23304 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 81 /Tuesday, April 28, 1998 / Notices

the licensing process and to feed back

the lessons of that experience to the

nuclear industry.

A copy of the final supporting

statement may be viewed free of charge

at the NRC Public Document Room,

2120 L Street, NW (lower level),

Washington, DC. OMB clearance

requests are available at the NRC

worldwide web site (http://

www.nrc.gov) under the FedWorld

collection link on the home page tool

bar. The document will be available on

the NRC home page site for 60 days after

the signature date of this notice.

Comments and questions should be

directed to the OMB reviewer by May

28, 1998: Erik Godwin, Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs

(3150–0104), NEOB–10202, Office of

Management and Budget, Washington,

DC 20503.

Comments can also be submitted by

telephone at (202) 395–3084.

The NRC Clearance Officer is Brenda

Jo Shelton, 301–415–7233.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day

of April 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Brenda Jo Shelton,

NRC Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief

Information Officer.

[FR Doc. 98–11245 Filed 4–27–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–293]

Boston 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 No. DPR–

35, issued to Boston Edison Company

(BECo/the licensee), for operation of the

Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station located

in Plymouth, Massachusetts.

The proposed amendment would

modify Technical Specification (TS)

Section 3.6.A.1 to remove the

requirement that the reactor vessel

flange and adjacent shell differential

temperature be monitored during

heatup and cooldown events and also

removes the 145 degrees Fahrenheit

differential temperature limit.

By letter dated April 8, 1998, the

licensee requested that the proposed TS

change be reviewed under exigent

circumstances. A normal plant

cooldown under current TS

requirements would require monitoring

reactor vessel shell flange temperature

to maintain the vessel flange to adjacent

vessel shell differential temperature at

less than 145 degrees Fahrenheit.

However, the current condition of the

vessel shell flange thermocouples

prohibits accurate monitoring of the

metal surface temperature to meet this

TS requirement. The thermocouples are

considered inoperable due to

inconsistencies in their readouts.

Because the need for plant shutdown

and cooldown cannot be forecasted in

advance, BECo has requested review of

the submitted change under exigent

circumstances to avoid a future shortnotice request and possible violation of

current TS requirements. BECo has

made a good faith effort to prepare the

proposed license amendment for NRC

approval as expeditiously as practicable.

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:

a. The proposed amendment does not

involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of an accident

previously evaluated.

The recent analysis, Ref.[10], [see

application dated March 25, 1998] has shown

design and licensing bases for reactor vessel

integrity will be maintained, and results

supporting the T. S. change show the

conclusions reached remain unchanged from

previous conclusions reached in Ref.[3] [see

application dated March 25, 1998] and as

described in the [final safety analysis report]

FSAR, Ref.[1] [see application dated March

25, 1998]. Structural integrity for design basis

loading conditions is assured, based on the

results of Ref.[10] [see application dated

March 25, 1998]. The ability to control plant

heatup and cooldown rates has been shown

by analysis to be unaffected by the removal

of this T. S. requirement. This has been

confirmed by initial startup testing results

and the past 25 years of service.

b. The proposed amendment does not

create the possibility of a new or different

kind of accident from any accident

previously evaluated.

T/C’s [thermocouples] used to monitor

reactor vessel flange to adjacent shell DT

[differential temperature] are used only

during normal startup and shutdown

conditions, and removal of the T. S.

requirement to monitor this differential

temperature will have no affect on the design

basis accident conditions. Moderator

temperature and pressure are monitored and,

in the event fluid ramp rates exceed design

basis requirements, an evaluation must be

performed to determine the effect on

structural integrity of the reactor vessel and

components. ASME Code Section XI,

Appendix E, Ref. [11] [see application dated

March 25, 1998], provides a method for

evaluating an operating event that causes

excursion outside these limits.

c. The proposed amendment does not

involve a significant reduction in the margin

of safety.

Stress and fracture toughness calculations,

Ref.[10] [see application dated March 25,

1998], have shown removal of the T. S. DT

requirement will not increase levels above

the conservative design basis limits

previously established in the analysis of

record, Ref.[3] [see application dated March

25, 1998], or those stated in the FSAR, Ref.[1]

[see application dated March 25, 1998]. The

loadings used to determine stresses are the

same provided by the original equipment

designer and manufacturer. The calculated

stress levels and fatigue damage assessment

for the existing condition are essentially

unchanged from the values reported in the

reactor vessel analysis of record, Ref.[3] [see

application dated March 25, 1998]. The

results of the recent analysis, Ref.[10] [see

application dated March 25, 1998], show that

the margins of safety, as defined in the bases

for the Pilgrim T. S. and the FSAR, are not

reduced and vessel integrity will be

maintained during all normal and transient

conditions previously analyzed and reported

in the FSAR.

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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 81 /Tuesday, April 28, 1998 / Notices 23305

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 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 6D59, 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 May 28, 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 the Plymouth

Public Library, 11 North Street,

Plymouth, Massachusetts 02360. 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.

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:

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

W.S. Stowe, Esquire, Boston Edison

Company, 800 Boylston Street, 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

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 25, 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 Plymouth Public Library, 11 North

Street, Plymouth, Massachusetts 02360.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd

day of April 1998.
23306 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 81 /Tuesday, April 28, 1998 / Notices

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. 98–11247 Filed 4–27–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–413 and 50–414]

Duke Energy Corporation, et al.; Notice

of Partial Denial of Amendments to

Facility Operating Licenses and

Opportunity for Hearing

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) has

partially denied a request by Duke

Energy Corporation (the licensee) for

amendments to Facility Operating

License (FOL) Nos. NPF–35 and NPF–

52, issued to the licensee for operation

of the Catawba Nuclear Station, Unit

Nos. 1 and 2, located in York County,

South Carolina. Notice of Consideration

of Issuance of Amendments was

published in the Federal Register on

February 11, 1998 (63 FR 6983).

The licensee’s application of

December 18, 1997, as revised by a letter

dated January 28, 1998, proposed

numerous changes to the FOLs. The

licensee proposed to revise the FOLs to

delete license conditions that have been

fulfilled, to update information to reflect

current plant status and regulatory

requirements, and to make other

correctional, clarifying, or editorial

changes. The staff issued amendments

to the FOLs, accepting most of the

proposed changes. The balance of the

proposed changes were not accepted by

the staff. The changes that were not

accepted are summarized as follows:

1. For the license conditions that have

been fulfilled, and the exemptions that

are no longer needed, the licensee

proposed to have them deleted entirely

from the FOLs. The staff, however,

believes that indications should be left

in the FOLs to provide easy reference to

these past license conditions and

exemptions. The staff preserved the

license condition and exemption

numbers with the word ‘‘Deleted’’

following in parentheses. Further, the

staff did not renumber those license

conditions still in existence. Hence, the

licensee’s proposed changes are

partially denied.

2. The licensee proposed to modify

the statement that described the

construction status as ‘‘has been

substantially completed’’ to ‘‘was

completed.’’ The staff surveyed FOLs

granted to other facilities, and found

that the expression ‘‘has been

substantially’’ is used in each FOL, and

its meaning is thus established by such

repeated use. The licensee has not

provided any reason for the proposed

change, other than stating that this is an

administrative change to ‘‘update the

FOL to the current historical status.’’

Thus, this proposed change is denied.

3. The licensee proposed to delete the

reference to the Environmental Report,

as supplemented, from the FOLs. The

licensee gave no justification for

deleting the reference to the

Environmental Report, which has been

required by the National Environmental

Policy Act and 10 CFR Part 51, and was

a significant part of the basis for

granting the FOLs. This proposed

change is denied.

4. The licensee proposed to delete any

reference to revision numbers to

security plans since these security plans

are subject to change periodically.

However, 10 CFR 50.54(p) has set forth

the conditions under which the licensee

may make changes without NRC

approval, such that the specified

revision numbers do not prevent the

licensee from making such changes.

Hence, the licensee’s proposal to omit

revision numbers and dates is denied.

The NRC staff has concluded that the

licensee’s proposed changes described

above are unacceptable and are denied.

The licensee was notified of the staff’s

denial by letter dated April 23, 1998.

By May 28, 1998, the licensee may

demand a hearing with respect to the

denial described above. Any person

whose interest may be affected by this

proceeding may file a written request for

leave to intervene.

A request for hearing or 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 any petition should also be

sent to the Office of the General

Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001, and to Mr. Paul R. Newton, Duke

Energy Corporation, 422 South Church

Street, Charlotte, North Carolina 28242,

attorney for the licensee.

For further details with respect to this

action, see (1) the application for

amendments dated December 17, 1997,

and (2) the Commission’s letter to the

licensee dated April 23, 1998, 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

York County Library, 138 East Black

Street, Rock Hill, South Carolina 29730.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day

of April 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Peter S. Tam,

Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate

II–2, Division of Reactor Projects—I/II, Office

of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–11248 Filed 4–27–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–259]

The Tennessee Valley Authority;

Notice of Denial of Amendment to

Facility Operating License and

Opportunity for Hearing

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) has

denied a request by the Tennessee

Valley Authority (licensee), for an

amendment to Facility Operating

License No. DPR–33 issued to the

licensee for operation of the Browns

Ferry Nuclear Plant, Unit No. 1, located

in Limestone County, Alabama. Notice

of Consideration of Issuance of this

amendment was published in the

Federal Register on February 15, 1997

(62 FR 2194).

The purpose of the licensee’s

amendment request was to revise the

Technical Specifications (TS) to permit

increasing the main steam safety/relief

valve set point tolerance to plus or

minus 3%.

The NRC staff has concluded that the

licensee’s request to increase the main

steam safety relief valve set point

tolerance cannot be granted at this time.

The licensee was notified of the

Commission’s denial of the proposed

change by a letter dated April 22, 1998.

By May 28, 1998, the licensee may

demand a hearing with respect to the

denial described above. Any person

whose interest may be affected by this

proceeding may file a written petition

for leave to intervene.

A request for hearing or petition for

leave to intervene must be filed with the

Secretary of the Commission, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555, 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.

A copy of any petitions should also be

sent to the Office of the General