50628 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 187 / Friday, September 26, 1997 / Notices

and are paid the same rate, the union

rate is the prevailing rate.

Current Actions: The Employment

Standards Administration (ESA) and the

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Office

of Compensation and Working

Conditions (OCWC) have entered into

an interagency agreement to test the

feasibility of BLS collecting and

publishing information on the incidence

of and employer costs for specific

benefits by detailed construction

occupations in local areas. The purpose

is to provide ESA with an alternative

method for arriving at compensation

determinations for the construction

industry as required by the Davis-Bacon

Act.

BLS will provide ESA with the survey

results in both a publication and an

electronic file. In addition, BLS will

provide respondents and other

interested parties with the survey

results.

BLS plans wage and benefit collection

in four metropolitan areas, Jacksonville,

Florida; Salt Lake City-Ogden, Utah;

Toledo, Ohio; and Tucson, Arizona. In

each locality, BLS will survey a sample

of establishments and, within each

establishment, take a sample of bluecollar jobs. Information will be collected

on benefits incidence and costs, hours

worked, wages, and worker

characteristics such as union/nonunion

and full-time/part-time job status.

The compensation data will include

the following information:

• Incidence of employee benefits by

occupation;

• Employer benefits cost by

occupation; and

• Median and mean earnings by

occupation.

Worker characteristic information will

include the following:

• Union and nonunion;

• Full-time and part-time; and

• Time and incentive.

The types of benefit information

collected will include:

• Health, life, and disability

insurance;

• Retirement plan information;

• Leave information; and

• Overtime, shift, and bonus pay.

Depending upon response levels,

varying degrees of occupational detail

will be produced.

The survey forms to be used for this

test are the Employment Cost Index

forms previously approved under the

National Compensation Survey (OMB

Number 1220–0164). BLS will use the

information collected in this test for

statistical purposes only. To the full

extent permitted by law, BLS will hold

the information in confidence and will

not disclose it without the written

consent of respondents.

Type of Review: New Collection.

Agency: Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Title: Construction Industry Benefits

Test.

OMB Number: 1220-New.

AFfected Public: Business or other

for-profit.

Fiscal year average

Number of respondents per

year

Responses

per year

Total responses per

year

Average minutes per response

Total burden

hours

BLS 3038A ............................................................................ 550 1 468 75 585

BLS 3038B ............................................................................ 550 1 468 35 273

BLS 3038D ........................................................................... 550 1 468 180 1404

Quality assurance ................................................................. 117 1 117 10 20

Average annual burden ........................................................ 550 1 468 293 2282

Total Burden Cost (capital/startup):

$0.

Total Burden Coast (operating/

maintenance): $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, D.C., this 23rd day

of September, 1997.

W. Stuart Rust, Jr.,

Chief, Division of Management Systems,

Bureau of Labor Statistics.

[FR Doc. 97–25623 Filed 9–25–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–24–M

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–22]

Westinghouse Electric Corporation;

Waltz Mill Test Reactor Consideration

of Approval of Transfer of License and

Issuance of a Conforming Amendment

to Facility License, Proposed No

Significant Hazards Consideration

Determination, and Opportunity for

Hearing

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering the issuance of an order

approving, under 10 CFR 50.80, the

transfer of Facility License No. TR–2, to

the extent now held by Westinghouse

Electric Corporation, to a new corporate

entity which will utilize the same name.

The license authorizes possession of the

shut down test reactor at the Waltz Mill

site in Westmoreland County,

Pennsylvania. The Commission is also

considering the issuance of a

conforming amendment under 10 CFR

50.90.

The Westinghouse Electric

Corporation, organized in 1886, is

presently composed of industrial

businesses and media operations

(including the production and

transmission of radio and television

programming). It plans to reorganize

into two separate corporations. One of

these will retain certain assets and

operations relating to the Westinghouse

industrial businesses. This corporation

will eventually retain the name

Westinghouse Electric Corporation

(WELCO). The license for the Waltz Mill

Test Reactor will be held by this

corporation.

The other corporation will be named

CBS corporation, and will include the

media operations and those industrial

businesses which are not being

transferred to WELCO.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.80, the

Commission may approve the transfer of

a license, or any right thereunder, after

notice to interested persons. Such

approval is contingent upon the

Commission’s determination that the

proposed transferee is qualified to hold

the license and that the transfer is

otherwise consistent with applicable

provisions of law, regulations, and

orders of the Commission.

Before issuance of the proposed

license amendment which will reflect
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 187 / Friday, September 26, 1997 / Notices 50629

the proposed license transfer, 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:

1. The proposed amendment would not

involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of an

accident previously evaluated.

The proposed amendment will

transfer [SIC] the Westinghouse Test

Reactor (‘‘WTR facility’’) license, a

possession only license, from

Westinghouse to WELCO. This

amendment request is necessary

because of a proposed transfer by

Westinghouse of certain of its industrial

businesses to a company to be known

from and after the closing date of the

transactions as WELCO. As a result of

the transfer of these businesses, WELCO

will be financially qualified to hold the

WTR facility possession only license.

Furthermore, WELCO employees will

be technically qualified to carry out

licensed activities. In connection with

the pending transactions, current

Westinghouse employees for the

licensed WTR facility to be transferred

will become WELCO employees and

will continue to be responsible after the

transfers to WELCO. The proposed

amendment does not involve any

changes in licensed activities which

will continue in their current form

without any interruptions of any kind

resulting from the amendment.

The proposed amendment does not

require any physical change to the WTR

facility or changes to Technical

Specifications or procedures. The

proposed change does not increase the

probability of an accident previously

evaluated because it does not affect any

initiators in any of the previously

evaluated accidents. The proposed

change does not increase the

consequences of any accident

previously evaluated because it does not

affect any of the items on which the

consequences depend.

Therefore, the proposed amendment

does not involve a significant increase

in the probability or consequences of an

accident previously evaluated.

2. Would not create the possibility of a

new or different kind of accident from

any accident previously evaluated.

The proposed amendment does not

modify the WTR facility configuration

or licensed activities. Thus no new

accident initiators are introduced.

Therefore, the proposed amendment

does not create the possibility of a new

or different accident from any accident

previously evaluated.

3. Would not involve a significant

reduction in a margin of safety.

This amendment request is necessary

because of a proposed transfer of the

WTR facility license from Westinghouse

to WELCO. As a result of the transfer of

these businesses, WELCO will be

financially qualified to hold the WTR

facility possession only license.

WELCO will be technically qualified

to carry out licensed activities. In

connection with pending transactions,

current Westinghouse employees

responsible for the licensed WTR

facility to be transferred will become

WELCO employees and will continue to

be responsible after the transfers to

WELCO. The proposed amendment does

not involve any changes in licensed

activities which will continue in their

current form without any interruptions

of any kind resulting from the

amendment.

The proposed change does not alter

any margin of safety because it does not

involve any changes in the WTR facility

or licensed activities which will

continue in their current form without

any interruptions of any kind resulting

from the amendment.

Therefore, the proposed amendment

does not involve a significant reduction

in a 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, 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

before action is taken. 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 6–D22, 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 a hearing and petitions

for leave to intervene is discussed

below.

By October 27, 1997, the licensee may

file a request for a hearing with respect

to the issuance of an order regarding the

proposed transfer of the license and

issuance of a conforming amendment to

the subject license to reflect the transfer,

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

Commissions’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. 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
50630 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 187 / Friday, September 26, 1997 / Notices

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 transfer

approval or 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 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 with respect

to the proposed amendment, 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 a 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 such 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

Lisa A. Campagna, Assistant General

Counsel, Law Department,

Westinghouse Electric Corporation, P.0.

Box 355, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

15230, 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 dated August

18, 1997, regarding the transfer of

license and amendment, and the letter

dated August 15, 1997, from the

licensee which are available for public

inspection at the Commission’s Public

Document Room, the Gelman Building,

2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day

of September 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Seymour H. Weiss,

Director, Non-Power Reactors and

Decommissioning Project Directorate,

Division of Reactor Program Management,

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–25629 Filed 9–25–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Docket No. 50–390

Tennessee Valley Authority; Watts Bar

Nuclear Plant, Unit 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 for amendment to Facility

Operating License No. NPF–90, issued

to Tennessee Valley Authority, (TVA),

for operation of the Watts Bar Nuclear

Plant (WBN), Unit 1, located in Rhea

County, Tennessee.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of Proposed Action

The proposed action would allow the

licensee to utilize the American Society

of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and

Pressure Vessel Code (ASME Code) Case

N–514, ‘‘Low Temperature Overpressure

Protection’’ to determine its low

temperature overpressure protection

(LTOP) setpoints and is in accordance

with the licensee’s application for

exemption dated June 20, 1997. The

proposed action requests an exemption

from certain requirements of 10 CFR

50.60, ‘‘Acceptance Criteria for Fracture

Prevention Measures for Lightwater

Nuclear Power Reactors for Normal

Operation,’’ to allow application of an

alternate methodology to determine the

LTOP setpoints for the Watts Bar

Nuclear Plant.

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 one

quarter (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 Watts Bar reactor

vessel material.

In determining the PORV setpoint for

LTOP events, the licensee proposed the

use of safety margins based on an