9214 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 40 / Friday, February 28, 1997 / Notices

demonstration on literacy; collect and

disseminate information to Federal,

State and local entities with respect to

literacy; and improve and expand the

system for delivery of literacy services.

In 1993, the NIFL funded the National

ALLD Center to enhance awareness

about the implications of learning

disabilities for literacy efforts, and to

develop tools and resources to assist

literacy providers better identify and

serve adults with learning disabilities.

The NIFL will consider applications

from states and other entities to develop

and implement methods for

incorporating the products and services

of the National ALLD Center into

existing literacy service delivery

systems for the purpose of improving

services to adults with learning

disabilities. Evaluations to determine

successful applicants will be made by a

panel of literacy experts using the

published criteria. The Institute will use

this information to make a minimum of

one cooperative agreement award for a

period of up to 2 years.

Burden Statement: The burden for

this collection of information is

estimated at 40 hours per response. This

estimate includes the time needed to

review instructions, complete the form,

and review the collection of

information.

Respondents: Governors of States and

Trust Territories, State Departments of

Adult Education, other public and nonprofit entities.

Estimated Number of Respondents:

20.

Estimated Number of Responses Per

Respondent: 1.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on

Respondents: 152 hours.

Frequency of Collection: One time.

Send comments regarding the burden

estimate or any other aspect of the

information collection, including

suggestions for reducing the burden to:

Susan Green, National Institute for

Literacy, 800 Connecticut Ave., NW,

Suite 200, Washington, DC 20006.

Request for Comments: NIFL solicits

comments to: (i) Evaluate whether the

proposed collection of information is

necessary for the proper performance of

the functions of the agency, including

whether the information will have

practical utility. (ii) Evaluate the

accuracy of the agency’s estimates of the

burden of the proposed collection of

information. (iii) Enhance the quality,

utility, and clarity of the information to

be collected. (iv) Minimize the burden

of the collection of information on those

who are to respond, including through

the use of appropriate automated or

electronic collection technologies of

other forms of information technology,

e.g., permitting electronic submission of

responses.

Dated: February 25, 1997.

Andrew J. Hartman,

Director, NIFL.

[FR Doc. 97–5021 Filed 2–27–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6055–01–M

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION

SAFETY BOARD

Sunshine Act Meeting; Corporate

Culture and Transportation: A

Symposium

A symposium on the effect that

corporate management philosophies and

practices have on transportation safety

will be conducted by the National

Transportation Safety Board. The

symposium will be held on April 24 and

25, 1997, at the Hyatt Regency Hotel in

Crystal City, Virginia. For more

information, contact Julie Beal at (202)

314–6000 or fax (202) 314–6293.

February 25, 1997.

Bea Hardesty,

Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 97–5088 Filed 2–25–97; 4:27 pm]

BILLING CODE 7533–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–302]

Florida Power Corporation; Notice of

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–

72 issued to Florida Power Corporation,

et al. (the licensee) for operation of the

Crystal River Nuclear Generating Plant,

Unit No. 3, located in Citrus County,

Florida.

The proposed amendment would

change the Crystal River Unit 3

Technical Specifications (TS) to

implement 10 CFR 50, Appendix J,

‘‘Primary Reactor Containment Leakage

Testing for Water-Cooled Reactors,’’

Option B. This option allows to change

from prescriptive testing requirements

to performance-based testing

requirements based on the leakage rate

testing history of the containment and

components. The proposed TS changes

include revision to TS 3.6.1, 3.6.3, and

addition of ‘‘Containment Leakage Rate

Testing Program’’ to TS 5.0. The

licensee did not propose any deviations

from methods approved by the

Commission and endorsed in the

applicable regulatory guide.

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) Does not involve a significant increase

in the probability or consequences of an

accident previously evaluated.

The TS amendment does not involve a

significant increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated.

The proposed changes to the TS are to

implement Option B of 10 CFR 50, Appendix

J, at CR–3. The proposed changes will result

in increased intervals between containment

leakage tests based on the leakage rate testing

history. The proposed changes do not involve

a change to the plant design or operation and

does not change the testing methodology.

NUREG–1493, ‘‘Performance-Based

Containment Leak-Test Program,’’ provides

the technical basis of 10 CFR 50, Appendix

J, Option B. NUREG–1493 contains a detailed

evaluation of the expected leakage from

containment and the associated

consequences. The increased risk due to

increasing the intervals between containment

leakage tests was also evaluated. The NUREG

used a statistical approach to determine that

the increase in the expected dose to the

public due to decreasing the testing

frequency is extremely low. NUREG–1493

also concluded that a small increase is

justifiable in comparison to the benefits from

decreasing the testing frequency. The

primary benefit is in the reduction in

occupational radiation exposure.

(2) Does not create the possibility of a new

or different kind of accident from any

accident previously evaluated.

The TS amendment does not create the

possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from any accident previously

evaluated.

The proposed TS amendment incorporates

the performance-based testing approach
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 40 / Friday, February 28, 1997 / Notices 9215

authorized by 10 CFR 50 Appendix, J, Option

B. Decreasing the testing frequency allowed

by this change does not involve a change to

plant design or operation. Safety related

equipment and safety functions are not

altered as a result of this change. Decreasing

the testing frequency does not affect testing

methodology. As a result, the proposed

change does not affect any of the parameters

or conditions that could contribute to the

initiation of any accidents.

(3) Does not involve a significant reduction

in the margin of safety.

This TS amendment does not involve a

significant reduction in the margin of safety.

The proposed TS amendment does not

change the methodology of the containment

leakage rate testing program or program

acceptance criteria. The proposed TS change

does affect the frequency of containment

leakage rate testing. With an increased

interval between tests, a small possibility

exists that an increase in leakage could go

undetected for a longer period of time. Based

on the operational experience at CR–3, it has

been demonstrated that the leak-tightness of

the containment building has consistently

been significantly below the allowable

leakage limit. Adequate controls are in place

to ensure that required maintenance and

modifications are performed.

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

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 Coastal

Region Library, 8619 W. Crystal Street,

Crystal River, Florida 32629. 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
9216 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 40 / Friday, February 28, 1997 / Notices

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

Frederick J. Hebdon: 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 A.

H. Stephens, General Counsel, Florida

Power Corporation, MAC–A5D, P.O.

Box 14042, St. Petersburg, Florida

33733, 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 Coastal Region Library, 8619 W.

Crystal Street, Crystal River, Florida

32629.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day

of February 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

L. Raghavan,

Project Manager, Project Directorate II–3,

Division of Reactor Projects—I/II, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–4997 Filed 2–27–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

[IA 97–011]

In the Matter of Krishna Kumar; Order

Prohibiting Involvement in NRCLicensed Activities; (Effective

Immediately)

I

Krishna Kumar (Mr. Kumar) was

President of Power Inspection, Inc. (PI

or Licensee). PI is the holder of

Byproduct License No. 37–21428–01

(License) issued by the Nuclear

Regulatory Commission (NRC or

Commission) pursuant to 10 CFR Parts

30 and 34. The License authorizes the

Licensee to use iridium-192 and cobalt60 sealed sources for the performance of

industrial radiography at its facility in

Wexford, Pennsylvania, as well as at

temporary job sites. The License was

most recently renewed on January 31,

1989, and expired on January 31, 1994.

In addition, the Licensee submitted a

request, dated December 30, 1993, that

the license be terminated. Action on

that request has been held in abeyance

pending further NRC review.

In addition, PI acted as a vendor

supplying services to nuclear power

plants, including the performance of

nondestructive testing services, such as

eddy current testing. Such services were

provided to the Perry and Cooper

nuclear power plants in 1993.

II

On December 2 and 3, 1993, the NRC

performed an inspection at the

Licensee’s Wexford facility of activities

conducted under the License. During

the inspection, the NRC found

numerous violations of NRC

requirements. The violations included:

the failure of the Radiation Safety

Officer (RSO) named on the License to

perform required duties; the failure to

conduct quarterly audits of all

radiographers; the failure to provide the

required annual refresher training to the

radiographers; the failure to perform, at

the required frequency, the required

inspection and maintenance on the

exposure device (camera) containing an

iridium-192 source; the failure to

perform leak tests of the sealed sources

at the required frequency; the failure to

promptly collect and submit film badges

for processing; and the failure to

maintain radiography utilization logs.

Furthermore, the NRC found during

the December 1993 inspection that the

utilization logs for the iridium-192

source, covering the period of July

through November 1993, as well as the

utilization logs for the cobalt-60 source,

covering the period of July through

October 1993, were also unavailable for

inspection at the time of the NRC

inspection on December 2, 1993.

On December 2, 1993, an NRC

investigation was also initiated by the

NRC Office of Investigations (OI).

During its investigation, OI concluded

that:

a. With respect to the vendor-related

activities: (1) False Eddy Current

Testing (ET) qualification certifications

were deliberately generated by PI for at

least three employees who performed

ET examinations at Perry and Cooper

nuclear power plants during 1993 and

false ET qualification certification

examination results and Personnel

Certification Summaries were

deliberately generated for four

employees, and these falsifications were

condoned or directed by the former

President (i.e., Mr. Kumar), the former

Vice President/RSO, and the former

Quality Assurance Manager; and (2)

three PI employees tested positive for

illegal drug use prior to working at Perry

and Cooper in 1993, and the former

President of PI was aware of this and

did not notify Perry and Cooper.

b. With respect to the materials

License: (1) A minimum of 38 source

utilization logs (for radiography

performed) were falsely created by PI

employees to satisfy questions asked

during an April 1993 NRC inspection

regarding the lack of utilization logs,

and this activity was undertaken at the

direction of the former President of PI;

(2) the former President of PI knowingly

failed to notify the NRC of a change of

radiation safety officer in approximately

August 1993; and (3) responses in PI’s

letter, dated July 14, 1993, to the NRC,

were deliberately incomplete and

inaccurate, and the former President

and individual identified on PI’s NRC

license as the RSO were responsible for

knowingly providing this false

information to the NRC.

The inaccurate information provided

to the NRC in the letter dated July 14,

1993, was in response to a previous

Notice of Violation issued to the

Licensee on June 16, 1993, for numerous

violations identified during an

inspection conducted in April 1993.

One of the violations identified during

the April 1993 inspection involved the

failure to maintain personnel

monitoring records for the radiographers

at the facility. In the July response,

signed by the former RSO (i.e., the