28012 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 98 /Thursday, May 21, 1998 / Notices

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 May 12, 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 15th day

of May 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Victor Nerses,

Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate

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

of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–13561 Filed 5–20–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–352]

Philadelphia Electric Company,

Limerick Generation Station, Unit 1;

Notice of Issuance of Amendment To

Facility Operating License

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) has

issued Amendment No. 128 to Facility

Operating License No. NPF–39, issued

to Philadelphia Electric Company (the

licensee), which approves installation of

replacement suction strainers for

operation of the Limerick Generating

Station (LGS), Unit 1, located in

Montgomery and Chester Counties,

Pennsylvania. The amendment is

effective as of the date of issuance and

shall be implemented within 30 days.

The amendment documents the NRC

staff’s approval of the implementation of

a plant modification to support the

installation of replacement suction

strainers for the emergency core cooling

systems at the LGS, Unit 1.

The application for the amendment

complies with the standards and

requirements of the Atomic Energy Act

of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the

Commission’s rules and regulations.

The Commission has made appropriate

findings as required by the Act and the

Commission’s rules and regulations in

10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in

the license amendment.

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of

Amendment to Facility Operating

License and Opportunity for a Hearing

in connection with this action was

published in the Federal Register on

January 29, 1998 (63 FR 4496). No

request for a hearing or petition for

leave to intervene was filed following

this notice.

The Commission has prepared an

Environmental Assessment related to

the action and has determined not to

prepare an environmental impact

statement. Based upon the

environmental assessment, the

Commission has concluded that the

issuance of the amendment will not

have a significant effect on the quality

of the human environment (63 FR

25526).

For further details with respect to the

action, see (1) the application for

amendment dated October 6, 1997, as

supplemented by submittals dated

February 2 and May 13, 1998, (2)

Amendment No. 128 to License No.

NPF–39, (3) the Commission’s related

Safety Evaluation, and (4) the

Commission’s Environmental

Assessment. All of these items 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

Pottstown Public Library, 500 High

Street, Pottstown, PA.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th of

May 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Bartholomew C. Buckley,

Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate

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

of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–13555 Filed 5–20–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–298]

Nebraska Public Power District,

Cooper Nuclear Station; 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 for Facility Operating

License No. DRP–46 issued to Nebraska

Public Power District (the licensee), for

operation of Cooper Nuclear Station

located in Nemaha County, Nebraska.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of Proposed Action

The proposed action would exempt

Nebraska Public Power District from the

requirements of 10 CFR 70.24, which

require a monitoring system that will

energize clear audible alarms if

accidental criticality occurs in each area

in which special nuclear material is

handled, used, or stored. The proposed

action would also exempt the licensee

from the requirements to maintain

emergency procedures for each area in

which this licensed special nuclear

material is handled, used, or stored to

ensure that all personnel withdraw to an

area of safety upon the sounding of the

alarm, to familiarize personnel with the

evacuation plan, and to designate

responsible individuals for determining

the cause of the alarm, and to place

radiation survey instruments in

accessible locations for use in such an

emergency.

The proposed action is in accordance

with the licensee’s application for

exemption dated February 23, 1998.

The Need for the Proposed Action

The purpose of 10 CFR 70.24 is to

ensure that if a criticality were to occur

during the handling of special nuclear
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 98 /Thursday, May 21, 1998 / Notices 28013

material, personnel would be alerted to

that fact and would take appropriate

action. At a commercial nuclear power

plant the inadvertent criticality with

which 10 CFR 70.24 is concerned could

occur during fuel handling operations.

The special nuclear material that could

be assembled into a critical mass at a

commercial nuclear power plant is in

the form of nuclear fuel; the quantity of

other forms of special nuclear material

that is stored on site in any given

location is small enough to preclude

achieving a critical mass. Because the

fuel is not enriched beyond 5.0 weight

percent Uranium-235 and because

commercial nuclear plant licensees have

procedures and design features that

prevent inadvertent criticality, the staff

has determined that it is unlikely that

an inadvertent criticality could occur

due to the handling of special nuclear

material at a commercial power reactor.

The requirements of 10 CFR 70.24,

therefore, are not necessary to ensure

the safety of personnel during the

handling of special nuclear materials at

commercial power reactors.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The Commission has completed its

evaluation of the proposed action and

concludes that there is no significant

environmental impact if the exemption

is granted. Inadvertent or accidental

criticality will be precluded through

compliance with the Cooper Nuclear

Station Technical Specifications (TSs),

the design of the fuel storage racks

providing geometric spacing of fuel

assemblies in their storage locations,

and administrative controls imposed on

fuel handling procedures. TSs

requirements specify reactivity limits

for the fuel storage racks and minimum

spacing between the fuel assemblies in

the storage racks.

Appendix A of 10 CFR part 50,

‘‘General Design Criteria for Nuclear

Power Plants,’’ Criterion 62, requires the

criticality in the fuel storage and

handling system shall be prevented by

physical systems or processes,

preferably by use of geometrically-safe

configurations. This is met at Cooper

Nuclear Station, as identified in the TSs

and the Updated Safety Analysis Report

(USAR). Cooper Nuclear Station TSs

Section 5.5, Fuel Storage, states that,

‘‘The new fuel storage vault shall be

such that Keff dry is less than 0.90 and

flooded is less than 0.95. These Keff

limits are satisfied by maintaining the

maximum, exposure-dependent K∞ of

the individual fuel bundles ≤1.29.’’

USAR Section X–2.0, New Fuel Storage,

states that, ‘‘The new fuel racks shall be

designed with sufficient spacing

between the new fuel assemblies to

assure that under normal conditions

(dry) the fully loaded array will have a

Keff <0.90. Under abnormal conditions,

in the event of complete flooding, the

fully loaded array will have a Keff <0.95.

* * * The analysis, which shows that

the new fuel storage vault will have a

Keff ≤0.90 dry and a Keff <0.95 flooded,

provided the maximum exposuredependent K∞ ≤1.31, has been approved

by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

as a part of GESTAR II.’’ Note: to

provide further assurance, the Technical

Specifications have a more conservative

limit than the USAR.

The proposed exemption would not

result in any significant radiological

impacts. The proposed exemption

would not affect radiological plant

effluents nor cause any significant

occupational exposures since the

Technical Specifications, design

controls (including geometric spacing of

fuel assembly storage spaces) and

administrative controls preclude

inadvertent criticality. The amount of

radioactive waste would not be changed

by the proposed exemption.

The proposed exemption does not

result in any significant nonradiological

environmental impacts. The proposed

exemption involves features located

entirely within the restricted area as

defined in 10 CFR part 20. It does not

affect non-radiological 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.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

Since the Commission has concluded

that 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 exemption,

the staff considered denial of the

requested exemption. Denial of the

request 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 Related to the Operation of

Cooper Nuclear Station’’ dated February

1973.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on May 7, 1998, the staff consulted with

Mr. John Fassell, Health Physicist, of the

Nebraska Department of Health,

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 February 23, 1998, which is

available for public inspection at the

Commission’s Public Document Room,

which is located at The Gelman

Building, 2120 L Street, NW.,

Washington, DC, and at the local public

document room located at the Auburn

Memorial Library, 1810 Courthouse

Avenue, Auburn, NE 68305.

Dated at Rockville, Md., this 14th day of

May 1998.

For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

James R. Hall,

Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate

IV–1, Division of Reactor Projects III/IV, Office

of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–13509 Filed 5–20–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–397]

Washington Public Power Supply

System, Nuclear Project No. 2 (WNP–

2); Environmental Assessment and

Finding of No Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of an amendment

to Facility Operating License No. NPF–

21 issued to Washington Public Power

Supply System (the licensee), for

operation of WNP–2 located in Benton

County, Washington.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

The proposed action would revise the

maximum yield strength for emergency

core cooling system suction strainer

materials listed in the WNP–2 Final

Safety Analysis Report (FSAR).

The proposed action is in accordance

with the licensee’s application for

amendment dated April 16, 1998, as

supplemented by letters dated April 28

and May 8, 1998.