Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 80 / Monday, April 27, 1998 / Notices 20669

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:

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 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 August 6, 1996, as

supplemented March 2, 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

Osterhout Free Library, Reference

Department, 71 South Franklin Street,

Wilkes-Barre, PA 18701.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day

of April 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Bartholomew C. Buckley,

Acting Director, Project Directorate I–2,

Division of Reactor Projects—I/II, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–11121 Filed 4–24–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–387 AND 50–388]

Pennsylvania Power and Light

Company; Notice of Consideration of

Issuance of Amendments to Facility

Operating Licenses, 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–

14 and NPF–22 issued to Pennsylvania

Power and Light Company (the licensee)

for operation of the Susquehanna Steam

Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, located

in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania.

(2.o.) The proposed amendment

would revise the Technical

Specifications (TSs) surveillance

requirement for the verification of the

average power range monitor (APRM)

flow biased simulated thermal powerhigh time constant from 6 seconds plus

or minus 1 second to less than 7

seconds. The lower limit of 5 seconds

will be relocated to plant procedures

since it is not a condition for operability

of this reactor protection system

function.

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. Does the change involve a

significant increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated?

The proposed changes remove from

the SSES CTS [Susquehanna Steam

Electric Station Current TS] items that

are informational or implementing

details that are adequately and more

appropriately controlled by the licensee.

Additionally, the proposed changes

remove from the SSES CTS items that

are contained in the Code of Federal

Regulations or other regulatory

documents and, therefore, do not need

to be repeated in the SSES ITS. These

requirements being moved to another

controlled document or removed from

Technical Specifications are not deleted

or changed. Therefore, these changes

will not result in any changes to the

requirements specified in the SSES CTS,

but will reduce the level of regulatory

control on the identified requirements.

The level of regulatory control has no

impact on the probability or the

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated, therefore, these changes have

no impact on the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated.

2. Does the change create the

possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from any accident previously

evaluated?

The proposed changes will not

involve any physical changes to plant

systems, structures, or components

(SSC), or the manner in which these

SSC are operated, maintained, modified,

tested, or inspected. The proposed

changes will not impose or eliminate

any requirements. Therefore, these

changes do not create the possibility of
20670 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 80 / Monday, April 27, 1998 / Notices

a new or different kind of accident from

any accident previously evaluated.

3. Does this change involve a

significant reduction in a margin of

safety?

The margin of safety as defined in the

bases of any Technical Specification is

not reduced. The requirements being

moved to another controlled document

or removed from Technical

Specifications remain the same as stated

in the SSES CTS. Therefore, no

reduction in a margin of safety will be

permitted.

Removal of these items from SSES

CTS eliminates the requirement for NRC

review and approval of revisions in

accordance with 10 CFR 50.92.

Elimination of this administrative

process does not have a margin of safety

that can be evaluated. However, the

proposed changes are consistent with

the BWR [Boiling Water Reactor]

Standard Technical Specification,

NUREG–1433, Rev 1, which was

approved by the NRC. Revising the

Technical Specifications to reflect the

approved level of detail ensures no

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

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 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 27, 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 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 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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 80 / Monday, April 27, 1998 / Notices 20671

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 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 August 1, 1996,

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 21st day

of April 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Bartholomew C. Buckley,

Acting Director, Project Directorate I–2,

Division of Reactor Projects—I/II, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–11119 Filed 4–24–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 70–0734]

Finding of No Significant Impact and

Notice of Opportunity for Hearing for

the Amendment of Materials License

SNM–696, General Atomics, San Diego,

CA

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Finding of no significant impact

and notice of opportunity for hearing for

the amendment of materials license

SNM–696, General Atomics, San Diego,

CA.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission is considering amendment

of Special Nuclear Material License

SNM–696, issued to General Atomics

(the licensee) located in San Diego,

California to incorporate a Site

Decommissioning Plan. The

Commission has determined not to

prepare an environmental impact

statement for the proposed action,

because the amendment will not have a

significant effect on the quality of the

human environment for reasons

described in the Environmental

Assessment (EA).

Summary of the Environmental

Assessment

Background

General Atomics (GA) has been

authorized by the U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission (NRC) and its

predecessor, the Atomic Energy

Commission, to use special nuclear

material in nuclear fuel fabrication and

research and development for more than

30 years. Special nuclear material used

at the San Diego site included the

radioactive materials plutonium and

uranium enriched in the isotopes

uranium-233 and uranium-235. As

operations changed at the site, GA

initiated decommissioning activities

affecting portions of the site beginning

in the mid 1980’s. By the early 1990’s,

fuel fabrication operations involving

special nuclear material at the facility

had ceased, and in September of 1996,

GA’s Special Nuclear Material License,

SNM–696, was amended to authorize

only activities incident to

decommissioning. GA also currently has

State of California Radioactive Materials

License No. 0145–37 to possess and use

source and byproduct materials and

NRC Reactor Licenses, R–38 and R–67,

for two Training Reactor-IsotopeGeneral Atomics research reactors. By

application dated October 11, 1996, and

supplements dated December 5, 1996;

April 18, 1997; and January 15, 1998;

GA requested an amendment to its fuel

fabrication License SNM–696 to

incorporate an overall Site

Decommissioning Plan (DP).

Identification of the Proposed Action

The proposed action is the

amendment of GA’s license to

incorporate the DP, which describes the

remaining decommissioning activities

planned at the GA facility under License

SNM–696 and release of the site for

unrestricted use. The DP describes the

areas and facilities to be

decommissioned, the decontamination

techniques, and the proposed effluent

control and waste management practices

that will be used during

decommissioning.

GA intends to decommission to

radiation levels required for unrestricted

use and to terminate License SNM–696

for these areas. Soil will be remediated

to levels specified in Option 1 of the

Branch Technical Position (BTP),

‘‘Disposal or Onsite Storage of Thorium

or Uranium Wastes from Past

Operations,’’ (46 FR 52061; October 23,

1981). Facilities and equipment will be

decontaminated to levels specified in

‘‘Guidelines for Decontamination of

Facilities and Equipment Prior to

Release for Unrestricted Use or

Termination of Licenses for Byproduct,

Source, or Special Nuclear Material,’’

(USNRC, Policy and Guidance Directive

FC 83–23, Division of Industrial and

Medical Nuclear Safety, November 4,

1983).

The Need for the Proposed Action

GA is not required to submit an

overall site DP because all procedures

and activities necessary to carry out

decommissioning of the site have been

previously approved by the NRC,

consistent with the provisions of 10 CFR

70.38(g)(1). However, the incorporation

of overall site DP into GA’s license

reduces the administrative effort for

both the licensee and the NRC by

reducing the number of documents

which must be generated and reviewed.

It also facilitates a more consistent and

organized decommissioning approach

across the facility.

Environmental Impacts for the Proposed

Action

The NRC staff performed a

radiological dose assessment to estimate

the impact from airborne radioactive

releases under the proposed action.

Only radioactive effluents were

considered because non-radioactive

releases are expected to be insignificant.

In addition, because liquid effluents

were released only through the sanitary