Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 82 /Wednesday, April 29, 1998 / Notices 23477

*Copies of this notice of hearing were sent this

date to counsel for the applicant PFS, and to

counsel for petitioners Skull Valley Band, SSWS,

OGD, Confederated Tribes/Pete, Castle Rock Land/

Skull Valley/Ensign Ranches, and the State by

Internet e-mail transmission; and to counsel for the

NRC staff by e-mail through the agency’s wide area

network system.

granted the petitions of the State, Castle

Rock Land/Skull Valley, OGD,

Confederated Tribes, and Skull Valley

Band and admitted them as parties to

the proceeding.

In light of the foregoing, please take

notice that a hearing will be conducted

in this proceeding. This hearing will be

governed by the formal hearing

procedures set forth in 10 CFR Part 2,

Subpart G (10 CFR 2.700–.790).

During the course of the proceeding,

the Board may conduct an oral

argument, as provided in 10 CFR 2.755,

may hold additional prehearing

conferences pursuant to 10 CFR 2.752,

and may conduct evidentiary hearings

in accordance with 10 CFR 2.750–.751.

The public is invited to attend any oral

argument, prehearing conference, or

evidentiary hearing. Notices of those

sessions will be published in the

Federal Register and/or made available

to the public at the NRC Public

Document Rooms.

Additionally, as provided in 10 CFR

2.715(a), any person not a party to the

proceeding may submit a written

limited appearance statement setting

forth his or her position on the issues in

this proceeding. These statements do

not constitute evidence, but may assist

the Board and/or parties in defining the

issues being considered. Persons

wishing to submit a written limited

appearance statement should send it to

the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC. 20555, Attention: Rulemakings and

Adjudications Staff. A copy of the

statement also should be served on the

Chairman of the Atomic Safety and

Licensing Board. At a later date, the

Board will entertain oral limited

appearance statements at a location or

locations in the vicinity of the proposed

PFS facility. Notice of these oral limited

appearance sessions will be published

in the Federal Register and/or made

available to the public at the NRC Public

Document Rooms.

Documents relating to this proceeding

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

NRC Local Public Document Room at

the University of Utah, Marriott Library,

Documents Division, 295 S. 1500 East,

Salt Lake City, Utah 84112–0860.

Rockville, Maryland, April 24, 1998.

For the Atomic Safety and Licensing

Board *.

G. Paul Bollwerk, III,

Chairman, Administrative Judge.

[FR Doc. 98–11404 Filed 4–28–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–266 and 301]

Wisconsin Electric Power Company;

Notice of Withdrawal of Application for

Amendments to Facility Operating

Licenses

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) has

granted the request of Wisconsin

Electric Power Company (the licensee)

to withdraw its December 13, 1995,

application for proposed amendments to

Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–24

and DPR–27 for the Point Beach Nuclear

Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, located in

Manitowoc County, Wisconsin.

The proposed amendments would

have revised the Technical

Specifications to include the provisions

for a core operating limits report.

The Commission had previously

issued a Notice of Consideration of

Issuance of Amendments published in

the Federal Register on January 22,

1996 (61 FR 1638). However, by letter

dated April 6, 1998, the licensee

withdrew the proposed changes. For

further details with respect to this

action, see the application for

amendments dated December 13, 1995,

and the licensee’s letter dated April 6,

1998, which withdrew the application

for license amendments. The above

documents 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 Lester Public Library,

1001 Adams Street, Two Rivers,

Wisconsin 54241.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day

of April 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Linda L. Gundrum,

Project Manager, Project Directorate III–1,

Division of Reactor Projects—III/IV, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–11340 Filed 4–28–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–282 and 50–306]

Northern States Power Company

(Prairie Island Nuclear Generating

Plant, Units 1 and 2); 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

Nos. DPR–42 and DPR–60, issued to

Northern States Power Company (NSP

or the licensee), for operation of Prairie

Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1

and 2, located in Goodhue County,

Minnesota.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

The proposed action would permit

the licensee to use American Society of

Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code

Case N–514 for setting the pressure

setpoint of each unit’s overpressure

protection system (OPPS) so that the

pressure-temperature (P–T) limits

required by 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix

G, could be exceeded by 10 percent

during a low temperature pressure

transient. By application dated March 6,

1998, 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,’’ and 10 CFR Part 50,

Appendix G, ‘‘Fracture Toughness

Requirements.’’

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. Appendix G of 10

CFR Part 50 defines 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, and specifies that these P–T

limits must be at least as conservative as

the limits obtained by following the

methods of analysis and the margins of

safety of the ASME Code, Section XI,

Appendix G.

By letter dated March 6, 1998, NSP

submitted an exemption request to

enable the use of ASME Code Case N–

514 as an alternative method for

determining the OPPS setpoint. NSP
23478 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 82 /Wednesday, April 29, 1998 / Notices

determined that the exemption request

from the provisions of 10 CFR 50.60 and

Appendix G was necessary since these

regulations require, as noted above, that

the reactor vessel conditions not exceed

the P–T limits established by Appendix

G. In referring to 10 CFR 50.12 on

specific exemptions, NSP cited special

circumstances as stated in 10 CFR

50.12(a)(2)(ii) on achieving the

underlying purpose of the regulations as

its basis for requesting this exemption.

The underlying purpose of 10 CFR

Part 50, Appendix G, is to establish

fracture toughness requirements for the

reactor coolant system (RCS) pressure

boundary to provide adequate margins

of safety during any condition of normal

operation. The OPPS provides a

physical means of protecting these

limits. NSP proposed that establishing

the OPPS pressure setpoint per the N–

514 provisions such that the vessel

pressure would not exceed 110 percent

of the P–T limit allowables would still

provide an acceptable level of safety and

mitigate the potential for an inadvertent

actuation of the OPPS.

The plant operators must operate the

plant in a pressure window that is

between the minimum pressure

required to preserve reactor coolant

pump seals and at a maximum pressure

that does not challenge the poweroperated relief valve setpoint. Without

the application of ASME Code Case N–

514, Prairie Island would have an

operating window that is too narrow to

permit reasonable system makeup and

pressure control. Further reduction of

the OPPS setpoint below 500 psig

would increase the probability that the

reactor coolant pumps’ no. 1 seal will

fail as a result of OPPS operation, and

that such a seal failure could produce a

breach in the RCS boundary that could

not be isolated. Therefore, inadvertent

OPPS actuation could lead to a small

break loss-of-coolant accident and the

unnecessary release of reactor coolant

inside containment.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The Commission has completed its

evaluation of the proposed action and

concludes that the proposed action

involves features located entirely within

the protected areas as defined in 10 CFR

Part 20.

The proposed action will not increase

the probability or consequences of

accidents, no changes are being made in

the types of any effluents that may be

released offsite, and there is no

significant increase in the allowable

individual or cumulative occupational

radiation exposure. Accordingly, the

Commission concludes that there are no

significant radiological environmental

impacts associated with the proposed

action.

With regard to potential

nonradiological impacts, the proposed

action does involve features located

entirely within the restricted area as

defined in 10 CFR Part 20. It does not

affect nonradiological plant effluents

and has no other environmental impact.

Accordingly, the Commission concludes

that there are no significant

nonradiological environmental impacts

associated with the proposed action.

Alternative to the Proposed Action

Since the Commission has concluded

there is no measurable environmental

impact associated with the proposed

action, any alternatives with equal or

greater environmental impact need not

be evaluated. As an alternative to the

proposed action, the staff considered

denial of the proposed action. Denial of

the application would result in no

change in current environmental

impacts. The environmental impacts of

the proposed action and the alternative

action are similar.

Alternative Use of Resources

This action does not involve the use

of any resources not previously

considered in the Final Environmental

Statement for the Prairie Island Nuclear

Generating Plant.

Agencies ad Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on April 7, 1998, the staff consulted

with the Minnesota State official, Mike

McCarthy of the Department of Public

Service, 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 the

proposed action, see the licensee’s letter

dated March 6, 1998, 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

Minneapolis Public Library, Technology

and Science Department, 300 Nicollet

Mall, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day

of April, 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Cynthia A. Carpenter,

Director, Project Directorate III–1, Division

of Reactor Projects—III/IV, Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–11339 Filed 4–28–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Survey of Steel Mills: Support of a Risk

Assessment of Generally and

Specifically Licensed Devices

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Survey of Steel Mills:

Withdrawal.

SUMMARY: On August 14, 1997, (62 FR

43556) NRC announced its intentions to

conduct a survey of the steel industry

for obtaining data tailored to a risk

analysis. The survey would have

provided empirical data about

discoveries of radioactive material in

the recycling stream. A risk analysis

would use this information as the basis

to systematically evaluate the

effectiveness of current regulation and

possible regulatory changes. The

analysis supports regulatory changes

toward improving the control of

radioactive devices commonly used in

many industries.

The NRC received three letters from

trade associations and a steel mill. All

of these letters indicated that their

organizations would not support the

survey. Because participation in the

survey would be voluntary and the

letters were negative, the response rate

for the survey would likely be low,

resulting in insufficient data for a risk

analysis as originally planned.

Therefore, the NRC has decided not to

conduct the survey.

NRC is continuing the risk analysis

with appropriate adjustments to

accommodate for the lack of data

available without the survey. The NRC

will re-evaluate the need for the survey

after the risk analysis is completed. If

the NRC decides to conduct the survey

at a later date, the survey will be

announced in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Christopher Ryder, Mail Stop TWFN

10E–50, Division of Systems

Technology, Office of Nuclear

Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555, telephone (301) 415–6102;

electronic mail address:

CPR@NRC.GOV.

Dated at Rockville, MD., this 22nd day of

April, 1998.