Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 143 / Friday, July 25, 1997 / Notices 40123

preclude inadvertent criticality. The

amount of radioactive waste would not

be changed by the proposed exemption.

The proposed exemption does not

result in any significant nonradiological

environmental impacts. The proposed

exemption involves features located

entirely within the restricted area as

defined in 10 CFR Part 20. It does not

affect nonradiological plant effluents

and has no other environmental impact.

Accordingly, the Commission concludes

that there are no significant

nonradiological environmental impacts

associated with the proposed action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

Since the Commission has concluded

that there is no measurable

environmental impact associated with

the proposed action, any alternatives

with equal or greater environmental

impact need not be evaluated. As an

alternative to the proposed exemption,

the staff considered denial of the

requested exemption. Denial of the

request would result in no change in

current environmental impacts. The

environmental impacts of the proposed

action and the alternative action are

similar.

Alternative Use of Resources

This action does not involve the use

of any resources not previously

considered in the ‘‘Final Environmental

Statement Related to the Operation of

Oconee Nuclear Station Units 1, 2, and

3’’ dated March 1972.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on July 17, 1997, the staff consulted

with the South Carolina State official,

Mr. Henry Porter of the Bureau of

Radiological Health, South Carolina

Department of Health and

Environmental Control, regarding the

environmental impact of the proposed

exemption. The State official had no

comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

Based upon the environmental

assessment, the Commission concludes

that the proposed action will not have

a significant effect on the quality of the

human environment. Accordingly, the

Commission has determined not to

prepare an environmental impact

statement for the proposed action.

For further details with respect to the

proposed action, see the licensee’s letter

dated February 4, 1997, and supplement

dated March 19, 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 local

public document room located at the

Oconee County Library, 501 West South

Broad Street, Walhalla, South Carolina.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day

of July 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Herbert N. Berkow,

Director, Project Directorate II–2, Division of

Reactor Projects—I/II, Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–19635 Filed 7–24–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–461]

Illinois Power Company; Clinton Power

Station, Unit No. 1 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. NPF–62, issued to Illinois Power

Company (the licensee), for operation of

the Clinton Power Station, Unit No. 1,

located in DeWitt County, Illinois.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

The proposed action is in accordance

with the licensee’s application dated

July 22, 1997, for a temporary, partial

exemption from the requirements

contained in General Design Criterion

(GDC) 17, ‘‘Electric Power Systems,’’ of

Appendix A to 10 CFR 50. The

requested exemption would only be

effective through and including October

15, 1997, and would permit plant

operation with one fully qualified offsite

circuit and one circuit that does not

strictly conform to the capacity and

capability requirements of GDC 17.

The Need for the Proposed Action

GDC 17 requires that an onsite and an

offsite electric power system be

provided to permit functioning of

structures, systems, and components

important to safety. The safety function

for each of these two systems (assuming

the other system is not functioning) is

to provide sufficient capacity and

capability to assure that (1) specified

acceptable fuel design limits and design

conditions of the reactor coolant

pressure boundary are not exceeded as

a result of anticipated operational

occurrences, and (2) the core is cooled

and containment integrity and other

vital functions are maintained in the

event of postulated accidents.

The Clinton Power Station (CPS)

licensing basis assumes two

independent offsite electric power

sources that are capable of supplying

power to emergency buses. These

consist of 138–kV and 345–kV offsite

circuits. During the current refueling

outage at CPS, the licensee has

determined that, for short and

intermittent periods of time, voltage on

the 345–kV offsite source has not

consistently remained above the

minimum required value conservatively

established for CPS. This is primarily

due to the fact that unusually low

voltages are occurring as a result of the

current lack of operating generators in

Illinois, coupled with high load

demands during peak hours. The

licensee has determined that all

practical measures taken to boost

voltage, short of interrupting service to

customers, are not sufficient to maintain

required voltage. Further action to

restore voltage would necessitate power

interruptions.

Conformance to GDC 17 requires that

both offsite sources have sufficient

capacity and capability such that

voltage is continuously maintained

above the minimum values

conservatively established for the

facility. Due to the intermittent voltage

conditions for the 345–kV system

described above, the licensee cannot

demonstrate that this offsite circuit has

sufficient capacity and capability at all

times. With this offsite source

experiencing intermittent periods of

lower than expected voltage, it would

have to be declared inoperable. Plant

startup or continued plant operation is

not permitted with one offsite source

inoperable.

The licensee has proposed a

temporary, partial exemption to the

requirements of GDC 17 that would only

be effective through and including

October 15, 1997. The exemption would

temporarily allow plant operation with

one fully qualified offsite circuit and

one circuit that does not strictly

conform to the capacity and capability

requirements of GDC 17. Strict

compliance with GDC 17 is not

necessary to achieve the underlying

purpose of the rule and would impose

undue hardship to the licensee. The

licensee has implemented measures to

assess when the 345-kV system voltage

would be inadequate in the event of a

plant trip, performed an analysis to

assess the risk associated with

continued plant operation for the period

of time within which the intermittent

condition is likely to occur (i.e., through

the end of hot, summer weather), and

established procedures that will restore
40124 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 143 / Friday, July 25, 1997 / Notices

bus voltage within 10 minutes in the

event that it is needed.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The Commission has completed its

evaluation of the proposed action and

concludes that the proposed exemption

would not increase the probability or

consequences of accidents previously

analyzed and would not affect facility

radiation levels or facility radiological

effluents.

Granting the exemption would not

significantly increase the probability of

unavailable offsite power in the event of

an accident and, therefore, would not

significantly increase the probability of

a radiological release from CPS. The

availability and reliability of the onsite

power sources would not be affected by

the exemption. The availability and

reliability of the offsite source having

adequate voltage (i.e., the 138-kV

circuit) would also not be affected.

Although there is a slight increase in the

probability of having the low-voltage

offsite source unavailable following a

plant trip, or both sources unavailable

in the event of a loss of the other offsite

source, this increase is small based on

the factors identified, and actions

available to restore offsite voltage.

Electric power would still be available

for safety-related equipment required to

mitigate an accident. The proposed

change does not involve an increase in

the consequences of an accident, no

changes are being made in the types of

any effluents that may be released

offsite, and there is no significant

increase in the allowable individual or

cumulative occupational radiation

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 involves features located entirely

within the restricted area as defined in

10 CFR Part 20. It does not affect

nonradiological plant effluents and has

no other environmental impact.

Accordingly, the Commission concludes

that there are no significant

nonradiological environmental impacts

associated with the proposed action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

Since the Commission has concluded

that there is no measurable

environmental impact associated with

the proposed action, any alternatives

with equal or greater environmental

impact need not be evaluated. The

principal alternative to the proposed

action would be to deny the requested

action. Denial of the requested action

would effectively preclude operation of

the facility until the intermittent voltage

condition is resolved (i.e., until the end

of hot, summer weather).

Alternative Use of Resources

This action does not involve the use

of resources not previously considered

in connection with the Nuclear

Regulatory Commission’s Final

Environmental Statement dated May

1982, related to the operation of the

Clinton Power Station, Unit No. 1.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on July 22, 1997, the NRC staff

consulted with the Illinois State

representative regarding the

environmental impact of the proposed

action. The State official had no

comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

Based upon the foregoing

environmental assessment, the

Commission concludes that the

proposed action will not have a

significant effect on the quality of the

human environment. Accordingly, the

Commission has determined not to

prepare an environmental impact

statement for the proposed action.

For further details with respect to this

action, see the licensee’s letter dated

July 22, 1997, 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 Vespasian

Warner Public Library, 310 N. Quincy

Street, Clinton, IL 61727.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day

of July 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Gail H. Marcus,

Director, Project Directorate III–3, Division

of Reactor Projects III/IV, Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–19805 Filed 7–24–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL

MANAGEMENT

[RI 30–10]

Proposed Collection; Comment

Request for the Revised Information

Collection

AGENCY: Office of Personnel

Management.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub.

L. 104–13, May 22, 1995), this notice

announces that the Office of Personnel

Management intends to submit to the

Office of Management and Budget a

request for a revised information

collection. RI 30–10, Disabled

Dependent Questionnaire, is used to

collect sufficient information about the

medical condition and earning capacity

for OPM to be able to determine

whether a disabled adult child is

eligible for health benefits coverage and/

or survivor annuity payments under the

Civil Service Retirement System or the

Federal Employees Retirement System.

Approximately 2,500 RI 30–10 forms

are completed annually. Each form takes

approximately 30 minutes to complete.

The annual estimated burden is 1,250

hours.

For copies of this proposal, contact

Jim Farron on (202) 418–3208, or E-mail

to jmfarron@opm.gov

DATES: Comments on this proposal

should be received on or before

September 23, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments

to—Lorraine E. Dettman, Chief,

Operations Support Division,

Retirement and Insurance Service, U.S.

Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E

Street, NW, Room 3349, Washington,

DC 20415–0001.

For Information Regarding Administrative

Coordination—Contact: Mary Beth SmithToomey, Management Services Division,

(202) 606–0623.

Office of Personnel Management.

James B. King,

Director.

[FR Doc. 97–19638 Filed 7–24–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6325–01–M

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL

MANAGEMENT

Excepted Service

AGENCY: Office of Personnel

Management.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This gives notice of positions

placed or revoked under Schedules A

and B, and placed under Schedule C in

the excepted service, as required by

Civil Service Rule VI, Exceptions from

the Competitive Service.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Patricia H. Paige, Staffing Reinvention

Office, Employment Service (202) 606–

0830.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Office

of Personnel Management published its

last monthly notice updating appointing

authorities established or revoked under

the Excepted Service provisions of 5