1476 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 7 / Friday, January 10, 1997 / Notices

Estimated Total Annual Burden on

Respondents: 210 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:

Jaleh Behroozi Soroui, 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.

Andrew J. Hartman,

Director, NIFL.

[FR Doc. 97–622 Filed 1–9–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6055–01–M

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–250 and 50–251]

Florida Power and Light Company;

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 Nos. DPR–

31 and DPR–41 issued to Florida Power

and Light Company (FPL or the

licensee) for operation of the Turkey

Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units

3 and 4, located in Dade County,

Florida.

The proposed amendment would

modify the Turkey Point Units 3 and 4

Technical Specifications (TS) to change

the Reactor Coolant Pump (RCP)

flywheel surveillance requirement. The

proposed change will require RCP

flywheel inspections once every ten

years.

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) Operation of the facility in accordance

with the proposed amendments would not

involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of an accident

previously evaluated.

The proposed amendments do not involve

a significant increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated because:

The safety function of the RCP flywheels

is to provide a coastdown period during

which the RCPs would continue to provide

reactor coolant flow to the reactor after loss

of power to the RCPs. The maximum loading

on the RCP motor flywheel results from

overspeed following a large LOCA [loss-ofcoolant accident]. The estimated maximum

obtainable speed in the event of a LOCA was

established conservatively. The proposed

change does not affect that analysis. Reduced

coastdown times due to a single failed

flywheel is bounded by the locked rotor

(instantaneous seizure) analysis, therefore, it

would not place the plant in an unanalyzed

condition. Therefore, these changes do not

involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of an accident

previously evaluated.

(2) Operation of the facility in accordance

with the proposed amendments would not

create the possibility of a new or different

kind of accident from any accident

previously evaluated.

The use of the modified specifications can

not create the possibility of a new or different

kind of accident from any previously

evaluated since the proposed amendments

will not change the physical plant or the

modes of plant operation defined in the

facility operating license. No new failure

mode is introduced due to the change in

flywheel inspection frequency since the

proposed changes do not involve the

addition or modification of equipment, nor

do they alter the design or operation of

affected plant systems, structures, or

components.

(3) Operation of the facility in accordance

with the proposed amendments would not

involve a significant reduction in a margin of

safety.

The operating limits and functional

capabilities of the affected systems,

structures, and components are basically

unchanged by the proposed amendments.

The [Westinghouse Owners Group] WOG

effort includes FPL Turkey Point Units 3 and

4 flywheels. FPL has performed 37 flywheel

inspections with no indications affecting

flywheel integrity. The margins of safety

defined in RG [Regulatory Guide] 1.14,

Revision 1 used in the analysis are not

significantly changed. Detailed stress and

fracture analyses as well as risk analysis have

been completed with the results indicating

that there would be no change in the

probability of failure for RCP motor flywheels

if all inspections were eliminated. Therefore

these changes do not involve a significant

reduction in 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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 7 / Friday, January 10, 1997 / Notices 1477

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 February 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 Florida

International University, University

Park, Miami, Florida 33199. 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

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 J.R.

Newman, Esquire, Morgan, Lewis &

Bockius, 1800 M Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20036, 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 December 17, 1996,

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 Florida International University,

University Park, Miami, Florida 33199.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day

of January 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Richard P. Croteau,

Project Manager, Project Directorate II–3,

Division of Reactor Projects-I/II.

[FR Doc. 97–591 Filed 1–9–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P