalties for violations

of the NRC’s requirements; (2) permit

Petitioners to intervene in a public

hearing regarding whether FPL has

violated the NRC’s employee protection

regulations and require FPL to allow the

National Litigation Consultants to assist

its employees in understanding and

exercising their rights under these

regulations; (3) conduct investigations