Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 144 /Tuesday, July 28, 1998 / Notices 40321

7. Three (3) Administrative Actions

under Part 745 of NCUA’s Rules and

Regulations. Closed pursuant to

exemption (6).

8. Seven (7) Personnel Actions.

Closed pursuant to exemptions (2) and

(6).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Becky Baker, Secretary of the Board,

Telephone (703) 518–6304.

Becky Baker,

Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 98–20208 Filed 7–23–98; 4:47 pm]

BILLING CODE 7535–01–M

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Northern States Power Company;

Notice of Issuance of Amendment to

Facility Operating License No. DPR–22

Proposed No Significant Hazards

Consideration Determination, and

Opportunity for a Hearing

[Docket No. 50–263]

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of an amendment

to Facility Operating License No. DPR–

22 issued to Northern States Power

Company (the licensee) for operation of

the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant

located in Wright County, Minnesota.

The proposed amendment would

revise Section 3.6.C, Coolant Chemistry,

and 3/4.17.B, Control Room Emergency

Filtration System, of the Technical

Specifications (TS), Appendix A of the

Operating License for the Monticello

Nuclear Generating Plant. The changes

were proposed to establish TS

requirements consistent with modified

analysis inputs used for the evaluation

of the radiological consequences of the

main steam line break accident. This

amendment request was originally

noticed in the Federal Register on May

6, 1998 (63 FR 25115). On June 19,

1998, supplemented July 1, 1998, the

licensee submitted an application that

superseded in its entirety the licensee’s

previous submittal dated April 11, 1997.

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:

1. The proposed amendment will not

involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of an accident

previously evaluated.

A limit is established in the plant

Technical Specifications for steady state

radioiodine concentration in the reactor

coolant to ensure that in the event of a

release of radioactive material to the

environment due to a postulated high energy

line break up to and including a design basis

Main Steam Line Break Accident, radiation

doses are maintained well within the

regulatory guidelines. The steady state

radioiodine concentration in the reactor

coolant is an input for analysis of the

radiological consequences of an accident due

to a Main Steam Line Break outside of

containment and postulated high energy line

breaks. In addition, requirements are

established in the Technical Specifications

for control room habitability. During an

accident, the control room emergency

filtration system provides filtered air to

pressurize the Control Room to minimize the

activity, and therefore the radiological dose,

inside the control room.

A change is proposed for the steady state

radioiodine concentration. This value is

conservative with respect to the value used

in the Main Steam Line Break dose

consequences analysis and is consistent with

the dose consequences evaluation of a

postulated Reactor Water Cleanup (RWCU)

line break. Changes are proposed to the

limiting conditions for operation and

surveillance requirements for the Control

Room Emergency Filtration Train iodine

removal efficiency. These changes are

consistent with the inputs used in the

analysis of the radiological consequences of

the postulated RWCU line break and the

Main Steam Line Break Accident. Changes to

testing requirements are more restrictive and

in accordance with the applicable regulatory

guidance. These proposed requirements

maintain operating restrictions for analytical

inputs used in the analysis of the Main Steam

Line Break Accident. Evaluation of these

events has demonstrated that the postulated

radiological consequences will also remain

within the licensing basis established in the

AEC [Atomic Energy Commission]

Provisional Operating License Safety

Evaluation Report, dated March 18, 1970,

thus the proposed changes do not result in

an increase in the consequences of

previously evaluated accidents.

The analysis of the Main Steam Line Break

Accident performed using a reactor coolant

radioiodine concentration of 2 [micro]Ci/gm

dose equivalent Iodine-131 and a control

room ventilation filter efficiency consistent

with the proposed Technical Specifications

changes demonstrated that radiological

consequences of the Main Steam Line Break

are not changed significantly. The

radiological consequences of the Main Steam

Line Break Accident remain within the

exposure guidelines of 10 CFR 100 and 10

CFR 50 Appendix A, General Design

Criterion 19. The offsite dose consequences

remain bounded by the original licensing

basis provided in the AEC Provisional

Operating License Safety Evaluation Report,

dated March 18, 1970. The control room

doses calculated for the hot standby Main

Steam Line Break Accident using the TID–

14844 dose conversion factors remain

bounded by the dose consequences of the

comparable design basis loss of coolant

accident.

The evaluation of the postulated RWCU

line break, performed using a reactor coolant

radioiodine concentration of 0.25 [micro]Ci/

gm dose equivalent Iodine-131 and a control

room ventilation filter efficiency consistent

with the proposed Technical Specifications

changes, demonstrated that the radiological

consequences of this event remain within the

exposure guidelines of 10 CFR 100 and 10

CFR 50 Appendix A, General Design

Criterion 19. The offsite dose consequences

remain bounded by the Main Steam Line

Break as established in the licensing basis

provided in the AEC Provisional Operating

License Safety Evaluation Report, dated

March 18, 1970.

The proposed Technical Specification

changes do not introduce new equipment

operating modes, nor do the proposed

changes alter existing system relationships.

The proposed changes do not introduce new

failure modes. The system improvements to

reduce bypass leakage during postulated

accidents do not have an adverse effect on

control room habitability. Therefore, this

amendment will not cause a significant

increase in the probability of an accident

previously evaluated for the Monticello

plant.

2. The proposed amendment will not

create the possibility of a new or different

kind of accident from any accident

previously analyzed.

The proposed Technical Specification

changes do not introduce new equipment

operating modes, nor do the proposed

changes alter existing system relationships.

Operator action to mitigate the consequences

of the postulated RWCU line break is

conservative based on the simple action

required by the operator to close the

containment isolation valves within 10

minutes. Isolation at 10 minutes is very

conservative since a safety related RWCU

containment isolation system that was

installed during the 1998 refueling outage

would effect an automatic isolation within

one minute of the RWCU break.

The proposed change to the specification

for reactor coolant dose equivalent

radioiodine is conservative with respect to

the re-evaluation of the Main Steam Line

Break Accident for the more conservative hot

standby initial condition for the postulated

accident. The proposed change to the

specification for reactor coolant dose

equivalent radioiodine is consistent with the

postulated high energy line break of a Reactor
40322 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 144 /Tuesday, July 28, 1998 / Notices

Water Cleanup line. The proposed changes to

the limiting conditions for operation and

surveillance requirements for the control

room emergency filtration train iodine

removal efficiency are consistent with the

inputs used in the evaluation of the

radiological consequences of the postulated

RWCU line break and the Main Steam Line

Break Accident. The system improvements to

reduce bypass leakage during postulated

accidents do not have an adverse effect on

control room habitability. Therefore, the

proposed amendment will not create the

possibility of a new or different kind of

accident.

3. The proposed amendment will not

involve a significant reduction in the margin

of safety.

Surveillance data has demonstrated the

proposed requirements are within the current

capability of the facility. The proposed

changes maintain margins of safety. These

proposed requirements maintain operating

restrictions for analytical inputs used in the

analysis of the bounding postulated high

energy line break of a Reactor Water Cleanup

line and the Main Steam Line Break

Accident. The proposed change to the

specification for reactor coolant dose

equivalent radioiodine is conservative with

respect to the re-evaluation of the Main

Steam Line Break Accident for the more

conservative hot standby initial condition for

the postulated accident. The proposed

change to the specification for reactor coolant

dose equivalent radioiodine is consistent

with the postulated high energy line break of

a Reactor Water Cleanup line. The evaluation

of these postulated events determined that

the radiological consequences remain within

the exposure guidelines of 10CFR100 and of

10CFR50 Appendix A, General Design

Criterion 19 and within the original licensing

basis contained in the Provisional Operating

License. The proposed changes to the

limiting conditions for operation and

surveillance requirements for the control

room emergency filtration train iodine

removal efficiency provide assurance that the

system will perform at the filter efficiency as

used in the evaluation of the radiological

consequences of the postulated events.

Therefore, the proposed amendment will 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 27, 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

Minneapolis Public Library, Technology

and Science Department, 300 Nicollet

Mall, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401. 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.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 144 /Tuesday, July 28, 1998 / Notices 40323

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

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 Jay Silberg, Esq.,

Shaw, Pittman, Potts, and Trowbridge,

2300 N Street, NW, Washington, DC

20037, 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 19, 1998, as

supplemented July 1, 1998, and the

licensee’s letter dated May 5, 1997,

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 Minneapolis Public

Library, Technology and Science

Department, 300 Nicollet Mall,

Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd

day of July 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Tae Kim,

Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate

III–1, Division of Reactor Projects—III/IV,

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–20110 Filed 7–27–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–260 and 50–296]

Tennessee Valley Authority; Notice of

Consideration of Issuance of

Amendment to Facility Operating

Licenses and Opportunity for a

Hearing

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC, the Commission) is

considering issuance of an amendment

to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–

52 and DPR–68 issued to the Tennessee

Valley Authority (TVA or the licensee)

for operation of the Browns Ferry

Nuclear Plant (BFN), Units 2 and 3,

located in Limestone County, Alabama.

Presently, the BFN Units 2 and 3 are

licensed to operate at a maximum rated

thermal power of 3293 Mwt. By letter

dated October 1, 1997, as supplemented

October 14, 1997, March 16, April 1 and

28, May 1 and 20, 1998, the licensee

proposed changes to the BFN Units 2

and 3 Technical Specifications (TS) to

allow operation of the Units at the

uprated power level of 3458 Mwt which

represents a proposed power level

increase of 5 percent. The licensee

proposed several TS changes to revise

the rated thermal power value, flow,

pressure and temperature values for

various systems and structures, relief

valve setpoints and associated

surveillance requirements to reflect

operation of the BFN Units 2 and 3 at

the increased power level. The

licensee’s request was noticed in the

Federal Register on June 9, 1998 (63 FR

31533).

By letter dated June 26, 1998, as

supplemented July 17, 1998, the

licensee proposed additional TS

changes to its original power uprate

application. The licensee proposed to

add a new Limiting Condition for

Operation (LCO) 3.4.10, and associated

TS Bases changes. These changes are

related to operating limit for reactor

steam dome pressure. Accordingly, this

notice supplements the previous notice

63 FR 31533. For further details with

respect to this action, see the

application for amendments dated June

26, and July 17, 1998.

Before issuance of the proposed

license amendments, the Commission

will have made findings required by the

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended

(the Act) and the Commission’s

regulations.

By August 27, 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 Athens

Public Library, 405 E. South Street,

Athens, Alabama. 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