18824 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 74 / Thursday, April 17, 1997 / Notices

not meet the criteria for an abnormal

occurrence.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day

of April, 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Annette Vietti-Cook,

Acting Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 97–9912 Filed 4–16–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–387 and 50–388]

Pennsylvania Power & Light Company;

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of

Amendments 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. NPF–

14 and NPF–22, issued to Pennsylvania

Power & Light Company (PP&L) (the

licensee) for operation of the

Susquehanna Steam Electric Station

Units 1 and 2, located in Luzerne

County, Pennsylvania.

The proposed amendment would

clarify the scope of the surveillance

requirements for response time testing

of instrumentation in the reactor

protection system, isolation actuation

system, and emergency core cooling

system in the Technical Specifications

(TSs) for each unit (Sections 4.3.1.3,

4.3.2.3, and 4.3.3.3).

PP&L’s request for a license

amendment for each unit under exigent

circumstances resulted from its recent

discovery that the wording of the TS

surveillance was not reconciled with the

initiative to eliminate selected response

time testing from the TSs. Accordingly,

the licensee determined that this

condition was a TS noncompliance and

that prompt action to correct this

situation was necessary because failure

to satisfy TS surveillance requirements

for response time requires that the

various instruments and systems be

declared inoperable, resulting in the TS

required entry into cold shutdown for

Unit 1 (shutdown from 100% power)

and the prevention of fuel movement

and the imposition of additional

restrictions for Unit 2 currently in a

refueling outage. The staff finds that it

would be more prudent to permit the

licensee to rely upon the existing

response time testing for Unit 1 in lieu

of testing at power, and forcing an

unnecessary plant challenge by shutting

down this plant, and also in lieu of

restricting refueling and other activities

at Unit 2. Further the staff finds the

above sufficient justification for the

licensee’s exigent request for the license

amendments.

Before issuance of the proposed

license amendments, the Commission

will have made findings required by the

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended

(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

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. The proposed change does not involve

a significant increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated.

This proposal does not involve a

significant increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated. The proposed change only

reconciles the scope of response time testing

described in the surveillance requirements

with the elimination of selected response

time testing, performed in accordance with

the NRC-approved methodology delineated

in the BWROG [Boiling Water Reactor

Owners Group] Licensing Topical Report

(LTR) NEDO–32291, ’System Analyses for

Elimination of Selected Response Time

Testing Requirements,’ dated January 1994.

Implementation of the LTR (i.e., elimination

of response time testing for selected

instrumentation in the Reactor Protection

System, Isolation Actuation System and

Emergency Core Cooling System) does not

increase the probability or consequences of

an accident or malfunction of equipment

important to safety as previously evaluated in

the FSAR.

All SSES component model numbers were

analyzed for the failure mode of a sluggish

response. As documented in the LTR, each

component’s sluggish response can be

detected by other Technical Specification

required tests (functional tests, calibrations

and logic system functional tests). This

supports the contention that the use of such

‘‘qualitative’’ testing does not affect the

capability of the associated systems to

perform their intended function within their

required response time.

Based upon the analysis presented above,

PP&L concludes that the proposed action

does not involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of an accident

previously evaluated.

2. The proposed change does not create the

possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from any accident previously

evaluated.

This proposal does not create the

probability of a new or different type of

accident from any accident previously

evaluated. The proposed change only

reconciles the scope of response time testing

described in the surveillance requirements

with the elimination of selected response

time testing, performed in accordance with

the NRC-approved methodology delineated

in the LTR.

Implementation of the LTR methodology

for eliminating selected response time testing

also does not create the probability of a new

or different type of accident from any

accident previously evaluated. A review of

the failure modes of the affected plant

equipment indicates that sluggish response of

the instruments and relays can be detected by

other Technical Specification surveillances.

A review of SSES response time testing

history revealed one response time test

failure. This failure would have been

detectable by the logic system functional test

for this channel. Redundancy and diversity

of the affected channels provide additional

assurance that all affected functions will

operate within the acceptance limits assumed

in the plant safety analyses.

PP&L’s adherence to the conditions listed

in the NRC SER [Safety Evaluation Report]

for the LTR provides additional assurance

that sluggish response of instruments and

relays will be detected by the other required

Technical Specification tests. A review of

various safety analyses performed as part of

PP&L’s 10 CFR 50.59 safety evaluation

revealed that the five-second delay did not

adversely affect the assumptions in the

respective analyses.

Therefore, the proposed change does not

create the possibility of a new or different

kind of accident from any accident

previously evaluated.

3. The proposed change does not involve

a significant reduction in the margin of

safety.

The change does not involve a significant

reduction in the margin of safety. The

proposed change only reconciles the scope of

response time testing described in the

surveillance requirements with the

elimination of selected response time testing,

performed in accordance with the NRCapproved methodology delineated in the

LTR.

Implementation of the LTR methodology

for eliminating selected response time testing

also does not involve a significant reduction

in the margin of safety. The current response

times are based on the maximum allowable

values assumed in the plant safety analyses.

The analyses conservatively establish the

margin of safety. As described above, the

elimination of selected response time testing

does not affect the capability of the

associated systems to perform their intended

function within the allowed response time

used as the basis for the plant safety analyses.

Plant and system response to an initiating
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 74 / Thursday, April 17, 1997 / Notices 18825

event will remain in compliance within the

assumptions of the safety analyses, and

therefore the margin of safety is not affected.

This is based upon the sluggish response of

an instrument or relay being detected by the

other required Technical Specification tests,

component reliability, and redundancy and

diversity of the affected functions. A review

of the five-second delay of each function

confirms that margin exists in the design

basis for the technician to detect a sluggish

response within five seconds. PP&L’s

adherence to the conditions listed in the NRC

SER for the LTR provides additional

assurance that sluggish response of

instruments and relays will be detected by

the other required Technical Specification

tests. As described above, a review of various

safety analyses performed as part of PP&L’s

10 CFR 50.59 safety evaluation revealed that

the five-second delay did not adversely affect

the assumptions in the respective analyses.

Thus, PP&L concludes that the proposed

change does 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 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

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. 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 May 19, 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 Osterhout

Free Library, Reference Department, 71

South Franklin Street, Wilkes-Barre, PA

18701. 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 a 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 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 consideration. 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
18826 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 74 / Thursday, April 17, 1997 / Notices

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 Jay Silberg, Esquire, Shaw,

Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge, 2300 N

Street NW., Washington, DC 20037,

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 April 4, 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

Osterhout Free Library, Reference

Department, 71 South Franklin street,

Wilkes-Barre, PA 18701.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day

of April 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Chester Poslusny,

Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate

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

of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–9911 Filed 4–16–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY

CORPORATION

Agency Information Collection

Activities: Proposed Collection;

Comment Request; Firms with

Significant Pension Plan Underfunding

AGENCY: Pension Benefit Guaranty

Corporation.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Pension Benefit Guaranty

Corporation intends to request that the

Office of Management and Budget

(‘‘OMB’’) extend the approval for a

collection of information under the

Paperwork Reduction Act. The

information collection relates to the

opportunity the PBGC gives companies

maintaining single-employer pension

plans with significant underfunding to

correct data that the PBGC has on their

plans’ underfunding. The effect of this

notice is to solicit public comment on

this collection of information prior to

the PBGC’s request for an extension of

approval.

DATES: Comments should be submitted

to the PBGC by June 16, 1997.

ADDRESSES: All written comments

should be addressed to: The Office of

the General Counsel, Pension Benefit

Guaranty Corporation, Suite 340, 1200 K

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005. The

comments will be available for public

inspection at the PBGC

Communications and Public Affairs

Department, Suite 240, 1200 K Street,

NW., Washington, DC 20005, between

the hours of 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. Copies

of the materials may be obtained free of

charge by writing to the PBGC

Communications and Public Affairs

Department at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James L. Beller, Attorney, Office of the

General Counsel, Suite 340, 1200 K

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005,

202–326–4024 (202–326–4179 for TTY

and TDD). (These are not toll-free

numbers.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The PBGC

administers the pension plan

termination insurance programs under

Title IV of the Employee Retirement

Income Security Act of 1974 (‘‘ERISA’’)

(29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.). To address

concerns about the potential

vulnerability of the single-employer

insurance program to large claims, the

PBGC needs current information on the

funded status of plans with large

amounts of underfunding. Information

otherwise available to the PBGC is

either not current enough (Form 5500

filings), not complete enough (PBGC

Form 1 filings), or not public (filings

under ERISA section 4010).

Since 1990, the PBGC has collected

information on the companies whose

underfunded plans present the largest

potential claims against the PBGC by

taking data from public corporate

annual reports and the PBGC premium

filings and adjusting that information to

a standard interest rate and mortality

table. Because the annual report data

often includes foreign and other nonPBGC covered plans and the premium

filings are not complete enough for this

purpose, companies (and the PBGC)

were concerned about the accuracy and

completeness of the data. After the first

public use of this data, companies

suggested that the PBGC give them a

chance to review the data.

As a result, the PBGC now annually

contacts companies with the largest

underfunding and requests that they

verify (or correct) and, if they wish,

supplement PBGC information on the

amount of accumulated and vested

benefits, the amount of plan assets, and

the interest and mortality assumptions

they used to value benefits in their

covered plans. Respondents also may

choose to recalculate accumulated,

vested, and guaranteed benefits, and

administrative expense loading charges,

as well as to provide information on

additional contributions made to the

plans. The PBGC provides two simple

response forms (which are not required

to be used). In response to requests from

companies, the PBGC also provides

sample enrolled actuary certifications.

These certifications are required for

companies that elect to recalculate

benefits or administrative expenses.

The PBGC uses the responses to

improve the accuracy, timeliness, and

completeness of information obtained

from other sources. The data is used in

various agency efforts, including

estimating the potential exposure of the

single-employer termination insurance

program, legislative and other policy

analyses, selecting plans for monitoring,

responding to congressional requests for

information on companies whose plans

are significantly underfunded, and

identifying for the public those

companies with large levels of

underfunding (including the amount of

underfunding by company) or poor

funding ratios.

The PBGC expects to contact about

400 companies annually (more if the

interest rate is low; fewer if the interest

rate is high) whose underfunding for

vested benefits is greater than $25

million. Based on prior experience, the

PBGC assumes that 90% of those

contacted (360 responses) will choose to

respond (even though this collection of

information is voluntary). The PBGC

estimates that the total annual hour