Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 127 /Thursday, July 2, 1998 / Notices 36277

Accordingly, the Commission

concludes there are no significant

environmental impacts associated with

this action.

Alternative to the Proposed Action

Since the Commission has concluded

that 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 exemption would

result in no change in current

environmental impacts. The

environmental impacts of the proposed

exemption and this alternative 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 Turkey Point Plant

dated July 1972.

Agencies and Persons Contacted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on May 28, 1998, the staff consulted

with the Florida State official, Mr.

William A. Passetti, Chief, Office of

Radiation Control, 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 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 licensee’s request for the

exemption dated March 5, 1998, which

is available for public inspection at the

Commission’s Public Document Room,

Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW.,

Washington, DC, and at the local public

document room located at the Library,

Florida International University,

University Park Campus, Miami, Florida

33199.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day

of June 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Frederick J. Hebdon,

Director, Project Directorate II–3, Division of

Reactor Projects—I/II, Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–17605 Filed 7–1–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–1–M

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket 72–16]

Virginia Electric and Power Company,

Issuance of Environmental

Assessment and Finding of No

Significant Impact Regarding the

Proposed Exemptions From

Requirements of 10 CFR Part 72

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC or the Commission)

is considering issuance of an exemption

from certain requirements of its

regulations to Virginia Electric and

Power Company (Virginia Power). The

requested exemption would allow

Virginia Power to submit the report of

preoperational test acceptance criteria

and test results at least 3 days (instead

of 30 days) prior to the receipt of fuel

at its independent spent fuel storage

installation (ISFSI) at the North Anna

Power Station (Docket Nos. 50–338 and

50–339) in Louisa County, Virginia.

Environmental Assessment (EA)

Identification of Proposed Action

By letter dated June 12, 1998, Virginia

Power requested an exemption from the

requirement in 10 CFR 72.82(e) which

states that ‘‘A report of the

preoperational test acceptance criteria

and test results must be submitted . . .

at least 30 days prior to the receipt of

spent fuel or high level waste.’’ Virginia

Power proposed to submit this report 3

days prior to receipt of fuel at the ISFSI.

Granting the exemption at this time

would enable Virginia Power to proceed

with activities to support its scheduled

Unit 1 refueling outage.

Need for the Proposed Action:

Virginia Power’s request is to ensure

the availability of adequate storage

space in the spent fuel pool to support

its upcoming Unit 1 refueling outage

which is scheduled to begin in

September 1998. New fuel for the outage

is scheduled to arrive onsite on July 21,

1998. To load the new fuel into the

spent fuel pool and still retain a single

unit full core offload capacity in the

spent fuel pool, Virginia Power plans to

load its first spent fuel storage cask

during the week of July 6, 1998.

The purpose of the 30-day period, for

the applicant to submit a report of the

preoperational test acceptance criteria

and test results, is to establish a

sufficient hold point to ensure that the

NRC has enough time to inspect a new

licensee’s preparation and, if necessary,

exercise its regulatory authority before

fuel is received at an ISFSI. For

example, an ISFSI located at an awayfrom-reactor site may not have a

resident inspector, therefore, the full 30-

day period might be necessary to

provide enough time for the NRC to

review the licensee’s records and

preoperational test results and, if

needed, send inspectors to the site. The

North Anna ISFSI is located on a reactor

site that has resident inspectors, and the

resident and other NRC inspectors were

present to observe portions of the

preoperational test activities as they

were being conducted. The NRC

inspectors will also have ongoing access

to the applicant’s tests procedures and

results to allow the inspectors to

conduct the appropriate review. Thus,

in view of the NRC’s oversight presence

during the preoperational testing phase

at North Anna, as well as NRC’s

immediate access to the applicant’s test

procedures and results, the Commission

concludes that the entire 30 days

provided for in the rule will not be

needed for the NRC to complete its

inspection activities and determine

whether any further regulatory action is

needed before spent fuel is received at

the North Anna ISFSI. However, the

NRC may determine that it requires

more than the requested 3 days to

review the test results. The NRC will

consider the specific amount of time

needed to review the North Anna

preoperational test results in its final

response to the request for exemption.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The Environmental Assessment (EA)

for the license application for the North

Anna ISFSI (62 FR 16202, April 4, 1997)

considered the potential environmental

impacts of construction and operation of

an ISFSI at the North Anna site. In the

EA, the NRC concluded that storage of

spent fuel at the North Anna ISFSI will

not significantly affect the quality of the

environment. The proposed actions now

under consideration would not change

the potential environmental effects

assessed in the EA. Specifically, there

are no environmental impacts

associated with the time frame for

submitting the preoperational test

acceptance criteria and test results. As

previously discussed, the 30-day period

is to provide the NRC sufficient

opportunity to review the licensee’s

report. However, as NRC inspectors

were on site during the applicant’s

preoperational tests, which were

conducted between June 8 and June 18,

1998, the shorter 3-day period will

provide the same, sufficient

opportunity. In addition, the proposed

exemption does not involve any changes

that increase the probability or

consequences of accidents, change the
36278 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 127 /Thursday, July 2, 1998 / Notices

types of effluents that may be released

offsite, or would significantly increase

the allowable individual or cumulative

occupational radiation exposure.

Accordingly, the Commission concludes

that this proposed exemption will have

no significant radiological or

nonradiological environmental impacts.

Alternative to the Proposed Action

Since there is no significant

environmental impact associated with

the proposed action, any alternatives

with equal or greater environmental

impact are not evaluated. The

alternative to the proposed action would

be to deny approval of the exemption

and, therefore, require the

preoperational test acceptance criteria

and test report to be submitted 30 days

prior to receipt of spent fuel, rather than

3 days as proposed. This alternative

would have no significant

environmental impacts as well.

However, denial of the requested

exemption could result in loss of full

core offload capability. The licensee is

not required to maintain a full core

offload capability, however, it is an

operationally advantageous capability.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

An official from the State of Virginia

Bureau of Radiological Health was

contacted about this EA for the

proposed action and had no concerns.

Finding of No Significant Impact

The environmental impacts of the

proposed action have been reviewed in

accordance with the requirements set

forth in 10 CFR part 51. Based upon the

foregoing EA, the Commission finds that

the proposed action of granting an

exemption from 10 CFR 72.82(e) so that

Virginia Power may submit a

preoperational test acceptance criteria

and test report 3 days prior to receipt of

spent fuel at the North Anna ISFSI will

not significantly impact the quality of

the human environment. Accordingly,

the Commission has determined not to

prepare an environmental impact

statement for the proposed exemption.

This application was docketed under

10 CFR part 72, Docket 72–16. For

further details with respect to this

action, see the application for an ISFSI

license dated May 9, 1995, and the

request for exemption dated June 12,

1998, which is available for public

inspection at the Commission’s Public

Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW,

Washington, DC 20555, and the Local

Public Document Room at the

University of Virginia, Alderman

Library, Charlottesville, Virginia 22903.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day

of June 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

William F. Kane,

Director, Spent Fuel Project Office, Office of

Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.

[FR Doc. 98–17608 Filed 7–1–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Consolidated Guidance About

Materials Licenses: Program-Specific

Guidance About Academic, Research

& Development, and Other Licenses of

Limited Scope, Availability of Draft

NUREG

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of availability and

request for comments.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory

Commission is announcing the

availability of and requesting comment

on draft NUREG–1556, Volume 7,

‘‘Consolidated Guidance about Materials

Licenses: Program-Specific Guidance

about Academic, Research &

Development, and Other Licenses of

Limited Scope,’’ dated May 1998.

NRC is using Business Process

Redesign (BPR) techniques to redesign

its materials licensing process, as

described in NUREG–1539,

‘‘Methodology and Findings of the

NRC’s Materials Licensing Process

Redesign.’’ A critical element of the new

process is consolidating and updating

numerous guidance documents into a

NUREG-series of reports. This draft

NUREG report is the seventh programspecific guidance developed to support

an improved materials licensing

process.

The guidance is intended for use by

applicants, licensees, NRC license

reviewers, and other NRC personnel.

The draft NUREG combines and updates

the guidance for applicants and

licensees previously found in (1)

Regulatory Guide 10.2, Revision 1,

‘‘Guidance To Academic Institutions

Applying For Specific Byproduct

Material Licenses of Limited Scope,’’

dated December 1976, (2) Regulatory

Guide 10.7, ‘‘Guide For The Preparation

Of Applications For Licenses For

Laboratory and Industrial Use of Small

Quantities of Byproduct Material,’’

dated August 1979, and (3) Draft

Regulatory Guide FC 405–4, ‘‘Guide for

the Preparation of Applications for

Licenses for the Use of Sealed Sources

in Gas Chromatography Devices and XRay Fluorescence Analyzers,’’ dated

February 1985. In addition, this draft

report also contains pertinent

information found in Technical

Assistance Requests and Information

Notices. This draft report is for public

comment only, and is NOT for use in

preparing or reviewing applications

until it is published in final form. It is

being distributed for comment to

encourage public participation in its

development.

DATES: The comment period ends

September 30, 1998. Comments received

after that time will be considered if

practicable.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments

to: Chief, Rules and Directives Branch,

Division of Administrative Services,

Office of Administration, U. S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555–0001. Hand deliver

comments to 11545 Rockville Pike,

Rockville, Maryland, between 7:15 a.m.

and 4:30 p.m. on Federal workdays.

Comments may also be submitted

through the Internet by addressing

electronic mail to DLM1@NRC.GOV.

Those considering public comment

may request a free single copy of draft

NUREG–1556, Volume 7, by writing to

the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, ATTN: Mrs. Sally L.

Merchant, Mail Stop TWFN 9–F–31,

Washington, DC 20555–0001.

Alternatively, submit requests through

the Internet by addressing electronic

mail to slm2@nrc.gov. A copy of draft

NUREG–1556, Volume 7, is also

available for inspection and/or copying

for a fee in the NRC Public Document

Room, 2120 L Street, NW. (Lower

Level), Washington, DC 20555–0001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mrs.

Sally L. Merchant, Mail Stop TWFN 9–

F–31, Division of Industrial and Medical

Nuclear Safety, Office of Nuclear

Materials Safety and Safeguards, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301)

415–7874; electronic mail address:

slm2@nrc.gov.

Electronic Access

Draft NUREG–1556, Vol. 7 will be

available electronically by visiting

NRC’s Home Page (http://www.nrc.gov/

NRC/nucmat.html) approximately two

weeks after the publication date of this

notice.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day

of June, 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Frederick C. Combs,

Acting Director, Division of Industrial and

Medical Nuclear Safety, Office of Nuclear

Material Safety and Safeguards.

[FR Doc. 98–17607 Filed 7–1–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P