Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 121 /Wednesday, June 24, 1998 / Notices 34491

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Samuel J. Collins,

Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–16745 Filed 6–23–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–424 and 50–425]

Southern Nuclear Operating Company,

Inc., et al.; Vogtle Electric Generating

Plant, Units 1 and 2; Environmental

Assessment and Finding of No

Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of amendments to

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–68

and NPF–81 issued to Southern Nuclear

Operating Company, Inc., et al. (the

licensee), for operation of the Vogtle

Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units

1 and 2, respectively, located in Burke

County, Georgia.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

The proposed action would change

the common VEGP Technical

Specifications to allow an increase in

the Unit 1 spent fuel storage capacity

from 288 to 1476 fuel assemblies. The

increase in spent fuel storage capacity is

achieved by replacing the existing spent

fuel storage racks, a process referred to

herein as ‘‘reracking.’’ The proposed

action is in accordance with the

licensee’s application for license

amendments dated September 4, 1997,

as supplemented by letters dated

November 20, 1997, May 19 and June

12, 1998.

The Need for the Proposed Action

The VEGP spent fuel pools (SFPs) are

operated as a single facility and accept

spent fuel from both Units 1 and 2. The

VEGP Unit 2 spent fuel pool has a

storage capacity of 2098 fuel assemblies.

Under current conditions, the SFPs will

lose the capacity for a full-core off-load

(193 fuel assemblies) in the year 2005.

There are no independent commercial

spent fuel storage facilities operating in

the U.S., nor are there any domestic

reprocessing facilities; therefore, the

projected loss of storage capacity in the

VEGP SFPs would affect the licensee’s

ability to operate VEGP. The proposed

amendments are needed to ensure the

capability of full-core off-load until the

year 2015.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

Radiological Impacts

VEGP has waste treatment systems

designed to collect and process waste

that may contain radioactive material.

The radioactive waste treatment systems

were evaluated in the ‘‘Final

Environmental Statement Related to the

Operation of Vogtle Electric Generating

Plant,’’ NUREG–1087, March 1985. The

SFP cooling and purification system is

designed to remove the decay heat

generated by stored spent fuel

assemblies and to clarify and purify the

water to permit unencumbered access to

the plant fuel storage area and maintain

optical clarity of the SFP water.

Liquid Radioactive Waste

It is not expected that there will be a

significant increase in the liquid release

of radionuclides from the plant as a

result of the SFP reracking

modifications. The SFP cooling and

purification system operates as a closed

system. The SFP demineralizer resin

removes soluble radioactive materials

from the SFP water. A small increase in

activity on the filters and demineralizers

may occur during the installation of the

new racks because of the more frequent

fuel shuffling and underwater pressure

washing of the old racks during

removal. However, the amount of

radioactivity released to the

environment as a result of the proposed

reracking is expected to be negligible.

Solid Radioactive Waste

The existing spent fuel racks in the

VEGP Unit 1 SFP will be removed from

the site by a salvage company. After

usable material has been salvaged, the

remainder will be volume reduced and

disposed of at the Barnwell, South

Carolina, facility. In a worst-case

scenario, with no salvageable material

and no volume reduction, the resulting

material would represent 44 percent of

the expected solid waste volume

associated with VEGP Units 1 and 2 for

1998; however, this volume is not

significant when viewed over the 40-

year operational lifetime of the VEGP

facility.

In addition to the spent fuel

assemblies themselves, the only other

solid radioactive waste generated by the

SFP is the SFP polisher resin, which is

used for water clarity. As indicated in

the licensee’s submittal of September 4,

1997, these resins are replaced

approximately once per refueling cycle.

No additional spent resins are expected

to be generated by the pool cleanup

system as a result of the expanded spent

fuel storage capability; therefore, no

significant increase in the volume of

solid radioactive waste associated with

these resins is expected with the

proposed amendments.

Radioactive Material Released to the

Atmosphere

The only radioactive gas of

significance that could be attributable to

storing additional spent fuel assemblies

for a longer period of time, made

possible as a result of the proposed

reracking, would be the noble gas

radionuclide krypton-85 (Kr-85).

Experience has demonstrated that after

spent fuel has decayed 4 to 6 months,

there is no longer a significant release of

fission products, including Kr-85, from

stored spent fuel containing cladding

defects. The licensee has stated that in

the past 2 years, the Kr-85

concentrations measured from the fuel

storage area ventilation release point

have been negligible and the licensee

expects that enlarging the storage

capacity of the SFP will have no effect

on the average annual quantities of Kr85 released to the atmosphere.

Iodine-131 released from spent fuel

assemblies to the SFP water will not be

significantly increased as a result of the

expansion of the fuel storage capacity

since the iodine-131 inventory in the

fuel will decay to negligible levels

between refuelings.

Most of the tritium in the SFP water

results from activation of boron and

lithium in the primary coolant during

power operation. A relatively small

amount of tritium is produced during

reactor operation by the fission process

within the reactor fuel. The subsequent

diffusion of the tritium through the fuel

and cladding represents a small

contribution to the total amount of

tritium in the SFP water. Tritium

releases from the fuel assemblies occur

mainly during reactor operation and, to

a limited extent, shortly after shutdown.

Thus, expanding the SFP capacity will

not increase the tritium concentration in

the SFP.

Most airborne releases of tritium and

iodine from nuclear power plants result

during refuelings from evaporation of

reactor coolant, which contains tritium

and iodine in higher concentrations

than in the SFP. The storage of

additional spent fuel assemblies in the

SFP is not expected to significantly

increase the SFP bulk water

temperature, and, therefore, evaporation

rates from the SFP are not expected to

significantly increase. Consequently, it

is not expected that there will be any

significant change in the annual release

of tritium or iodine as a result of the

proposed modifications from that

previously evaluated in NUREG–1087.
34492 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 121 /Wednesday, June 24, 1998 / Notices

Occupational Doses

The licensee estimates that the

increased number of fuel assemblies

stored in the Unit 1 SFP may result in

a small increase in doses in the areas

adjacent to the sides of the SFP,

although it will not be enough to change

any existing radiation zone

designations. To minimize any potential

dose rate increases from the increased

storage of spent fuel, the licensee plans

to control the placement of freshly

discharged fuel so that it is not placed

in SFP rack positions adjacent to the

sides of the SFP. Dose rates on the fuel

pool level are primarily due to

radionuclides in the pool water. During

normal operations, dose rates in this

area are generally 2.5 mrem/hr or less.

The staff finds these dose rates to be

acceptable and in accordance with SFP

dose rates at other plants.

The licensee will constantly monitor

the doses to the workers during the

reracking operation using electronic

personnel dosimetry. Each diver will be

monitored using multiple teledosimetry

devices. These teledosimetry devices

will transmit diver dose and dose rate

data that will be continuously

monitored adjacent to the SFP. Cameras

will be used to monitor the movements

of the divers. The licensee will use

continuous air samplers when there is a

potential for airborne activity in the SFP

area during the modifications. In

addition, the plant effluent radiation

monitoring system will monitor any

gaseous releases.

The total occupational dose to plant

workers as a result of the reracking

operation is estimated to be

approximately 4.3 person-rem. This

dose estimate is based on the licensee’s

detailed review of the anticipated work

activities, their duration, and expected

dose rates associated with each of the

activities related to the SFP reracking.

The upcoming reracking operation at

Vogtle Unit 1 will follow detailed

procedures prepared with full

consideration of as low as is reasonably

achievable (ALARA) principles. On the

basis of its review of the proposed

action, the staff concludes that the

Vogtle Unit 1 SFP rerack modification

can be performed in a manner that will

ensure that doses to workers will be

maintained ALARA. The estimated dose

of 4.3 person-rem to perform the

proposed SFP rerack is a small fraction

of the annual collective dose accrued at

Vogtle and, therefore, the staff finds this

dose to be acceptable.

Uranium Fuel Cycle and Transportation

The environmental impacts on the

uranium fuel cycle and transportation

resulting from the use of higher

enrichment fuel and extended

irradiation were published in NUREG/

CR–5009, ‘‘Assessment of the Use of

Extended Burnup Fuels in Light Water

Power Reactors,’’ February 1988, and

discussed in the staff’s Environmental

Assessment and Finding of No

Significant Impact published in the

Federal Register on February 29, 1988

(53 FR 6040). The staff concluded that

no significant adverse effects will be

generated by increasing the burnup

levels as long as the maximum rodaverage burnup level of any fuel rod is

no greater than 60 Gwd/MtU. The staff

also stated that the environmental

impacts summarized in Tables S–3 and

S–4 for a burnup level of 33 Gwd/MtU

are conservative and bound the

corresponding impacts for burnup levels

up to 60 Gwd/MtU and uranium-235

enrichments up to 5 weight percent.

Since the proposed amendment does

not involve an increase in the

enrichment or burnup of fuel utilized at

VEGP, the staff concludes that there is

no significant radiological

environmental impact associated with

the proposed expansion of the spent

fuel storage capacity at VEGP Unit 1 or

with the uranium fuel cycle or

transportation.

Accident Considerations

In the Vogtle Final Safety Analysis

Report, the licensee evaluated the

possible consequences of the following

three hypothetical accidents involving

fuel in the SFP: a fuel-handling accident

in the fuel-handling building; a fuelhandling accident in the containment

with the airlock closed; and a fuelhandling accident in the containment

with the airlock open. The licensee

reevaluated these hypothetical accidents

to determine the thyroid and wholebody doses at the exclusion area

boundary, in the low-population zone,

and in the control room.

On the basis of the review of the

licensee’s reevaluation, the NRC staff

concludes that the proposed reracking

of the Vogtle Unit 1 SFP will not result

in an increase in the doses from any of

these hypothetical accidents.

Nonradiological Impact

The proposed amendments do not

modify land use at the site; no new

facilities or laydown areas are needed to

support the rerack or operation after

rerack; therefore, the proposed

amendments do not affect land use or

land with historical or archeological

sites.

The increased spent fuel inventory

results in a minor bulk pool temperature

increase. This minor increase in

temperature results in a minor increase

in the pool water evaporation rate. The

licensee’s submittal of September 4,

1997, indicates that the effects of the

increased temperature and evaporation

rates are within the capacity of the

existing fuel-handling building heating,

ventilation, and air conditioning system.

The total heat load from spent fuel

cooling dissipated to the environment

represents 2.5 percent of the total

rejected plant heat.

The proposed action does not affect

nonradiological plant effluents, and no

changes to the National Pollution

Discharge Elimination System permit

are needed. The proposed action does

not result in any significant changes to

land use or water use, or result in any

significant changes to the quantity or

quality of effluents; no effects on

endangered or threatened species or on

their habitat are expected.

The proposed action will not change

the method of generating electricity or

the method of handling any influents

from the environment or

nonradiological effluents to the

environment. Therefore, no changes or

different types of nonradiological

environmental impacts are expected as

a result of the amendments.

Summary

The Commission has completed its

evaluation of the proposed action. The

proposed action will not increase the

probability or consequences of

accidents, no changes are being made in

the types of any effluents that may be

released off site, and there is no

significant increase in the allowable

individual or cumulative occupational

or offsite 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 involve features located

entirely within the restricted area as

defined in 10 CFR Part 20. It does not

affect nonradiological 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

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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 121 /Wednesday, June 24, 1998 / Notices 34493

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

The proposed action does not involve

the use of any resources not previously

considered in NUREG–1087.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on May 26, 1998, the staff consulted

with the Georgia State official, Mr. J.

Setzer of the Georgia Department of

Natural Resources, 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 September 4, 1997, as

supplemented by letters dated

November 20, 1997, May 19 and June

12, 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 Burke County Library, 412

Fourth Street, Waynesboro, Georgia.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day

of June 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Jacob I. Zimmerman,

Acting Director, Project Directorate II–2,

Division of Reactor Projects—I/II, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–16746 Filed 6–23–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Nuclear

Regulatory Commission.

DATE: Weeks of June 22, 29, July 6, and

13, 1998.

PLACE: Commissioners’ Conference

Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,

Maryland.

STATUS: Public and Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

Week of June 22

Thursday, June 25

11:30 a.m.—Affirmation Session (Public

Meeting) (if needed).

2:00 p.m.—Briefing on EEO Program

(Public Meeting).

Week of June 29—Tentative

Tuesday, June 30

10:00 a.m.—Meeting with

Commonwealth Edison (Public

Meeting) (Contact: Stewart

Richards, 301–415–1395).

11:30 a.m.—Affirmation Session (Public

Meeting) (if needed).

2:00 p.m.—Briefing on Performance

Assessment Progress in HLW, LLW,

and ADMP (Public Meeting)

(Contact: Norman Eisenberg, 301–

415–7285).

Week of July 6—Tentative

Thursday, July 9

11:30 a.m.—Affirmation Session (Public

Meeting) (if needed).

Week of July 13—Tentative

There are no meetings scheduled for

the week of July 13.

*The schedule for Commission

meetings is subject to change on short

notice. To verify the status of meetings

call (Recording)—(301) 415–1292.

Contact person for more information:

Bill Hill (301) 415–1661.

The NRC Commission Meeting

Schedule can be found on the Internet

at:

http://www.nrc.gov/SECY/smj/

schedule.htm

This notice is distributed by mail to

several hundred subscribers; if you no

longer wish to receive it, or would like

to be added to it, please contact the

Office of the Secretary, Attn: Operations

Branch, Washington, D.C. 20555 (301–

415–1661). In addition, distribution of

this meeting notice over the Internet

system is available. If you are interested

in receiving this Commission meeting

schedule electronically, please send an

electronic message to wmh@nrc.gov or

dkw@nrc.gov.

Dated: June 19, 1998.

William M. Hill, Jr.,

Secy Tracking Officer, Office of the Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–16827 Filed 6–19–98; 4:06 pm]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Office of the Secretary

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation;

Submission for OMB Review;

Comment Request

The Department of Labor (DOL), the

Department of the Treasury, and the

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation

(PBGC) have submitted the following

public information collection request

(ICR) to the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) for review and approval

in accordance with the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13,

44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). A copy of the

ICR, with applicable supporting

documentation, may be obtained by

contacting the Department of Labor,

Departmental Clearance Officer, Todd R.

Owen at (202)219–5096, ext. 143 or by

E-Mail at Owen-Todd@dol.gov.

Individuals who use a

telecommunication device for the deaf

(TTY/TDD) may call (202)219–4720

between 1:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. Eastern

Time, Monday–Friday.

Comments should be sent to the

Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs, Attn: Desk Officer for Pension

and Welfare Benefits Administration,

Office of Management and Budget,

Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503

((202)395–7316) within 30 days of the

date of this publication in the Federal

Register.

OMB is particularly interested in

comments that:

• Evaluate whether the proposed

collection of information is necessary

for the proper performance of the

functions of the agency, including

whether the information will have

practical utility;

• Evaluate the accuracy of the

agency’s estimate of the burden of the

proposed collection of information,

including the validity of the

methodology and assumptions used;

• Enhance the quality, utility, and

clarity of the information to be

collected;

• Comment on estimates of capital or

startup costs and costs of operation,

maintenance, and purchase of services

to provide information; and

• Minimize the burden of the

collection of information on those who

are to respond, including through the

use of appropriate automated,

electronic, mechanical, or other

technological collection techniques or

other forms of information technology,

e.g., permitting electronic submission of

responses.