39296 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 140 /Wednesday, July 22, 1998 / Notices

ensure that if a criticality were to occur

during the handling of special nuclear

material, personnel would be alerted to

that fact and would take appropriate

action. Although the staff has

determined that such an accident is not

likely to occur, the licensee has

radiation monitors, as required by

General Design Criteria 63, in fuel

storage and handling areas. These

monitors will 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 General Design

Criterion 63 constitute good cause for

granting an exemption to the

requirements of 10 CFR 70.24(a).

IV

The Commission has determined that,

pursuant to 10 CFR 70.14, this

exemption as revised 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 following revised exemption:

The Virginia Electric and Power

Company is exempt from the

requirements of 10 CFR 70.24(a) for the

Surry Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 and

Unit 2.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the

Commission has determined that the

granting of this revised exemption will

have no significant impact on the

quality of the human environment (63

FR 38196).

This revised exemption is effective

upon issuance.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 15th day

of July 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Samuel J. Collins,

Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–19539 Filed 7–21–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–244]

Rochester Gas and Electric

Corporation; R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power

Plant; Environment Assessment and

Finding of No Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of an amendment

to Facility Operating License No. DRP–

18, issued to Rochester Gas and Electric

Corporation (the licensee), for operation

of the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant,

located in Wayne County, New, York.

Identification of the Proposed Action

The proposed action would modify

the spent fuel pool (SFP) by replacing

the three Region 1 rack modules with

seven new borated stainless steel rack

modules scheduled for implementation

in 1998. Six new peripheral modules

would be added at some future date.

Two of the seven new modules planned

to be installed in 1998 would be

designated as part of Region 2,

effectively increasing the Region 2 area.

The other five new modules would

compose Region 1, resulting in a total of

294 storage positions in Region 1.

Region 2, with 1075 storage positions,

would consist of three rack types, Type

1, Type 2, and Type 4. Type 1 cells are

the Boraflex cells that form Region 2 for

the existing license. Two racks of Type

2 cells, containing borated stainless

steel (BSS) absorber plates, would be

added to increase the storage capacity of

Region 2. In addition, the capacity of

Region 2 could be increased in the

future by the addition of Type 4 racks,

which also contain BSS absorber plates.

The amendment would also increase the

boron concentration from 300 ppm to

2300 ppm.

The proposed action is in accordance

with the licensee’s application for

amendment dated March 31, 1997, as

supplemented June 18, 1997, October

10, 1997, November 11, 1997, December

22, 1997, January 15, 1998, January 27,

1998, March 20, 1998, April 23, 1998,

April 27, 1998, and May 8, 1998.

The Need for the Proposed Action

The proposed action would modify

the spent fuel pool to accommodate

storage of spent fuel until the expiration

of the Ginna Station license in 2009.

The current configuration of the Ginna

spent fuel storage pool consists of two

regions. Region 1 consists of stainless

steel racks with 176 storage locations in

a checker board pattern. Region 2

consists of stainless steel racks with

boraflex and with 840 storage locations.

This provides a total of 1016 storage

locations. The proposed amendment

would replace the Region 1 racks with

borated stainless steel racks. Two

locations are proposed in Region 1, one

with borated stainless steel that would

accommodate 187 storage locations and

one with borated stainless steel in a

checker board pattern that would

accommodate 292 storage locations.

This would provide a total of 1319

storage locations which would provide

enough storage locations for storage of

spent fuel beyond the expiration of the

license in 2009.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

Radioactive Waste Treatment

The Ginna Nuclear Power Plant uses

waste treatment systems designed to

collect and process gaseous, liquid, and

solid waste that might contain

radioactive material. These radioactive

waste treatment systems are evaluated

in the Final Environmental Statement

(FES) dated December 1973. The

proposed rerack will not involve any

change in the waste treatment systems

described in the FES.

Gaseous Radioactive Wastes

The only radioactive gas of

significance that could be attributable to

storing additional spent fuel assemblies

for a longer period of time would be the

noble gas radionuclide Krypton-85 (Kr85). 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 the Kr-85 noble gases are not

normally released from the Auxiliary

Building on a continuous basis and

enlarging the storage capacity of the SFP

will have no effect on the average

annual quantities of Kr-85 released to

the atmosphere.

Iodine-131 released from spent fuel

assemblies to the SFP water will not be

significantly increased due to the

expansion of the fuel storage capacity

since the Iodine-131 inventory in the

fuel will decay to negligible levels

between refuelings.

The amount of tritium in the SFP

water will not be affected by the

proposed changes. Most of the tritium in

the SFP water results from activation of

boron and lithium in the primary

coolant. 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 activity 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 increase the SFP
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 140 /Wednesday, July 22, 1998 / Notices 39297

bulk water temperature above the 150 °F

used in the design analysis and,

therefore, evaporation rates from the

SFP are not expected to 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 the

FES.

Solid Radioactive Wastes

Spent resins are generated by the

spent fuel pool purification system.

These spent resins are replaced every 2

to 3 years and are disposed of as solid

radioactive waste. The licensee will

clean the floor of the SFP using a

vacuum system before any work is done

and after each of the old Region I fuel

rack modules is removed. The licensee

also plans on vacuuming the old Region

I fuel rack modules before removal from

the SFP. The licensee will do this in

order to remove as much of the source

term as possible (to minimize personnel

dose), to minimize the generation of

spent resins, and to ensure visual clarity

in the SFP to facilitate diving operations

and SFP rack change out. On the basis

of experience gained following the

1984–1985 SFP modification, the

licensee concludes that the additional

fuel storage made possible by the

increased storage capacity will not

result in a significant change in the

generation of solid radwaste (in the form

of spent resins).

Prior to removal from the SFP, the

three Region I fuel rack modules will be

vacuumed and hydrolazed to remove

any loose crud from the modules. The

fuel rack modules will then be

decontaminated to less than 200 mrem/

hr and will be either shipped offsite

intact or will be cut up and shipped

offsite. If shipped intact, the modules

will be dried and bagged first.

Otherwise, the modules will be cut up

into small enough pieces to fit into ‘‘low

specific activity’’ radwaste boxes. The

licensee has stated that the shipping

containers and procedures will conform

to all applicable regulations set forth by

the U.S. Department of Transportation

(DOT) as well as the requirements of

any State DOT office through which the

shipment may pass and the

requirements of the American

Association of State Highway and

Transportation Officials.

Liquid Radioactive Wastes

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 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,

due to the more frequent fuel shuffling

and underwater hydrolazing 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.

Occupational Dose Consideration

Operating experience has shown that

area dose rates in the vicinity of the SFP

are 1.0 to 2.0 mrem/hr, regardless of the

quantity of fuel stored in the SFP. These

dose rates may increase slightly during

refueling operations due to crud

deposits spalling from spent fuel

assemblies and to activities carried into

the pool from the primary system,

resulting in slightly higher

concentrations of radionuclides in the

SFP. However, licensee experience to

date has not indicated a major increase

in dose rates as a consequence of

refueling. The licensee has calculated

the expected dose rates at locations of

interest outside the concrete SFP walls

to determine how the increase in fuel

capacity will affect the adjacent area

dose rates. The licensee has determined

that the resulting dose rates are well

within the Radiation Zone II limits (2.5

mrem/hr) for all passageways adjacent

to the SFP which can be accessed by

personnel.

The total collective occupational dose

to plant workers as a result of the

reracking operation is estimated to be

between 8 and 12 person-rem. When the

licensee performed an SFP rerack in

1984–1985, the resulting total collective

occupational dose received was 14

person-rem. The licensee plans on

incorporating the lessons learned from

this earlier reracking operation to

reduce overall doses during the

upcoming reracking operation. The

upcoming reracking operation 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 Ginna proposal, the staff concludes

that the Ginna SFP rack modification

can be performed in a manner that will

ensure that doses to workers will be

maintained ALARA.

Accident Considerations

In its application, the licensee

evaluated the possible consequences of

six hypothetical accidents involving

fuel in the SFP. Because the licensee

uses single failure proof cranes for the

lifting of heavy loads in the vicinity of

the SFP, four of these accidents are

deemed not plausible. The licensee

evaluated the other two hypothetical

accidents—the fuel handling accident

and the tornado missile accident-to

determine the thyroid and whole-body

doses at the Exclusion Area Boundary,

Low Population Zone (LPZ), and

Control Room. The proposed reracking

of the Ginna SFP will not affect any of

the assumptions or inputs used in

evaluating the dose consequences of

either of these hypothetical accidents.

The NRC staff reviewed the licensee’s

analysis and performed confirmatory

calculations to check the acceptability

of the licensee’s doses. The staff’s

calculations confirmed that the thyroid

doses at the EAB, LPZ, and Control

Room from either a fuel handling

accident or a tornado missile accident

meet the acceptance criteria and that the

licensee’s calculations are acceptable.

The results of the staff’s calculations are

presented in the Safety Evaluation to be

issued with the license amendment.

In summary, the proposed action will

not increase the probability or

consequences of accidents, no changes

are being made to radioactive waste

treatment systems or in the types of any

radioactive effluents that may be

released offsite, and the proposed action

will not result in a significant increase

in 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 not affect nonradiological

plant effluents and has no other

nonradiological environmental impact.

Accordingly, the Commission

concludes that there are no significant

environmental impacts associated with

the proposed action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

Since the Commission has concluded

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 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 R.E. Ginna Nuclear

Power Plant dated December 1973.
39298 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 140 /Wednesday, July 22, 1998 / Notices

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on May 19, 1998, the staff consulted

with Hal Brotie of the New York State

Energy Research and Development

Authority, 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 31, 1997, as supplemented

by letters dated June 18, 1997, October

10, 1997, November 11, 1997, December

22, 1997, January 15, 1998, January 27,

1998, March 20, 1998, April 23, 1998,

April 27, 1998, May 8, and May 22,

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 Rochester Public Library,

115 South Avenue, Rochester, New

York 14610.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day

of July 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

S. Singh Bajwa,

Director, Project Directorate I–1, Division of

Reactor Projects—I/II, Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–19541 Filed 7–21–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Nuclear

Regulatory Commission.

DATES: Weeks of July 20, 27, August 3,

and 10, 1998.

PLACE: Commissioners’ Conference

Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,

Maryland.

STATUS: Public and Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

Week of July 20

Tuesday, July 21

1:30 p.m.—Meeting with Advisory

Committee on Nuclear Waste

(ACNW) (Public Meeting) (Contact:

John Larkins, 301–415–7360)

3:00 p.m.—Affirmation Session (Public

Meeting) (if needed).

Week of July 27—Tentative

Wednesday, July 29

2:00 p.m.—Briefing on Operating

Reactors and Fuel Facilities (Public

Meeting) (Contact: Glenn Tracy,

301–415–1725)

4:00 p.m.—Affirmation Session (Public

Meeting) (if needed).

Week of August 3—Tentative

Thursday, August 6

10:00 a.m.—Briefing on Recent Research

Program Results and Core

Capabilities (Public Meeting)

(Contact: Lloyd Donnelly, 301–415–

5828)

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

Meeting) (if needed)

Week of August 10—Tentative

Tuesday, August 11

2:00 p.m.—Briefing on 10 CFR Part 70—

Proposed Rulemaking, ‘‘Revised

Requirements for the Domestic

Licensing of Special Nuclear

Material (Public Meeting) (Contact:

Elizabeth Ten Eyck, 301–415–7212)

Wednesday, August 12,

2:00 p.m.—Briefing on PRA

Implementation Plan (Public

Meeting) (Contact: Tom King, 301–

425–5790)

3:30 p.m.—Affirmation Session (Public

Meeting) (if needed)

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: July 17, 1998.

William M. Hill, Jr.,

SECY Tracking Officer, Office of the

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–19634 Filed 7–20–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND

BUDGET

Cumulative Report on Rescissions and

Deferrals

July 1, 1998.

This report is submitted in fulfillment

of the requirement of Section 1014(e) of

the Congressional Budget and

Impoundment Control Act of 1974

(Public Law 93–344). Section 1014(e)

requires a monthly report listing all

budget authority for the current fiscal

year for which, as of the first day of the

month, a special message had been

transmitted to Congress.

This report gives the status, as of July

1, 1998, of 24 rescission proposals and

eight deferrals contained in two special

messages for FY 1998. These messages

were transmitted to Congress on

February 3 and February 20, 1998.

Rescissions (Attachments A and C)

As of July 1, 1998, 24 rescission

proposals totaling $20 million had been

transmitted to the Congress. Congress

approved 21 of the Administration’s

rescission proposals in P.L. 105–174. A

total of $17.3 million of the rescissions

proposed by the President was

rescinded by that measure. Attachment

C shows the status of the FY 1998

rescission proposals.

Deferrals (Attachments B and D)

As of July 1, 1998, $2,452 million in

budget authority was being deferred

from obligation. Attachment D shows

the status of each deferral reported

during FY 1998.

Information From Special Messages

The special messages containing

information on the rescission proposals

and deferrals that are covered by this

cumulative report are printed in the

editions of the Federal Register cited

below:

63 FR 7004, Wednesday, February 11,

1998

63 FR 10076, Friday, February 27, 1998

Jacob J. Lew,

Acting Director.