8998 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 39 / Thursday, February 27, 1997 / Notices

AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM:

The Federal Records Act of 1950 Title

44, United States Code, Chapter 31,

Section 3101; and Title 36, Code of

Federal Regulations, Chapter XII,

require Federal agencies to insure that

adequate and proper records are made

and preserved to document the

organization, functions, policies,

decisions, procedures and transactions

and to protect the legal and financial

rights of the Federal Government.

ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE

SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND

THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES:

(See Statement of General Routing

Uses)

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING,

RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND

DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:

STORAGE:

Files are maintained in computerized

form and hard copy form. Computerized

form may be stored in memory, on disk

storage, on computer tape, or on a

computer printed listing.

RETRIEVABILITY:

Names are retrievable by automated

word or hand search. NACIC will not

permit any organization, public or

private, outside the NACIC to have

direct access to NACIC files. All

searches on the NACIC data base and

hard files will be performed on site,

within NACIC space, by NACIC

personnel.

SAFEGUARDS:

Records and databases are maintained

in a restricted area within NACIC and

are accessed only by NACIC personnel.

All employees are checked to insure

they have recent background

investigations prior to being assigned to

NACIC and are cautioned about

divulging confidential information or

any information contained in NACIC

files. Failure to abide by these

provisions may violate certain statutes

providing maximum severe penalties of

a ten thousand-dollar fine or 10 years

imprisonment, or both. Employees who

resign or retire are also cautioned about

divulging information acquired in their

jobs. Registered mail is used to transmit

routine hard copy records. Highly

classified records are hand carried by

employee personnel. Highly classified

or sensitive privacy information, which

is electronically transmitted between

NACIC and other offices, is transmitted

in encrypted form to prevent

interception.

RETENTION AND DISPOSAL:

Records evaluated as historical and

permanent will be transferred to the

National Archives after established

retention periods and administrative

needs of the NACIC have elapsed.

SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS:

Information and Privacy Coordinator,

Executive Secretariat Office, National

Counterintelligence Center, 3W01 NHB,

Washington, D.C. 20505.

RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES:

A request for access to a record from

the system shall be made in writing

with the envelope and the letter clearly

marked ‘‘Privacy Access Request’’.

Include in the request your full name,

complete address, date of birth, place of

birth, notarized signature, and other

identifying data you may wish to

furnish to assist in making a proper

search of NACIC records. A request for

access to records must describe the

records sought in sufficient detail to

enable NACIC personnel to locate the

system of records containing the record

with a reasonable amount of effort.

Whenever possible, a request for access

should describe the nature of the record

sought, and the date of the record or the

period in which the record was

compiled. The requester will also

provide a return address for transmitting

the information. Requests for access

must be addressed to the Information

and Privacy Coordinator, Executive

Secretariat Office, National

Counterintelligence Center, 3W01 NHB,

Washington, D.C. 20505.

CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES:

Individuals desiring to contest or

amend information maintained in the

system should also direct their request

to the Information and Privacy

Coordinator, Executive Secretatiatat

Office, National Counterintelligence

Center, 3W01 NHB, Washington, DC.

20505.

EXEMPTIONS CLAIMED FOR THE SYSTEM:

Notice is hereby given that NACIC

intends to exempt, from certain

provisions of the Act, those systems of

records which are (A) specifically

authorized under criteria established by

an Executive Order to be kept secret in

the interest of national defense or

foreign policy and (B) are in fact,

properly classified pursuant to such

Executive Order. (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(1), as

amended by Public Law 93–502) In

addition, pursuant to authority granted

in section (j) of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C.

552a (j)) the Director of NACIC has

determined (C) to exempt from

notification under subsections (e)(4)(G)

and (f)(1) those portions of each and all

systems of records which have been

exempted from individual access under

subsection (j), in those cases where the

Information and Privacy Coordinator,

determines after advice by responsible

components, that confirmation of the

existence of a record may jeopardize

intelligence sources and methods. In

such cases the NACIC may choose to

neither confirm nor deny the existence

of the record and may advise the

individual that there is no record which

is available to him pursuant to the

Privacy Act of 1974.

Michael Waguespack,

Director, National Counterintelligence Center.

[FR Doc. 97–4853 Filed 2–26–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6310–02–M

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION

SAFETY BOARD

Sunshine Act Meeting; Public Hearing

in Maine: Marine Accident

In connection with its investigation of

the ramming of the Portland Bridge at

Portland, Maine, by the Liberian Tank

Ship JULIE N on September 27, 1996,

the National Transportation Safety

Board will convene a public hearing at

9:00 a.m., (local time) on March 13,

1997, at the Sheraton Tara Hotel, 363

Maine Mall Road, South Portland,

Maine 04106. For more information,

contact Pat Cariseo, Office of Public

Affairs, Washington, D.C. 20594,

telephone (202) 314–6100.

Dated: February 25, 1997.

Bea Hardesty,

Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 97–5001 Filed 2–25–97; 10:48 am]

BILLING CODE 7533–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–237 and 50–249]

Commonwealth Edison Company;

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 an amendment

to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–

19 and DPR–25, issued to

Commonwealth Edison Company

(ComEd, the licensee) for operation of

the Dresden Nuclear Power Station,

Units 2 and 3, located in Grundy

County, Illinois.

The proposed amendment would

change Technical Specifications (TS)

3.7.K, ‘‘Suppression Chamber,’’ and
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 39 / Thursday, February 27, 1997 / Notices 8999

3.8.C, ‘‘Ultimate Heat Sink,’’ to restore

the maximum allowable water

temperature for the Containment

Cooling Service Water inlet and the

Suppression Pool. This change is

required to restore the capability to

operate the facility during the warmer

months of the year.

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; 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) Involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of an accident

previously evaluated because of the

following:

The proposed License Amendment

presents the results of new safety analyses

which were performed using revised values

for certain system and equipment

performance parameters that more accurately

reflect the Dresden Station design. The

changes restore operating limits on the

Ultimate Heat Sink and Suppression Pool

average water temperature consistent with

their design and which will permit operation

of the facility during the warmer months of

the year. The proposed changes directly

effect the initial conditions assumed in the

safety analyses for the plant, however new

analyses demonstrate that the facility will

continue to respond in a manner consistent

with the existing safety analyses. The

methods for demonstrating the adequacy of

the existing design are proposed for change

and the amendment details the basis for

acceptance of the new methods and

parameters proposed.

No substantive physical changes to the

facility are proposed. The plant will continue

to operate in a manner consistent with its

original design and the consequences of

previously analyzed accidents are not

significantly affected by this proposed

License Amendment.

The proposed changes do not effect

systems which are contributors to initiating

events for previously evaluated accidents and

therefore, the probability of any accident

previously evaluated is not increased by the

proposed amendment.

(2) Create the possibility of a new or

different kind of accident from any accident

previously evaluated because:

The proposed license amendment for

Dresden Station does not create the

possibility of a new or different kind of

accident than previously evaluated for

Dresden Station. The proposed changes

merely present and incorporate the results of

new analyses which demonstrate the ability

of the facility to operate consistent with the

safety analyses. No substantive physical

changes to the facility are proposed. No

substantially new modes of operation have

been identified or are introduced by the

proposed changes. The changes to plant

procedures which are required to support the

proposed change are consistent with the

operating practices and procedures currently

used at the facility.

Based on this, the proposed change does

not create the possibility of a new or different

kind of accident from any accident

previously evaluated.

(3) Involve a significant reduction in the

margin of safety because:

The proposed license amendment does not

significantly effect the margin of safety. The

proposed changes merely incorporate new

analysis methods and results into the design

basis for the facility, as well as restore the

limits on UHS [ultimate heat sink] average

water temperature and Suppression Pool

maximum average water temperature to the

limits which have historically existed at the

facility. The water temperature limits are

changed to permit continued operation of the

facility during the warmer months of the

year. The new analyses performed include

these higher water temperature limits as

initial conditions, and utilize new methods

and more representative system parameters

than existed in previously utilized analytical

models of the effected plant systems. The

new methods of analysis include modeling of

the containment pressure following certain

postulated limiting design basis accidents in

a time-dependent manner to permit realistic

determination of actual pressures which

would be expected, as well as the use of

improved flow and heat transfer models for

determining heat removal rates. An improved

representation of actual post-shutdown

reactor decay heat is also incorporated into

the new analyses.

The new analyses demonstrate that with

the proposed changes to the Technical

Specifications and the more realistic

representation of system parameters, Dresden

Station will operate in a manner consistent

with the previously existing safety analyses.

The proposed changes to the way in which

the facility is modeled provide additional

margin with regard to some key post-accident

parameters, such as postulated Peak Clad

Temperature which is demonstrated to be

reduced significantly.

Based on operation of the facility

consistent with its historical limits,

consistent with the limits of the existing

safety analyses results, the improved realism

and more representative models of actual

postulated plant conditions, and the resulting

improvements in key post-accident safety

limits, this change does not significantly

effect 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

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 31, 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
9000 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 39 / Thursday, February 27, 1997 / Notices

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 Morris

Area Public Library District, 604 Liberty

Street, Morris, Illinois 60450. 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 Robert

A. Capra: 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 Michael I.

Miller, Esquire; Sidley and Austin, One

First National Plaza, Chicago, Illinois

60603, 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 February 17, 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 Morris Area Public Library District,

604 Liberty Street, Morris, Illinois

60450.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day

of February 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Robert M. Pulsifer,

Project Manager, Project Directorate III–2,

Division of Reactor Projects—III/IV, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–4855 Filed 2–26–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

[Docket No. 50–336]

Northeast Nuclear Energy Company;

Notice of Withdrawal of Application for

Amendment to Facility Operating

License

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) has

granted the request of Northeast Nuclear

Energy Company (the licensee) to

withdraw its October 24, 1995,

application for proposed amendment to

Facility Operating License No. DPR–65

for the Millstone Nuclear Power Station,

Unit No. 2, located in New London,

Connecticut.

The proposed amendment would

have revised the Technical

Specifications to defer the next required

surveillance to inspect steam generator

tubes, from October 20, 1996, to the next

refueling outage or no later than October

20, 1997, whichever is earlier.

The Commission had previously

issued a Notice of Consideration of

Issuance of Amendment published in