Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 21 / Friday, January 31, 1997 / Notices 4819

Case N–514 would restrict the pressure/

temperature operating window and

would potentially result in undesired

actuation of the LTOP system. This

constitutes an unnecessary burden that

can be alleviated by the application of

ASME Code Case N–514.

Implementation of an LTOP setpoint as

allowed by ASME Code Case N–514

does not significantly reduce the margin

of safety associated with normal

operational heatup and cooldown

limits. Further, the LTOP guidelines

will reduce the potential for an

undesired lift of the LTOP valves.

The licensee has requested the use of

the American Society of Mechanical

Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure

Vessel Code (Code) Case N–514, ‘‘Low

Temperature Overpressure Protection,’’

which allows exceeding the Appendix G

safety limits by 10 percent. ASME Code

Case N–514, the proposed alternate

methodology, is consistent with

guidelines developed by the ASME

Working Group on Operating Plant

Criteria to define pressure limits during

LTOP events that avoid certain

unnecessary operational restrictions,

provide adequate margins against failure

of the reactor pressure vessel, and

reduce the potential for unnecessary

activation of pressure-relieving devices

used for LTOP. Code Case N–514 has

been approved by the ASME Code

Committee. The content of this code

case has been incorporated into

Appendix G of Section XI of the ASME

Code and published in the 1993

Addenda to Section XI.

III

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the

Commission may, upon application by

any interested person or upon its own

initiative, grant exemptions from the

requirements of 10 CFR Part 50 when (1)

the exemptions are authorized by law,

will not present an undue risk to public

health or safety, and are consistent with

the common defense and security; and

(2) when special circumstances are

present. Special circumstances are

present whenever, according to 10 CFR

50.12(a)(2)(ii), ‘‘Application of the

regulation in the particular

circumstances would not serve the

underlying purpose of the rule or is not

necessary to achieve the underlying

purpose of the rule * * *.’’

The underlying purpose of 10 CFR

50.60, Appendix G, is to establish

fracture toughness requirements for

ferritic materials of pressure-retaining

components of the reactor coolant

pressure boundary to provide adequate

margins of safety during any condition

of normal operation, including

anticipated operational occurrences, to

which the pressure boundary may be

subjected over its service lifetime.

Section IV.A.2 of this appendix requires

that the reactor vessel be operated with

P/T limits at least as conservative as

those obtained by following the

methods of analysis and the required

margins of safety of Appendix G of the

ASME Code.

Appendix G of the ASME Code

requires that the P/T limits be

calculated: (a) using a safety factor of

two on the principal membrane

(pressure) stresses, (b) assuming a flaw

at the surface with a depth of onequarter (1⁄4) of the vessel wall thickness

and a length of six (6) times its depth,

and (c) using a conservative fracture

toughness curve that is based on the

lower bound of static, dynamic, and

crack arrest fracture toughness tests on

material similar to the ANO–2 reactor

vessel material.

In determining the setpoint for LTOP

events, the licensee proposed to use

safety margins based on an alternate

methodology consistent with the ASME

Code Case N–514 guidelines. The ASME

Code Case N–514 allows determination

of the setpoint for LTOP events such

that the maximum pressure in the vessel

would not exceed 110 percent of the P/

T limits of the existing ASME Appendix

G. This results in a safety factor of 1.8

on the principal membrane stresses. All

other factors, including assumed flaw

size and fracture toughness, remain the

same. Although this methodology

would reduce the safety factor on the

principal membrane stresses, the

proposed criteria will provide adequate

margins of safety to the reactor vessel

during LTOP transients and, thus, will

satisfy the underlying purpose of 10

CFR 50.60 for fracture toughness

requirements. The slight reduction in

the membrane stress safety factor, as

proposed by Code Case N–514, is

compensated by increased safety from

the standpoint of increased operational

flexibility and the reduced potential for

unnecessary opening of the LTOP relief

valves. In summary, the use of Code

Case N–514 is likely to improve overall

safety when evaluated as part of the

complete plant safety concern.

IV

For the foregoing reasons, the NRC

staff has concluded that the licensee’s

proposed use of the alternate

methodology in determining the

acceptable setpoint for LTOP events will

not present an undue risk to public

health and safety and is consistent with

the common defense and security. The

NRC staff has determined that there are

special circumstances present, as

specified in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2), in that

application of 10 CFR 50.60 is not

necessary in order to achieve the

underlying purpose of this regulation.

Accordingly, the Commission has

determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR

50.12(a), an exemption is authorized by

law, will not endanger life or property

or common defense and security, and is,

otherwise, in the public interest.

Therefore, the Commission hereby

grants an exemption from the

requirements of 10 CFR 50.60 allowing

the use of alternate criteria as described

by Code Case N–514, which permits

exceeding the Appendix G safety factor

by 10 percent during low temperature

operations.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the

Commission has determined that the

granting of this exemption will not have

a significant effect on the quality of the

human environment (61 FR 20846).

This exemption is effective upon

issuance.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day

of January 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Frank J. Miraglia,

Acting Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–2377 Filed 1–30–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

[Docket Nos. 50–245, 50–336, 50–423 and

50–213]

Northeast Utilities, Millstone Nuclear

Power Station, Units 1, 2, and 3,

Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power

Company, Haddam Neck Plant; Receipt

of Petition for Director’s Decision

Under 10 CFR 2.206

Notice is hereby given that on

November 25, 1996, as amended on

December 23, 1996, the Citizens

Awareness Network (CAN) and the

Nuclear Information and Resource

Service (NIRS) (Petitioners) submitted a

Petition pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206

requesting certain actions associated

with the Haddam Neck plant, which the

Petitioners refer to as Connecticut

Yankee, and the three Millstone units

operated by Northeast Utilities (NU).

Petitioners allege that NU has, over

the past decade, mismanaged its nuclear

facilities in Connecticut and operated

them in flagrant disregard of NRC

regulations; that NU has failed to fulfill

its commitments to the NRC; that NU

management had concrete

particularized knowledge of serious ongoing violations of NRC regulations

culminating in material

misrepresentations to the NRC; that

regulatory oversight by the NRC to

assure NU’s compliance with NRC
4820 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 21 / Friday, January 31, 1997 / Notices

regulations has been a blatant and abject

failure; that NU is in violation of 10 CFR

Part 50, Appendix B; and that these

failures have culminated in inconsistent

and inaccurate updated Final Safety

Analysis Reports at NU’s nuclear

facilities in Connecticut, thereby posing

a significant safety concern for either

continued operation of the plants or

decommissioning.

The bases for these assertions are NU

and NRC inspection findings and NU

documents referred to in the Petition,

the amendment and a VHS videotape,

Exhibit A, which accompanied the

Petition. The videotape has been

transcribed and placed in the

Commission’s Public Document Room

and local public document rooms. Areas

identified are surveillance testing,

operation outside the design basis, and

degraded material condition. Petitioners

assert that this information

demonstrates that there are inadequate

quality assurance programs at NU’s

nuclear facilities in Connecticut, that

NU has made material false statements

regarding its Millstone units, and that

safe decommissioning of the Haddam

Neck plant is not possible given the

defective nature of the design and

licensing basis for this facility. In

addition, in the amendment the

Petitioners assert that certain nitrogen

calculations performed by NU for the

Haddam Neck facility may not comply

with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, and

that the NRC failed to identify this

problem. The videotape records an

August 29, 1996, Citizens Regulatory

Commission televised interview of a

former Millstone Station employee. The

interview included the former

employee’s views relating to NU’s poor

management in allowing: Degradation of

the material plant; poor radwaste

practices resulting in potential radiation

exposure to employees; and harassment

intimidation and subsequent illegal

termination of employees raising safety

concerns.

Petitioners request the following

actions: immediate suspension or

revocation of NU’s licenses to operate

its nuclear facilities in Connecticut;

investigation of possible NU material

misrepresentations to the NRC;

continued shutdown of the NU facilities

in Connecticut until the Department of

Justice completes its investigation and

the results are reviewed by the NRC and

until the NRC evaluates and approves

NU remedial actions; continued listing

of the NU facilities on the NRC ‘‘watch

list’’ should NU resume operation;

barring any predecommissioning or

decommissioning activity at any NU

nuclear facility in Connecticut until NU

and the NRC take certain identified

steps to assure that such activities can

be safely conducted; and initiation by

the NRC of an investigation into how it

allowed the asserted illegal situation at

NU’s nuclear facilities in Connecticut to

exist and continue for more than a

decade. In addition, in the amendment,

Petitioners request copies of

Connecticut Yankee’s nitrogen

calculations and an immediate

investigation of the need for

enforcement action for alleged violation

of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B.

The issues in the Petition, as

amended, are being treated pursuant to

10 CFR Section 2.206 of the

Commission’s regulations and have

been referred to the Acting Director of

the Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation. As provided by 10 CFR

Section 2.206, appropriate action with

regard to these issues will be taken

within a reasonable time. By letter dated

January 23, 1997, the Acting Director

denied the request for immediate

suspension or revocation of the

operating licenses for the NU nuclear

facilities in Connecticut.

A copy of the Petition, the

amendment to the Petition and a

transcription of the videotape are

available for inspection at the

Commission’s Public Document Room

at 2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, DC

20037 and at the local public document

rooms at (1) the Learning Resources

Center, Three Rivers CommunityTechnical College, 574 New London

Turnpike, Norwich, CT 06360, and (2)

the Waterford Library, ATTN: Vince

Juliano, 49 Rope Ferry Road, Waterford,

CT 06385.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 23rd day

of January 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Frank J. Miraglia, Jr.,

Acting Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–2378 Filed 1–30–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY

CORPORATION

Request for Comment on Proposed

Collection of Information Under the

Paperwork Reduction Act; Customer

Satisfaction Survey for Pension

Practitioners

AGENCY: Pension Benefit Guaranty

Corporation.

ACTION: Notice of intention to request

OMB approval.

SUMMARY: The Pension Benefit Guaranty

Corporation intends to request that the

Office of Management and Budget

approve a new collection of information

under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

The purpose of the information

collection is to help the PBGC assess the

efficiency and effectiveness with which

it serves its customers and to design

actions to address identified problems.

The effect of this notice is to advise the

public of, and to solicit public comment

on, this proposed collection of

information.

ADDRESSES: All written comments

should be addressed to: Office of

General Counsel, Pension Benefit

Guaranty Corporation, Suite 340, 1200 K

St. NW., Washington, D.C. 20005. The

comments will be available for public

inspection at the PBGC’s

Communications and Public Affairs

Department, Suite 240, 1200 K Street,

NW., Washington, DC 20005, between

the hours of 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. A copy

of the proposed collection can be

obtained, without charge, by writing to

the PBGC at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Marc L. Jordan, Attorney, Office of the

General Counsel, Suite 340, 1200 K

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005,

202–326–4026 (202–326–4179 for TTY

and TDD). (These are not toll-free

numbers.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Executive

Order 12862, Setting Customer Service

Standards, directs all executive

departments and agencies that provide

significant services directly to the

public to provide those services in a

manner that seeks to meet the customer

service standards established in the

Executive Order.

The PBGC intends to conduct annual

surveys to measure the satisfaction of its

pension practitioner customers. The

survey will be sent to a sampling of

pension practitioners drawn from the

following sources: 800 from plan

administrators who have filed voluntary

termination forms with the PBGC; 800

from plan administrators who have filed

premium forms with the PBGC; and 800

from the directory of enrolled actuaries

as maintained by the Joint Board of

Enrolled Actuaries.

The PBGC intends to request that the

Office of Management and Budget

approve this voluntary collection of

information, which will put a minimal

burden on a very small percentage of the

public. The PBGC’s written surveys to

approximately 2,400 persons each year

will result in an estimated total annual

burden of 480 hours.

The PBGC is specifically seeking

public comments to:

(1) Evaluate whether the proposed

collection of information is necessary

for the proper performance of the