Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 1997 / Notices 53029

WI970049 (Feb. 14, 1997)

Volume V

Arkansas

AR970003 (Feb. 14, 1997)

Iowa

IA970005 (Feb. 14, 1997)

Kansas

KS970006 (Feb. 14, 1997)

KS970009 (Feb. 14, 1997)

KS970012 (Feb. 14, 1997)

KS970022 (Feb. 14, 1997)

Nebraska

NE970009 (Feb. 14, 1997)

Volume VI

Alaska

AK970001 (Feb. 14, 1997)

Idaho

ID970002 (Feb. 14, 1997)

North Dakota

ND970002 (Feb. 14, 1997)

Oregon

OR970001 (Feb. 14, 1997)

Washington

WA970001 (Feb. 14, 1997)

WA970002 (Feb. 14, 1997)

WA970003 (Feb. 14, 1997)

WA970005 (Feb. 14, 1997)

WA970006 (Feb. 14, 1997)

WA970008 (Feb. 14, 1997)

WA970011 (Feb. 14, 1997)

WA970013 (Feb. 14, 1997)

Volume VII

Arizona

AZ970004 (Feb. 14, 1997)

California

CA970084 (Feb. 14, 1997)

CA970085 (Feb. 14, 1997)

CA970086 (Feb. 14, 1997)

CA970087 (Feb. 14, 1997)

CA970088 (Feb. 14, 1997)

CA970089 (Feb. 14, 1997)

CA970091 (Feb. 14, 1997)

CA970092 (Feb. 14, 1997)

CA970093 (Feb. 14, 1997)

CA970094 (Feb. 14, 1997)

CA970095 (Feb. 14, 1997)

CA970096 (Feb. 14, 1997)

CA970097 (Feb. 14, 1997)

CA970098 (Feb. 14, 1997)

CA970099 (Feb. 14, 1997)

CA970100 (Feb. 14, 1997)

CA970101 (Feb. 14, 1997)

CA970102 (Feb. 14, 1997)

CA970103 (Feb. 14, 1997)

CA970104 (Feb. 14, 1997)

CA970105 (Feb. 14, 1997)

CA970106 (Feb. 14, 1997)

CA970107 (Feb. 14, 1997)

CA970108 (Feb. 14, 1997)

CA970109 (Feb. 14, 1997)

CA970110 (Feb. 14, 1997)

CA970111 (Feb. 14, 1997)

CA970112 (Feb. 14, 1997)

CA970113 (Feb. 14, 1997)

CA970114 (Feb. 14, 1997)

CA970115 (Feb. 14, 1997)

Hawaii

HI970001 (Feb. 14, 1997)

General Wage Determination

Publication

General wage determinations issued

under the Davis-Bacon and related Acts,

including those noted above, may be

found in the Government Printing Office

(GPO) document entitled ‘‘General Wage

Determinations Issued Under The DavisBacon and Related Acts’’. This

publication is available at each of the 50

Regional Government Depository

Libraries and many of the 1,400

Government Depository Libraries across

the county.

The general wage determinations

issued under the Davis-Bacon and

related Acts are available electronically

by subscription to the FedWorld

Bulletin Board System of the National

Technical Information Service (NTIS) of

the U.S. Department of Commerce at

(703) 487–4630.

Hard-copy subscriptions may be

purchased from: Superintendent of

Documents, U.S. Government Printing

Office, Washington, DC 20402, (202)

512–1800.

When ordering hard-copy

subscription(s), be sure to specify the

States(s) of interest, since subscriptions

may be ordered for any or all of the

seven separate volumes, arranged by

State. Subscriptions include an annual

edition (issued in January or February)

which includes all current general wage

determinations for the States covered by

each volume. Throughout the remainder

of the year, regular weekly updates are

distributed to subscribers.

Signed at Washington, DC this 3rd Day Of

October 1997.

Carl Poleskey,

Chief, Branch of Construction Wage

Determinations.

[FR Doc. 97–26664 Filed 10–9–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–27–M

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–255]

In the Matter of Consumers Energy

Company (Palisades Plant); Exemption

I

Consumers Energy Company (the

licensee) is the holder of Facility

Operating License No. DPR–20 which

authorizes operation of the Palisades

Plant. The Palisades facility is a

pressurized-water reactor located at the

licensee’s site in Van Buren County,

Michigan. The license provides, among

other things, that the facility is subject

to all rules, regulations, and orders of

the Commission now or hereafter in

effect.

II

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a), ‘‘Specific

exemptions,’’ the Commission may

grant exemptions from the requirements

of the regulations of this part (1) which

are authorized by law, will not present

an undue risk to the public health and

safety, and are consistent with the

common defense and security; and (2)

where special circumstances are

present.

Section II.G. of 10 CFR Part 50,

Appendix J, Option A, defines Type B

tests as ‘‘tests intended to detect local

leaks and to measure leakage across

each pressure-containing or leakagelimiting boundary * * *.’’ which

includes air lock door seals.

Section III.D.2.(b)(ii) of 10 CFR Part

50, Appendix J, Option A, requires air

locks opened during periods where

containment integrity is not required to

undergo a full air lock pressure test at

the end of such periods.

Section III.D.2.(b)(iii) of 10 CFR Part

50, Appendix J, Option A, requires air

locks opened during periods where

containment integrity is required to

undergo a full air lock pressure test

within 3 days after being opened.

III

By letters dated January 10, 1996, and

February 20, 1997, the licensee

requested an exemption from 10 CFR

Part 50, Appendix J, Option A, Sections

III.D.2.(b)(ii) and III.D.2.(b)(iii), for Type

B testing of the emergency escape air

lock. Specifically, this exemption would

permit the licensee to perform a door

seal contact verification check in lieu of

the final pressure test required by

Appendix J following opening the air

lock doors for post-test restoration or

seal adjustment.

The exemption request is necessary

due to the original design of the

emergency escape air lock. During

special testing in 1992, the licensee

showed that the annulus between the

door seals could not be successfully

tested without the door strongback

installed even at pressures as low as 2

psig. This testing, along with

information from the vendor, confirms

that between-the-seal pressure testing

on the emergency escape air lock doors

cannot be properly measured or

evaluated if the door strongbacks are not

installed. Similarly, the inner door does

not fully seal with the reverse-direction

pressure of a full air lock pressure test

unless the strongback is installed.

Since the removal of the inner door

strongback after pressure testing

requires the outer door to be opened, a

between-the-seals test of the outer door

would be required by the regulation.

This test would require the installation

of a strongback on the outer door.

Further, full pressure testing or the

pressure induced by the strongback may
53030 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 1997 / Notices

cause the seals to take a set. It is

therefore necessary to open both doors

(one at a time) after any pressure testing

to ensure full seal contact, and there is

a potential need to readjust the seals to

restore seal contact.

As an alternative to a final pressure

test required by Appendix J for

verification of door seal functionality,

the licensee has proposed a final door

seal contact verification. This seal

performance verification is completed

following the full pressure air lock test,

after the removal of the inner door

strongback, and just prior to final

closure of the air lock doors. The

requested exemption would not affect

compliance with the present

requirement to perform a full pressure

emergency escape air lock test at 6-

month intervals. It would also not affect

the requirement to perform a full

pressure emergency escape air lock test

within 72 hours of opening either door

during periods when containment

integrity is required. The seal contact

check replaces the pressure test required

by Appendix J for the door opening(s)

and/or seal adjustments associated with

restoration from the required full

pressure tests.

The licensee has performed additional

low pressure between-the-seals testing

on the escape lock door seals to measure

seal leak rates at low initial pressures

and without the door strongbacks

installed, to see if such tests would

yield useful results. The tests indicated

that meaningful between-the-seals

testing is not possible with the present

design of the escape air lock, without

strongbacks installed.

The licensee has also considered

possible modifications to the existing

emergency escape air lock doors in an

attempt to identify other methods of

complying with the Appendix J

requirements. The modifications that

were considered were:

1. Modify the Seal Design or Change the

Seal Material

A proposal was received from the air

lock vendor to perform testing of

different seal shapes and materials. This

was later withdrawn. The vendor

believes, and the licensee concurs, that

the seal material and shape currently in

use are reliable and adequate to

maintain containment integrity. Simply

changing the seal material or shape

would be unlikely to allow meaningful

between-the-seals tests with strongbacks

removed.

2. Perform Door Modifications by

Removing the Doors and Altering the

Sealing Surfaces

Minor modifications were considered

for the door mechanisms in conjunction

with reconfigured sealing surfaces. This

modification has never been performed

by the air lock vendor and would be

experimental. There is no guarantee that

these efforts would be successful in

allowing Palisades to perform betweenthe-seals testing. The cost of this

modification is estimated by the

licensee to be roughly equal to

performing an air lock retrofit, as

described below.

3. Perform an Air Lock Retrofit Which

Would Include Removing and Replacing

the Doors, the Ends of the Bulkhead,

and the Door Mechanisms

The doors would be replaced with

doors of a design whose seals can be

tested per Appendix J without

additional restraint or subsequent seal

restoration. The mechanisms would be

updated for smoother operation but

their function would not be altered.

The only viable alternative found was

the replacement of the air lock doors,

which the licensee has estimated would

cost a minimum of $700,000. The

licensee states that the cost of

performing the modification is not

warranted because no increase in plant

or public safety would be realized. The

other modifications to the present doors

or seals would not ensure adequate

performance improvement for

unrestrained between-the-seals testing.

During its review, the staff questioned

whether post-test seal adjustment or

‘‘fluffing’’ was necessary because the

door seals were too old or worn out to

rebound properly to their original shape

after leakage rate testing or whether past

fluffing had damaged the seals, such

that replacement of the seals could

result in acceptable between-the-seals

testing. The licensee’s response, dated

February 20, 1997, stated that the seals

are replaced approximately every 3

years and that the seals have not

exceeded their service lives. Also, the

licensee stated that fluffing has not

damaged the seals, as indicated by

continued successful Type B tests on

both the emergency escape air lock and

on the personnel air lock, on whose

seals fluffing is also performed.

The licensee’s proposed test methods

deviate from the requirements of

Appendix J in two ways:

(1) The seals are not leakage rate

tested after opening the doors for posttest restoration, such as removing the

strongbacks; and

(2) The seals are not leakage rate

tested after being adjusted (e.g., fluffed).

The following quotation from

American National Standard ANSI/

ANS–56.8–1994, ‘‘Containment System

Leakage Testing Requirements,’’ is

pertinent. Section 3.3.4.2 states, in part:

An airlock test shall be performed

whenever repairs or adjustments have been

performed that affect the leakage rate

characteristics of the airlock. Opening of the

airlock for the purpose of removing airlock

testing equipment following an airlock test

does not require further testing of the airlock.

The quoted provisions have been

endorsed by the staff through Regulatory

Guide 1.163, ‘‘Performance-Based

Containment Leak-Test Program,’’ dated

September 1995, for plants following

Option B of Appendix J. Although

Palisades follows Option A of Appendix

J for Type B and C leakage tests, in this

case the quoted provisions represent a

valid technical position that may be

used to help establish a basis for

granting an exemption from the

requirements of Option A of Appendix

J.

Therefore, concerning deviation (1)

described above, the staff’s technical

position is that leakage rate testing is

not necessary after opening the doors for

post-test restoration. Option A of

Appendix J requires a leakage rate test

after opening a door, with the idea that

the door opening is a relatively isolated

event. Requiring another test

immediately after a valid test simply

because the door was opened again to

remove test equipment is not necessary

to meet the intent of the regulation,

especially if it leads to an infinite series

of tests, as in this case. Thus, deviation

(1) is acceptable as part of an exemption

from Option A of Appendix J.

Concerning deviation (2) above, there

is considerable evidence that post-test

seal adjustment should not necessitate a

follow-up leakage rate test in this case.

The present practice ensures proper

door seal contact prior to final door

closure. The performance of this door

seal contact check has led to the

successful completion of subsequent

emergency escape air lock full pressure

tests since the procedural practice began

in 1987. Also, no ILRT in that period

has failed because of emergency escape

air lock door seal leakage. Based on

these results, the air lock doors have

been proven to function as designed

using current methods of testing and

maintenance, including seal contact

checks. Alternatives would only provide

approximately the same level of

protection for public health and safety

as currently exists. Continuing with the

current methods of testing will not

result in undue risk to public health and

safety and is consistent with the

common defense and security. Further,
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 1997 / Notices 53031

the underlying purpose of between-theseals testing is to verify the seal integrity

after an air lock door is opened or its

seals adjusted. The seal contact check

performed on the emergency escape air

lock door seals serves this purpose and

ensures the doors are sealing properly.

Therefore, application of the regulation

to perform between-the-seals leakage

rate tests after seal adjustment is not

necessary in this case to achieve the

underlying purpose of the rule.

IV

Accordingly, the Commission

concludes that the licensee’s proposal to

perform seal contact testing instead of

Type B leakage rate between-the-seals

testing on the emergency escape air lock

door seals is acceptable. There is

reasonable assurance that the

containment leakage limiting function

will be maintained.

The licensee’s request cites the

special circumstances of 10 CFR 50.12,

Sections (a)(2)(ii) and (a)(2)(iii), as the

basis for the exemption. Appendix J to

10 CFR Part 50 requires full pressure

tests following air lock door openings.

The licensee stated that the proposed

alternate seal contact verification check

will ensure that the air lock doors are

sealing properly. The licensee also

stated that the only viable alternative to

the proposed exemption would be to

perform an air lock retrofit that would

involve a significant cost to the licensee.

The Commission concludes that the

special circumstances of 10 CFR

50.12(a)(2)(ii) are present in that

application of the regulation in these

particular circumstances is not

necessary to achieve the underlying

purpose of the rule.

V

Accordingly, the Commission has

determined, pursuant to 10 CFR

50.12(a), that this exemption is

authorized by law, will not present an

undue risk to the public health and

safety, and is consistent with the

common defense and security. The

Commission further determines that

special circumstances as provided in 10

CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii) are present justifying

the exemption.

Therefore, the Commission hereby

grants the exemption from 10 CFR Part

50 Appendix J, Option A, Sections

III.D.2.(b)(ii) and III.D.2.(b)(iii), to the

extent that leakage rate testing is not

necessary after opening the emergency

escape air lock doors for post-test

restoration or post-test adjustment of the

airlock door seals.

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 (62 FR 34720).

This exemption is effective upon

issuance.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 30th day

of September 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Frank J. Miraglia,

Acting Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–26991 Filed 10–9–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 030–01788]

National Institutes of Health; Issuance

of Director’s, Decision Under 10 CFR

§ 2.206, Correction

This document corrects a notice

appearing in the Federal Register of

September 24, 1997 (62 FR 50018)

concerning the issuance of a Director’s

Decision on a petition requesting that

the Director, Office of Nuclear Material

Safety and Safeguards take action with

respect to the National Institutes of

Health.

1. On page 50025, third column,

second full paragraph, fifth line, the

date reading ‘‘July 14, 1997’’ is corrected

to read ‘‘July 14, 1995.’’

2. On page 50027, second column,

first full paragraph, line 13 is corrected

to read ‘‘1300μCi of P–32. The person

with the’’.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day

of October, 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

David L, Meyer,

Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division

of Administrative Services, Office of

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–26892 Filed 10–9–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–282, 50–306, and 72–10]

Northern States Power Company,

Prairie Island Nuclear Plant, Units 1

and 2 Prairie Island Independent Spent

Fuel Storage Installation; Receipt of

Petition For Director’s Decision Under

10 CFR 2.206

Notice is hereby given that by a

Petition filed pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206

on August 26, 1997, Prairie Island

Coalition (Petitioner) requested that the

NRC (1) suspend Northern States Power

Company’s (the licensee) Materials

License No. SNM–2506 for cause under

Section 50.100 of Title 10 of the Code

of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 50.100)

until all material issues regarding the

maintenance, unloading, and

decommissioning processes and

procedures, as described in the Petition

and a similar Petition filed on May 28,

1997, by the Prairie Island Indian

Community, have been adequately

addressed and resolved, and until the

maintenance and unloading processes

and procedures in question are safely

demonstrated under the scrutiny of

independent third-party review of the

TN–40 cask seal maintenance and

unloading procedure; (2) determine that

the licensee violated 10 CFR 72.122(f)

by using a cask design that requires

periodic seal maintenance and

emergency seal replacement that must

be performed in the plant storage pool;

(3) determine that the licensee violated

10 CFR 72.122(h) by using a cask that

must be placed into the pool for

necessary maintenance and/or

unloading procedures; (4) determine

that the licensee violated 10 CFR

72.122(l) by loading casks and storing

them before the licensee had procedures

adequate to safely unload and

decommission the TN–40 casks; (5)

determine that the licensee violated 10

CFR 72.130 by using the TN–40 cask

and failing to make provisions capable

of accomplishing the removal of

radioactive waste and contaminated

materials at the time the independent

spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) is

permanently decommissioned; (6)

determine that the licensee violated 10

CFR 72.11 by failing to provide and

include complete and accurate material

information regarding maintenance and

unloading of TN–40 casks in the

application for the Prairie Island ISFSI

and in subsequent submissions

regarding cask maintenance and

unloading issues; (7) determine that the

licensee violated 10 CFR 72.12 by

deliberately and knowingly submitting

incomplete and inaccurate material

information regarding maintenance and

unloading of TN–40 casks in the

application for the Prairie Island ISFSI

and in subsequent submissions

regarding cask maintenance and

unloading issues; (8) require that the

licensee pay a substantial penalty for

each cask loaded in violation of NRC

regulations; (9) administer such other

sanctions for the alleged violations of

NRC regulations as the NRC deems

necessary and appropriate; (10) provide

Petitioner the opportunity to participate

in a public review of maintenance,

unloading, and decommissioning

processes and procedures in question

and an opportunity to comment on draft