34944 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 123 / Friday, June 26, 1998 / Notices

further evaluation of Environmental

Justice concerns, as outlined in

Executive Order 12898 and NRC’s Office

of Nuclear Material Safety and

Safeguards Policy and Procedures Letter

1–50, Revision 1, is not warranted.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

The proposed action is to renew NRC

Source Material License SUA–1341, for

continued operation of the Irigaray and

Christensen Ranch ISL facilities, as

requested by COGEMA. Therefore, the

principal alternatives available to NRC

are to:

(1) Renew the license as requested by

the licensee, with conditions considered

necessary or appropriate to protect

public health and safety and the

environment; or

(2) Renew the license, with conditions

considered necessary or appropriate to

protect public health and safety and the

environment, but not allow COGEMA to

expand its operations beyond those

previously approved; or

(3) Deny renewal of the license.

Based on its review, the NRC staff has

concluded that the environmental

impacts associated with the proposed

action do not warrant either the limiting

of COGEMA’s future operations or the

denial of the license renewal.

Additionally, in the SER prepared for

this action, the staff has reviewed the

licensee’s proposed action with respect

to the criteria for license issuance

specified in 10 CFR Part 40, Section

40.32, and has no basis for denial of the

proposed action. Therefore, the staff

considers that Alternative 1 is the

appropriate alternative for selection.

Finding of No Significant Impact

The NRC staff has prepared an EA for

the proposed renewal of NRC Source

Material License SUA–1341. On the

basis of this assessment, the NRC staff

has concluded that the environmental

impacts that may result from the

proposed action would not be

significant, and therefore, preparation of

an Environmental Impact Statement is

not warranted.

The Environmental Assessment and

other documents related to this

proposed action are available for public

inspection and copying at the NRC

Public Document Room, in the Gelman

Building (lower level), 2120 L Street

NW, Washington, DC 20555.

Notice of Opportunity for Hearing

The Commission hereby provides

notice that this is a proceeding on an

application for a licensing action falling

within the scope of Subpart L, ‘‘Informal

Hearing Procedures for Adjudications in

Materials and Operators Licensing

Proceedings,’’ of the Commission’s

Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing

Proceedings and Issuance of Orders in

10 CFR Part 2. Pursuant to § 2.1205(a),

any person whose interest may be

affected by this proceeding may file a

request for a hearing. In accordance

with § 2.1205(c), a request for a hearing

must be filed within thirty (30) days

from the date of publication of this

Federal Register notice. The request for

a hearing must be filed with the Office

of the Secretary either:

(1) By delivery to the Rulemakings

and Adjudications Staff of the Office of

the Secretary at One White Flint North,

11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD

20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m.,

Federal workdays; or

(2) By mail or telegram addressed to

the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555,

Attention: Rulemakings and

Adjudications Staff.

Each request for a hearing must also

be served, by delivering it personally or

by mail to:

(1) The applicant, COGEMA Mining,

Inc., 935 Pendell Boulevard., P.O. Box

730, Mills, WY 82644;

(2) The NRC staff, by delivery to the

Executive Director of Operations, One

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville

Pike, Rockville, MD 20852, between

7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m., Federal

workdays; or

(3) By mail addressed to the Executive

Director for Operations, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555.

In addition to meeting other

applicable requirements of 10 CFR Part

2 of the Commission’s regulations, a

request for a hearing filed by a person

other than an applicant must describe in

detail:

(1) The interest of the requestor in the

proceeding;

(2) How that interest may be affected

by the results of the proceeding,

including the reasons why the requestor

should be permitted a hearing, with

particular reference to the factors set out

in § 2.1205(g);

(3) The requestor’s areas of concern

about the licensing activity that is the

subject matter of the proceeding; and

(4) The circumstances establishing

that the request for a hearing is timely

in accordance with § 2.1205(c).

Any hearing request that is granted

will be held in accordance with the

Commission’s ‘‘Informal Hearing

Procedures for Adjudications in

Materials and Operator Licensing

Proceedings’’ in 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart

L.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day

of June 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Daniel M. Gillen,

Assistant Chief, Uranium Recovery Branch,

Division of Waste Management, Office of

Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.

[FR Doc. 98–16913 Filed 6–25–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–259.50–260 and 50–296]

Tennessee Valley Authority; Browns

Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2 and 3

Environmental Assessment and

Finding of No Significant Impact

Introduction

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC, the Commission) is

considering issuance of an amendment

to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–

33, DPR–52 and DPR–68 issued to the

Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA or the

licensee) for operation of the Browns

Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN), Units 1, 2

and 3, located in Limestone County,

Alabama.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

This Environmental Assessment has

been prepared to address potential

environmental issues related to the

licensee’s application dated September

6, 1996 as supplemented June 6 and

December 11, 1996; April 11, May 1,

August 14, October 15, November 5 and

14, December 3, 4, 15, 22, 23, 29, and

30, 1997; January 23, March 12 and 13,

April 16, 20, and 28, May 7, 14, 19 and

27, June 5 and 10, 1998. The proposed

amendments will replace the current

BFN Units 1, 2 and 3 Technical

Specifications (CTS) in their entirety

with Improved Technical Specifications

(ITS) based on Revision 1 to NUREG–

1433, ‘‘Standard Technical

Specifications General Electric Plants

BWR/4,’’ dated April 1995.

The Need for the Proposed Action

It has been recognized that nuclear

safety in all plants would benefit from

improvement and standardization of TS.

The Commission’s ‘‘NRC Interim Policy

Statement on Technical Specification

Improvements for Nuclear Power

Reactors,’’ (52 FR 3788, February 6,

1987), and later the Commission’s

‘‘Final Policy Statement on Technical

Specification Improvements for Nuclear

Power Reactors,’’ (58 FR 39132, July 22,

1993), formalized this need. To facilitate

the development of individual

improved TS, each reactor vendor

owners group (OG) and the NRC staff
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 123 / Friday, June 26, 1998 / Notices 34945

developed standard TS (STS). For

General Electric plants, the STS are

published as NUREG–1433, and this

document was the basis for the new

BFN Units 1, 2 and 3 TS. The NRC

Committee to Review Generic

Requirements reviewed the STS and

made note of the safety merits of the

STS and indicated its support of

conversion to the STS by operating

plants.

Description of the Proposed Change

The proposed revision to the TS is

based on NUREG–1433 and on guidance

provided in the Final Policy Statement.

Its objective is to completely rewrite,

reformat, and streamline the existing

TS. Emphasis is placed on human

factors principles to improve clarity and

understanding. The Bases section has

been significantly expanded to clarify

and better explain the purpose and

foundation of each specification. In

addition to NUREG–1433, portions of

the existing TS were also used as the

basis for the ITS. Plant-specific issues

(unique design features, requirements,

and operating practices) were discussed

at length with the licensee, and generic

matters with the OG.

The proposed changes from the

existing TS can be grouped into four

general categories, as follows:

1. Non-technical (administrative)

changes, which were intended to make

the ITS easier to use for plant operations

personnel. They are purely editorial in

nature or involve the movement or

reformatting of requirements without

affecting technical content. Every

section of the BFN Unit Nos. 1, 2 and

3 TS has undergone these types of

changes. In order to ensure consistency,

the NRC staff and the licensee have used

NUREG–1433 as guidance to reformat

and make other administrative changes.

2. Relocation of requirements, which

include items that were in the existing

BFN Units 1, 2 and 3 TS. The TS that

are being relocated to licenseecontrolled documents are not required

to be in the TS under 10 CFR 50.36 and

do not meet any of the four criteria in

the Commission’s Final Policy

Statement for inclusion in the TS. They

are not needed to obviate the possibility

that an abnormal situation or event will

give rise to an immediate threat to the

public health and safety. The NRC staff

has concluded that appropriate controls

have been established for all of the

current specifications, information, and

requirements that are being moved to

licensee-controlled documents. In

general, the proposed relocation of

items in the BFN Units 1, 2 and 3 TS

to the Final Safety Analysis Report

(FSAR), appropriate plant-specific

programs, procedures and ITS Bases

follows the guidance of the General

Electric STS (NUREG–1433). Once these

items have been relocated by removing

them from the TS to licensee-controlled

documents, the licensee may revise

them under the provisions of 10 CFR

50.59 or other NRC staff-approved

control mechanisms, which provide

appropriate procedural means to control

changes.

3. More restrictive requirements,

which consist of proposed BFN Units 1,

2 and 3 ITS items that are either more

conservative than corresponding

requirements in the existing BFN Units

1, 2 and 3 TS, or are additional

restrictions that are not in the existing

BFN Units 1, 2 and 3 TS but are

contained in NUREG–1433. Examples of

more restrictive requirements include:

placing a Limiting Condition of

Operation on plant equipment that is

not required by the present TS to be

operable; more restrictive requirements

to restore inoperable equipment; and

more restrictive surveillance

requirements.

4. Less restrictive requirements,

which are relaxations of corresponding

requirements in the existing BFN Units

1, 2 and 3 TS that provide little or no

safety benefit and place unnecessary

burdens on the licensee. These

relaxations were the result of generic

NRC actions or other analyses. They

have been justified on a case-by-case

basis for BFN Units 1, 2 and 3 as will

be described in the staff’s Safety

Evaluation (SE) to be issued with the

license amendment, which will be

noticed in the Federal Register.

In addition to the changes described

above, the licensee proposed certain

changes to the existing TS that deviated

from the STS in NUREG–1433. These

additional proposed changes are

described in the licensee’s application

and in the staff’s Notice of

Consideration of Issuance of

Amendment to Facility Operating

License and Opportunity for a Hearing

(61 FR 55026, 63 FR 29763, and 63 FR

32252). Where these changes represent

a change to the current licensing basis

for BFN Units 1, 2 and 3, they have been

justified on a case-by-case basis and the

environmental impacts of these changes

will be addressed in the staff’s SE to be

issued with the license amendment.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

The Commission has completed its

evaluation of the proposed action and

concludes that the proposed TS

conversion would not increase the

probability or consequences of accidents

previously analyzed and would not

affect facility radiation levels or facility

radiological effluents.

Changes that are administrative in

nature have been found to have no effect

on the technical content of the TS, and

are acceptable. The increased clarity

and understanding these changes bring

to the TS are expected to improve the

operator’s control of the plant in normal

and accident conditions.

Relocation of requirements to

licensee-controlled documents does not

change the requirements themselves.

Future changes to these requirements

may be made by the licensee under 10

CFR 50.59 or other NRC-approved

control mechanisms, which ensures

continued maintenance of adequate

requirements. All such relocations have

been found to be in conformance with

the guidelines of NUREG–1433 and the

Final Policy Statement, and, therefore,

are acceptable.

Changes involving more restrictive

requirements have been found to be

acceptable and are likely to enhance the

safety of plant operations.

Changes involving less restrictive

requirements have been reviewed

individually. When requirements have

been shown to provide little or no safety

benefit or to place unnecessary burdens

on the licensee, their removal from the

TS was justified. In most cases,

relaxations previously granted to

individual plants on a plant-specific

basis were the result of a generic NRC

action, or of agreements reached during

discussions with the OG and found to

be acceptable for BFN Units 1, 2 and 3.

Generic relaxations contained in

NUREG–1433 as well as proposed

deviations from NUREG–1433 have also

been reviewed by the NRC staff and

have been found to be acceptable.

In summary, the proposed revisions to

the TS were found to provide control of

plant operations such that reasonable

assurance will be provided so that the

health and safety of the public will be

adequately protected.

These TS changes 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

radiation exposure.

With regard to potential

nonradiological impacts, the proposed

action does not affect nonradiological

plant effluents and has no other

nonradiological environmental impact.

Accordingly, the Commission concludes

that there are no significant

nonradiological environmental impacts

associated with the proposed action.
34946 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 123 / Friday, June 26, 1998 / Notices

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

Since the Commission has concluded

there is no significant environmental

impact associated with the proposed

amendments, any alternatives with

equal or greater environmental impact

need not be evaluated. The principal

alternative to this action would be to

deny the request for the amendment.

Such action would not reduce the

environmental impacts of plant

operations.

Alternative Use of Resources

This action did not involve the use of

any resources not previously considered

in the Final Environmental Statement

related to the operation of the BFN

Units 1, 2 and 3 Electric Generating

Plants.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on June 18, 1998, the staff consulted

with the State official, Mr. David Walter,

of the Department of Environment and

Natural Resources, Division of Radiation

Protection. 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 amendment.

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application for

amendments dated September 6, 1996

as supplemented June 6, and December

11, 1996; April 11, May 1, August 14,

October 15, November 5 and 14,

December 3, 4, 15, 22, 23, 29, and 30,

1997; January 23, March 12 and 13,

April 16, 20, and 28, May 7, 14, 19 and

27, and June 5 and 10, 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

Athens Public Library, 405 E. South

Street, Athens, Alabama.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th 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. 98–17097 Filed 6–25–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

The Role of Industry Stakeholder

Meeting

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

SUMMARY: The objective of the meeting

is to obtain stakeholder insights into

potential approaches or options the NRC

could implement to more efficiently and

effectively utilize consensus standards,

industry initiatives that would be

substitutes for regulatory action, and

improvements to the regulatory

framework. Plenary and breakout

sessions will be held. Concurrent

breakout sessions will provide a forum

for discussion and feedback on (1)

Consensus Codes and Standards

Development and Endorsement/Use, (2)

Industry Initiatives as Substitutes for

Regulatory Action, and (3)

Improvements to the Regulatory

Framework.

DATES: Pre-registration will be August

31, 1998. The stakeholder meeting will

be held on September 1, 1998.

ADDRESSES: The stakeholder meeting

will be held at the Hyatt Regency

O’Hare Hotel, 9300 West Bryn Mawr

Avenue, Rosemont, Illinois, 60018.

Telephone: (847) 696–1234, Facsimile:

(847) 698–1039. (Refer to NRC Meeting

for special conference rate.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For

additional information contact: Thomas

N. Cerovski, USNRC, Telephone: (301)

415–8099; FAX: (301) 415–5151;

Internet: tnc@nrc.gov.

Participation

This conference is open to the general

public; however, advance registration by

August 1, 1998 is recommended. To

register, contact: Thomas N. Cerovski,

USNRC, Telephone: (301) 415–8099;

Facsimile: (301) 415–5151; Internet:

tnc@nrc.gov.

Program

Following is the preliminary program

for the meeting:

August 31, 1998

Pre-Registration 5:00 p.m.–8:00 p.m.

September 1, 1998

Registration—7:00 a.m.–8:00 am.

Plenary Session—Opening and

Welcome—8:00 a.m.–9:00 a.m.

Morning Breakout Sessions (I, II, and

III)—9:00 a.m.–11:30 a.m.

Lunch—11:30 a.m.–1:00 p.m.

Afternoon Breakout Sessions (I, II, and

III)—1:00 p.m.–4:00 p.m.

Plenary Session—Closing and

Summary—4:00 p.m.–5:00 p.m.

* * * * *

The agenda for each breakout session

is as follows:

Breakout Session I: Codes and

Standards Development and

Endorsement/Use

Open discussion is invited on the

following topics:

(1) Actions the NRC is taking to

implement PL 104–113, ‘‘National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act of 1995,’’ March 7, 1996, (2) Options

for NRC participation in the

development of consensus codes and

standards organizations,

(3) Whether the NRC should make

greater use of available codes and

standards in its regulations and

regulatory guides,

(4) Options for endorsement/use of

codes and standards, including

potential changes regarding

requirements for licensees to upgrade

every 120-months to the latest ASME

Code edition and addenda incorporated

by reference in § 50.55a,

(5) Options for a process to interact

with standards development

organizations to discuss potential needs

for new codes, standards, and guides

and recommendations for areas of

emphasis,

(6) Impediments to the adoption of

updated codes and standards.

Breakout Session II: Industry Initiatives

as Substitutes for Regulatory Action

Open discussion is invited on the

proposed NRC review process of

industry initiatives as substitutes for

regulatory action:

A. Proposed process to be used by the

NRC for review of industry initiatives:

(1) Industry submittal: defines

parameters of issue, schedule, resources,

end products,

(2) Acceptance review by NRC:

resources, public access, fees,

monitoring activities, enforcement

policy,

(3) Detailed technical review by NRC:

maintenance of desired level of safety

and boundary conditions relative to

agency policy.

B. Discussion of the process:

(1) Process will be used to determine

whether an industry initiative can be

relied on as an adequate and effective

substitute for NRC regulatory activities:

a. Is the process workable from a

conceptual perspective?

b. Should it be refined or more clearly

defined?

(2) Are there similar processes which

have been developed by public agencies

or the governments of other countries

from which the NRC could learn?