Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 96 /Tuesday, May 19, 1998 / Notices 27601

Signed at Washington, DC, this 13th day of

May, 1998

Olena Berg,

Assistant Secretary, Pension and Welfare

Benefits Administration, Department of

Labor.

[FR Doc. 98–13262 Filed 5–18–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–29–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–317 AND 50–318]

Baltimore Gas & Electric Company;

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant

Units 1 and 2; Notice of Acceptance for

Docketing of the Application for

Renewal of Facility Operating Licenses

Nos. DPR–53 and DPR–69 for an

Additional 20-Year Period

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering the renewal of operating

license Nos. DPR–53 and DPR–69,

which authorize Baltimore Gas &

Electric Company (BG&E), the applicant,

to operate its Calvert Cliffs Nuclear

Power Plant (CCNPP), Units 1 and 2 at

2700 megawatts thermal. The renewed

licenses would authorize the applicant

to operate CCNPP Units 1 and 2 for an

additional 20 years beyond the current

40-year period. The current license for

Unit 1 expires on July 31, 2014, and the

current license for Unit 2 expires on

August 13, 2016.

On April 10, 1998, BG&E submitted

an application to renew the operating

licenses for its CCNPP units. A Notice

of Receipt of Application, ‘‘Baltimore

Gas & Electric Company; Calvert Cliffs

Nuclear Power Plant Units 1 & 2; Notice

of Receipt of Application for Renewal of

Facility Operating Licenses Nos. DPR–

53 and DPR–69 for an Additional 20-

Year Period,’’ was published in the

Federal Register on April 27, 1998, (63

FR 20663). The Commission’s staff has

determined that BG&E has submitted

information in accordance with 10 CFR

54.19, 54.21, 54.22, 54.23, and 51.53(c)

that is complete and acceptable for

docketing. The current Docket Nos. 50–

317 and 50–318 for License Nos. DPR–

53 and DPR–69 will be retained. If the

Commission determines that new

license or docket numbers are

necessary, any such changes will be

published in a subsequent Federal

Register notice.

The docketing of the renewal

application does not preclude

requesting additional information as the

review proceeds, nor does it predict

whether the Commission will grant or

deny the application. The license will

not be renewed unless the Commission

makes the findings required by 10 CFR

54.29. Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.26, as part

of the environmental scoping process,

the staff intends to hold a public

scoping meeting. The details of the

public scoping meeting will be included

in a future Federal Register notice. In

addition, the Commission also intends

to hold public meetings to discuss the

license renewal process and schedule

for conducting the review. The

Commission will provide prior notice

for these meetings.

An opportunity to request a hearing

on the application for a renewed license

will be the subject of a subsequent

Federal Register notice.

Detailed information about the license

renewal process can be found under the

nuclear reactors icon of the NRC’s web

page, http://www.nrc.gov.

A copy of the application to renew the

CCNPP Units 1 and 2 licenses is

available for public inspection at the

Commission’s Public Document Room,

the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street,

NW, Washington, DC 20037, and the

Local Public Document Room for the

CCNPP Units 1 and 2 located in the

Calvert County Public Library, 30 Duke

Street, Prince Frederick, MD 20678.

Dated at Rockville Maryland, this 8th day

of May 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Christopher I. Grimes,

Director, License Renewal Project Directorate,

Division of Reactor Program Management,

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–13229 Filed 5–18–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–295 and 50–304]

Commonwealth Edison Company; Zion

Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2;

Notice of Public Meeting

The NRC will conduct a public

meeting at the Zion-Benton High

School, 3901 21st Street, Zion, Illinois,

on June 1, 1998, to discuss the NRC

regulatory process for decommissioning

and plans developed by Commonwealth

Edison Company (CECo, the licensee) to

decommission the Zion Nuclear Power

Plant located near Zion, Illinois. ZionBenton High School is located on the

southeast corner of Kenosha Road and

21st Street, Zion, Illinois. Parking is

provided in the South Parking Lot at the

school. The meeting is scheduled for 7–

9:00 p.m. and will be chaired by Dr.

Donald Moon, Co-Chairman,

Community Advisory Panel and

President, Shimer College. The meeting

will include a presentation by CECo on

their planned decommissioning

activities. The NRC staff will make a

short presentation on the

decommissioning process and NRC

programs for monitoring

decommissioning activities. There will

be an opportunity for members of the

public to make comments and ask

questions of the NRC staff and CECo

representatives after the presentations.

The meeting will be transcribed.

Regulatory submittals and responses

are available for public inspection at the

local public document room, located at

the Waukegan Public Library, 128 North

County Street, Waukegan, IL 60085 and

the Commission Public Document

Room, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington,

D.C. 20037.

For more information, contact Mr.

Anthony W. Markley, Project Manager,

Non-Power Reactors and

Decommissioning Project Directorate,

Division of Reactor Program

Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington DC, 20555–

0001, telephone number (301) 415–

3165.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day

of May 1998.

For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Ramin R. Assa,

Project Manager, Project Directorate III–2,

Division of Reactor Program Projects III/IV,

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–13224 Filed 5–18–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–220]

Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation;

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–

63, issued to Niagara Mohawk Power

Corporation (the licensee), for operation

of the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station,

Unit 1 (NMP1) located in the town of

Scriba, Oswego County, New York.

The proposed amendment would

change Technical Specifications (TSs)

3/4.6.2, ‘‘Protective Instrumentation,’’ to

reflect modifications to the initiation

instrumentation for the Control Room

Air Treatment System. Specifically, TS
27602 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 96 /Tuesday, May 19, 1998 / Notices

Tables 3.6.2l and 4.6.2l, ‘‘Control Room

Air Treatment System Initiation,’’

would be changed to delete the high

radiation signal and substitute the

following initiating signals from the

Reactor Protection System: (1) low-low

reactor water level in the reactor vessel,

(2) high steam flow in the main steam

line, (3) high temperature in the main

steam line tunnel, and (4) high pressure

in the reactor drywell. TS Table 3.6.2l

would specify setpoints for each of

these four initiating parameters ([greater

than or equal to] 5 inches-indicator

scale, [less than or equal to] 105 psid,

[less than or equal to] 200 degrees F,

and [less than or equal to] 3.5 psig,

respectively). TS Table 3.6.2l would

indicate for each of the four parameters

that the minimum number of tripped or

operable trip systems and the minimum

number of operable instrument channels

per operable trip system are two, and

that the four parameters are required to

be operable when the reactor mode

switch is in the ‘‘startup’’ or ‘‘run’’

positions (but not if in the ‘‘shutdown’’

or ‘‘refuel’’ positions), except that the

high drywell pressure signal may be

bypassed when necessary for

containment inerting. For three of the

parameters (low-low reactor water level,

high steam flow in the main steam line,

and high drywell pressure), TS Table

4.6.2l would require daily sensor

checks, quarterly instrument channel

tests, and quarterly instrument channel

calibrations (except that only the trip

circuit need be calibrated and tested at

these quarterly frequencies; the primary

sensor would be calibrated and tested

each operating cycle). For the parameter

high temperature in the main steam line

tunnel, TS Table 4.6.2l would require an

instrument channel test and an

instrument channel calibration each

operating cycle, not to exceed 24

months. Associated TS ‘‘Bases for 3.4.5

and 4.4.5 Control Room Air Treatment

System’’ would also be changed to

update the system descriptions

consistent with these proposed changes

to the automatic initiation circuitry, and

to reflect the system’s manual start

capability. These changes to the TS

Bases would include deletion of the

statements that (1) the Control Room Air

Treatment System is designed ‘‘to

automatically start upon a receipt of a

high radiation signal from one of the

two radiation monitors located on the

ventilation intake’’ and that (2) ‘‘* * *

air intake radiation monitors will be

calibrated and functionally tested each

operating cycle, not to exceed 24

months, to verify system performance.’’

During a system design review, the

licensee determined that (1) contrary to

a commitment in letters to the NRC

dated January 31 and March 19, 1984,

the NMP1 Control Room Air Treatment

System would not automatically initiate

during an MSLB [main steam line break]

or an LOCA [loss-of-coolant accident],

and (2) initiation of the NMP1 Control

Room Air Treatment System at the

current radiation monitor setpoint of

[less than or equal to] 1000 CPM, as

required by TS Table 3.6.2l, is not

sufficient for compliance with GDC 19

limits for radiological protection of the

control room operators. Consequently,

on April 21, 1998, the licensee declared

the Control Room Air Treatment System

inoperable and notified the NRC that a

7 day limiting condition for operation

had been entered as specified by TS

3.4.5. On April 27, 1998, the licensee

informed the NRC Project Manager that

resolution of the inoperability condition

would involve modifications more

extensive than mere setpoint

adjustments, that these modifications

should not be implemented while

NMP1 is operating, and that the licensee

was considering filing an application for

an emergency license amendment to

allow the modifications to be

implemented and the plant restarted

after a 7-day outage. NMP1 was shut

down on April 28, 1998, in accordance

with TS 3.4.5. On May 2, 1998, the

licensee filed an application requesting

that the NRC amend the NMP1 license

by May 8, 1998, on an Emergency basis

because ‘‘resumption of operation

cannot occur until NRC approval of the

proposed change.’’ However, on May 11,

1998, the licensee informed the NRC

that as a result of the finding by a team

of licensee engineers who reviewed the

control room ventilation systems,

modifications to the NMP1 Control

Room Air Treatment System would not

be completed and NMP1 determined

ready for restart for 2 weeks.

Accordingly, the NRC finds that exigent

circumstances exist in that the full 30

days normally provided for public

comment with respect to the proposed

action is not available before NMP1 will

be ready to resume power operation.

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 operation of Nine Mile Point

Unit 1, in accordance with the proposed

amendment, will not involve a

significant increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated.

* * * The proposed modification and

associated TS changes involve a system

that is intended to detect the symptoms

of certain events or accidents and

initiate mitigative actions (i.e., the

Control Room Air Treatment System).

Accordingly, the proposed changes do

not affect the probability of any accident

initiators previously evaluated.

Therefore, the proposed changes will

not result in a significant increase in the

probability of any accidents previously

evaluated.

Currently, TS Table 3.6.2l, ‘‘Control

Room Air Treatment System Initiation,’’

specifies a setpoint of ‘‘≤1000 CPM’’ for

Parameter (1), ‘‘High Radiation

Ventilation Intake.’’ This requires the

continuous radiation monitors located

in the outside air intake duct of the

Control Room Ventilation System to

initiate the Control Room Air Treatment

System at a detector count rate of ‘‘[less

than or equal to] 1000 CPM.’’ The

setpoint was established to comply with

the radiation dose limits specified in 10

CFR 50, Appendix A, General Design

Criterion (GDC) 19 and NUREG–0800,

‘‘Standard Review Plan [SRP],’’ Section

6.4 for control room habitability during

an accident, including a Loss of Coolant

Accident (LOCA). In the event of an

accident, timely initiation and proper

operation of the Control Room Air

Treatment System minimizes the

amount of airborne radioactivity

entering the control room. However,

based on the results of a current study,

initiation of the Control Room Air

Treatment System at this setpoint does

not provide assurance that personnel

occupying the control room under the

most limiting Main Steam Line Break

(MSLB) accident assumptions would

not receive radiation exposures in

excess of the GDC 19 and SRP 6.4 limits.

It was further determined that, contrary

to a 1984 commitment, the Control

Room Air Treatment System would not

automatically initiate during a LOCA.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 96 /Tuesday, May 19, 1998 / Notices 27603

To correct this condition, a

modification is proposed that will

automatically initiate the Control Room

Air Treatment System on either a MSLB

or LOCA signal. Spare contacts from the

RPS logic circuits will be used to

provide the initiation signals.

Specifically, MSLB automatic initiation

of the system will be on main steam line

high flow or main steam line tunnel

high temperature, and LOCA automatic

initiation of the system will be on high

drywell pressure or low-low reactor

vessel water level. Implementation of

this modification will provide automatic

initiation of the Control Room Air

Treatment System at the onset of both

a MSLB and a LOCA, as previously

committed.

The MSLB accident has been

evaluated for full power operating

conditions where radioactive gases

released from the turbine building could

be drawn into the Control Room

Ventilation System and accumulate in

the control room. Engineering

calculations show that the Control

Room Air Treatment System would

maintain the dose to the control room

operators below the GDC 19 and SRP 6.4

limits during these releases, and the

addition of an anticipatory automatic

initiation on a MSLB signal (main steam

line high flow or main steam line tunnel

high temperature) provides assurance

that the consequences of the MSLB

accident are bounded by the analysis.

The LOCA analysis assumes that

radioactive gases are released from the

elevated stack and are then drawn back

down into the Control Room Ventilation

System intake duct. Analysis shows that

for the bounding condition, the

accumulated dose in the control room

for a minimum of 30 days would not be

detected by the Control Room Air

Treatment System radiation monitors,

even at a significantly reduced setpoint.

Consequently, the radiation monitors

cannot be relied upon to initiate the

Control Room Air Treatment System in

the event of a LOCA. As a result, an

anticipatory automatic initiation of the

Control Room Air Treatment System on

a LOCA signal (high drywell pressure or

low-low reactor vessel water level) is

proposed to be added to provide

assurance that personnel occupying the

control room under the most limiting

LOCA assumptions will not receive

radiation exposures in excess of the

GDC 19 and SRP 6.4 limits.

NMPC has also proposed to delete the

requirement to have the Control Room

Air Treatment System automatically

initiate on a high radiation signal when

the reactor mode switch is in the

‘‘Refuel’’ position. This change is

acceptable based on 1) neither a LOCA

or MSLB is assumed to occur in refuel;

2) for accidents assumed to occur during

refueling (fuel handling accident), GDC

19 and SRP 6.4 limits are met without

the Control Room Air Treatment

System; and 3) the Control Room Air

Treatment System can be manually

initiated.

In summary, the proposed changes for

the Control Room Air Treatment System

initiation channels will assure that the

NMP1 control room operators will not

receive radiation exposures in excess of

the limits delineated in GDC 19 and SRP

6.4. Accordingly, the operators will be

able to respond to and mitigate the

consequences of anticipated accident

scenarios. Therefore, the proposed

changes will not involve a significant

increase in the consequences of an

accident previously evaluated.

2. The operation of Nine Mile Point

Unit 1, in accordance with the proposed

amendment, will not create the

possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from any accident previously

evaluated.

* * * The proposed changes do not

introduce any new accident initiators

and do not involve any alterations to

plant configurations which could

initiate a new or different kind of

accident. The actuation circuit of the

Control Room Air Treatment System

actuation logic does not control or

interface with any primary reactor

processes. Addition of the MSLB logic

and the LOCA logic will ensure that the

Control Room Air Treatment System

initiates such that habitability of the

control room is not compromised. No

new failure modes to existing systems or

equipment important to safety are

created by this change. Post-installation

testing will confirm that the new logic

will have no effect on other safetyrelated circuits and TS required

surveillance testing will routinely

confirm operability of the Control Room

Air Treatment System. Therefore, the

changes do not create the possibility of

a new or different kind of accident from

any accident previously evaluated.

3. The operation of Nine Mile Point

Unit 1, in accordance with the proposed

amendment, will not involve a

significant reduction in a margin of

safety.

The proposed changes to Sections

3.6.2 and 4.6.2 incorporate

modifications to the initiation

instrumentation for the Control Room

Air Treatment System. * * * As a result

of these changes, the requirement to

have the Control Room Air Treatment

System automatically initiate on a high

radiation signal when the reactor mode

switch is in the ‘‘Refuel’’ position has

been deleted. * * *

The addition of the trip circuit logic

from the MSLB accident as well as from

the LOCA circuits assures that the

control room operator will not be

exposed to radiation limits in excess of

GDC 19 or SRP 6.4 limits. Additionally,

the initiation signal will be automatic at

the onset of both accidents, which

improves the response time of the

Control Room Air Treatment System to

the MSLB accident and the LOCA.

NMPC has proposed to delete the

requirement to have the Control Room

Air Treatment System automatically

initiate on a high radiation signal when

the reactor mode switch is in the

‘‘Refuel’’ position. This change is

acceptable based on (1) neither a LOCA

nor MSLB is assumed to occur in refuel;

(2) for accidents assumed to occur

during refueling (fuel handling

accident) GDC 19 and SRP 6.4 limits are

met without the Control Room Air

Treatment System; and (3) the Control

Room Air Treatment System can be

manually initiated.

In summary, the proposed changes

will assure that the Control Room dose

established in GDC 19 and SRP 6.4 will

not be exceeded. Therefore, the

proposed activity 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.
27604 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 96 /Tuesday, May 19, 1998 / Notices

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 June 1, 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 Reference

and Documents Department, Penfield

Library, State University of New York,

Oswego, New York 13126. 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 Mark J. Wetterhahn,

Esquire, Winston & Strawn, 1400 L

Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005–

3502, 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 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

Reference and Documents Department,

Penfield Library, State University of

New York, Oswego, New York 13126.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day

of May, 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Darl S. Hood,

Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate

I–1, Division of Reactor Projects—I/II, Office

of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–13187 Filed 5–18–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P