Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 98 /Thursday, May 21, 1998 / Notices 28013

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 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 design features that

prevent inadvertent criticality, the staff

has determined that it is unlikely that

an inadvertent criticality could occur

due to the handling of special nuclear

material 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 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 Cooper Nuclear

Station Technical Specifications (TSs),

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. TSs

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 the

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 Cooper

Nuclear Station, as identified in the TSs

and the Updated Safety Analysis Report

(USAR). Cooper Nuclear Station TSs

Section 5.5, Fuel Storage, states that,

‘‘The new fuel storage vault shall be

such that Keff dry is less than 0.90 and

flooded is less than 0.95. These Keff

limits are satisfied by maintaining the

maximum, exposure-dependent K∞ of

the individual fuel bundles ≤1.29.’’

USAR Section X–2.0, New Fuel Storage,

states that, ‘‘The new fuel racks shall be

designed with sufficient spacing

between the new fuel assemblies to

assure that under normal conditions

(dry) the fully loaded array will have a

Keff <0.90. Under abnormal conditions,

in the event of complete flooding, the

fully loaded array will have a Keff <0.95.

* * * The analysis, which shows that

the new fuel storage vault will have a

Keff ≤0.90 dry and a Keff <0.95 flooded,

provided the maximum exposuredependent K∞ ≤1.31, has been approved

by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

as a part of GESTAR II.’’ Note: to

provide further assurance, the Technical

Specifications have a more conservative

limit than the USAR.

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

Technical Specifications, 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 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 Operation of

Cooper Nuclear Station’’ dated February

1973.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on May 7, 1998, the staff consulted with

Mr. John Fassell, Health Physicist, of the

Nebraska Department 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 letter

dated February 23, 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 Auburn

Memorial Library, 1810 Courthouse

Avenue, Auburn, NE 68305.

Dated at Rockville, Md., this 14th day of

May 1998.

For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

James R. Hall,

Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate

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

of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–13509 Filed 5–20–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–397]

Washington Public Power Supply

System, Nuclear Project No. 2 (WNP–

2); Environmental Assessment and

Finding of No Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of an amendment

to Facility Operating License No. NPF–

21 issued to Washington Public Power

Supply System (the licensee), for

operation of WNP–2 located in Benton

County, Washington.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

The proposed action would revise the

maximum yield strength for emergency

core cooling system suction strainer

materials listed in the WNP–2 Final

Safety Analysis Report (FSAR).

The proposed action is in accordance

with the licensee’s application for

amendment dated April 16, 1998, as

supplemented by letters dated April 28

and May 8, 1998.
28014 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 98 /Thursday, May 21, 1998 / Notices

The Need for the Proposed Action

The proposed action is needed to

support the progression to startup for

WNP–2, which is currently in a

refueling outage. During this outage

newly designed suction strainers have

been installed in the suppression pool.

They are designed to protect ECCS

pumps from fibrous or other material

that could be transported to the

suppression pool after a design basis

accident such as a loss of coolant

accident. The licensee determined after

fabrication of these strainers that the

stanless steel material had measured

yield strength which exceeded the limit

which was specified in the FSAR.

Excessive yield strength can make the

stainless steel susceptible to stress

corrosion cracking (SCC) under certain

environmental conditions. The licensee

identified this as an unreviewed safety

issue and submitted an amendment

request which would change the yield

strength for the installed strainers.

Approval of this amendment will enable

the licensee to change reactor mode and

declare the strainers operable while

progressing to startup and full power

operation.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The Commission has completed its

evaluation of the proposed action and,

based on the testing and analytical

information provided by the licensee,

concludes that the increase in yield

strength for the specific material used in

the suction strainers is acceptable. The

licensee has an effective cleanup system

for the suppression pool, which

maintains a desired level of water

cleanliness sufficient to avoid

conditions that would support SCC.

Further, the licensee has conducted a

fracture mechanics analysis and has

determined that cracking in the surface

martensitic structure of the strainers

will not propagate to a critical size and,

thus, not jeopardize the strainers’ safety

related function of protecting the ECCS

pumps and spray nozzles. Also, the

licensee’s analysis has demonstrated

that the strainers have adequate

structural integrity to preclude failure

when the forces of design basis

hydrodynamic loads are applied. Lastly,

a Strauss test using actual strainer

material samples demonstrated

acceptable stress corrosion cracking

resistance.

The staff has concluded that this

change will not increase the probability

or consequences of accidents, no

changes are being made in the types of

any effluents that may be released

offsite, and there is no significant

increase in the allowable offsite or

occupational radiation exposure.

Accordingly, the Commission concludes

that there are no significant radiological

environmental impacts associated with

the proposed action.

With regard to potential

nonradiological impacts, the proposed

action does not affect nonradiological

plant effluents and has no other

environmental impact.

Accordingly, the Commission

concludes that there are no significant

environmental impacts associated with

the proposed action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

Since the Commission has concluded

there is no significant 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 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 for WNP–2.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on May 13, 1998, the staff consulted

with the Washington State official, Mr.

R. Cowley of the Department of Health,

State of Washington Energy Facility Site

Evaluation Council, 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 April 16, 1998, as supplemented

by letters dated April 28, 1998, and May

8, 1998, 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 Richmond Public Library,

955 Northgate Street, Richland,

Washington 99352.

Dated at Rockville, MD., this 14th day of

May 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Chester Poslusny,

Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate

IV–2, Division of Reactor Projects—III/IV,

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–13504 Filed 5–20–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Advisory Committee on Reactor

Safeguards, Subcommittee Meeting on

Thermal-Hydraulic Phenomena; Notice

of Meeting

The ACRS Subcommittee on ThermalHydraulic Phenomena will hold a

meeting on June 11–12, 1998, Room T–

2B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville,

Maryland.

Portions of the meeting will be closed

to public attendance to discuss

Westinghouse Electric Company

proprietary information pursuant to 5

U.S.C. 552b(c)(4).

The agenda for the subject meeting

shall be as follows:

Thursday, June 11, 1998—8:30 a.m.

until the conclusion of business.

Friday, June 12, 1998—8:30 a.m. until

the conclusion of business.

The Subcommittee will continue its

review of the Westinghouse AP600 Test

and Analysis Program (TAP) in support

of the AP600 design certification.

During this meeting, the Subcommittee

will focus its review on the issues

associated with the Westinghouse TAP

for the Passive Containment System,

including those identified in the

February 19, 1998 ACRS letter to the

NRC Executive Director for Operations.

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