11480 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 48 / Wednesday, March 12, 1997 / Notices

Date and Time: March 26–27, 1997; 8:30

a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

Place: National Science Foundation, 4201

Wilson Boulevard, Room 1175, Arlington,

VA 22230.

Type of Meeting: Closed.

Contact Person(s): Mark Luker, Program

Director, CISE/NCRI, Room 1175, National

Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard,

Arlington, VA 22230, (703) 306–1950.

Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and

recommendations concerning proposals

submitted to NSF for financial support.

Agenda: To review and evaluate proposals

submitted for the Connections to the Internet

Program.

Reason for Closing: The proposals being

reviewed include information of a

proprietary or confidential nature, including

technical information; financial data, such as

salaries, and personal information

concerning individuals associated with the

proposals. These matters are exempt under 5

U.S.C. 552b(c) (4) and (6) of the Government

in the Sunshine Act.

Dated: March 7, 1997.

Linda Allen-Benton,

Deputy Director, Division of Human Resource

Management, Acting Committee Management

Officer.

[FR Doc. 97–6225 Filed 3–11–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555–01–M

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION

SAFETY BOARD

Public Hearing in Atlanta, Georgia:

Aviation Accident

In connection with its investigation of

the accident involving Delta Air Lines,

Inc. Flight 1288, MD–88, N927DA,

Pensacola Regional Airport, Pensacola,

Florida, July 6, 1996, the National

Transportation Safety Board will

convene a public hearing at 9:00 a.m.,

(est.) on March 26, 1997, in Ballroom A,

at the Atlanta Hilton and Towers Hotel,

located at 255 Courtland Street, Atlanta,

Georgia 30303. For more information,

contact Shelly Hazle, Office of Public

Affairs, Washington, D.C. 20594,

telephone (202) 314–6100.

Dated: March 7, 1997.

Bea Hardesty,

Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 97–6192 Filed 3–11–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7533–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–293]

Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station; 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 No. DPR–

35 issued to Boston Edison Company

(BECo, the licensee) for operation of the

Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station located

in Plymouth County, Massachusetts.

The proposed amendment would

review and approve the engineering

analysis used to evaluate the effects of

damping values in the seismic analysis

of various Pilgrim Station piping

systems. Following NRC approval, BECo

would revise the Pilgrim Updated Final

Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) to

make the above engineering analysis the

design basis of record for the affected

piping systems provided in the

licensee’s January 24, 1997, letter, as

supplemented on February 13 and 27,

1997.

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) Involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of an accident

previously evaluated.

The engineering evaluation referenced

above compared newly generated in-structure

response spectra for the reactor building

using an enhanced reactor building model

and included the effects of soil/structure

interaction. The results show the new spectra

are enveloped by a comparable UFSAR

design basis spectra and that piping stresses

are less than design basis allowables. The

new spectra differ from the current UFSAR

response spectra in that the generic

Regulatory Guide 1.60 spectral shape is used

to characterize the 0.15g Safe Shutdown

Earthquake control motion using a soil/

structure interaction analysis with an

upgraded structural model to evaluate

building response and ASME Code Case

N411 damping values for piping analyses.

The new piping stresses computed, as

described above, result in less than design

basis allowables. Since the stresses are

acceptable and the methods to compute them

used applicable Standard Review Plan (SRP)

guidance, the proposed UFSAR revision does

not significantly increase the probability of

loss-of-coolant accidents (i.e., piping failures)

nor significantly reduce the reliability of

piping needed to mitigate the consequences

of accidents. Therefore, the proposed

revision does not involve a significant

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 accident

previously evaluated.

The revision relates to the method used to

compute the response of structures and

piping to seismic excitation and does not

introduce a new type of failure mode. Since

no new accident initiators are created, no

new types of accidents can occur. Therefore,

the proposed revision does not create the

possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from any accident previously

evaluated.

(3) Involve a significant reduction in a

margin of safety.

The margin of safety for affected piping

systems is reduced because the new response

spectra results in a reduction of the

computed seismic stresses compared to those

computed using current UFSAR response

spectra. However, this reduction in margin is

not significant because the resulting piping

stresses are less than design basis allowable

values, and the methods used to compute

response spectra associated with the 0.15 g

Safe Shutdown Earthquake were determined

using applicable NRC SRP guidance. Thus,

although margin of safety for the affected

piping is reduced, it is not a significant

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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 48 / Wednesday, March 12, 1997 / Notices 11481

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

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 April 11, 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 Plymouth

Public Library, 132 South Street,

Plymouth, Massachusetts. 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 Patrick

D. Milano: 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 W.S. Stowe,

Esquire, Boston Edison Company, 800

Boylston Street, 36th Floor, Boston,

Massachusetts, 02199, 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
11482 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 48 / Wednesday, March 12, 1997 / Notices

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 January 24, 1997, as

supplemented February 13 and 27,

1997, 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 Plymouth Public Library,

132 South Street, Plymouth,

Massachusetts.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day

of March 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Alan B. Wang,

Project Manager, Project Directorate I–3,

Division of Reactor Projects—I/II, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–6176 Filed 3–11– 97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

[Docket No. 50–313]

Entergy Operations, Inc.; Arkansas

Nuclear One, Unit 1 Environmental

Assessment and Finding of No

Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of an exemption

from certain requirements of its

regulations to Facility Operating License

No. DPR–51, issued to Entergy

Operations, Inc. (the licensee), for

operation of Arkansas Nuclear One,

Unit 1 (ANO–1), located in Pope

County, Arkansas.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

The proposed action would allow the

licensee to utilize American Society of

Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler

and Pressure Vessel Code (Code) Case

N–514, ‘‘Low Temperature Overpressure

Protection’’ to determine its low

temperature overpressure protection

(LTOP) setpoints. By application dated

November 26, 1996, the licensee

requested an exemption from certain

requirements of 10 CFR 50.60,

‘‘Acceptance Criteria for Fracture

Prevention Measures for Lightwater

Nuclear Power Reactors for Normal

Operation.’’ The exemption would

allow application of an alternate

methodology to determine the LTOP

setpoints for ANO–1. The proposed

alternate methodology is consistent with

guidelines developed by the ASME

Working Group on Operating Plant

Criteria (WGOPC) to define pressure

limits during LTOP events that avoid

certain unnecessary operational

restrictions, provide adequate margins

against failure of the reactor pressure

vessel, and reduce the potential for

unnecessary activation of pressure

relieving devices used for LTOP. These

guidelines have been incorporated into

Code Case N–514, ‘‘Low Temperature

Overpressure Protection.’’ Code Case N–

514 has been approved by the ASME

Code Committee and incorporated into

Appendix G of Section XI of the ASME

Code and published in the 1993

Addenda to Section XI. However, 10

CFR 50.55a, ‘‘Codes and Standards,’’

and Regulatory Guide 1.147, ‘‘Inservice

Inspection Code Case Acceptability,’’

have not been updated to reflect the

acceptability of Code Case N–514.

The Need for the Proposed Action

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.60, all

lightwater nuclear power reactors must

meet the fracture toughness

requirements for the reactor coolant

pressure boundary as set forth in 10 CFR

Part 50, Appendix G. 10 CFR Part 50,

Appendix G, defines pressure/

temperature (P/T) limits during any

condition of normal operation including

anticipated operational occurrences and

system hydrostatic tests, to which the

pressure boundary may be subjected

over its service lifetime. It is specified

in 10 CFR 50.60(b) that alternatives to

the described requirements in 10 CFR

Part 50, Appendix G, may be used when

an exemption is granted by the

Commission under 10 CFR 50.12.

To prevent transients that would

produce excursions exceeding the 10

CFR Part 50, Appendix G, P/T limits

while the reactor is operating at low

temperatures, the licensee installed the

LTOP system. The LTOP system

includes the electromatic relief valve

(ERV) that is set to the LTOP mode

when reactor pressure and temperature

are reduced. The ERV prevents the

pressure in the reactor vessel from

exceeding the P/T limits of 10 CFR Part

50, Appendix G. However, to prevent

ERV from lifting as a result of normal

operating pressure surges, some margin

is needed between the normal operating

pressure and the ERV setpoint.

To meet the 10 CFR Part 50,

Appendix G P/T limits, the ERV would

be set to open at a pressure very close

to the normal pressure inside the

reactor. With the ERV setpoint close to

the normal operating pressure, minor

pressure perturbations that typically

occur in the reactor could cause the ERV

to open periodically. This is undesirable

from the safety perspective because after

every ERV opening there is some

concern that the ERV may not reclose.

A stuck open ERV would continue to

discharge primary coolant and reduce

rector pressure until the discharge

pathway was closed by operator action.

Code Case N–514 would permit a

slightly higher pressure inside the

reactor during shutdown conditions.

The ability to maintain a higher

pressure in the reactor would allow a

higher ERV setpoint and the likelihood

for inadvertent opening of the ERV

would be reduced.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

Appendix G of the ASME Code

requires that the P/T limits be

calculated: (a) using a safety factor of

two on the principal membrane

(pressure) stresses, (b) assuming a flaw

at the surface with a depth of one

quarter (1⁄4) of the vessel wall thickness

and a length of six (6) times its depth,

and (c) using a conservative fracture

toughness curve that is based on the

lower bound of static, dynamic, and

crack arrest fracture toughness tests on

material similar to the ANO–1 reactor

vessel material.

Code Case N–514 guidelines are

intended to ensure that the LTOP limits

are still below the pressure/temperature

(P/T) limits for normal operation, but to

allow the pressure that may occur with

activation of pressure relieving devices

to exceed the P/T limits, provided

acceptable margins are maintained

during these events. This approach

protects the pressure vessel from LTOP

events, and maintains the Technical

Specifications P/T limits applicable for

normal heatup and cooldown in

accordance with 10 CFR Part 50,

Appendix G and Sections III and XI of

the ASME Code.

In determining the ERV setpoint for

LTOP events, the licensee proposed the

use of safety margins based on an

alternate methodology consistent with

the proposed ASME Code Case N–514

guidelines. ASME Code Case N–514

allows determination of the setpoint for

LTOP events such that the maximum

pressure in the vessel will not exceed

110% of the P/T limits of the existing

ASME Appendix G. This results in a

safety factor of 1.8 on the principal

membrane stresses. All other factors,

including assumed flaw size and

fracture toughness, remain the same.

Although this methodology would

reduce the safety factor on the principal

membrane stresses, use of the proposed

criteria will provide adequate margins

of safety to the reactor vessel during

LTOP transients.

Use of Code Case N–514 safety

margins will reduce operational

challenges during low-pressure, lowtemperature operations. In terms of

overall safety, the safety benefits desired