45278 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 165 / Tuesday, August 26, 1997 / Notices

rather than to each State agency

separately. The data collection center

then distributes the appropriate data to

the respective States.

The confidentiality statement used on

the survey forms, which is very similar

to one of the alternative statements used

earlier with this program, is as follows:

The information collected on this form by

the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the State

agencies cooperating in its statistical

programs will be used for statistical and

Unemployment Insurance program purposes,

and other purposes in accordance with law.

BLS is submitting a request for threeyear clearance of the MWR with this

confidentiality statement. The statement

conforms to the following factors:

• BLS uses of the data are exclusively

statistical.

• BLS may share the data with other

Federal agencies for statistical purposes;

however, as in the past, BLS will not

share a State’s confidential ES–202 data

with another Federal agency unless that

State has given BLS written permission

to do so.

• BLS makes no confidentiality

statement regarding State uses of the

data.

• In some States, uses are not

exclusively statistical.

Type of Review: Revision.

Agency: Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Title: Multiple Worksite Report

(MWR) and the Report of Federal

Employment and Wages (RFEW).

OMB Number: 1220–0134.

Frequency: Quarterly.

Affected Public: Business or other forprofit institutions; Not-for-profit

institutions; Federal Government; and

State, Local or Tribal Government.

Form number Total respondents Respondent Total responses

Average time

per response

(minutes)

Total burden

hours

BLS 3020 (MWR) .......................................................... 112,666 Non-Federal .......... 450,664 22.2 166,746

BLS 3021 (RFEW) ........................................................ 2,154 Federal .................. 8,616 22.2 3,188

Totals: ................................................................. 114,820 ............................... 459,280 ........................ 169,934

Total Burden Cost (capital/startup):

$0.

Total Burden Cost (operating/

maintaining): $0.

Comments submitted in response to

this notice will be summarized and/or

included in the request for Office of

Management and Budget approval of the

information collection request; they also

will become a matter of public record.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 21st day of

August, 1997.

W. Stuart Rust, Jr.,

Chief, Division of Management Systems,

Bureau of Labor Statistics.

[FR Doc. 97–22654 Filed 8–25–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–24–M

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Houston Lighting & Power Company,

City Public Service Board of San

Antonio, Central Power and Light

Company, City of Austin, Texas; Notice

of Consideration of Issuance of

Amendment to Facility Operating

License, Proposed No Significant

Hazards Consideration Determination,

And Opportunity For a Hearing

[Docket Nos. 50–498 And 50–499]

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of an amendment

to Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–

76 and NPF–80 issued to Houston

Lighting & Power Company, et. al., (the

licensee) for operation of the South

Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, located in

Matagorda County, Texas.

The proposed amendment would

revise the allowed tolerance of the

reactor coolant system volume provided

in Technical Specification 5.4.2 to

account for steam generator tube

plugging.

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:

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91, this

analysis provides a determination that

the proposed change to the Technical

Specifications described previously

does not involve any significant hazards

consideration as defined in 10 CFR

50.92.

1. The proposed change does not

involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of an

accident previously evaluated.

The proposed change increases the

range given in the Technical

Specifications allowed for total water

and steam volume of the Reactor

Coolant System. Increasing the range to

incorporate volume reduction caused by

plugging 10% of steam generator tubes

has been reviewed by the Nuclear

Regulatory Commission with the

exception of the uncontrolled dilution

event. This event is addressed in South

Texas Project Updated Final Safety

Analysis Report Section 15.4.6. Plugging

of steam generator tubes and the

resulting reduction in Reactor Coolant

System volume are not precursors to

occurrence of an uncontrolled boron

dilution event.

Reduced Reactor Coolant System

volume results in less time available to

an operator to respond to an

uncontrolled boron dilution event;

however, uncontrolled boron dilution

event analyses assuming 10% tube

plugging continue to demonstrate that

there is adequate time (at least 15

minutes) prior to loss of shutdown

margin for the operator to manually

terminate the source of the dilution flow

in the full power, start-up, hot standby,

hot shutdown, and cold shutdown (with

the Reactor Coolant System filled)

modes of operation. An uncontrolled

boron dilution event is precluded by

administrative controls during refueling

or during cold shutdown with the

Reactor Coolant System not filled.

Procedures and design features continue

to ensure proper and timely response to

an uncontrolled dilution event.

Based on the continued ability to

respond to an uncontrolled boron
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 165 / Tuesday, August 26, 1997 / Notices 45279

dilution event in accordance with

design, this change does not involve a

significant increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated.

2. The proposed change does not

create the possibility of a new or

different kind of accident from any

accident previously evaluated.

The proposed change revises the

allowed range of the total water and

steam volume of the Reactor coolant

System as stated in the Technical

Specifications; this change has been

reviewed by the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission with the exception of

uncontrolled boron dilution events as

addressed in Section 15.4.6 of the South

Texas Project Updated Final Safety

Analysis Report. The proposed change

does not modify or remove any plant

design requirement, or require

installation of any new or different kind

of equipment. The change also does not

involve any significantly new or

different mode of operation of the plant.

There are no new or different kinds of

accidents created as a result of this

change.

3. The proposed change does not

involve a significant reduction in a

margin of safety.

Reduction in reactor coolant system

volume associated with 10% plugging of

steam generator tubes has been

reviewed by the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission with the exception of

uncontrolled boron dilution events as

described in Updated Final Safety

Analysis Report section 15.4.6. The

reduction in Reactor Coolant System

volume associated with steam generator

tube plugging has an adverse effect on

the uncontrolled boron dilution event

transient in that less time is available for

operator action to correct the situation.

However, assumptions for active reactor

coolant system volumes that include

one or more steam generators have been

adjusted to reflect 10% steam generator

tube plugging for design basis analyses.

Uncontrolled boron dilution event

analyses demonstrate that, with 10%

steam generator tube plugging, there

continues to be adequate time (at least

15 minutes) for operator action to

terminate dilution flow prior to loss of

shutdown margin. Therefore, the margin

of safety is not significantly reduced by

this change.

Conclusion

Based on the information presented

above, the proposed change does not

involve a significant hazards

consideration and will not have a

significant effect on the safe operation of

the plant as previously analyzed.

Therefore, there is reasonable assurance

that operation of the South Texas

Project in accordance with the proposed

revised Technical Specification will not

endanger the public health and 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 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 Review and

Directives Branch, Division of Freedom

of Information and Publications

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 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 September 25, 1997, 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 Wharton

County Junior College, J. M. Hodges

Learning Center, 911 Boling Highway,

Wharton, TX. 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
45280 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 165 / Tuesday, August 26, 1997 / Notices

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 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 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

Jack R. Newman, Esq., Morgan, Lewis &

Bockius, 1800 M Street, N.W.,

Washington, DC 20036–5869, 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 August 14, 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 Wharton County Junior College, J.

M. Hodges Learning Center, 911 Boling

Highway, Wharton, TX.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day

of August 1997.

For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

James W. Clifford,

Acting Director, Project Directorate IV/1,

Division of Reactor Projects III/IV, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–22634 Filed 8–25–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–397]

Washington Public Power Supply

System; 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. NPF–

21, issued to Washington Public Power

System (the licensee), for operation of

the Washington Nuclear Project No. 2

(WNP–2) located in Benton County,

Washington.

The proposed amendment would

modify the inservice testing (IST)

requirements specified in Technical

Specification (TS) 5.5.6 for the inboard

primary containment isolation valve

(PCIV) on the transversing in-core probe

(TIP) system nitrogen purge line. The

proposed amendment is submitted to

resolve enforcement discretion which

was issued to the licensee on August 13,

1997, related to the above identified TS

surveillance requirements.

The exigent circumstances for this

technical specification amendment

request exist due to the potential for

system degradation associated with

isolating the nitrogen purge line to the

TIP system for the duration of the

current operating cycle.

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:

1. The proposed change does not

involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of any

accident previously evaluated.

The purpose of the proposed license

amendment is to extend the full stroke

testing requirement interval for TIP–V–

6 to the next shutdown of sufficient

duration to complete the testing. The

test requirement assures the freedom of

movement of the obturator of the check

valve. The probability of occurrence of

an evaluated accident is not increased

because extending the testing interval

does not create a new precursor or effect

an existing precursor to any design basis

accident. The consequences of an

evaluated accident are not significantly

increased because of the reliable

performance history of TIP–V–6 and an

operable TIP–V–15. The ability of TIP–

V–6 to provide containment isolation is

maintained. Therefore, the proposed

amendment request does not

significantly increase the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated.

2. The proposed change does not

create the possibility of a new or

different kind of accident from any

accident previously evaluated.

The Technical Specification

amendment would not create a new or

different kind of accident because it

does not involve modification of the

plant configuration, result in any

physical change to TIP–V–6, or its