48674 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 179 / Tuesday, September 16, 1997 / Notices

NEIGHBORHOOD REINVESTMENT

CORPORATION

Sunshine Act Meeting; Regular

Meeting of the Board of Directors

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m., Thursday,

September 25, 1997.

PLACE: Neighborhood Reinvestment

Corporation, 1325 G Street, N.W., Suite

800, Board Room, Washington, D.C.

20005.

STATUS: Open.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Jeffrey T. Bryson, General Counsel/

Secretary 202/376–2441.

AGENDA:

I. Call to Order

II. Approval of Minutes:

April 16, 1997 Annual Meeting

III. Resolution of Appreciation

IV. Budget Committee Report

July 28, 1997 Meeting:

a. FY 1997 Budget Reallocation Request

b. FY 1998 Budget Request

c. FY 1999 OMB Budget Submission

V. Audit Committee Report

VI. Treasurer’s Report

VII. Appointment of Acting Treasurer

VIII. Executive Director’s Quarterly

Management Report

IX. Adjourn

Jeffrey T. Bryson,

General Counsel/Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–24720 Filed 9–12–97; 2:30 pm]

BILLING CODE 7570–01–M

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Agency Information Collection

Activities: Submission for OMB

Review; Comment Request

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC).

ACTION: Notice of the OMB review of

information collection and solicitation

of public comment.

SUMMARY: The NRC has recently

submitted to OMB for review the

following proposal for the collection of

information under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. Chapter 35). The NRC hereby

informs potential respondents that an

agency may not conduct or sponsor, and

that a person is not required to respond

to, a collection of information unless it

displays a currently valid OMB control

number.

1. Type of submission, new, revision,

or extension: Extension.

2. The title of the information

collection: 10 CFR part 71, ‘‘Packaging

and Transportation of Radioactive

Material.’’

3. The form number if applicable: Not

applicable.

4. How often the collection is

required: Applications for package

certification may be made at any time.

Required reports are collected and

evaluated on a continuing basis as

events occur.

5. Who will be required or asked to

report: All NRC specific licensees who

place byproduct, source, or special

nuclear material into transportation, and

all persons who wish to apply for NRC

approval of package designs for use in

such transportation.

6. An estimate of the number of

responses: 755 responses annually.

7. The estimated number of annual

respondents: 350 licensees.

8. An estimate of the total number of

hours needed annually to complete the

requirement or request: 56,712 hours for

reporting requirements and 6,825 for

recordkeeping requirements, or a total of

63,537 hours (approximately 182 hours

per respondent).

9. An indication of whether section

3507(d), Pub. L. 104–13 applies: Not

applicable.

10. Abstract: NRC regulations in 10

CFR part 71 establish requirements for

packing, preparation for shipment, and

transportation of licensed material, and

prescribe procedures, standards, and

requirements for approval by NRC of

packaging and shipping procedures for

fissile material and for quantities of

licensed material in excess of Type A

quantities.

A copy of the submittal may be

viewed free of charge at the NRC Public

Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW

(Lower Level), Washington, DC.

Members of the public who are in the

Washington, DC, area can access the

submittal via modem on the Public

Document Room Bulletin Board (NRC’s

Advance Copy Document Library) NRC

subsystem at FedWorld, 703–321–3339.

Members of the public who are located

outside of the Washington, DC, area can

dial FedWorld, 1–800–303–9672, or use

the FedWorld Internet address:

fedworld.gov (Telnet). The document

will be available on the bulletin board

for 30 days after the signature date of

this notice. If assistance is needed in

accessing the document, please contact

the FedWorld help desk at 703–487–

4608. Additional assistance in locating

the document is available from the NRC

Public Document Room, nationally at 1–

800–397–4209, or within the

Washington, DC, area at 202–634–3273.

Comments and questions should be

directed to the OMB reviewer by

October 16, 1997: Norma Gonzales,

Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs (3150–0008), NEOB–10202,

Office of Management and Budget,

Washington, DC 20503.

Comments can also be submitted by

telephone at (202) 395–3084.

The NRC Clearance Officer is Brenda

Jo. Shelton, (301) 415–7233.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day

of September 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Arnold E. Levin,

Acting Designated Senior Official for

Information Resources Management.

[FR Doc. 97–24560 Filed 9–15–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–440]

Cleveland Electric Illuminating

Company, et al.; 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–

58 issued to Cleveland Electric

Illuminating Company (CEICO),

Centerior Service Company, Duquesne

Light Company, Ohio Edison Company,

OES Nuclear, Inc., Pennsylvania Power

Company, and Toledo Edison Company

(the licensees) for operation of the Perry

Nuclear Power Plant (PNPP), Unit No. 1,

located in Lake County, Ohio.

The proposed amendment would

change the PNPP design basis as

described in the Updated Safety

Analysis Report (USAR). The change

will add a description of the

methodology utilized for determining

the systems and components that are

considered to require protection from

tornado missiles.

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; (2) create the possibility of a

new or different kind of accident from
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 179 / Tuesday, September 16, 1997 / Notices 48675

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 an

accident previously evaluated.

The proposed amendment is

requesting NRC review and approval of

changes to the Perry Nuclear Power

Plant (PNPP) Updated Safety Analysis

Report (USAR) to incorporate use of an

NRC approved methodology to assess

the need for additional positive

(physical) tornado missile protection of

specific features at PNPP. The USAR

changes will reflect use of the Electric

Power Research Institute (EPRI) Topical

Report ‘‘Tornado Missile Risk

Evaluation Methodology’’ (EPRI NP–

2005), Volumes I and II. As noted in the

NRC Safety Evaluation dated October

26, 1983 on this report, ‘‘the current

licensing criteria governing tornado

missile protection are contained in

Standard Review Plan (SRP) Sections

3.5.1.4 and 3.5.2. These criteria

generally specify that safety-related

systems be provided positive tornado

missile protection (barriers) from the

maximum credible tornado threat.

However, SRP Section 3.5.1.4 includes

acceptance criteria permitting relaxation

of the above deterministic guidance, if

it can be demonstrated that the

probability of damage to unprotected

essential safety-related features is

sufficiently small.

‘‘Certain Operating License (OL)

applicants and operating reactor

licensees have chosen to demonstrate

compliance with tornado missile

protection criteria for certain portions of

the plant * * * by providing a

probabilistic analysis which is intended

to show a sufficiently low risk

associated with tornado missiles. Some

* * * have utilized the tornado missile

probabilistic risk assessment (PRA)

methodology developed by’’ EPRI in the

Topical Report listed above. The NRC

noted that this report ‘‘can be utilized

when assessing the need for positive

tornado missile protection for specific

safety-related plant features.’’ The

methodology has subsequently been

utilized in nuclear power plant

licensing actions.

As permitted in NRC Standard

Review Plan (NUREG–0800) sections,

the total probability will be maintained

below an allowable level, i.e., an

acceptance criteria threshold, which

reflects an extremely low probability of

occurrence. The PNPP approach

assumes that if the probability

calculation result for the total plant

identifies that the total probability of

tornado missiles striking a portion of an

‘‘important’’ system or component is

greater than or equal to 10¥6, then

unique missile barriers would need to

be installed to lower the total

probability below the acceptance

criteria of 10¥6.

With respect to the probability of

occurrence or the consequences of an

accident previously evaluated in the

USAR, the possibility of a tornado

reaching the Perry Nuclear Power Plant

site and causing damage to plant

structures, systems and components is a

design basis event considered in the

Updated Safety Analysis Report. The

changes being proposed herein do not

affect the probability that the natural

phenomena (a tornado) will reach the

plant, but they do, from a licensing basis

perspective, affect the probability that

missiles generated by the winds of the

tornado might strike certain plant

systems or components. As recently

determined, there are a limited number

of safety-related components that could

theoretically be struck by a tornado

generated missile. The probability of

tornado generated missile strikes on

‘‘important’’ systems and components

(as discussed in Regulatory Guide 1.117)

is what is to be analyzed using the

probability methods discussed above.

The total (cumulative) probability of

strikes will be maintained below an

extremely low acceptance criteria to

ensure overall plant safety. The

proposed change is not considered to

constitute a significant increase in the

probability of occurrence or the

consequences of an accident, due to the

extremely low total probability of a

tornado missile strike and thus an

extremely low probability of a

radiological release.

Therefore, the proposed changes do

not involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of

previously evaluated accidents.

2. The proposed change would not

create the possibility of a new or

different kind of accident from any

previously evaluated.

The possibility of a tornado reaching

the Perry Nuclear Power Plant site is a

design basis event considered in the

Updated Safety Analysis Report. This

change involves recognition of the

acceptability of performing tornado

missile probability calculations in

accordance with established regulatory

guidance. The change therefore deals

with an established design basis event

(the tornado). Therefore, the proposed

change would not contribute to the

possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from those previously

analyzed. The probability and

consequences of such a design basis

event are addressed in Question 1

above.

Based on the above discussions, the

proposed change would not create the

possibility of a new or different kind of

accident than those previously

evaluated.

3. The proposed change will not

involve a significant reduction in the

margin of safety.

This request does not involve a

significant reduction in the margin of

safety. The existing licensing basis for

PNPP with respect to the design basis

event of a tornado reaching the plant,

generating missiles and directing them

toward safety related systems and

components is to provide positive

missile barriers for all safety related

systems and components. With the

change, it will be recognized that there

is an extremely low probability, below

an established acceptance limit, that a

limited subset of the ‘‘important’’

systems and components could be

struck. The change from ‘‘protecting all

safety related systems and components’’

to ‘‘an extremely low probability of

occurrence of tornado generated missile

strikes on portions of important systems

and components’’ is not considered to

constitute a significant decrease in the

margin of safety due to that extremely

low probability.

Therefore, the changes associated

with the license amendment request do

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 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
48676 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 179 / Tuesday, September 16, 1997 / Notices

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, MD, 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 October 16, 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 Perry

Public Library, 3753 Main Street, Perry,

OH 44081. 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.

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 Jay

Silberg, Esq., Shaw, Pittman, Potts &

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 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 Perry Public Library, 3753 Main

Street, Perry, OH 44081.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day

of September 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Douglas V. Pickett,

Project Manager, Project Directorate III–3,

Division of Reactor Projects III/IV, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–24558 Filed 9–15–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P