Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 57 / Tuesday, March 25, 1997 / Notices 14167

Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L

Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the

local public document room located at

the B. F. Jones Memorial Library, 663

Franklin Avenue, Aliquippa, PA 15001.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day

of March 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

John F. Stolz,

Director, Project Directorate I–2, Division of

Reactor Projects—I/II, Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–7501 Filed 3–24–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

[Docket No. 50–388]

Pennsylvania Power & Light 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 No. NPF–

22, issued to Pennsylvania Power &

Light Company (PP&L), (the licensee),

for operation of the Susquehanna Steam

Electric Station (SSES), Unit 2, located

in Luzerne County, PA.

The proposed amendment would

modify the Design Features Section

5.3.1 of the Technical Specifications to

reflect the Atrium-10 design and would

include a Siemens Power Corporation

(SPC) topical report reference in Section

6.9.3.2 to reflect mechanical design

criteria for this fuel. This change would

allow this fuel to be loaded and

maintained in the core only under

Condition 5, (refueling).

PP&L has indicated that exigent

circumstances exist which are a result of

the following. PP&L submitted its

proposal for amendment for the staff to

approve the use of SPC Atrium-10 fuel

in SSES, Unit 2 on December 18, 1996

and as supplemented on March 12,

1997. The staff approval has been

predicated on the completion of an

audit at SPC. Issues raised during the

SPC audit have caused an unanticipated

delay in completing the staff’s review.

In its letter, the licensee stated that this

delay causes a threat to PP&L’s ability

to complete the Unit 2 8th refueling and

inspection outage as planned and the

return to Unit 2 operation. This outage

has already begun. During the original

Unit 2 outage scoping process PP&L

stated that it did not anticipate the need

for a specific NRC inspection of SPC to

support the NRC review and approval of

the December 18, 1996 amendment.

Further, PP&L reasonably expected that

all audit results would be satisfactory

and would not impact the current Unit

2 outage schedule. The resultant

consequences required the

supplemental submittal on March 12,

1997, and requires additional

unavoidable NRC staff review which is

ongoing. The March 17, 1997

application is only to approve those

changes that are applicable to allow fuel

to be loaded and maintained in the

reactor core only during Operational

Condition 5 on an interim basis during

the outage and prior to the NRC’s

approval of the December 18, 1996 and

March 12, 1997, requested TS changes,

to minimize the delay in startup based

on the NRC review of the two submittals

discussed above. The staff agrees that

exigent conditions exist that were not

anticipated by the licensee.

This notice is related to the

amendment requested by the December

18, 1996 and March 12, 1997 submittals

by Pennsylvania Power and Light

Company, but does not affect the

previous notice dated March 12, 1997,

which was published in the Federal

Register on March 18, 1997 (62 FR

12859).

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.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6) for

amendments to be granted under

exigent circumstances, the NRC staff

must determine 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 description of a fuel assembly (Section

5.3.1) is revised to reflect the fact that

ATRIUMTM–10 contains a central water

channel. Since the active fuel length of

ATRIUMTM–10 is different from that of 9×9–

2, reference to an active fuel length of 150

inches is no longer appropriate and was

deleted. There is no safety significance to

these changes.

Due to the limitation of this proposed

change to Operational Condition 5, only a

subset of the accident events analyzed in the

FSAR [Final Safety Analysis Report] needed

to be addressed. All other events were

considered and the addition of ATRIUMTM–

10 fuel to the reactor core in Operational

Condition 5 did not increase the probability

or consequences of an accident previously

evaluated. The events considered are

described below.

The maximum allowed enrichment

(Section 5.3.1) is increased from 4.0 to 4.5

weight percent U235. Criticality calculations

were performed with a KENO Monte Carlo

code to ensure that ATRIUMTM–10 fuel with

a lattice average enrichment of 4.5 weight

percent U235 can be safely stored in both the

new fuel vault and the spent fuel storage pool

at Susquehanna. These calculations

demonstrated, consistent with current

Technical Specifications, that the maximum

k-effective of both the new fuel vault and

spent fuel storage pool will not exceed 0.95

under the worst credible storage array or

accident conditions.

The ATRIUMTM–10 fuel assembly is

unirradiated and its weight is nearly

identical to the current SPC 9×9–2 fuel

assembly weight as well as being less than

the fuel assembly weight used in the 9×9–2

analyses (680 lbs.). The dose consequences of

the current 9×9–2 licensing analyses of the

Fuel and Equipment Handling Accidents

bound the dose consequences of a Fuel

Handling Accident involving ATRIUMTM–10

fuel.

The grappling of the ATRIUMTM–10 fuel is

similar to the 9×9–2, due to the similar bail

handle dimensions and assembly weights.

Therefore, ATRIUMTM–10 fuel is completely

compatible with the refueling platform main

grapple. Because the assembly weights of the

ATRIUMTM–10 fuel and the 9×9–2 fuel are

essentially the same, the capacity of the

refueling platform main hoist will be

sufficient to handle the ATRIUMTM–10 fuel.

Also, the ATRIUMTM–10 fuel uses the

identical fuel channel design as the 9×9–2

fuel and the lower tie plate has very similar

outside dimensions. Therefore, the

ATRIUMTM–10 fuel is compatible with, and

can be safely inserted/placed into the reactor

core.

Storage of channelled ATRIUMTM–10 fuel

in the Reactor Core was evaluated. Core

shutdown margin calculations were

performed using NRC approved methodology

for the beginning of cycle core configuration.

Validation of the shutdown margin

methodology as it applies to ATRIUMTM–10

was done through comparisons to Siemens’

Power Corporation analyses and higher-order

Monte Carlo calculations. Calculated core

shutdown margin for the beginning of cycle

core loading is greater than 1.00%[delta]k/k

which far exceeds the Technical

Specification value of 0.38%[delta]k/k.

Therefore, ATRIUMTM–10 fuel can be placed

into the U2C9 final core configuration with

assurance that the core will remain

subcritical with the strongest worth rod

withdrawn. A positive core shutdown margin

assures protection against the control rod

removal error during refueling (FSAR Section

15.4.1.1) because subcriticality is maintained.
14168 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 57 / Tuesday, March 25, 1997 / Notices

In addition, the ATRIUMTM–10 fuel

assembly dimensions critical to interface

with the Spent Fuel Storage Pool and Reactor

Vessel are essentially the same as the 9×9–

2 design. Therefore, the ATRIUMTM–10 can

be properly stored.

Included in the revised Technical

Specifications via reference (Section 6.9.3.2)

is one NRC approved topical report

containing the criteria for the design of

Siemens Power Corporation fuel. SPC

analyses have demonstrated that

ATRIUMTM–10 fuel complies with the NRC

approved criteria thus assuring the structural

integrity of the fuel. Compliance with the

criteria applicable to Operational Condition 5

assures that ATRIUMTM–10 fuel can be safely

stored in the spent fuel pool and loaded in

the Unit 2 reactor core during Operational

Condition 5.

Based on the foregoing, the proposed

action 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 changes to the Unit 2 Technical

Specifications (Design Features and inclusion

of the methodology reference) to allow

Operational Condition 5 loading of

ATRIUM–10 fuel do not require any physical

plant modifications (other than loading of the

ATRIUMTM–10 assemblies), physically affect

any plant components, or entail changes in

plant operation. ATRIUMTM–10 fuel

assemblies have approximately the same

weight, outer dimensions, and the same basic

bail handle design as 9×9–2 fuel assemblies

and are handled in the same manner as 9×9–

2 fuel assemblies. Thus, the proposed change

does not create the possibility of a previously

unevaluated operator error.

The topical report reference added to

Section 6.9.3.2 contains NRC approved

acceptance criteria. SPC analyses have been

performed according to their Quality

Assurance Program which demonstrate

compliance with these NRC approved fuel

design criteria. Thus, the ATRIUMTM–10 fuel

will maintain its structural integrity during

core loading.

Therefore, the proposed change does not

create the possibility of a new or different

kind of accident from any accident

previously evaluated.

3. The proposed change does not involve

a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

The changes to the Unit 2 Technical

Specifications discussed in Item 1 above

(Design Features and inclusion of the

mechanical design methodology reference)

will allow loading of ATRIUM–10 fuel in

Operational Condition 5. The proposed

change does not require any physical plant

modifications (other than the loading of the

ATRIUMTM–10 fuel), physically affect any

plant components, or entail changes in plant

operation. Therefore, the proposed change

will not jeopardize or degrade the function or

operation of any plant system or component

governed by Technical Specifications. The

analyses performed provide assurance that

the ATRIUMTM–10 fuel will remain

subcritical during storage and core loading

and meets the requirements of Technical

Specification 5.6 and, thus, an equivalent

margin of safety is maintained.

ATRIUMTM–10 fuel assemblies have

approximately the same weight, outer

dimensions, and the same basic bail handle

design as 9×9–2 fuel assemblies and are

handled in the same manner as 9×9–2 fuel

assemblies. The dose consequences of the

Fuel and Equipment Handling Accidents are

not increased and, thus, an equivalent margin

of safety is maintained.

Therefore, the proposed change does not

involve a significant reduction in a 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 14 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 14-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

14-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. 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 24, 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 Osterhout

Free Library, Reference Department, 71

South Franklin Street, Wilkes-Barre, PA

18701. 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 a 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.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 57 / Tuesday, March 25, 1997 / Notices 14169

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 the amendment is issued before the

expiration of the 30-day hearing period,

the Commission will make a final

determination on the issue of no

significant hazards consideration. If a

hearing is requested, 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 John F.

Stolz, Director, Project Directorate I–2:

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 Jay Silberg, Esquire, Shaw,

Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge, 2300 N

Street NW., Washington, DC 20037,

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 March 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 room, located at

the Osterhout Free Library, Reference

Department, 71 South Franklin Street,

Wilkes-Barre, PA 18701.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day

of March 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Chester Poslusny,

Project Manager, Project Directorate I–2,

Division of Reactor Projects—I/II, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–7507 Filed 3–24–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

[Docket No. 50–482]

Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating

Corporation; Notice of Withdrawal of

Application for Amendment to Facility

Operating License

The United States Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) has

granted the request of Wolf Creek

Nuclear Operating Corporation (the

licensee) to withdraw its December 3,

1996, application for proposed

amendment to Facility Operating

License No. NPF–42 for the Wolf Creek

Generating Station, located in Coffey

County Kansas.

The proposed amendment would

have changed the Action Statement

associated with Item 7.b, RWST Level—

Low-Low Coincident with Safety

Injection, Table 3.3–3, Engineered

Safety Features Actuation System

Instrumentation, from Action 16 to

Action 28.

The Commission had previously

issued a Notice of Consideration of

Issuance of Amendment published in

the Federal Register on January 2, 1997

(62 FR 133). However, by letter dated

February 28, 1997, the licensee

withdrew the proposed change.

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application for

amendment dated December 3, 1996,

and the licensee’s letter dated February

28, 1997, which withdrew the

application for license amendment. The

above documents are available for

public inspection at the Commission’s

Public Document Room, 2120 L Street,

N.W., Washington, D.C., and the local

public documents rooms located at

Emporia State University, William Allen

White Library, 1200 Commercial Street,

Emporia, Kansas 66801 and Washburn

University School of Law Library,

Topeka, Kansas 66621.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 17th day

of March 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

James C. Stone,

Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate

IV–2, Division of Reactor Projects III/IV, Office

of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–7504 Filed 3–24–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

[Docket Nos. STN 50–528, STN 50–529, and

STN 50–530]

Arizona Public Service Company; Palo

Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Unit

Nos. 1, 2, and 3 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. NPF–41,

NPF–51, and NPF–74, issued to Arizona

Public Service Company (the licensee),

for operation of the Palo Verde Nuclear

Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and

3, located in Maricopa County, Arizona.