28014 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 98 /Thursday, May 21, 1998 / Notices

The Need for the Proposed Action

The proposed action is needed to

support the progression to startup for

WNP–2, which is currently in a

refueling outage. During this outage

newly designed suction strainers have

been installed in the suppression pool.

They are designed to protect ECCS

pumps from fibrous or other material

that could be transported to the

suppression pool after a design basis

accident such as a loss of coolant

accident. The licensee determined after

fabrication of these strainers that the

stanless steel material had measured

yield strength which exceeded the limit

which was specified in the FSAR.

Excessive yield strength can make the

stainless steel susceptible to stress

corrosion cracking (SCC) under certain

environmental conditions. The licensee

identified this as an unreviewed safety

issue and submitted an amendment

request which would change the yield

strength for the installed strainers.

Approval of this amendment will enable

the licensee to change reactor mode and

declare the strainers operable while

progressing to startup and full power

operation.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The Commission has completed its

evaluation of the proposed action and,

based on the testing and analytical

information provided by the licensee,

concludes that the increase in yield

strength for the specific material used in

the suction strainers is acceptable. The

licensee has an effective cleanup system

for the suppression pool, which

maintains a desired level of water

cleanliness sufficient to avoid

conditions that would support SCC.

Further, the licensee has conducted a

fracture mechanics analysis and has

determined that cracking in the surface

martensitic structure of the strainers

will not propagate to a critical size and,

thus, not jeopardize the strainers’ safety

related function of protecting the ECCS

pumps and spray nozzles. Also, the

licensee’s analysis has demonstrated

that the strainers have adequate

structural integrity to preclude failure

when the forces of design basis

hydrodynamic loads are applied. Lastly,

a Strauss test using actual strainer

material samples demonstrated

acceptable stress corrosion cracking

resistance.

The staff has concluded that this

change 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 offsite or

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 not affect nonradiological

plant effluents and has no other

environmental impact.

Accordingly, the Commission

concludes that there are no significant

environmental impacts associated with

the proposed action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

Since the Commission has concluded

there is no significant 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 WNP–2.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on May 13, 1998, the staff consulted

with the Washington State official, Mr.

R. Cowley of the Department of Health,

State of Washington Energy Facility Site

Evaluation Council, 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 April 16, 1998, as supplemented

by letters dated April 28, 1998, and May

8, 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 Richmond Public Library,

955 Northgate Street, Richland,

Washington 99352.

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

May 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Chester Poslusny,

Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate

IV–2, Division of Reactor Projects—III/IV,

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–13504 Filed 5–20–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Advisory Committee on Reactor

Safeguards, Subcommittee Meeting on

Thermal-Hydraulic Phenomena; Notice

of Meeting

The ACRS Subcommittee on ThermalHydraulic Phenomena will hold a

meeting on June 11–12, 1998, Room T–

2B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville,

Maryland.

Portions of the meeting will be closed

to public attendance to discuss

Westinghouse Electric Company

proprietary information pursuant to 5

U.S.C. 552b(c)(4).

The agenda for the subject meeting

shall be as follows:

Thursday, June 11, 1998—8:30 a.m.

until the conclusion of business.

Friday, June 12, 1998—8:30 a.m. until

the conclusion of business.

The Subcommittee will continue its

review of the Westinghouse AP600 Test

and Analysis Program (TAP) in support

of the AP600 design certification.

During this meeting, the Subcommittee

will focus its review on the issues

associated with the Westinghouse TAP

for the Passive Containment System,

including those identified in the

February 19, 1998 ACRS letter to the

NRC Executive Director for Operations.

The purpose of this meeting is to gather

information, analyze relevant issues and

facts, and to formulate proposed

positions and actions, as appropriate,

for deliberation by the full Committee.

Oral statements may be presented by

members of the public with the

concurrence of the Subcommittee

Chairman; written statements will be

accepted and made available to the

Committee. Electronic recordings will

be permitted only during those portions

of the meeting that are open to the

public, and questions may be asked only

by members of the Subcommittee, its

consultants, and staff. Persons desiring

to make oral statements should notify

the cognizant ACRS staff engineer

named below five days prior to the

meeting, if possible, so that appropriate

arrangements can be made.

During the initial portion of the

meeting, the Subcommittee, along with
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 98 /Thursday, May 21, 1998 / Notices 28015

any of its consultants who may be

present, may exchange preliminary

views regarding matters to be

considered during the balance of the

meeting.

The Subcommittee will then hear

presentations by and hold discussions

with representatives of the

Westinghouse Electric Company, the

NRC staff, their consultants, and other

interested persons regarding this review.

Further information regarding topics

to be discussed, whether the meeting

has been canceled or rescheduled, the

scheduling of sessions which are open

to the public, and the Chairman’s ruling

on requests for the opportunity to

present oral statements and the time

allotted therefor, can be obtained by

contacting the cognizant ACRS staff

engineer, Mr. Paul A. Boehnert

(telephone 301/415–8065) between 7:30

a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (EDT). Persons

planning to attend this meeting are

urged to contact the above named

individual one or two working days

prior to the meeting to be advised of any

potential changes to the agenda, etc.,

that may have occurred.

Dated: May 14, 1998.

Sam Duraiswamy,

Chief, Nuclear Reactors Branch.

[FR Doc. 98–13472 Filed 5–20–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–271]

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power

Corporation, Vermont Yankee Nuclear

Power Station; Receipt of Petition for

Director’s Decision Under 10 CFR

2.206

Notice is hereby given that by Petition

dated April 9, 1998, Mr. Michael J.

Daley, on behalf of the New England

Coalition on Nuclear Pollution, Inc. (or

Petitioner), requested that the U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

take immediate action with regard to the

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station.

The Petitioner requests that the NRC

issue an order requiring that the

licensee’s administrative limits, which

preclude Vermont Yankee Nuclear

Power Station from operating with a

torus water temperature above 80 °F or

with service water injection temperature

greater than 50 °F, shall remain in force

until certain conditions are met. The

requested conditions include a complete

reconstitution of the licensing basis for

the maximum torus water temperature,

submittal to the NRC of a technical

specifications amendment request

establishing the correct maximum torus

water temperature, and completion of

NRC review of the amendment request.

As the basis for this request, the

Petitioner states that the licensee has

been unable to demonstrate an ability to

either justify the operational limits for

the maximum torus water temperature

or maintain operations within existing

administrative limits (torus water

temperature is critical to the proper

functioning of the containment). The

Petitioner also states that the NRC must

move from a ‘‘wait and see’’ posture to

active intervention, with immediate

imposition of the order as a necessary

first step.

The request is being treated pursuant

to 10 CFR 2.206 of the Commission’s

regulations. The request has been

referred to the Director of the Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation. As

provided by § 2.206, appropriate action

will be taken on this petition within a

reasonable time.

By letter dated May 13, 1998, the

Director denied Petitioner’s request for

immediate action at Vermont Yankee

Nuclear Power Station.

A copy of the petition is available for

inspection at the Commission’s Public

Document Room at 2120 L Street, NW.,

Washington, DC. 20555–0001 and at the

local public document room located at

Brooks Memorial Library, 224 Main

Street, Brattleboro, VT 05301.

Dated at Rockville, MD, this 13th day of

May, 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Samuel J. Collins,

Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–13508 Filed 5–20–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No.: 040–07982]

Consideration of Amendment Request

To Approve a Decommissioning Plan

for Alliant Techsystems, Inc., and

Opportunity for a Hearing

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of Intent to approve

decommissioning plan license

amendment and opportunity for Hearing

related to source materials license for

Alliant Techsystems, Inc.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) is considering

issuance of a license amendment to

Source Material License No. SUB–971,

issued to Alliant Techsystems, Inc., to

authorize decontamination and

decommissioning activities of those

areas of the licensee’s Twin Cities Army

Ammunition Plant, Depleted Uranium

Facilities, New Brighton, Minnesota,

site which require remediation prior to

release for unrestricted use.

The licensee requested the

amendment in a letter dated October 6,

1997. The amendment would

incorporate the licensee’s

Decommissioning Plan for the Twin

Cities Army Ammunition Plant,

Depleted Uranium Facilities, New

Brighton, Minnesota. The plan discusses

the administrative and technical

procedures necessary for performing the

decommissioning project as follows: (1)

Summary of Plan (including

background, description of facilities to

be remediated, etc.); (2) Choices of

Decommissioning Alternatives and

Decommissioning Activities (including

decommissioning schedule,

organization and program

responsibilities); (3) Protection of

Occupational and Public Health and

Safety (including radiation protection,

asbestos protection and waste

management programs); (4) Final

Radiation Safety Survey; (5)

Decommissioning Cost Estimate and

Funding Plan; (6) Decommissioning

Quality Assurance Plan; and (7)

References and Appendices.

The NRC will require the licensee to

remediate the Depleted Uranium

facilities to meet NRC’s

decommissioning criteria, and during

the decommissioning activities, to

maintain effluents and doses within

NRC requirements and as low as

reasonably achievable.

Prior to approving the

decommissioning plan, NRC will have

made findings required by the Atomic

Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and

NRC’s regulations. Staff review findings

and approval of the plan will be

documented in an amendment to

License No. SUB–971.

The NRC hereby provides notice that

this is a proceeding on an application

for a license amendment falling within

the scope of Subpart L, Informal Hearing

Procedures for Adjudications in

Materials Licensing Proceedings, of the

NRC’s rules of practice for domestic

licensing proceedings in 10 CFR part 2.

Pursuant to § 2.1205(a), any person

whose interest may be affected by this

proceeding may file a request for a

hearing in accordance with § 2.1205(d).

A request for a hearing must be filed

within thirty (30) days of the date of

publication of this Federal Register

Notice. The request for a hearing must

be filed with the Office of the Secretary

either: