Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 29 / Wednesday, February 12, 1997 / Notices 6565

existing Zircaloy–4. A strict

interpretation of the rule in this instance

would conclude that the criteria of 10

CFR 50.44 are not met by advanced

zirconium-based alloys, since these

alloys are not specifically zircaloy or

ZIRLO. Since the advanced zirconiumbased alloys meet the underlying

purpose of the rule, strict application of

the rule to only apply to zircaloy or

ZIRLO cladding is not necessary to

achieve the underlying purpose of the

rule. Since strict application of 10 CFR

50.44 is not necessary to meet the

underlying purpose of the rule, special

circumstances exist to grant an

exemption from this regulation to allow

a reactor to contain three lead fuel

assemblies containing fuel rods clad

with advanced zirconium-based alloys.

The underlying purpose of 10 CFR

50.46 is to specify acceptance criteria

for ECCS performance at light-water

nuclear power reactors. The fuel rods

clad with the advanced zirconium-based

alloys will be identical in design and

dimensions to the fuel rods clad with

the existing Zircaloy–4. The advanced

cladding materials used in the proposed

fuel assemblies were chosen to improve

corrosion resistance exhibited in exreactor autoclave corrosion tests in both

high-temperature water and steam

environments. Fuel rods clad with

similar types of advanced zirconiumbased alloys have been successfully

irradiated in high-temperature PWRs in

Europe. The mechanical properties of

the advanced zirconium-based alloy

clad meets all the mechanical

requirements of the existing Zircaloy–4

procurement specifications. Thus the

cladding and structural integrity of the

fuel rods and fuel assemblies with

advanced zirconium-based alloy

cladding will be maintained. In

addition, although the staff has not yet

reviewed and generically approved the

overall behaviors of alloys A and F to

meet the limits of ECCS performance

criteria requirements, the three lead fuel

assemblies will be placed in nonlimiting locations within the core. Based

on the above considerations, the staff

concludes that the lead fuel assemblies

will perform acceptably under

postulated LOCA conditions. Thus, the

underlying purpose of the rule has been

met. A strict interpretation of the rule in

this instance would conclude that the

criteria of 10 CFR 50.46 are not met by

advanced zirconium-based alloys, since

these alloys are not strictly zircaloy or

ZIRLO. Since the advanced zirconiumbased alloys meet the underlying

purpose of the rule, strict application of

the rule to only apply to zircaloy or

ZIRLO cladding is not necessary to

achieve the underlying purpose of the

rule. Therefore, special circumstances

exist to grant an exemption from 10 CFR

50.46 that would allow the licensee to

apply the acceptance criteria of 10 CFR

50.46 to a reactor containing a limited

number of fuel rods with advanced

zirconium-based alloys.

Paragraph I.A.5 of Appendix K to 10

CFR Part 50 states that the rates of

energy release, hydrogen concentration,

and cladding oxidation from the metalwater reaction shall be calculated using

the Baker-Just equation. Since the

Baker-Just equation presumes the use of

zircaloy clad fuel, strict application of

the rule would not permit use of the

equation for advanced zirconium-based

alloys for determining acceptable fuel

performance. The underlying intent of

this portion of the Appendix, however,

is to ensure that analysis of fuel

response to LOCAs is conservatively

calculated. Due to the similarities in the

composition of the advanced zirconiumbased alloys and Zircaloy/ZIRLO, the

application of the Baker-Just equation in

the analysis of advanced zirconiumbased clad fuel will conservatively

bound all post-LOCA scenarios. Thus,

the underlying purpose of the rule will

be met. Thus, special circumstances

exist to grant an exemption from

Appendix K to 10 CFR Part 50 that

would allow the licensee to apply the

Baker-Just equation to advanced

zirconium-based alloys.

IV.

Accordingly, the Commission has

determined, pursuant to 10 CFR

50.12(a)(i), that an exemption as

described in Section III above is

authorized by law, will not present an

undue risk to the public health and

safety, and is consistent with the

common defense and security. The

Commission has determined, pursuant

to 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), that special

circumstances exist, as noted in Section

III above. Therefore, the Commission

hereby grants Arizona Public Service

Company, et al., an exemption from 10

CFR 50.44, 10 CFR 50.46, and Appendix

K to 10 CFR Part 50 for use of lead fuel

assemblies.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the

Commission has determined that the

granting of this exemption will not have

a significant impact on the quality of the

human environment (62 FR 3925).

This exemption is effective upon

issuance.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 4th day

of February 1997.

Frank J. Miraglia, Jr.,

Acting Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–3463 Filed 2–11–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

[Docket Nos. 50–315 and 50–316]

Indiana Michigan Power Company;

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit

Nos. 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. DPR–58

and DPR–74, issued to Indiana

Michigan Power Company, (the

licensee), for operation of the D. C. Cook

Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, located in

Berrien County, Michigan.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

By letter dated February 26, 1996, the

licensee requested amendments to the

Technical Specifications (TS) to allow

an increased limit for the nominal

enrichment of new (unirradiated)

Westinghouse fabricated fuel stored in

the new fuel storage racks. The

proposed changes would allow for the

storage of fuel with an enrichment not

to exceed a nominal 4.95 weight percent

(w/o) U–235, subject to certain integral

fuel burnable absorber (IFBA)

requirements, in the new fuel storage

racks. Plant operation using the higher

enriched fuel will be demonstrated to be

acceptable by a cycle specific reload

safety evaluation performed prior to

each fuel loading.

Need for Proposed Action

The licensee intends to use higher

enrichment fuel in subsequent fuel load

cycles which does not currently meet

the new fuel storage limits in the TSs.

By increasing the fuel enrichment, the

licensee will implement the fuel

strategies developed for D.C. Cook Units

1 and 2.

Environmental Impact of the Proposed

Action

The Commission has completed its

evaluation of the proposed revision to

the TSs and concludes that storage of

fuel enriched with U–235 up to 4.95

weight percent at D.C. Cook Units 1 and

2 is acceptable. The safety

considerations associated with higher

enrichments have been evaluated by the

NRC staff and the staff has concluded
6566 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 29 / Wednesday, February 12, 1997 / Notices

that such changes would not adversely

affect plant safety. The proposed

changes have no adverse effect on the

probability of any accident. As a result,

there is no increase in individual or

cumulative radiation exposure.

The environmental impacts of

transportation resulting from the use of

higher enrichment and extended

irradiation are discussed in the staff

assessment entitled ‘‘NRC Assessment

of the Environmental Effects of

Transportation Resulting from Extended

Fuel Enrichment and Irradiation.’’ This

assessment was published in the

Federal Register on August 11, 1988 (53

FR 30355), as corrected on August 24,

1988 (53 FR 32322), in connection with

the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant,

Unit I: Environmental Assessment and

Finding of No Significant Impact. As

indicated therein, the environmental

cost contribution of an increase in fuel

enrichment of up to 5 weight percent U–

235 and irradiation limits of up to 60

Gigawatt Days per Metric Ton (GWD/

MT) are either unchanged, or may in

fact be reduced from those summarized

in Table S–4 as set forth in 10 CFR

51.52(c). These findings are applicable

to the proposed amendment for D.C.

Cook Units 1 and 2. Accordingly, the

Commission concludes that this

proposed action would result in no

significant radiological environmental

impact.

With regard to potential

nonradiological impacts, the proposed

changes involve systems located within

the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR

Part 20. It does not affect

nonradiological plant effluents and has

no other environmental impact.

Therefore, the Commission concludes

that there are no significant

nonradiological environmental impacts

associated with the proposed

amendment.

The Notice of Consideration of

Issuance of Amendment to Facility

Operating License, Proposed No

Significant Hazards Consideration

Determination, and Opportunity for a

Hearing in connection with this action

was published in the Federal Register

on April 24, 1996 (61 FR 18172).

Alternative to the Proposed Action

Since the Commission concluded that

there are no significant environmental

effects that would result from the

proposed action, any alternative with

equal or greater environmental impacts

need not be evaluated.

The principal alternative would be to

deny the requested amendment. This

would not reduce environmental

impacts of plant operation and would

result in reduced operational flexibility.

Alternative Use of Resources

This action does not involve the use

of any resources not previously

considered in the Final Environmental

Statement for D.C. Cook, Units 1 and 2,

dated August 1973.

Agencies and Persons Contacted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on December 20, 1996, the Commission

consulted with the Michigan State

official, Mr. Dennis Hahn of the

Michigan Department of Public Health,

Nuclear Facilities and Environmental

Monitoring, 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 this

action, see the application for license

amendment dated February 26, 1996.

Copies are available for public

inspection at the Commission’s Public

Document Room, the Gelman Building,

2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC

20555, and at the local public document

room located at the Maud Preston

Palenske Memorial Library, 500 Market

Street, St. Joseph, Michigan 49085.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day

of January 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

John B. Hickman,

Project Manager, Project Directorate III–3,

Division of Reactor Projects III/IV, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–3462 Filed 2–11–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

Advisory Committee on Reactor

Safeguards Subcommittee Meeting on

Thermal Hydraulic Phenomena; Notice

of Meeting

The ACRS Subcommittee on Thermal

Hydraulic Phenomena will hold a

meeting on February 19, 1997, Room T–

2B3, at 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville,

Maryland.

Portions of the meeting may be closed

to public attendance pursuant to 5

U.S.C. 552b(c)(4), which authorizes

closure of meetings to protect

proprietary information, and 5 U.S.C.

552b(c)(9)(B), which authorizes closure

of meetings to protect information the

premature disclosure of which would be

likely to significantly frustrate

implementation of a proposed agency

action.

The agenda for the subject meeting

shall be as follows:

Wednesday, February 19, 1997—8:30

a.m. until the conclusion of business

The Subcommittee will gather

information, analyze relevant issues and

facts, and formulate proposed positions

and actions for deliberation by the full

Committee, regarding technical issues

associated with AP600 test data

generated at the ROSA and Oregon State

University APEX test facilities. The

Subcommittee may hear separate

presentations by representatives of the

NRC staff and the Westinghouse Electric

Corporation regarding the test data.

Oral statements may be presented by

members of the public with the

concurrence of the Subcommittee

Chairman; written statements will be

accepted and made available to the

Committee. Electronic recordings will

be permitted only during those portions

of the meeting that are open to the

public, and questions may be asked only

by members of the Subcommittee, its

consultants, and staff. Persons desiring

to make oral statements should notify

the cognizant ACRS staff engineer

named below five days prior to the

meeting, if possible, so that appropriate

arrangements can be made.

Further information regarding topics

to be discussed, whether the meeting

has been cancelled or rescheduled, the

scheduling of sessions which are open

to the public, the Chairman’s ruling on

requests for the opportunity to present

oral statements and the time allotted

therefor can be obtained by contacting

the cognizant ACRS staff engineer, Mr.

Paul A. Boehnert (telephone 301/415–

8065) between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m.

(EST). Persons planning to attend this

meeting are urged to contact the above

named individual one or two working

days prior to the meeting to be advised

of any potential changes to the agenda,

etc., that may have occurred.

Dated: February 6, 1997.

Sam Duraiswamy,

Chief, Nuclear Reactors Branch.

[FR Doc. 97–3461 Filed 2–11–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

Biweekly Notice

Applications and Amendments to

Facility Operating Licenses Involving

No Significant Hazards Considerations

I. Background

Pursuant to Public Law 97-415, the

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(the Commission or NRC staff) is