Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 125 /Tuesday, June 30, 1998 / Notices 35615

the United States of America as

represented by the Administrator of the

National Aeronautics and Space

Administration. Written objections to

the prospective grant of a license should

be sent to Kennedy Space Center.

DATE: Responses to this notice must be

received by August 31, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beth

Vrioni, Patent Counsel, Kennedy Space

Center, Mail Code MM–E, John F.

Kennedy Space Center, FL 32899.

Dated: June 22, 1998.

Edward A. Frankle,

General Counsel

[FR Doc. 98–17281 Filed 6–29–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7510–01–P

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION

ADMINISTRATION

Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m., Monday, June

29, 1998.

PLACE: Board Room, 7th Floor, Room

7047, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria,

Virginia 22314–3428.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

1. Two Personnel Actions. Closed

pursuant to exemptions (2) and (6).

The Board voted unanimously that

Agency business requires that a meeting

be held with less than the usual seven

days advance notice, that it be closed to

the public, and that earlier

announcement of this was not possible.

The Board voted unanimously to

close the meeting under the exemptions

stated above. Deputy General Counsel

James Engel certified that the meeting

could be closed under those

exemptions.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Becky Baker, Secretary of the Board,

Telephone (703) 518–6304.

Becky Baker,

Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 98–17470 Filed 6–26–98; 11:10 am]

BILLING CODE 7535–01–M

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–302]

Crystal River Unit 3; 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–

72 issued to Florida Power Corporation

(the licensee), for operation of Crystal

River Unit 3, located in Citrus County,

Florida.

The proposed amendment would

allow operation with a number of

indications previously identified as tube

end anomalies (TEA) and multiple tube

end anomalies (MEA) in the Crystal

River Unit 3 (CR–3) Once Through

Steam Generator (OTSG) tubes. The

duration of the proposed license

amendment would be until CR–3’s next

refueling outage, currently scheduled

for fall 1999. This proposed change may

be necessary due to the potential

condition of noncompliance with CR–3

Improved Technical Specification

5.6.2.10.4.b. Such a condition may

result from confirmation of an ongoing

re-analysis of eddy current testing (ECT)

data, of indications previously

identified as TEAs and MEAs in the

upper roll expansion of the OTSG upper

tube sheet, as now being within the

pressure boundary of the tubes.

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:

This change does not involve a significant

hazards consideration for the following

reasons:

(1) Involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of an accident

previously evaluated.

This evaluation addresses the potential

effects of operating with TEAs and MEAs

within the pressure boundary cladding

region. The indications remaining in service

are within the upper end of the tube pressure

boundary. Two accidents analyzed in the

SAR [safety analysis report] must be

evaluated: Steam Generator Tube Rupture

and Main Steam Line Break.

The steam generator tube rupture accident

assumptions bound the possible effects of

leaving these indications in service. A

complete circumferential severance of a tube

is assumed in the accident scenario. The

location of these indications in the upper

tubesheet precludes a tube rupture from

occurring (the tubes are restrained by the

tubesheet). Additionally, in the event of a

complete circumferential severance, the tube

will not retract from the tubesheet. Thus, the

probability of occurrence of this accident is

not increased by leaving these indications in

service.

The main steam line break accident is not

initiated by the condition of the tubing.

However, an assumption of one gpm

primary-to-secondary leakage through the

OTSG is assumed in the MSLB [main steam

line break] accident analysis. Calculated

cumulative leakage, assuming all of the

indications are leaking, is determined to be

well below one gpm, thus the accident

analysis initial assumptions bound the

existing condition of the OTSGs. Thus, it is

concluded that the probability of occurrence

of a main steam line break is not increased

by this change. Therefore, this change does

not involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of an accident

previously evaluated.

(2) Create the possibility of a new or

different kind of accident from any accident

previously evaluated.

No new failure modes or accident

scenarios are created by allowing operation

with TEAs and MEAs extending within the

tubes’ pressure boundary. The TEAs and

MEAs remaining in service are within the

upper end of the tube pressure boundary and

even in the event of a complete

circumferential severance, the tube will not

retract from the tubesheet. Therefore, the

tubesheet hoop effect will still act to

minimize leakage. The postulated potential

leakage generated from allowing these

indications to remain in service is bounded

by the CR–3 MSLB scenario. The MSLB

scenario has been thoroughly evaluated and

the potential damage to the steam generator

tubes is not increased. This change does not

increase the risk of a plant trip or challenge

other safety systems. Therefore, this change

does not create a possibility of a new or

different kind of accident from any

previously evaluated.

(3) Involve a significant reduction in a

margin of safety.

ITS Bases 3.4.12 contains relevant

information pertaining to the limitations on

RCS [reactor coolant system] leakage. These

Bases discuss the one gpm primary-tosecondary leakage assumed for a main steam

line break accident as well as the steam

generator tube rupture accident. As

discussed, the maximum calculated accident

leakage, assuming all of these indications

leak, is well below one gpm. Therefore, the

margin of safety as defined in the ITS bases

is not significantly reduced.

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
35616 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 125 /Tuesday, June 30, 1998 / Notices

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.

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 July 30, 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 Coastal

Region Library, 8619 W. Crystal Street,

Crystal River, Florida 34428. 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 R.

Alexander Glenn, General Counsel,

Florida Power Corporation, MAC—A5A,

P. O. Box 14042, St. Petersburg, Florida

33733–4042, 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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 125 /Tuesday, June 30, 1998 / Notices 35617

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 18, 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

Coastal Region Library, 8619 W. Crystal

Street, Crystal River, Florida.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day

of June 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Leonard A. Wiens,

Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate

II–3, Division of Reactor Projects—I/II, Office

of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–17354 Filed 6–29–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–244]

Rochester Gas and Electric

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. DRP–

18 issued to Rochester Gas and Electric

Corporation (the licensee) for operation

of the R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant

located in Wayne County, New York.

The proposed amendment would

revise the Ginna Station Improved

Technical Specifications (ITS) to reflect

a planned modification to the spent fuel

pool (SFP) storage racks. Specifications

associated with SFP boron

concentration, fuel assembly storage,

and maximum limit on the number of

fuel assemblies which can be stored in

the SFP would be revised.

The Commission had previously

issued a Notice of Consideration of

Issuance of an Amendment published in

the Federal Register on May 12, 1998

(63 FR 26213). This notice contained the

Commission’s proposed determination

that the requested amendment involved

no significant hazards considerations,

offered an opportunity for comments on

the Commission’s proposed

determination, and offered an

opportunity for the applicant to request

a hearing on the amendment and for

persons whose interest might be affected

to petition for leave to intervene.

Due to oversight, the May 12, 1998,

Notice of Consideration of Amendment

did not provide notice that this

application involves a proceeding on an

application for a license amendment

falling within the scope of section 134

of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.

Such notice is required by the

Commission’s regulations, 10 CFR

2.1107.

The Commission hereby provides

such notice that this is a proceeding on

an application for a license amendment

falling within the scope of section 134

of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982

(NWPA), 42 U.S.C. 10154. Under

section 134 of the NWPA, the

Commission, at the request of any party

to the proceeding, must use hybrid

hearing procedures with respect to ‘‘any

matter which the Commission

determines to be in controversy among

the parties.’’

The hybrid procedures in section 134

provide for oral argument on matters in

controversy, preceded by discovery

under the Commission’s rules and the

designation, following argument of only

those factual issues that involve a

genuine and substantial dispute,

together with any remaining questions

of law, to be resolved in an adjudicatory

hearing. Actual adjudicatory hearings

are to be held on only those issues

found to meet the criteria of section 134

and set for hearing after oral argument.

The Commission’s rules

implementing section 134 of the NWPA

are found in 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart K,

‘‘Hybrid Hearing Procedures for

Expansion of Spent Fuel Storage

Capacity at Civilian Nuclear Power

Reactors’ (published at 50 FR 41662

dated October 15, 1985). Under those

rules, any party to the proceeding may

invoke the hybrid hearing procedures by

filing with the presiding officer a

written request for oral argument under

10 CFR 2.1109. To be timely, the request

must be filed within ten (10) days of an

order granting a request for hearing or

petition to intervene. (As outlined

below, the Commission’s rules in 10

CFR Part 2, Subpart G continue to

govern the filing of requests for a

hearing and petitions to intervene, as

well as the admission of contentions.)

The presiding officer must grant a

timely request for oral argument. The

presiding officer may grant an untimely

request for oral argument only upon a

showing of good cause by the requesting

party for the failure to file on time and

after providing the other parties an

opportunity to respond to the untimely

request. If the presiding officer grants a

request for oral argument, any hearing

held on the application must be

conducted in accordance with the

hybrid hearing procedures. In essence,

those procedures limit the time

available for discovery and require that

an oral argument be held to determine

whether any contentions must be

resolved in an adjudicatory hearing. If

no party to the proceeding timely

requests oral argument, and if all

untimely requests for oral argument are

denied, then the usual procedures in 10

CFR Part 2, Subpart G apply.

By July 30, 1998, the licensee, if it

wishes to invoke the hybrid hearing

procedures, may file a request for such

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 invoke

the hybrid hearing procedures and to

participate as a party in such 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 Rochester Public Library,

115 South Avenue, Rochester, New

York 14610. If a request for a hearing

and petition for leave to intervene

seeking to invoke the hybrid hearing

procedures in accordance with this

notice 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

petition; and the Secretary or the

designated Atomic Safety and Licensing

Board will issue a notice of hearing or

an appropriate order. Requests for

hearing and petitions for leave to

intervene that do not seek to invoke the

hybrid procedures are not authorized by

this notice and would be considered

untimely.

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