2160 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 1995 / Notices

proprietary or confidential nature, including

technical information; financial data, such as

salaries; and personal information

concerning individuals associated with the

proposals. These matters are exempt under 5

U.S.c. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government

in the Sunshine Act.

Dated: January 3, 1995.

M. Rebecca Winkler,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 95–340 Filed 1–5–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555–01–M

Special Emphasis Panel in Research,

Evaluation and Dissemination 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: Special Emphasis Panel in

Research, Evaluation and Dissemination.

Date and Time: January 23, 1995; 10 a.m.

to 5 p.m.; January 24, 1995; 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.

Place: Room 375, National Science

Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard,

Arlington, VA 22230.

Type of Meeting: Closed.

Contact Person: Dr. Iris Rotberg, Program

Director, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, room 855,

Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone (703) 306–

1656.

Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and

recommendations concerning proposals

submitted to NSF for financial support.

Agenda: To review and evaluate proposals

and provide advice and recommendations as

part of the selection process for proposals

submitted to the Studies and Indicators

Program.

Reason for Closing: Because the proposals

reviewed include information of a

proprietary or confidential nature, including

technical information; financial data, such as

salaries; and personal information

concerning individuals associated with

proposals, the meetings are within

exemptions (4) and (6) of 5 U.S.C. 552b(c),

Government in the Sunshine Act.

Dated: January 3, 1995.

M. Rebecca Winkler,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 95–336 Filed 1–5–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555–01–M

Special Emphasis Panel in

Undergraduate Education; 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: Special Emphasis Panel in

Undergraduate Education.

Dates and Times: January 25, 1995; 7:30

p.m. to 9 p.m.; January 26, 1995; 8:30 a.m.

to 5 p.m.; January 27, 1995; 8:30 a.m. to 5

p.m.; January 28, 1995; 8:30 a.m. to 3 p.m.;

February 1, 1995; 7:30 p.m. to 9 p.m.;

February 2, 1995; 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.;

February 3, 1995; 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.;

February 4, 1995; 8:30 a.m. to 3 p.m.

Place; Doubletree National Airport Hotel,

300 Army/Navy Drive, Arlington, VA 22202.

Type of Meeting: Closed.

Contact Person: Dr. Norman Fortenberry,

Program Director, National Science

Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard,

Arlington, VA 22230, Telephone: (703) 306–

1667.

Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and

recommendations concerning proposals

submitted to NSF for financial support.

Agenda: To review and evaluate

unsolicited proposals submitted to the

Instrumentation and Laboratory

Improvement/Leadership Laboratory

Improvement Panel Meeting

Reason for Closing: The proposals being

reviewed include information of a

proprietary or confidential nature, including

technical information; financial data, such as

salaries; and personal information

concerning individuals associated with the

proposals. These matters are exempt under 5

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

in the Sunshine Act.

Dated; January 3, 1995.

M. Rebecca Winkler,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 95–334 Filed 1–5–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555–01–M

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. STN 50–528, STN 50–529, and

STN 50–530]

Arizona Public Service Company; Palo

Verde Nuclear Generating Station,

Units 1, 2, and 3; Notice of

Consideration of Issuance of

Amendment to Facility Operating

Licenses, Proposed no Significant

Hazards Consideration Determination,

and Opportunity for a Hearing

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of amendments to

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–41,

NPF–51, and NPF–74 issued to Arizona

Public Service Company for Operation

of the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating

Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, located in

Maricopa County, Arizona.

The proposed amendments would

change the refueling machine overload

cutoff limit from less than or equal to

1556 pounds to less than or equal to

1600 pounds. The change is a

consequence of the fuel assembly

weight increase which resulted from

design and fabrication improvements.

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.

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

amendments 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:

Standard 1—Does the proposed change

involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of an accident

previously evaluated?

The proposed Technical Specification

amendment to sections 3.9.6 and 4.9.6.1

provides a revised refueling machine hoist

overload cutoff limit that is appropriate for

the increased weight of the fuel assemblies.

The increased weight of fuel assemblies

results from design and fabrication

improvements such as denser fuel pellets,

laser welded GUARDIANTN grids, and laser

welded spacer grids. The weight of a fuel

assembly is identified in the UFSAR as a

parameter in the analysis for a Fuel Handling

Accident. The radiological consequences of a

Fuel Handling Accident were reevaluated in

order to incorporate fuel assembly design

changes including increases in the fuel

assembly weight and increases of the

maximum fuel enrichment. The analysis

used a fuel assembly enriched to 4.3 weight

percent and the power assigned to the

assembly was 1.65 times the average power

per assembly. The accident is assumed to

occur 100 hours after reactor shutdown and

it is also assumed that all 236 fuel rods fail.

The resultant thyroid dose at the 2 hour

exclusion area boundary is 71.5 rem which

meets the Standard Review Plan 15.7.4 limit

of 75 rem. The conclusions for the

radiological consequences of a Fuel Handling

Accident remain consistent with the results

in the Safety Evaluation Report. The

increased weight of the fuel assemblies was

reviewed, separate from this proposal, in

accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR

50.59 and found to be acceptable, as

described above.

The increase in the refueling machine

overload cutoff limit does not impact the

manner in which the refueling machine is

operated or the manner in which the fuel

assemblies are engaged and lifted. The

overload cutoff limit is not a parameter used

in the analysis of a Fuel Handling Accident.

The overload cutoff limit was incorporated

on the refueling machine hoist to protect the

core internals and pressure vessel from
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 1995 / Notices 2161

possible damage in the event the fuel

assembly becomes mechanically bound as it

is withdrawn from the reactor vessel. The

proposed overload cutoff limit was

determined as follows:

Overload Cut Off limit=(Hoist Wet

Weight)+(Grapple Wet Weight)+(Max

Wet Fuel Weight)+90lbs.

Where:

(a) Hoist and Grapple Wet Weight=176 lbs.

(b) Maximum Wet Fuel Weight=1334 lbs.

The basis for the 90 pounds had two

considerations: (1) to be large enough to

account for friction loads during fuel

assembly withdrawal; and, (2) to be small

enough to ensure that while lifting a

minimum weight fuel assembly, the loads

imposed on a mechanically bound fuel

assembly are below the design limit specified

by the fuel manufacturer. The maximum

value for the existing overload cut off limit

was specified by the fuel manufacturer to be

1602 pounds.

The revised overload cut off limit does not

decrease the factor of safety for the refueling

machine hoist below the Crane

Manufacturer’s [sic] Association of America

(CMAA) Standard 70 required value of 5/1.

Therefore, the proposed change for the

refueling machine overload cut off limit will

not significantly increase the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated and will remain bounded by the

accident analysis of Chapter 15 of the

Updated Final Safety Analysis Report

(UFSAR).

Standard 2—Does the proposed change

create the possibility of a new or different

kind of accident from any accident

previously evaluated?

The proposed Technical Specification

amendment to Sections 3.9.6 and 4.9.6.1

would provide a revised refueling machine

hoist overload cut off limit that is appropriate

for the increased weight of the fuel

assemblies. The increased weight of fuel

assemblies results from design and

fabrication improvements such as denser fuel

pellets, laser welded GUARDIANTM grids,

and laser welded spacer grids. The fuel

overload cut off limit was incorporated on

the refueling machine hoist to protect the

core internals and pressure vessel from

possible damage in the event the fuel

assembly becomes mechanically bound as it

is withdrawn from the reactor vessel. The

proposed overload cut off limit was

determined as follows:

Overload Cut Off limit=(Hoist Wet

Weight)+(Grapple Wet Weight)+(Max

Wet Fuel Weight)+90 lbs.

Where:

(a) Hoist and Grapple Wet Weight=176 lbs.

(b) Maximum Wet Fuel Weight=1334 lbs.

The basis for the 90 pounds had two

considerations: (1) to be large enough to

account for friction loads during fuel

assembly withdrawal; and, (2) to be small

enough to ensure that while lifting a

minimum weight fuel assembly, the loads

imposed on a mechanically bound fuel

assembly are below the design limit specified

by the fuel manufacturer. The maximum

value for the existing overload cut off limit

was specified by the fuel manufacturer to be

1602 pounds to limit the potential for

damage to the fuel assemblies.

The accident of concern related to the

change in the refueling machine overload cut

off limit is the Fuel Handling Accident. This

accident occurs when a fuel bundle becomes

disengaged from the refueling machine

grapple. The change of the refueling machine

overload cut off limit does not change the

way in which the refueling machine grapple

engages the fuel assemblies. Since fuel

handling is the subject of change, no new or

different kinds of accidents are created.

Therefore, it can be concluded that the

proposed change to Sections 3.9.6 and 4.9.6.1

will not create the possibility of a new or

different kind of accident from any accident

previously evaluated.

Standard 3—Does the proposed change

involve a significant reduction in a margin of

safety.

The proposed Technical Specification

amendment to Sections 3.9.6 and 4.9.6.1

would provide a revised refueling machine

hoist overload cut off limit that is appropriate

for the increased weight of the fuel

assemblies. The increased weight of fuel

assemblies results from design and

fabrication improvements such as denser fuel

pellets, laser welded GUARDIANTM grids,

and laser welded spacer grids. The overload

cut off limit was incorporated on the

refueling machine hoist to protect the core

internals and pressure vessel from possible

damage in the event the fuel assembly

becomes mechanically bound as it is

withdrawn from the reactor vessel. The

proposed overload cut off limit was

determined as follows:

Overload Cut Off limit=(Hoist Wet

Weight)+(Grapple Wet Weight)+(Max

Wet Fuel Weight)+90 lbs.

Where:

(a) Hoist and Grapple Wet Weight=176 lbs.

(b) Maximum Wet Fuel Weight=1334 lbs.

The basis for the 90 pounds had two

considerations: (1) to be large enough to

account for friction loads during fuel

assembly withdrawal; and, (2) to be small

enough to ensure that while lifting a

minimum weight fuel assembly, the loads

imposed on a mechanically bound fuel

assembly are below the design limit specified

by the fuel manufacturer. The maximum

value for the existing overload cut off limit

was specified by the fuel manufacturer to be

1602 pounds.

The overload cut off limit is not a

parameter used in the analysis of a Fuel

Handling Accident. The conclusion regarding

the radiological consequences of the Fuel

Handling Accident remain valid, and there is

no decrease in the margin of safety.

Therefore, it can be concluded that the

proposed change will maintain the integrity

of the fuel assemblies and reactor vessel

internals and 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

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 amendments 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

amendments before the expiration of the

30-day notice period, provided that its

final determination is that the

amendments involve 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 Rules Review and

Directives Branch, Division of Freedom

of Information and Publications

Services, Office of Administration, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555, and should cite

the publication date and page number of

this Federal Register notice. Written

comments may also be delivered to

Room 6D22, 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 February 6, 1995, the licensee may

file a request for a hearing will respect

to issuance of the amendments 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
2162 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 1995 / Notices

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 Phoenix

Public Library, 12 East McDowell Road,

Phoenix, Arizona 85004. 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

amendments 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

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 amendments

and make it immediately effective,

notwithstanding the request for a

hearing. Any hearing held would take

place after issuance of the amendments.

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, Attention:

Docketing and Services Branch, or may

be delivered to the Commission’s Public

Document Room, the Gelman Building,

2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, by

the above date. Where petitions are filed

during the last 10 days of the notice

period, it is requested that the petitioner

promptly so inform the Commission by

a toll-free telephone call to Western

Union at 1–(800) 248–5100 (in Missouri

1–(800) 342–6700). The Western Union

operator should be given Datagram

Identification Number N1023 and the

following message addressed to

Theodore R. Quay: petitioner’s name

and telephone number, date petition

was mailed, plant name, and

publication date and page number of

this Federal Register notice. A copy of

the petition should also be sent to the

Office of the General Counsel, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555, and to Nancy C.

Loftin, Esq., Corporate Secretary and

Counsel, Arizona Public Service

Company, P.O. Box 53999, Mail Station

9068, Phoenix, Arizona 85072–3999,

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 October 31, 1994, as

supplemented by letter dated December

28, 1994, 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 Phoenix Public Library,

12 East McDowell Road, Phoenix,

Arizona 85004.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day

of January 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Linh N. Tran,

Project Manager, Project Directorate IV–2,

Division of Reactor Projects III/IV, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 94–319 Filed 1–5–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

[Docket No. 50–440]

The Cleveland Electric Illuminating

Co., et al.; Environmental Assessment

and Finding of No Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of an amendment

to Facility Operating License No. NPF–

58, issued to the Cleveland Electric

Illuminating Company, Centerior

Service Company, Duquesne Light

Company, Ohio Edison Company,

Pennsylvania Power Company, and

Toledo Edison Company (the licensee),

for operation of the Perry Nuclear Power

Plant, Unit No. 1, located in Lake

County, Ohio.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

The proposed amendment will

replace the existing Technical

Specifications (TS), in their entirety,

with the Improved Technical

Specification (ITS). The proposed action

is in accordance with the licensee’s

amendment request dated December 16,