36276 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 127 /Thursday, July 2, 1998 / Notices

alert personnel to excessive radiation

levels and allow them to initiate

appropriate safety actions. The low

probability of an inadvertent criticality,

together with the licensee’s adherence

to GDC 63 standards, constitutes good

cause for granting an exemption to the

requirements of 10 CFR 70.24.

IV

The Commission has determined that

pursuant to 10 CFR 70.14, this

exemption is authorized by law, will not

endanger life or property or the common

defense and security, and is otherwise

in the public interest. Therefore, the

Commission hereby grants the licensee

an exemption from the requirements of

10 CFR 70.24 for the James A.

FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the

Commission has determined that the

granting of this exemption will not

result in any significant adverse

environmental impact (63 FR 34205).

This exemption is effective upon

issuance.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day

of June 1998

Samuel J. Collins,

Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–17611 Filed 7–1–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 72–9]

Notice of Issuance of Amendment to

Materials License SNM–2504, Public

Service Company of Colorado, Fort St.

Vrain Independent Spent Fuel Storage

Installation

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) has

issued Amendment 5 to Materials

License No. SNM–2504 held by the

Public Service Company of Colorado

(PSCo) for the receipt, possession,

storage, and transfer of spent fuel at the

Fort St. Vrain (FSV) independent spent

fuel storage installation (ISFSI), located

in Weld County, Colorado. The

amendment is effective as of the date of

issuance.

By application dated November 25,

1997, PSCo requested an amendment to

revise Materials License SNM–2504 and

the Technical Specifications for the FSV

ISFSI to (1) replace 10 CFR 50 Program

references with stand-alone ISFSI

program references due to the

termination of the FSV 10 CFR part 50

license, (2) delete references to

previously authorized material that is

not stored at the ISFSI, and (3) revise

the Technical Specifications to

accurately reflect the current ISFSI

activities.

This amendment complies with the

standards and requirements of the

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended

(the Act), and the Commission’s rules

and regulations. The Commission has

made appropriate findings as required

by the Act and the Commission’s rules

and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I,

which are set forth in the license

amendment.

In accordance with 10 CFR

72.46(b)(2), a determination has been

made that the amendment does not

present a genuine issue as to whether

public health and safety will be

significantly affected. Therefore, the

publication of a notice of proposed

action and an opportunity for hearing or

a notice of hearing is not warranted.

Notice is hereby given of the right of

interested persons to request a hearing

by July 31, 1998, on whether the action

should be rescinded or modified.

The Commission has determined that

the issuance of the amendment will not

result in any significant environmental

impact and that, pursuant to 10 CFR

51.22(c)(10)(ii), an environmental

assessment need not be prepared in

connection with issuance of the

amendment.

Documents related to this action are

available for public inspection at the

Commission’s Public Document Room

located at the Gelman Building, 2120 L

Street, NW, Washington, DC 20555.

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. 98–17610 Filed 7–1–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–250 and 50–251]

Turkey Point Plant, Units 3 and 4;

Environmental Assessment and

Finding of No Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulation

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of an exemption

from certain requirements of its

regulations to Facility Operating License

Nos. DPR–31 and DPR–41 for the

Turkey Point Plant, Units 3 and 4,

respectively, issued to the Florida

Power and Light Company (the

licensee).

Environmental Assessment

Identification of Proposed Action

The proposed action is in response to

the licensee’s application dated March

5, 1998, for exemption from the

requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(4)

regarding submission of revisions to the

updated Final Safety Analysis Report

(FSAR). Under the proposed exemption,

the licensee would schedule updates to

a single, unified FSAR for the two units

based on the refueling cycle of Unit 4

and at intervals not to exceed 24

months.

The Need for the Proposed Action

The Code of Federal Regulations, 10

CFR 50.71(e)(4), requires licensees to

submit updates to their FSAR annually

or within 6 months after each refueling

outage providing that the interval

between successive updates does not

exceed 24 months. Since Units 3 and 4

share a common FSAR, the licensee

must update the same document

annually or within 6 months after a

refueling outage for either unit. The

underlying purpose of the rule was to

relieve licensees of the burden of filing

annual FSAR revisions while assuring

that such revisions are made at least

every 24 months. The Commission

reduced the burden, in part, by

permitting a licensee to submit its FSAR

revisions 6 months after refueling

outages for its facility, but did not

provide for multiple unit facilities

sharing a common FSAR in the rule.

Rather, the Commission stated: ‘‘With

respect to the concern about multiple

facilities sharing a common FSAR,

licensees will have maximum flexibility

for scheduling updates on a case-by-case

basis.’’ 57 FR 39355 (1992). Allowing

the exemption would maintain the

updated FSAR current within 24

months of the last revision.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The Commission has completed its

evaluation of the proposed action and

concludes that it 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 exposure 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.
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