Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 130 /Wednesday, July 8, 1998 / Notices 36967

hearing, including the opportunity to

present evidence and cross-examine

witnesses.

Requests for a hearing and petitions

for leave to intervene must be filed with

the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555, Attention:

Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, or

may be delivered to the Commission’s

Public Document Room, Gelman

Building, 2120 L Street, NW,

Washington, DC, by the above date. A

copy of the request for a hearing and the

petition should also be sent to the Office

of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555–0001, and to R.F. Fleishman,

Esquire, General Counsel, Baltimore Gas

and Electric Company P.O. Box 1475,

Baltimore, MD 21203.

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 dated April

8, 1998, which is available for public

inspection at the Commission’s Public

Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW,

Washington, DC 20555 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 1st day

of July 1998.

For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Stephen T. Hoffman,

Acting Director, License Renewal Project

Directorate, Division of Reactor Program

Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–18066 Filed 7–7–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–261]

Carolina Power & Light; 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–

23, issued to Carolina Power & Light

(CP&L or the licensee), for operation of

the H.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant,

Unit 2, located in Darlington County,

South Carolina.

The proposed amendment would

revise Technical Specification (TS)

3.7.8, ‘‘Ultimate Heat Sink (UHS),’’ to

permit an 8-hour delay in UHS

temperature restoration period prior to

entering the plant shutdown required

actions. Also, for the duration of the

restoration, service water system (SWS)

temperature will be monitored hourly,

and should the temperature exceed 99

degrees F, the plant will enter TS 3.7.8

required action A.1, and be in MODE 3

within 6 hours.

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:

Carolina Power & Light (CP&L) Company

has evaluated the proposed Technical

Specification change and has concluded that

it does not involve a significant hazards

consideration. The conclusion is in

accordance with the criteria set forth in 10

CFR 50.92. The bases for the conclusion that

the proposed change does not involve a

significant hazards consideration are

discussed below.

1. Does the change involve a significant

increase in the probability or consequences

of an accident previously evaluated?

The proposed change does not involve any

physical alteration of plant systems,

structures or components. The proposed

change provides an allowed time for the

plant condition resulting from service water

temperature in excess of the design limit of

95°F. The Service Water System (SWS)

temperature is not assumed to be an

initiating condition of any accident analysis

evaluated in the safety analysis report.

Therefore, the allowance of a limited time for

service water temperature to be in excess of

the design limit does not involve an increase

in the probability of an accident previously

evaluated in the safety analysis report (SAR).

The SWS supports operability of safety

related systems used to mitigate the

consequences of an accident. An increase in

service water temperature in excess of the

design limit is expected to be small due to

the limited time allowed by the proposed

change in conjunction with the generally

slow rate of temperature increase

experienced from thermal changes in Lake

Robinson. Therefore, the proposed change

does not involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of an accident

previously evaluated in the SAR.

2. Does the change create the possibility of

a new or different kind of accident from any

accident previously evaluated?

The proposed change does not involve any

physical alteration of plant systems,

structures or components. The temperature of

the service water when near or slightly above

the service water design temperature does

not introduce new failure mechanisms for

systems, structures or components not

already considered in the SAR. Therefore, the

possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from any accident previously

evaluated is not created.

3. Does this change involve a significant

reduction in a margin of safety?

The proposed change will allow a small

increase in service water temperature above

the design basis limit for the service water

system and delay the requirement to

shutdown the plant when the service water

system design limit is exceeded by 8 hours.

There are design margins associated with

systems, structures and components that are

cooled by the service water system that are

affected. The service water system

temperature is an input assumption for

mitigating the effects of design basis

accidents. However, an increase in service

water temperature in excess of design limit

is expected to be small due to the limited

time allowed by the proposed change in

conjunction with the slow rate of

temperature increase experienced from

thermal changes in Lake Robinson.

Therefore, there is no significant reduction in

margin of safety associated with this change.

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
36968 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 130 /Wednesday, July 8, 1998 / Notices

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.

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 7, 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 Hartsville

Memorial Library, 147 West College

Avenue, Hartsville, South Carolina

29550. 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

William D. Johnson, Vice President and

Senior Counsel, Carolina Power & Light

Company, Post Office Box 1551,

Raleigh, North Carolina 27602, 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 26, 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

Hartsville Memorial Library, 147 West

College Avenue, Hartsville, South

Carolina 29550.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 130 /Wednesday, July 8, 1998 / Notices 36969

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day

of July 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Ram Subbaratnam,

Project Manager, Project Directorate II–1,

Division of Reactor Projects—I/II, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–18064 Filed 7–7–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 72–16]

Virginia Electric and Power Company,

Old Dominion Electric Cooperative;

Notice of Issuance of Materials License

SNM–2507 North Anna Independent

Spent Fuel Storage Installation

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC or the Commission)

has issued a Materials License under the

provisions of Title 10 of the Code of

Federal Regulations, Part 72 (10 CFR

Part 72), to Virginia Electric and Power

Company (Virginia Power) and Old

Dominion Electric Cooperative (ODEC),

authorizing receipt and storage of spent

fuel in an independent spent fuel

storage installation (ISFSI) located on

site at its North Anna Power Station in

Louisa County, Virginia.

The function of the ISFSI is to provide

interim storage for up to 839.04 metric

tons of uranium contained in

approximately 1824 fuel assemblies

from the North Anna Power Station,

Units 1 and 2, in storage casks. Thirty

two assemblies are to be loaded into

each cask within the North Anna Power

Station spent fuel enclosure at the plant

and subsequently transferred to the

onsite ISFSI. The cask that is authorized

for use is the TN–32 designed by

Transnuclear, Inc. The license for an

ISFSI under 10 CFR Part 72 is issued for

20 years, but the licensee may seek to

renew the license, if necessary, prior to

its expiration.

The Commission’s Office of Nuclear

Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS)

has completed its environmental,

safeguards, and safety reviews in

support of issuance of this license.

Following receipt of the application

filed May 9, 1995, a ‘‘Notice of

Consideration of Issuance of Materials

License for the Storage of Spent Fuel

and Opportunity for Hearing’’ was

published in the Federal Register on

July 6, 1995 (60 FR 35237). The

‘‘Environmental Assessment (EA)

Related to the Construction and

Operation of the North Anna

Independent Spent Fuel Storage

Installation (dated March 28, 1997) and

Finding of No Significant Impact,’’ was

issued and noticed in the Federal

Register (62 FR 16202) in accordance

with 10 CFR Part 51. The scope of the

EA included the construction and

operation of an ISFSI on the North Anna

Power Station site including impacts

derived from use of the TN–32 cask.

The staff has completed its safety

review of the North Anna ISFSI site

application and safety analysis report.

The NRC staff’s ‘‘Safety Evaluation

Report for the North Anna Independent

Spent Fuel Storage Installation’’ was

issued on June 30, 1998. Materials

License SNM–2507, the staff’s

Environmental Assessment, Safety

Evaluation Report, and other documents

related to this action are available for

public inspection and for copying for a

fee at the NRC Public Document Room,

the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street,

NW., Washington, DC 20555, and at the

local public document room at the

Special Collections Department, Second

Floor, Alderman Library, University of

Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia

22903–2498.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 30th day

of June 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

William F. Kane,

Director, Spent Fuel Project Office, Office of

Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.

[FR Doc. 98–18065 Filed 7–7–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–213]

Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power

Company; Haddam Neck Plant;

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 to Facility Operating License

No. DPR–61, a license held by the

Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power

Company (CYAPCO or the licensee).

The exemption would apply to the

Haddam Neck Plant, a permanently

shutdown and defueled plant located at

the CYAPCO site in Middlesex County,

Connecticut.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

The proposed exemption would

modify security requirements to

eliminate certain equipment, relocate

certain equipment, modify certain

procedures, and reduce the number of

armed responders, due to the

permanently shutdown and defueled

status of the Haddam Neck facility.

The proposed action is in accordance

with the licensee’s application dated

June 19, 1997. The requested action

would grant an exemption from certain

requirements of 10 CFR 73.55,

‘‘Requirements for physical protection

of licensed activities in nuclear power

plant reactors against radiological

sabotage.’’

Need for the Proposed Action

Haddam Neck was shut down on July

22, 1996. On December 5, 1996, the

licensee informed the Commission that

it had decided to permanently cease

operations at Haddam Neck Plant and

that all fuel had been permanently

removed from the reactor. In accordance

with 10 CFR 50.82(a)(2), the

certifications in the letter modified the

facility operating license to permanently

withdraw CYAPCO’s authority to

operate the reactor and to load fuel into

the reactor vessel. In this permanently

shutdown condition, the facility poses a

reduced risk to public health and safety.

Because of this reduced risk, certain

requirements of 10 CFR 73.55 are no

longer appropriate. An exemption is

required from portions of 10 CFR 73.55

to allow the licensee to implement a

revised Defueled Security Plan that is

appropriate for the permanently

shutdown and defueled reactor facility.

Environmental Impact of the Proposed

Action

The Commission has completed its

evaluation of the proposed action. The

Commission concludes that exemption

from certain portions of 10 CFR 73.55

are acceptable given the reduced

consequences of an act of sabotage

resulting in the release of radioactive

material contained in the spent fuel at

a defueled reactor site.

The proposed change will not

increase the probability or consequences

of accidents, no changes are being made

in the types of effluents that may be

released off site, and there is no

significant increase in the allowable

individual or cumulative occupational

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 involve 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.

Therefore, the Commission concludes

that there are no significant non-