Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 26 / Friday, February 7, 1997 / Notices 5861

significant hazards consideration in

accordance with 10 CFR 50.91 and

50.92.

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application for

amendment dated October 23, 1996 and

the licensee’s supplemental information

dated December 12, 1996, 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

Portland State University Science

Library, 951 SW Hall Street, Portland

Oregon.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 31st day

of January 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. 97–3054 Filed 2–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

[Docket Nos. 50–272 and 50–311]

Public Service Electric and Gas

Company; Salem Nuclear Generating

Station, Units 1 and 2; Notice of

Consideration of Issuance of

Amendments to Facility Operating

Licenses, Proposed no Significant

Hazards Consideration Determination,

and Opportunity for a Hearing

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of amendments to

Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–70

and DPR–75 issued to Public Service

Electric and Gas Company (the licensee)

for operation of the Salem Nuclear

Generating Station, Units 1 and 2,

located in Salem County, New Jersey.

The proposed amendment would

revise Technical Specification (TS)

3.4.3, ‘‘Relief Valves,’’ for Salem Unit 1,

and TS 3.4.5, ‘‘Relief Valves,’’ for Salem

Unit 2, to ensure that the automatic

capability of the power operated relief

valves (PORV) to relieve pressure is

maintained when these valves are

isolated by closure of the block valves.

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—2 -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 change does not involve

a significant increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated.

The proposal does not involve any

physical changes to plant systems or

components. No new protection system logic

is proposed, and therefore, there is no

additional signal that can spuriously actuate

the Safety Injection (SI) system.

Consequently, there would be no change in

the probability of occurrence of the accident,

as previously evaluated in the [Updated Final

Safety Analysis Report] UFSAR. The

proposal is based upon a reanalysis of the

Inadvertent SI event to include a case that

demonstrates that the postulated event would

not be likely to lead to a more serious event.

Sustained water relief through a PORV can

result in a release of reactor coolant into

containment from the Pressurizer Relief

Tank. The release is limited, however, since

(1) it is the result of the SI System addition

and consequently cannot exceed the SI flow

rate at the PORV setpoint pressure, and (2)

the SI flow will eventually be terminated by

the operators. The dose consequences for an

Inadvertent SI is bounded by that which is

calculated for the spurious opening of a

pressurizer safety valve, Accidental RCS

Depressurization event, which is also a

Condition II event.

2. The proposed change does not create the

possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from any accident previously

evaluated.

The Inadvertent Operation of the SI System

at Power analysis cases, reported in the

UFSAR, are analyzed to challenge fuel

integrity. Accordingly, the UFSAR analysis

cases produce transients that lead to a

reduction in pressurizer pressure, in order to

reduce the thermal margin. The results

indicate that no fuel damage is predicted.

The UFSAR analysis is revised in order to

evaluate the effects of an increase in

pressurizer pressure and other conditions

that could lead to water relief through the

pressurizer safety valves. Allowing water

relief from the pressurizer would not affect

the likelihood of fuel damage occurring

during this event. The results of the accident

reanalysis indicate that the pressurizer safety

valves would not discharge water, (a

condition for which they are not designed),

and consequently this event will not result in

the failure of a pressurizer safety valve due

to the discharge of water through the

pressurizer safety valves.

An evaluation of the effects of water relief

through the PORVs and downstream piping

have also been conducted. The results of the

accident reanalysis and the associated

evaluation indicate that a different type of

malfunction (e.g., a stuck open pressurizer

safety valve or failure of downstream piping

or components) would not be expected to

result from the analyzed event. Therefore, a

different type of accident would not be

expected to occur as a result of

implementation of this proposal.

3. The proposed change does not involve

a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

For this proposed change, the safety

analysis criterion, which the analysis of

Inadvertent SI Actuation at Power event is

required to satisfy, is to show that the

pressurizer safety valves would not open and

discharge water at any time during the event.

Satisfaction of this criterion indicates that the

safety margin is preserved by preventing the

Inadvertent Operation of the SI System at

Power event (a Condition II event) from

escalating into a more serious event, (a

Condition III event).

The proposal does not reduce the margin

of safety, since the results of the reanalysis

indicate that the applicable safety analysis

acceptance criterion, which is established to

protect the margin of safety, is satisfied.

The conclusions of the reanalyzed

Inadvertent Operation of the SI System at

Power event are based upon the assumption

that the operators, working according to

Emergency Operating Procedures, act within

ten minutes after the event occurs to make at

least one pressurizer PORV available by

opening its associated block valve. This is a

justifiable assumption, since simulator test

results indicate that operators have been

successful in accomplishing this procedure

within seven to nine minutes and this

requirement has been incorporated into the

procedures as a time critical step. Therefore,

relief capability is assured prior to the

pressurizer achieving a solid water condition.

The PORV surveillance requirements that

are currently contained in the Salem TSs

ensure that the automatic operation of the

PORVs is periodically tested.

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
5862 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 26 / Friday, February 7, 1997 / Notices

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. 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, 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 March 10, 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 Salem

Free Public Library, 112 West

Broadway, Salem, New Jersey. 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:

Docketing and Services Branch, or may

be delivered to the Commission’s Public

Document Room, the Gelman Building,

2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, by

the above date. Where petitions are filed

during the last 10 days of the notice

period, it is requested that the petitioner

promptly so inform the Commission by

a toll-free telephone call to Western

Union at 1–(800) 248–5100 (in Missouri

1–(800) 342–6700). The Western Union

operator should be given Datagram

Identification Number N1023 and the

following message addressed to John F.

Stolz, Director, Project Directorate I–2:

petitioner’s name and telephone

number, date petition was mailed, plant

name, and publication date and page

number of this Federal Register notice.

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 Mark J. Wetterhahn,

Esquire, Winston and Strawn, 1400 L

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005–

3502, 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 January 31, 1997,
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 26 / Friday, February 7, 1997 / Notices 5863

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 Salem Free Public Library, 112 West

Broadway, Salem, New Jersey.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day

of February 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Leonard N. Olshan,

Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate

I–2, Division of Reactor Projects—I/II, Office

of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–3053 Filed 2–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

[Docket Nos. 50–338 and 50–339]

Virginia Electric and Power Company;

Notice of Partial Withdrawal of

Application for Amendments to Facility

Operating Licenses

The United States Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) has

granted the request of Virginia Electric

and Power Company (the licensee) to

withdraw a portion of its January 31,

1996, application for proposed

amendments to Facility Operating

License Nos. NPF–4 and NPF–7 for the

North Anna Power Station, Unit Nos. 1

and 2, located in Louisa County,

Virginia.

The portion of the proposed

amendments withdrawn would have

revised the surveillance tests being

performed at power.

The Commission had previously

issued a Notice of Consideration of

Issuance of Amendments published in

the Federal Register on February 28,

1996 (61 FR 7559). However, by letter

dated November 26, 1996, the licensee

withdrew the proposed change.

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application for

amendments dated January 31, 1996,

and the licensee’s letter dated November

26, 1996, which partially withdrew the

application for license amendments.

The above documents are available for

public inspection at the Commission’s

Public Document Room, 2120 L Street,

NW., Washington, DC, and the

Alderman Library, Special Collections

Department, University of Virginia,

Charlottesville, Virginia 22903–2498.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 3rd day

of February 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Gordon E. Edison,

Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate

II–1, Division of Reactor Projects—I/II, Office

of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–3056 Filed 2–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL

MANAGEMENT

Submission for OMB Review;

Comment Request; (OFI–10)

AGENCY: Office of Personnel

Management.

ACTION: Comment Request Review of a

Revised Information Collection (Form

OFI–10).

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub.

L. 104–13) and 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(i)(iv),

this notice announces that OPM has

submitted to the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) a request for

clearance of a revised information

collection. The Mail Reinterview, OFI

Form 10, is completed by individuals

who have been interviewed by a

contract investigator during the course

of a personnel investigation. This form

asks questions regarding the

performance of the investigator.

It is estimated that 5700 individuals

will respond annually, each response

requiring approximately 6 minutes to

complete, for a total burden of 570

hours.

For copies of this proposal contact Jim

Farron on (202) 418–3208, or E-mail to

jmfarron@opm.gov.

DATES: Comments on this proposal

should be received on or before march

10, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments

to—

Richard A. Ferris, Office of Personnel

Management, Investigations Service,

1900 E. Street NW., Room 5416,

Washington, D.C. 20415

and

Joseph Lackey, OPM Desk Officer,

Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs, Office of Management and

Budget, New Executive Office

Building, NW., Room 10235,

Washington, DC 20503.

James B. King,

Director.

[FR Doc. 97–2983 Filed 2–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6325–01–M

Excepted Service

AGENCY: Office of Personnel

Management.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This gives notice of positions

placed or revoked under Schedules A

and B, and placed under Schedule C in

the excepted service, as required by

Civil Service Rule VI, Exceptions from

the Competitive Service.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Patricia H. Paige, Staffing Reinvention

Office, Employment Service (202) 606–

0830.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Office

of Personnel Management published its

last monthly notice updating appointing

authorities established or revoked under

the Excepted Service provisions of 5

CFR 213 on January 16, 1997 (62 FR

2403). Individual authorities established

or revoked under Schedules A and B

and established under Schedule C

between December 1, 1996, and

December 31, 1996, appear in the listing

below. Future notices will be published

on the fourth Tuesday of each month, or

as soon as possible thereafter. A

consolidated listing of all authorities as

of June 30 will also be published.

Schedule A

The following Schedule A authority

was established:

Department of Defense

Asia-Pacific Center for Security

Studies, Honolulu, Hawaii. The Director

and Deputy Director. Effective

December 23, 1996.

The following Schedule A authority

was revoked:

Department of State

Bureau of Oceans and International

Environmental and Scientific Affairs.

Two Physical Science Administrative

Officer positions at GS–16. Effective

December 6, 1996.

Schedule B

No Schedule B authorities were

established or revoked during December

1996.

Schedule C

The following Schedule C authorities

were established during December 1996.

Commodity Futures Trading

Commission

Special Assistant to the

Commissioner. Effective December 19,

1996.

Department of the Army (DOD)

Staff Assistant for Policy to the

Executive Staff Assistant. Effective

December 2, 1996.

Department of Education

Director, Legislation Staff to the

Assistant Secretary, for Legislation and

Congressional Affairs. Effective

December 3, 1996.

Special Assistant to the Inspector

General. Effective December 6, 1996.

Special Assistant to the Director,

Community Services Team, Office of