52362 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 7, 1997 / Notices

PLACE: National Science Foundation,

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 580,

Arlington, VA 22230.

TYPE OF MEETING: Closed.

CONTACT PERSON: Fred G. Heineken,

Program Director, Biotechnology

Engineering, Division of Bioengineering

and Environmental Systems, National

Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson

Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230,

Telephone: (703) 306–1318.

PURPOSE OF MEETING: To provide advice

and recommendations concerning

proposals submitted to NSF for financial

support.

AGENDA: To review and evaluate

CAREER proposals as part of the

selection process for awards.

REASON FOR CLOSING: The proposals

being reviewed include information of a

proprietary or confidential nature,

including technical information;

financial data, such as salaries; and

personal information concerning

individuals associated with the

proposals. These matters are exempt

under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the

Government in the Sunshine Act.

Dated: October 3, 1997.

M. Rebecca Winkler,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 97–26684 Filed 10–3–97; 2:49 pm]

BILLING CODE 7555–01–M

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Special Emphasis Panel in Polar

Programs; Notice of Meeting

In accordance with the Federal

Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–

463, as amended), the National Science

Foundation announces the following

meeting.

NAME AND COMMITTEE CODE: Special

Emphasis Panel in Polar Programs

(#1209).

DATE AND TIME: October 30th and 31st,

1997: 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.

PLACE: Room 730, National Science

Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard,

Arlington, VA 22230.

TYPE OF MEETING: Closed.

CONTACT PERSON: Dr. Odile de La

Beaujardiere, Program Director, Arctic

Natural Sciences, Office of Polar

Programs, Room 740, National Science

Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard,

Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone: (703)

306–1029.

PURPOSE OF MEETING: To provide advice

and recommendations concerning

proposals submitted to NSF for financial

support.

AGENDA: to review and evaluate Arctic

Natural Sciences multidisciplinary

proposals as part of the selection

process for awards.

REASON FOR CLOSING: The proposals

being reviewed include information of

the proprietary or confidential nature,

including technical information;

financial data, such as salaries and

personal information concerning

individuals associated with the

proposals. These matters are exempt

under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) (4) and (6) of the

Government in the Sunshine Act.

Dated: October 3, 1997.

M. Rebecca Winkler,

Committee Management Officr.

[FR Doc. 97–26685 Filed 10–3–97; 2:45 pm]

BILLING CODE 7555–01–M

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–261]

Carolina Power & Light Company;

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. DPR–

23 issued to the Carolina Power & Light

Company (CP&L or the licensee) for

operation of the H. B. Robinson Steam

Electric Plant, Unit No. 2 (HBR) located

in Darlington County, South Carolina.

By letter dated August 27, 1996, as

supplemented by letters dated

December 18, 1996, January 17,

February 18, March 27, April 6, April

25, April 29, May 30, June 2, June 13,

June 18, August 4, August 8, September

10, October 2 (RNP RA/97–0216), and

October 2, 1997 (RNP RA/97–0207), the

licensee applied for full conversion

from the current HBR Technical

Specifications (CTS) to a set of

improved Technical Specifications (ITS)

based on NUREG–1431, ‘‘Standard

Technical Specifications Westinghouse

Plants,’’ Revision 0, dated September

1992 (including approved travellers

used in the issuance of Revision 1,

dated April 1995). A ‘‘Notice of

Consideration of Issuance and

Opportunity for Hearing’’ regarding

conversion to the ITS was published in

the Federal Register on October 29,

1996 (61 FR 55830). An ‘‘Environmental

Assessment and Finding of No

Significant Impact’’ regarding the

conversion to ITS was published in the

Federal Register on September 25, 1997

(62 FR 50409).

One of the ITS conversion changes

proposed by the licensee in its August

27, 1996, application, and addressed in

the April 29, and October 2, 1997,

supplements, requires, as a part of ITS

Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO)

3.6.4, that the pressure in containment

be maintained greater than or equal to

¥0.8 psig. CTS require that

containment pressure be maintained

greater than or equal ¥1.0 psig;

therefore, the ITS LCO is more

restrictive than the CTS with regard to

this paramater. This change in

minimum allowable containment

pressure is needed to make the ITS LCO

consistent with a new licensee analysis

of an inadvertent containment spray

event.

In its letter dated October 2, 1997, the

licensee provided justification for

Commission issuance of the proposed

change in minimum allowable

containment pressure on an exigent

basis. As defined in 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6),

exigent circumstances exist when the

licensee and the Commission must act

quickly and time does not exist for the

Commission to publish a Federal

Register notice allowing 30 days for

prior public comment and the

Commission also determines that the

proposed amendment involves no

significant hazards considerations. The

NRC staff has reviewed the licensee’s

October 2, 1997, letter and determined

that exigent circumstances exist in

that—

(1) Earlier issuance of this more

restrictive change would be consistent

with the most recent analysis and would

enhance safety.

(2) As described below, there appear

to be no significant hazards

considerations associated with this

change.

The licensee’s ITS conversion

application was prepared in accordance

with appropriate industry guidance as

provided in Nuclear Energy Institute

Guidance document 96–06, ‘‘Improved

Technical Specifications Conversion

Guidance,’’ dated August 1996. That

guidance did not address the need for

specific no significant hazards

discussions other than for less

restrictive changes. Therefore, the

exigent circumstances could not

reasonably have been avoided in that

the licensee was not aware of the need

for a specific no significant hazards

discussion regarding the change in

minimum allowable containment

pressure.

Before issuance of the ITS conversion

amendment, including the proposed

change to ITS 3.6.4, the Commission

will have made findings required by the

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 7, 1997 / Notices 52363

(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

amendments 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. Does the change involve a significant

increase in the probability or consequences

of an accident previously evaluated?

The proposed change provides a

requirement of ¥0.8 psig for the minimum

allowable internal containment atmospheric

pressure. This requirement is determined to

be more restrictive than the current

Technical Specifications requirement of

¥1.0 psig with respect to plant operation.

The minimum allowable containment

internal atmospheric pressure is not assumed

to be an initiator of an analyzed event and

the new requirement is consistent with a

current analysis relative to mitigation of the

inadvertent actuation of a containment spray

event. This change has no effect on any other

accident or transient previously evaluated.

The new requirement being proposed is an

assumption in an analysis which enhances

assurance that process variables, structures,

systems, and components are maintained

consistent with the safety analyses and

licensing basis of the unit. Therefore, this

change does not involve any increase in the

probability or consequences of an accident

previously evaluated.

2. Does the change create the possibility of

a new or different kind of accident from any

accident previously evaluated?

The proposed change does not involve any

physical alteration of plant systems,

structures, or components or changes in

parameters governing normal plant operation

other than the minimum allowable

containment atmospheric pressure. This

change is consistent with assumptions made

in the inadvertent containment spray event

and has no other effect on other safety

analyses or the licensing basis. The new

requirement is a more restrictive Limiting

Condition for Operations resulting from an

analysis that enhances safe operation.

Therefore, this [change] does not create the

possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from any accident previously

evaluated.

3. Does this change involve a significant

reduction in a margin of safety?

The imposition of the new requirement for

the minimum allowable containment

atmospheric pressure maintains the margin

of plant safety by restricting operations to be

consistent with an analysis of an inadvertent

actuation of the containment spray system

that utilizes analytical methods currently

acceptable to the NRC. Therefore, this change

does not involve a 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 14 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 14-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

14-day notice period, provided that its

final determination is that the

amendments involve 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 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 November 6, 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 Hartsville

Memorial Library, 147 West College

Avenue, Hartsville, South Carolina

29550. 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
52364 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 7, 1997 / Notices

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 the amendment is issued before the

expiration of the 30-day hearing period,

the Commission will make a final

determination on the issue of no

significant hazards determination. If a

hearing is requested, 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 Mr.

William D. Johnson, Vice President and

Senior Counsel, Carolina Power & Light

Company, Post Office Box 1551,

Raleigh, North Carolina 27602, 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 27, 1996, as

supplemented by letters dated

December 18, 1996, January 17,

February 18, March 27, April 6, April

25, April 29, May 30, June 2, June 13,

June 18, August 4, August 8, September

10, October 2 (RNP RA/97–0216), and

October 2, 1997 (RNP RA/97–0207),

which are 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 Hartsville Memorial

Library, 147 West College Avenue,

Hartsville, South Carolina 29550.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day

of October, 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

David C. Trimble,

Project Manager, Project Directorate II–1,

Division of Reactor Projects—I/II, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–26642 Filed 10–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 72–22–ISFSI ASLBP No. 97–

732–02–ISFSI]

Private Fuel Storage, LLC; Notice of

Reconstitution of Board

Pursuant to the authority contained in

10 CFR § 2.721, the Atomic Safety and

Licensing Board in the Private Fuel

Storage proceeding, with the aboveidentified Docket Number, is hereby

reconstituted by appointing

Administrative Judge Peter S. Lam in

place of Administrative Judge Thomas

D. Murphy.

As reconstituted, the Board is

comprised of the following

Administrative Judges: G. Paul

Bollwerk, III, Chairman, Dr. Jerry R.

Kline, Dr. Peter S. Lam.

All correspondence, documents and

other material shall be filed with the

Board in accordance with 10 CFR

§ 2.701 (1980). The address of the new

member is: Dr. Peter S. Lam, Atomic

Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, D.C. 20555.

Issued at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day

of October 1997.

B. Paul Cotter, Jr.

Chief Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety

and Licensing Board Panel.

[FR Doc. 97–26508 Filed 10–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

DATE: Weeks of October 6, 13, 20, and

27, 1997.

PLACE: Commissioners’ Conference

Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,

Maryland.

STATUS: Public and Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

Week of October 6

Wednesday, October 8

3:30 p.m. Affirmation Session (Public

Meeting)

a. Changes to Paragraph (h) of 10 CFR

Part 50.55a, ‘‘Codes and Standards’’

b. Sequoyah Fuels Corp. & General

Atomics: Docket No. 40–8027—EA;

LBP–95–18 and LBP–96–24,

Memoranda and Orders (Approving

Settlement) (Tentative)

Week of October 13—Tentative

Tuesday, October 14

10:00 a.m. Briefing on EEO Program

(Public Meeting) (Contact: Ed

Tucker, 301–415–7382)

1:00 p.m. Briefing on Severe Accident

Master Integration Plan (Public

Meeting) (Contact: Charles Ader,

301–415–5622)

Wednesday, October 15

10:00 a.m. Briefing on PRA

Implementation Plan (Public

Meeting) (Contact: Tom King, 301–

415–5790)

11:30 a.m. Affirmation Session (Public

Meeting) (if needed)

Week of October 20—Tentative

Tuesday, October 21

10:30 a.m. Affirmation Session (Public

Meeting) (if needed)