Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 124 / Monday, June 29, 1998 / Notices 35295

update their FSARs periodically.

According to 10 CFR 50.71(e)(4), the

time interval for the subsequent FSAR

updates must not exceed 24 months.

The last full update of the Zion UFSAR

was submitted to the NRC on July 5,

1996. Consequently, the next update

would be required to be submitted no

later than July 1998. However, ComEd is

requesting an exemption from this

requirement to allow them to update the

FSAR to reflect the present condition of

the units.

By letters dated February 13, 1998,

and March 9, 1998, ComEd informed the

NRC that Zion Nuclear Power Station,

Units 1 and 2, have permanently ceased

operations and both units are

completely defueled and all fuel has

been placed in the spent fuel pool for

long-term storage. By letter dated May 4,

1998, the NRC acknowledged Zion’s

permanent cessation of power operation

and permanent removal of fuel from the

reactor vessels.

Many of the systems and components

previously required for safety are no

longer needed because the Zion units

are permanently shut down. Therefore,

updating the current FSAR will provide

a description of components and

systems that are no longer relevant to

safety. Instead ComEd has proposed and

committed to prepare and submit an

update to the FSAR reflecting the

permanently defueled condition of Zion

Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2,

by December 31, 1998. This update will

become Zion’s Defueled Safety Analysis

Report (DSAR).

Because ComEd’s board decision on

January 14, 1998, to shut down Zion

was unexpected, ComEd staff did not

have adequate time to develop the

DSAR. Therefore, ComEd is requesting

an extension of the update interval to

allow sufficient time to develop and

submit the DSAR. In their letter dated

March 12, 1998, ComEd stated that

many of the technical, administrative,

and management resources needed to

develop a DSAR are the same as those

that would be involved in updating the

FSAR. Consequently, updating the

current FSAR by July 1998 would result

either in a delay in developing a DSAR

or in the expenditure of significant

additional resources to develop a DSAR

while preparing an UFSAR submittal in

parallel.

Based on the information provided

above, the extension of time interval

from July 1998 to December 1998 for the

submittal of the UFSAR would have no

impact on the ability of systems,

structures and components to perform

the safety functions required with the

plant permanently shut down, nor

would it affect the safety of activities

conducted with the facility in this

condition. The proposed time

exemption will not affect the potential

for undesirable impacts to the

environment.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The proposed action involves

administrative activities unrelated to

plant operation.

The proposed action will not result in

an increase in the probability or

consequences of accidents or result in a

change in occupational or offsite dose.

Therefore, there are no significant

radiological 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

environmental impacts associated with

this action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

Since the Commission has concluded

there are no significant environmental

impacts 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 the Zion Nuclear Power

Station.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on June 18, 1998, the staff consulted

with the Illinois State official, Frank

Niziolek of the Illinois Department of

Nuclear Safety, 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 March 12, 1998, 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

Waukegan Public Library, 126 N.

County Street, Waukegan, Illinois

60085.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day

of June, 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Ramin R. Assa,

Project Manager, Project Directorate III–2,

Division of Reactor Projects III/IV, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–17219 Filed 6–26–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–309]

Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company,

Maine Yankee Atomic 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 to Facility Operating License

No. DPR–36, a license held by the

Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company

(MYAPC or the licensee). The

exemption would apply to the Maine

Yankee Atomic Power Station, a

permanently shutdown plant located at

the MYAPC site in Lincoln County,

Maine.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

The proposed exemption would

modify security requirements to

eliminate certain equipment, to relocate

certain equipment, to modify certain

procedures, and reduce the number of

armed responders, due to the

permanently shutdown and defueled

status of the Maine Yankee facility.

The proposed action is in accordance

with the licensee’s application dated

November 25, 1997. The requested

action would grant an exemption from

certain requirements of 10 CFR 73.55,

‘‘Requirements for Physical Protection

of Licensed Activities in Nuclear Power

Plant Reactors against Radiological

Sabotage.’’

The Need for the Proposed Action

Maine Yankee was shut down in

December 1996. On August 7, 1997, the

licensee informed the Commission that

it had decided to permanently cease
35296 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 124 / Monday, June 29, 1998 / Notices

operations at Maine Yankee Atomic

Power Station and that all fuel had been

permanently removed from the reactor.

In accordance with 10 CFR 50.82(a)(2),

the certifications in the letter modified

the facility operating license to

permanently withdraw MYAPC’s

authority to operate the reactor and to

load fuel in the reactor vessel. In this

permanently shutdown condition, the

facility poses a reduced risk to public

health and safety. Due to this reduced

risk, certain requirements of 10 CFR

73.55 are no longer appropriate. An

exemption is required from portions of

10 CFR 73.55 to allow the licensee to

implement a revised Defueled Security

Plan that is appropriate for the

permanently shutdown and defueled

reactor facility.

Environmental Impact of the Proposed

Action

The Commission has completed its

evaluation of the proposed action. The

Commission concludes that exemption

from certain portions of 10 CFR 73.55

are acceptable given the reduced

consequences of the threat to a defueled

reactor site with respect to public health

and safety from an act of sabotage

resulting in the release of radioactive

material contained in the spent fuel.

The proposed change will not

increase the probability or consequences

of accidents, no changes are being made

in the types of effluents that may be

released offsite, and there is no

significant increase in the allowable

individual or cumulative occupational

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 involve features located

entirely with the restricted area as

defined in 10 CFR Part 20. It does not

affect non-radiological plant effluents

and has no other environmental impact.

Therefore, the Commission concludes

that there are no significant nonradiological 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 alternative

with equal or greater environmental

impact need not be evaluated. The

principal alternative to the action would

be to deny the request. Denial of the

exemption 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 the Final Environmental Statement

related to Operation of Maine Yankee

Atomic Power Station, (July 1972).

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on May 14, 1998, the NRC staff

consulted with Mr. Patrick Dostie of the

State of Maine, Department of Human

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 this

action, see the licensee’s letter, dated

November 25, 1997, which is available

for public inspection at the Commission

Public Document Room, Gelman

Building, 2120 L Street, NW.,

Washington, DC, and at the Local Public

Document Room at the Wiscasset Public

Library, High Street, Post Office Box

367, Wiscasset, Maine 04578.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day

of June 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Seymour H. Weiss,

Director, Non-Power Reactors and

Decommissioning Project Directorate,

Division of Reactor Program Management,

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–17218 Filed 6–26–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 70–7001; 70–7002]

Procedures for Managing Gaseous

Diffusion Plant Backfit Requirements;

Notice of Availability

On March 26, 1997, the U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission (NRC)

published a notice of availability of the

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and

Safeguards (NMSS) Policy and

Procedures Letter 1–53, ‘‘GDP Plant

Specific and Generic Backfit

Management.’’ This policy and

procedures letter contains guidance and

criteria for implementing the Gaseous

Diffusion Plant backfit requirements of

10 CFR Part 76.76.

NRC received public comments on

NMSS Policy and Procedures Letter 1–

53, and has issued a revised version.

This revised policy and procedures

letter is available for inspection at the

NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L

Street NW (lower level), Washington,

DC; the Paducah Public Library, 555

Washington Street, Paducah, Kentucky

42003 (Docket No. 70–7001); and the

Portsmouth Public Library, 1220 Gallia

Street, Portsmouth, Ohio 45662 (Docket

No. 70–7002).

For further information, contact Tom

Wenck, Office of Nuclear Material

Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555, telephone (301) 415–8088.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 15th day

of June 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Malcolm R. Knapp,

Acting Director, Office of Nuclear Material

Safety and Safeguards.

[FR Doc. 98–17216 Filed 6–26–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Advisory Committee on Reactor

Safeguards; Subcommittee Meeting on

Plant License Renewal; Notice of

Meeting

The ACRS Subcommittee on Plant

License Renewal will hold a meeting on

July 16, 1998, 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, July 16, 1998—8:30 a.m. until

the conclusion of business

The Subcommittee will discuss the

NRC staff’s activities associated with

license renewal, proposed staff’s plans

and schedule for reviewing the license

renewal application and related safety

issues. The Subcommittee will also

discuss the ACRS involvement in

reviewing the license renewal submittal

and related matters. 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