Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 1997 / Notices 66697

CABOT to possess 100 tons of elemental

uranium and thorium total at both sites.

The contaminated material at the Revere

site is in the form of soil located at four

discrete locations. The contamination is

the result of processing ores which

contained uranium and thorium.

On November 19, 1997, the licensee

submitted a site decommissioning plan

(SDP) to NRC for review that

summarized previous decommissioning

efforts at the Revere site. The SDP

concludes that long-term doses from the

contaminated material at current levels

meet the requirements of the

Radiological Criteria for License

Termination rule (62FR39058).

Therefore, the licensee proposes that no

additional decommissioning is required.

Prior to the issuance of the

amendment, NRC will have made

findings required by the Atomic Energy

Act of 1954, as amended, and NRC’s

regulations. These findings will be

documented in a Safety Evaluation

Report and an Environmental

Assessment.

NRC provides notice that this is a

proceeding on an application for a

license amendment falling within the

scope of Subpart L, ‘‘Informal Hearing

Procedures for Adjudication in

Materials Licensing Proceedings,’’ of

NRC’s rules and practice for domestic

licensing proceedings 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(d).

A request for a hearing must be filed

within thirty (30) days of 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 Secretary, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, One

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville

Pike, Rockville, MD 20852–2738,

between 7:45 am and 4:15 pm Federal

workdays; or

2. By mail or telegram addressed to

Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001. Attention: Docketing and Services

Branch.

In addition to meeting other

applicable requirements of 10 CFR Part

2 of the NRC’s regulations, a request for

a hearing filed by a person other than

an applicant must describe in detail:

1. The interest of the requester in the

proceeding;

2. How that interest may be affected

by the results of the proceeding,

including the reasons why the requester

should be permitted a hearing, with

particular reference to the factors set out

in § 2.1205(h);

3. The requester’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(d).

In accordance with 10 CFR

§ 2.1205(f), each request for a hearing

must also be served, by delivering it

personally or by mail, to:

1. The applicant, Cabot Performance

Materials, P.O. Box 1608, Boyertown,

Pennsylvania 19512, Attention: Mr.

Anthony T. Campitelli, and;

2. NRC staff, by delivery to Secretary,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville

Pike, Rockville, MD 20852–2738,

between 7:45 am and 4:15 pm Federal

workdays, or by mail, addressed to

Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001, Attention: Docketing and Services

Branch.

For further details with respect to this

action, the application for renewal is

available for inspection at NRC’s Public

Document Room, 2120 L Street NW.,

Washington, DC 20555–0001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Timothy E. Harris, Low-Level Waste and

Decommissioning Projects Branch,

Division of Waste Management, Office

of Nuclear Material Safety and

Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001. Telephone: (301) 415–6613. Fax.:

(301) 415–5398.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day

of December 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

John W.N. Hickey,

Chief, Low-Level Waste and Decommissioning

Projects Branch, Division of Waste

Management, Office of Nuclear Material

Safety and Safeguards.

[FR Doc. 97–33219 Filed 12–18–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. STN 50–454, STN 50–455, STN

50–456 AND STN 50–457]

Commonwealth Edison Company;

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of

Amendment to Facility Operating

License, Proposed No Significant

Hazards Consideration Determination,

and Opportunity for a Hearing

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of an amendment

to Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–

37, NPF–66, NPF–72 and NPF–77

issued to Commonwealth Edison

Company (the licensee) for operation of

Byron Station, Units 1 and 2, located in

Ogle County, Illinois and Braidwood

Station, Units 1 and 2, located in Will

County, Illinois.

The amendment would amend the

Technical Specifications (TS) related to

‘‘Containment Vessel Structural

Integrity,’’ to incorporate the

requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(vi)

and 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(ix) and update

the existing Containment Vessel

Structural Integrity Programs to meet

the requirements found in Subsection

IWL of the 1992 Edition, 1992 Addenda

of the American Society of Mechanical

Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure

Vessel Code (Code) Section XI. The

proposed amendment would also

incorporate Regulatory Guide 1.35.1,

1990, ‘‘Determination Prestressing

Forces for Inspection of Prestressed

Concrete Containment.’’

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:

1. The proposed change does not involve

a significant increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated.

The proposed changes revise the

surveillance requirements for containment

reinforced concrete and unbonded posttensioning systems inservice examinations as

required by 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(vi) and 10

CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(ix). The revised

requirements affect the inservice inspection

program designed to detect structural

degradation of the containment reinforced

concrete and unbonded post-tensioning

systems program and do not affect the

function of the containment reinforced

concrete and the unbonded post-tensioning

system components. The reinforced concrete

and the unbonded post-tensioning system are

passive components whose failure modes
66698 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 1997 / Notices

could not act as accident initiators or

precursors.

The proposed changes do not impact any

accident initiators or analyzed events or

assumed mitigation of accident or transient

events. They do not involve the addition or

removal of any equipment, or any design

changes to the facility. Therefore, this

proposed amendment does not involve a

significant increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated.

2. The proposed change does not create the

possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from any accident previously

evaluated.

The proposed changes do not involve a

modification to the physical configuration of

the plant (i.e., no new equipment will be

installed) or change in the methods

governing normal plant operation. The

proposed changes will not impose any new

or different requirements or introduce a new

accident initiator or precursor or malfunction

mechanism. The proposed changes provide

an NRC-approved ASME Code inspection/

testing methodology to assure age-related

degradation of the containment structure will

not go undetected. The function of the

containment reinforced concrete and the

unbonded post-tentioning system

components are not altered by this change.

Additionally, there is no change in the types

or increase in the amounts of any effluent

that may be released offsite; and there is no

increase in individual or cumulative

occupational radiation exposure. Therefore,

the possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from any previously evaluated has

not been created.

3. The proposed change does not involve

a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

The proposed changes revise the

surveillance requirements for containment

reinforced concrete and unbonded posttensioning systems inservice examinations

and tests contained in the referenced TS as

required by 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(vi) and 10

CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(ix). The proposed changes

do not affect the ability of containment to

mitigate design basis accidents, and,

therefore, do not result in a reduction in the

margin of safety.

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 and

Directives Branch, Division of

Administrative 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 January 20, 1998, 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: for Byron,

located at the Byron Public Library

District, 109 N. Franklin, P.O. Box 434,

Byron, Illinois 61010; for Braidwood,

the Wilmington Public Library, 201 S.

Kankakee Street, Wilmington, Illinois

60481. 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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 1997 / Notices 66699

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:

Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, or

may be delivered to the Commission’s

Public Document Room, the Gelman

Building, 2120 L Street, NW.,

Washington, DC, by the above date. 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

Michael I. Miller, Esquire; Sidley and

Austin, One First National Plaza,

Chicago, Illinois 60603, 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 June 17, 1997, 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 rooms: for Byron,

located at the Byron Public Library

District, 109 N. Franklin, P.O. Box 434,

Byron, Illinois 61010; for Braidwood,

the Wilmington Public Library, 201 S.

Kankakee Street, Wilmington, Illinois

60481.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day

of December, 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

George Dick, Jr.,

Project Manager Project Directorate III–2

Division of Reactor Projects—III/IV Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–33230 Filed 12–18–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. STN 50–454, STN 50–455, STN

50–456, and STN 50–457]

Commonwealth Edison Company;

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of

Amendment to Facility Operating

License, Proposed No Significant

Hazards Consideration Determination,

and Opportunity for a Hearing Byron

Station, Units 1 and 2 and Braidwood

Station, Units 1 and 2

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of an amendment

to Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–

37, NPF–66, NPF–72, and NPF–77

issued to Commonwealth Edison

Company (the licensee) for operation of

the Byron Station, Units 1 and 2, located

in Ogle County, Illinois and Braidwood

Station, Units 1 and 2, located in Will

County, Illinois.

The proposed amendment would

revise technical specification (TS) 1.0,

‘‘Definitions’’, TS 3/4.6.1, ‘‘Primary

Containment’’ and associated Bases; and

TS 5.4.2, ‘‘Reactor Coolant System

Volume’’ for Byron and Braidwood to

support the steam generator

replacement for Unit 1 at each site. The

replacement steam generators increase

the reactor coolant system volume

which results in a higher calculated

peak containment pressure (Pa) value.

The staff’s proposed no significant

hazards consideration determination for

the requested change was published on

April 23, 1997 (62 FR 19826).

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:

1. The proposed change does not involve

a significant increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated.

Each of the RSGs has a larger RCS primary

side volume than the original steam

generators (OSGs). As a result of the RCS

volume increase, the mass and energy release

during the blowdown phase of the large

break loss of coolant accident (LBLOCA) is

increased. Additionally, the heat transfer rate

of the RSGs is greater than the OSGs, and the

RSGs will operate at a slightly higher

pressure than that for the OSGs.

Consequently, the steam enthalpy exiting the

break during the reflood period, for the RSGs,

will be greater than for the OSGs. This results

in an increase in the containment building

peak pressure, Pa.

The proposed revisions to the Technical

Specifications involve the corrected value of

the current Unit 1 and Unit 2 RCS volume

and the incremental change in RCS volume

for the RSGs. The proposed revisions also

involve the defined value of Unit 1 Pa

following installation of the RSGs. Several

editorial changes are also being made to

improve clarity and consistency of the TS.

RCS volume is not an initiator for any

event and an increase in volume does not

affect any operating margin or requirements.

Therefore, increasing the primary volume

does not increase the probability of any event

previously analyzed.

The current value of Pa for Unit 2 is

unchanged due to conservatism in the

original analysis. The revised value of Pa for

Unit 1 continues to be less than the design

basis pressure for the containment structure.

The change represents only a revision to the

containment test pressure for containment

leakage testing. Such testing is only

performed with the affected unit in the

shutdown condition. Therefore, the proposed

change in Pa for Unit 1 does not involve a

significant increase in the probability of an

accident previously evaluated.

All accidents in the Updated Final Safety

Analysis Report (UFSAR) were evaluated to

determine the effect of an increase in primary

volume on accident consequences. The

events identified that may be impacted by an

increase in primary volume are the Waste

Gas System Leak or Failure and LBLOCA. For

the Waste Gas System Leak or Failure, the

activity of the decay tank is controlled to

Technical Specification limits which are

unaffected by RCS volume. Therefore, an

increase in RCS volume would not increase

the offsite dose.

The offsite dose calculation for the

LBLOCA is unaffected by the proposed