6276 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Notices

30, 1998. Applicants selected will not

have to recompete for funding for PY

1998 (July 1, 1998 to June 30, 1999) if

the grant recipient has met all

applicable regulatory requirements, has

performed satisfactorily under the terms

of its existing grant for PY 1997, submits

an acceptable training plan or PY 1998,

and funds are available.

(b) In the event that no grant

applications will received for a specific

State or sub-State area or those received

are deemed to be unacceptable, or

where a grant agreement is not

successfully negotiated, DOL may give

the Governor first right to submit an

acceptable application pursuant to the

precondition for Grant Application and

Responsibility Review tests at 20 CFR

633.201 and 633.204, respectively.

Should the Governor not accept the

offer within 15 days after being notified,

the Department may then: (1) designate

another organization or organizations,

(2) reopen the area for competitive

bidding, or (3) use the allocated funds

for national account activities.

(c) An applicant whose grant

application is not selected by DOL to

receive JTPA section 402 funds will be

notified in writing.

(d) Any applicant whose grant

application is denied in whole or part

by DOL will be advised of its appeal

rights.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 4th day of

February, 1997.

James DeLuca,

Grant Officer, Division of Acquisition and

Assistance.

[FR Doc. 97–3347 Filed 2–10–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–327 AND 50–328]

Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2;

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of

Amendments to Facility Operating

Licenses, Proposed No Significant

Hazards Consideration Determination,

and Opportunity for a Hearing

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of amendments to

Facility Operating License No. DPR–77

and DPR–79 issued to the Tennessee

Valley Authority (the licensee) for

operation of the Sequoyah Nuclear

Plant, Units 1 and 2, located in Soddy

Daisy, Tennessee.

The proposed amendments would

permanently incorporate requirements

associated with steam generator tube

inspections and repair in the Sequoyah

Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 Technical

Specifications (TS). The new

requirements establish alternate steam

generator tube plugging criteria (APC) at

the tube support plate intersections.

These revised criteria, based on NRC

Generic Letter 95–05, were incorporated

into the TS by previous amendments to

the operating licenses but only for

Operating Cycle 8. The proposed

amendments would remove the

reference to Cycle 8, thereby making the

requirements applicable to all future

operating cycles.

Before issuance of the proposed

license amendment, the Commission

will have made findings required by the

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended

(the Act) and the Commission’s

regulations.

The Commission has made a

proposed determination that the

amendment request involves no

significant hazards consideration. Under

the Commission’s regulations in 10 CFR

50.92, this means that operation of the

facility in accordance with the proposed

amendment would not (1) involve a

significant increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of

a new or different kind of accident from

any accident previously evaluated; or

(3) involve a significant reduction in a

margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR

50.91(a), the licensee has provided its

analysis of the issue of no significant

hazards consideration, which is

presented below:

TVA has evaluated the proposed technical

specification (TS) change and has determined

that it does not represent a significant

hazards consideration based on criteria

established in 10 CFR 50.92(c). Operation of

Sequoyah Nuclear Plant (SQN) in accordance

with the proposed amendment will not:

1. Involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of an accident

previously evaluated.

The proposed TS change revises the SQN

steam generator (S/G) Specification 3/4.4.5 to

remove footnotes that limit the application of

the alternate plugging criteria (APC) to Cycle

8 operation only. In addition, SQN TS

3.4.6.2, ‘‘Operational Leakage,’’ contains a

similar footnote that limits application of S/

G APC to Cycle 8 operation only. The

removal of these footnotes allows TVA to

apply APC to SQN S/Gs beyond Cycle 8

operation. TVA’s proposed change is based

on resolution of the industry issues

concerning [eddy current test] probe wear

and probe variability. APC was applied to the

SQN S/Gs during the Cycle 7 refueling

outages for Units 1 and 2.

The proposed changes provide TS

requirements that are consistent with the

guidance of NRC GL [Generic Letter] 95–05.

This change does not involve a physical

modification to the plant or affect any

setpoints. Accordingly, the proposed changes

do not involve an increase in the probability

or consequences of an accident previously

evaluated.

2. Create the possibility of a new or

different kind of accident from any

previously analyzed.

The proposed changes provide TS

requirements for SQN S/Gs that are

consistent with the guidance provided in GL

95–05. No new event initiator has been

created, nor has any hardware been changed.

This change does not involve a physical

change to SQN S/Gs or any other system.

Therefore, the proposed change will not

create the possibility of a new or different

kind of accident from any previously

analyzed.

3. Involve a significant reduction in a

margin of safety.

TVA’s proposed change allows application

of APC for SQN S/Gs to extend beyond Cycle

8 of operation. This change continues to

provide requirements that maintain

structural integrity of SQN S/G tubes during

normal operating, transient, and postulated

accident conditions. This change does not

involve a setpoint change or physical

modification to the plant. Accordingly, the

margin of safety has not been reduced.

The NRC staff has reviewed the

licensee’s analysis and, based on this

review, it appears that the three

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff

proposes to determine that the

amendment request involves no

significant hazards consideration.

The Commission is seeking public

comments on this proposed

determination. Any comments received

within 30 days after the date of

publication of this notice will be

considered in making any final

determination.

Normally, the Commission will not

issue the amendment until the

expiration of the 30-day notice period.

However, should circumstances change

during the notice period such that

failure to act in a timely way would

result, for example, in derating or

shutdown of the facility, the

Commission may issue the license

amendment before the expiration of the

30-day notice period, provided that its

final determination is that the

amendment involves no significant

hazards consideration. The final

determination will consider all public

and State comments received. Should

the Commission take this action, it will

publish in the Federal Register a notice

of issuance and provide for opportunity

for a hearing after issuance. The

Commission expects that the need to

take this action will occur very

infrequently.

Written comments may be submitted

by mail to the Chief, Rules Review and

Directives Branch, Division of Freedom

of Information and Publications
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Notices 6277

Services, Office of Administration, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001, and

should cite the publication date and

page number of this Federal Register

notice. Written comments may also be

delivered to Room 6D22, Two White

Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike,

Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to

4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. Copies of

written comments received may be

examined at the NRC Public Document

Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L

Street, NW., Washington, DC.

The filing of requests for hearing and

petitions for leave to intervene is

discussed below.

By March 13, 1997, the licensee may

file a request for a hearing with respect

to issuance of the amendment to the

subject facility operating license and

any person whose interest may be

affected by this proceeding and who

wishes to participate as a party in the

proceeding must file a written request

for a hearing and a petition for leave to

intervene. Requests for a hearing and a

petition for leave to intervene shall be

filed in accordance with the

Commission’s ‘‘Rules of Practice for

Domestic Licensing Proceedings’’ in 10

CFR Part 2. Interested persons should

consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.714

which is available 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

Chattanooga-Hamilton County Library,

1001 Broad Street, Chattanooga,

Tennessee 37402. If a request for a

hearing or petition for leave to intervene

is filed by the above date, the

Commission or an Atomic Safety and

Licensing Board, designated by the

Commission or by the Chairman of the

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

Panel, will rule on the request and/or

petition; and the Secretary or the

designated Atomic Safety and Licensing

Board will issue a notice of hearing or

an appropriate order.

As required by 10 CFR 2.714, a

petition for leave to intervene shall set

forth with particularity the interest of

the petitioner in the proceeding, and

how that interest may be affected by the

results of the proceeding. The petition

should specifically explain the reasons

why intervention should be permitted

with particular reference to the

following factors: (1) the nature of the

petitioner’s right under the Act to be

made party to the proceeding; (2) the

nature and extent of the petitioner’s

property, financial, or other interest in

the proceeding; and (3) the possible

effect of any order which may be

entered in the proceeding on the

petitioner’s interest. The petition should

also identify the specific aspect(s) of the

subject matter of the proceeding as to

which petitioner wishes to intervene.

Any person who has filed a petition for

leave to intervene or who has been

admitted as a party may amend the

petition without requesting leave of the

Board up to 15 days prior to the first

prehearing conference scheduled in the

proceeding, but such an amended

petition must satisfy the specificity

requirements described above.

Not later than 15 days prior to the first

prehearing conference scheduled in the

proceeding, a petitioner shall file a

supplement to the petition to intervene

which must include a list of the

contentions which are sought to be

litigated in the matter. Each contention

must consist of a specific statement of

the issue of law or fact to be raised or

controverted. In addition, the petitioner

shall provide a brief explanation of the

bases of the contention and a concise

statement of the alleged facts or expert

opinion which support the contention

and on which the petitioner intends to

rely in proving the contention at the

hearing. The petitioner must also

provide references to those specific

sources and documents of which the

petitioner is aware and on which the

petitioner intends to rely to establish

those facts or expert opinion. Petitioner

must provide sufficient information to

show that a genuine dispute exists with

the applicant on a material issue of law

or fact. Contentions shall be limited to

matters within the scope of the

amendment under consideration. The

contention must be one which, if

proven, would entitle the petitioner to

relief. A petitioner who fails to file such

a supplement which satisfies these

requirements with respect to at least one

contention will not be permitted to

participate as a party.

Those permitted to intervene become

parties to the proceeding, subject to any

limitations in the order granting leave to

intervene, and have the opportunity to

participate fully in the conduct of the

hearing, including the opportunity to

present evidence and cross-examine

witnesses.

If a hearing is requested, the

Commission will make a final

determination on the issue of no

significant hazards consideration. The

final determination will serve to decide

when the hearing is held.

If the final determination is that the

amendment request involves no

significant hazards consideration, the

Commission may issue the amendment

and make it immediately effective,

notwithstanding the request for a

hearing. Any hearing held would take

place after issuance of the amendment.

If the final determination is that the

amendment request involves a

significant hazards consideration, any

hearing held would take place before

the issuance of any amendment.

A request for a hearing or a petition

for leave to intervene must be filed with

the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention:

Docketing and Services Branch, or may

be delivered to the Commission’s Public

Document Room, the Gelman Building,

2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, by

the above date. Where petitions are filed

during the last 10 days of the notice

period, it is requested that the petitioner

promptly so inform the Commission by

a toll-free telephone call to Western

Union at 1 (800) 248–5100 (in Missouri

1 (800) 342–6700). The Western Union

operator should be given Datagram

Identification Number N1023 and the

following message addressed to

Frederick J. Hebdon: Petitioner’s name

and telephone number, date petition

was mailed, plant name, and

publication date and page number of

this Federal Register notice. A copy of

the petition should also be sent to the

Office of the General Counsel, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001, and to

General Counsel, Tennessee Valley

Authority, ET 11H 400 West Summit

Hill Drive, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902,

attorney for the licensee.

Nontimely filings of petitions for

leave to intervene, amended petitions,

supplemental petitions and/or requests

for hearing will not be entertained

absent a determination by the

Commission, the presiding officer or the

presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing

Board that the petition and/or request

should be granted based upon a

balancing of the factors specified in 10

CFR 2.714(a)(1) (i)–(v) and 2.714(d).

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application for

amendment dated October 18, 1996,

which is 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 Chattanooga-Hamilton County

Library, 1001 Broad Street, Chattanooga,

Tennessee 37402.
6278 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Notices

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day

of February 1997.

Ronald W. Hernan,

Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate

II–3, Division of Reactor Projects—I/II, Office

of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–3321 Filed 2–10–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

[Docket 70–7002]

Notice of Amendment to Certificate of

Compliance GDP–2 for the U.S.

Enrichment Corporation, Portsmouth

Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Portsmouth,

OH

The Director, Office of Nuclear

Material Safety and Safeguards, has

made a determination that the following

amendment request is not significant in

accordance with 10 CFR 76.45. In

making that determination, the staff

concluded that: (1) There is no change

in the types or significant increase in

the amounts of any effluents that may be

released offsite; (2) there is no

significant increase in individual or

cumulative occupational radiation

exposure; (3) there is no significant

construction impact; (4) there is no

significant increase in the potential for,

or radiological or chemical

consequences from, previously analyzed

accidents; (5) the proposed changes do

not result in the possibility of a new or

different kind of accident; (6) there is no

significant reduction in any margin of

safety; and (7) the proposed changes

will not result in an overall decrease in

the effectiveness of the plant’s safety,

safeguards, or security programs. The

basis for this determination for the

amendment request is described below.

The NRC staff has reviewed the

certificate amendment application and

concluded that it provides reasonable

assurance of adequate safety, safeguards,

and security and compliance with NRC

requirements. Therefore, the Director,

Office of Nuclear Material

Safety and Safeguards, is prepared to

issue an amendment to the Certificate of

Compliance for the Portsmouth Gaseous

Diffusion Plant (PORTS). The staff has

prepared a Compliance Evaluation

Report which provides details of the

staff’s evaluation.

The NRC staff has determined that

this amendment satisfies the criteria for

a categorical exclusion in accordance

with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant

to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental

impact statement or environmental

assessment need be prepared for this

amendment.

USEC or any person whose interest

may be affected may file a petition, not

exceeding 30 pages, requesting review

of the Director’s Decision. The petition

must be filed with the Commission not

later than 15 days after publication of

this Federal Register Notice. A petition

for review of the Director’s Decision

shall set forth with particularity the

interest of the petitioner and how that

interest may be affected by the results of

the decision. The petition should

specifically explain the reasons why

review of the Decision should be

permitted with particular reference to

the following factors: (1) The interest of

the petitioner; (2) how that interest may

be affected by the Decision, including

the reasons why the petitioner should

be permitted a review of the Decision;

and (3) the petitioner’s areas of concern

about the activity that is the subject

matter of the Decision. Any person

described in this paragraph (USEC or

any person who filed a petition) may

file a response to any petition for

review, not to exceed 30 pages, within

10 days after filing of the petition. If no

petition is received within the

designated 15-day period, the Director

will issue the final amendment to the

Certificate of Compliance without

further delay. If a petition for review is

received, the decision on the

amendment application will become

final in 60 days, unless the Commission

grants the petition for review or

otherwise acts within 60 days after

publication of this Federal Register

Notice.

A petition for review must be filed

with the Secretary of the Commission,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention:

Docketing and Services Branch, or may

be delivered to the Commission’s Public

Document Room, the Gelman Building,

2120 L Street, NW, Washington, DC, by

the above date.

For further details with respect to the

action see: (1) The application for

amendment and (2) the Commission’s

Compliance Evaluation Report. These

items 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.

Date of amendment request:

November 8, 1996, as modified by USEC

responses dated December 13, 1996, and

January 16, 1997, to NRC requests for

additional information dated November

29, 1996, and December 31, 1996,

respectively.

Brief description of amendment: The

amendment changes the Technical

Safety Requirement (TSR) Standby

Operational Mode definition for the UF6

Withdrawal Stations by allowing the

compression loop vent path to the

cascade to be open. It should be noted

that venting of the Withdrawal Station

compression loop to the cascade is

routinely done at PORTS. However,

accounting for this procedure was

inadvertently left out of the Standby

Operational Mode definition by USEC

from its proposed TSRs which have

been approved by the NRC.

Basis for finding of no significance:

1. The proposed amendment will not

result in a change in the types or

significant increase in the amounts of

any effluents that may be released

offsite.

The proposed change to TSR 2.5.1

permits evacuating UF6 from the

compression loop in the UF6

withdrawal station to the cascade,

which acts as a low pressure sink, in the

Standby Operational Mode. This change

will not result in significantly

increasing the potential for

unconfinement of UF6 which could lead

to an increase in effluents that may be

released offsite since it only involves

venting of UF6 from one portion of

process piping, which confines UF6 in

the Withdrawal Station, to another

portion of process piping which

confines UF6 in the enrichment

cascade. Confinement of UF6 within the

cascade is primarily provided by

maintaining the cell high-side

(compressor discharge) gas pressure

below 25 psia (TSR 2.2.3.13) and by

applying appropriate quality assurance

requirements to process gas piping and

equipment (Safety Analysis Report

Section 3.8.2.2). Therefore, this TSR

amendment will not result in significant

amounts of effluents that may be

released offsite.

2. The proposed amendment will not

result in a significant increase in

individual or cumulative occupational

radiation exposure.

Evacuating UF6 from the compression

loop to the cascade in the Standby

Operational Mode will not significantly

impart additional occupational

radiation exposure. The cascade or the

withdrawal loops do not result in

significant occupational radiation

exposures. Some of the reasons being

that: (1) The occupancy factor is low, (2)

distance from the source is generally

high, (3) significant shielding is

provided by piping and equipment, (4)

depleted and low enriched uranium has

low specific activities and are also

comparatively low gamma radiation

emitters, (5) most of the uranium is in

gaseous form (low density), and (6) UF6

is confined within quality controlled

equipment and piping. Therefore, any

transfer of confined UF6 from the

withdrawal station to the cascade would

not measurably modify individual or