Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 127 /Thursday, July 2, 1998 / Notices 36271

renewed. For more information, please

contact Rebecca Winker, NSF, at (702)

306–1185.

Dated: June 29, 1998.

M. Rebecca Winkler,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 98–17612 Filed 7–1–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555–01–M

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Committee of Visitors Meeting for the

Physiology & Ethology Cluster; Notice

of Meeting

In accordance with the Federal

Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–

463, as amended), the National Science

Foundation announces the following

meeting:

Name: Advisory Committee for Biological

Sciences, Committee of Visitors for the

Physiology & Ethology Cluster (1110).

Date & Time: July 13–15, 1998—8:30 am–

5:00 pm each day.

Place: Room 360, NSF, 4201 Wilson

Boulevard, Arlington, VA.

Type of Meeting: Part-Open—(see agenda

below).

Contract Person: Dr. John Fray, Deputy

Division Director, Division of Integrative

Biology & Neuroscience, 4201 Wilson

Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230, 703 306–

1420.

Purpose of Meeting: To carry out

Committee of Visitors (COV) review,

including program evaluation, GPRA

assessments, and access to privileged

materials.

Open: July 13 from 8:30 am–10:30 am &

July 15 from 10:30 am–12 noon—To provide

background information on the role of COVs

and GPRA at NSF. To summarize findings

regarding the quality of program

management, including merit review; and

discussion and review of grantee outputs and

outcomes during the past three years.

Closed: July 13 from 10:30 am–5:00 pm;

July 14 from 8:30 am–5:00 pm; July 15 from

8:30 am–10:30 am and from 1:00 pm–5:00

pm—To review the merit review processes

covering funding decisions made during the

past three fiscal years of the Physiology &

Ethology Cluster.

Reason For Closing: During the closed

session, the Committee will be reviewing

proposal actions that will include privileged

intellectual property and personal

information that could harm individuals if

they are disclosed, If discussions were open

to the public, these matters that are exempt

under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4) and (6) of the

Government in the Sunshine Act would be

improperly disclosed.

Reason for Late Notice: Difficulty in

arranging schedules of COV members.

Dated: June 29, 1998.

M. Rebecca Winkler,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 98–17613 Filed 7–1–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555–01–M

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 52–002]

Notice of Issuance of Final Design

Approval Pursuant to 10 CFR Part 52,

Appendix O System 80+ Standard

Design ABB-Combustion Engineering,

Inc.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) has issued a revised

final design approval (FDA) to ABBCombustion Engineering, Inc. (ABB–CE)

pursuant to 10 CFR part 52, Appendix

O. This FDA allows the System 80+

standard design to be referenced in an

application for a construction permit or

operating license pursuant to 10 CFR

Part 50, or in an application for a

combined license pursuant to 10 CFR

part 52. The FDA is being revised to

make it coterminous with the design

certification rule that was issued on

May 21, 1997. This FDA supersedes the

FDAs dated July 26 and November 23,

1994.

A copy of the revised FDA has been

placed in the NRC’s Public Docket

Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L

Street, NW., Washington, D.C. 20037,

for review by interested persons.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day

of June 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Theodore R. Quay,

Director, Standardization Project Directorate,

Division of Reactor Program Management,

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–17606 Filed 7–1–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–255]

Consumers Energy Company; Notice

of Consideration of Issuance of

Amendment to Facility Operating

License No. DPR–20 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–

20 issued to Consumers Energy

Company (the licensee) for operation of

the Palisades Nuclear Plant, located in

Van Buren County, Michigan.

The proposed amendment would

revise Section 3.1.1c of the Technical

Specifications (TS), Appendix A of the

Operating License for the Palisades

Nuclear Plant, to change the minimum

required primary coolant system flow.

The currently specified value is

140.7x106 lb/hr [pounds per hour] or

greater, when corrected to 532 °F. The

licensee proposed to revise the TS to

specify a value of greater than or equal

to 352,000 gpm [gallons per minute],

which is equivalent to approximately

135x106 lb/hr, when corrected to 532 °F.

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:

a. Involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of an accident

previously evaluated.

The proposed change to the minimum

reactor vessel flow does not alter the

assumed initiators to any analyzed event.

Rather, specification of a minimum reactor

vessel flow provides assurance that sufficient

cooling will take place during normal and

accident operating conditions of the reactor.

Therefore the probability of an accident

previously evaluated has not been increased

by this proposed change.

Each of the applicable Palisades FSAR

[Final Safety Analysis Report] Chapter 14

accident analyses have been evaluated with

respect to the proposed reduction in

minimum reactor vessel flow rate. The

results of these analyses, which have been

incorporated into the Palisades Cycle 14

Disposition and Analysis of Standard Review

Plan (SRP) Events, demonstrate that the

acceptance criteria for each of the events

continues to be met.

Therefore, operation of the facility in

accordance with the proposed change to TS

section 3.1.1c would not involve a significant

increase in the probability or consequences

of an accident previously evaluated.

b. Create the possibility of a new or

different kind of accident from any

previously evaluated.

The proposed changes provide a reduced

requirement for PCS [primary coolant

system] flow through the reactor vessel than

currently exists in the TS. The change does

not, however, involve any alteration in the

plant configuration (no new or different type
36272 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 127 /Thursday, July 2, 1998 / Notices

of equipment will be installed) or make

changes in the methods governing normal

plant operation. However, these changes are

consistent with the assumptions in the safety

analyses and licensing basis. Therefore, the

changes do not create the possibility of a new

or different kind of accident from any

accident previously evaluated.

Therefore, operation of the facility in

accordance with the proposed change to TS

section 3.1.1c would not create the

possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from any previously evaluated.

c. Involve a significant reduction in a

margin of safety.

The proposed change to the minimum

reactor vessel flow has been evaluated

against each of the applicable Palisades

FSAR Chapter 14 accident analyses.

Reducing the assumed minimum reactor

vessel flow did not result in a significant

change (per 10 CFR 50.46) in the results of

the Loss Of Coolant Accident (LOCA)

Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS)

analyses. Reducing the assumed minimum

reactor vessel flow did not result in

penetration of TS DNB [departure from

nucleate boiling] limits or additional fuel

failures for non-LOCA events. Reducing the

assumed minimum reactor vessel flow did

not result in a change in the results of the

LOCA or Main Steam Line Break

containment response analyses. Reducing the

assumed minimum reactor vessel flow did

not result in a change to the radiological

consequences of the SRP events with respect

to 10 CFR 100 offsite dose or SRP 6.4 control

room habitability requirements. Therefore,

operation of the facility in accordance with

the proposed change to TS 3.1.1c does not

involve a 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

by close of business 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 August 3, 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 Van

Wylen Library, Hope College, Holland,

Michigan 49423–3698. 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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 127 /Thursday, July 2, 1998 / Notices 36273

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 close of business on

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 Judd L. Bacon,

Esquire, Consumers Energy Company,

212 West Michigan Avenue, Jackson,

Michigan 49201, 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 June 17, 1998, and

supplement dated June 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

Van Wylen Library, Hope College,

Holland, Michigan 49423–3698.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day

of June 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Robert G. Schaaf,

Project Manager, Project Directorate III–1,

Division of Reactor Projects—III/IV, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–17609 Filed 7–1–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–341]

Detroit 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. NPF–

43 issued to the Detroit Edison

Company (the licensee) for operation of

the Fermi 2 plant located in Monroe

County, Michigan.

The proposed amendment would

provide a one-time extension of the

interval for a number of technical

specification (TS) surveillance

requirements that will be performed in

the sixth refueling outage. TS 4.0.2 and

Index page xxii would be revised and

TS tables 4.0.2–1 and 4.0.2–2 would be

replaced to reflect the extensions.

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 June

26, 1998, 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 proposed TS changes do not involve

a significant increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated.

The proposed TS changes involve a onetime only change in the surveillance testing

intervals to facilitate a one-time only change

in the Fermi 2 operating cycle. The proposed

TS changes do not physically impact the

plant nor do they impact any design or

functional requirements of the associated

systems. That is, the proposed TS changes do

not significantly degrade the performance or

increase the challenges of any safety systems

assumed to function in the accident analysis.

The proposed TS changes affect only the

frequency of the surveillance requirements

and do not impact the TS surveillance

requirements themselves. In addition, the

proposed TS changes do not introduce any

new accident initiators since no accidents

previously evaluated have as their initiators

anything related to the change in the

frequency of surveillance testing. Also, the

proposed TS changes do not significantly

affect the availability of equipment or

systems required to mitigate the

consequences of an accident because of

other, more frequent testing or the

availability of redundant systems or

equipment. Furthermore, a historical review

of surveillance test results supports the above

conclusions. Therefore, the proposed TS

changes do not significantly increase the

probability or consequences of an accident

previously evaluated.

2. The proposed TS changes do not create

the possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from any accident previously

evaluated.

The proposed TS changes involve a onetime only change in the surveillance testing

intervals to facilitate a one-time only change

in the Fermi 2 operating cycle. The proposed

TS changes do not introduce any failure

mechanisms of a different type than those

previously evaluated since there are no

physical changes being made to the facility.

In addition, the surveillance test

requirements themselves will remain

unchanged. Therefore, the proposed TS

changes do not create the possibility of a new

or different kind of accident from any

previously evaluated.

3. The proposed TS changes do not involve

a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

Although the proposed TS changes will

result in an increase in the interval between

some surveillance tests, the impact, if any, on

system availability is small based on other,

more frequent testing or redundant systems

or equipment, and there is no evidence of

any time dependent failures that would

impact the availability of the systems.

Therefore, the assumptions in the licensing

basis are not impacted, and the proposed TS

changes do not significantly reduce 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

by the close of business 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