23478 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 82 /Wednesday, April 29, 1998 / Notices

determined that the exemption request

from the provisions of 10 CFR 50.60 and

Appendix G was necessary since these

regulations require, as noted above, that

the reactor vessel conditions not exceed

the P–T limits established by Appendix

G. In referring to 10 CFR 50.12 on

specific exemptions, NSP cited special

circumstances as stated in 10 CFR

50.12(a)(2)(ii) on achieving the

underlying purpose of the regulations as

its basis for requesting this exemption.

The underlying purpose of 10 CFR

Part 50, Appendix G, is to establish

fracture toughness requirements for the

reactor coolant system (RCS) pressure

boundary to provide adequate margins

of safety during any condition of normal

operation. The OPPS provides a

physical means of protecting these

limits. NSP proposed that establishing

the OPPS pressure setpoint per the N–

514 provisions such that the vessel

pressure would not exceed 110 percent

of the P–T limit allowables would still

provide an acceptable level of safety and

mitigate the potential for an inadvertent

actuation of the OPPS.

The plant operators must operate the

plant in a pressure window that is

between the minimum pressure

required to preserve reactor coolant

pump seals and at a maximum pressure

that does not challenge the poweroperated relief valve setpoint. Without

the application of ASME Code Case N–

514, Prairie Island would have an

operating window that is too narrow to

permit reasonable system makeup and

pressure control. Further reduction of

the OPPS setpoint below 500 psig

would increase the probability that the

reactor coolant pumps’ no. 1 seal will

fail as a result of OPPS operation, and

that such a seal failure could produce a

breach in the RCS boundary that could

not be isolated. Therefore, inadvertent

OPPS actuation could lead to a small

break loss-of-coolant accident and the

unnecessary release of reactor coolant

inside containment.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The Commission has completed its

evaluation of the proposed action and

concludes that the proposed action

involves features located entirely within

the protected areas as defined in 10 CFR

Part 20.

The proposed action will not increase

the probability or consequences of

accidents, no changes are being made in

the types of any effluents that may be

released offsite, and there is no

significant increase in the allowable

individual or cumulative occupational

radiation exposure. Accordingly, the

Commission concludes that there are no

significant radiological environmental

impacts associated with the proposed

action.

With regard to potential

nonradiological impacts, the proposed

action does involve features located

entirely within the restricted area as

defined in 10 CFR Part 20. It does not

affect nonradiological plant effluents

and has no other environmental impact.

Accordingly, the Commission concludes

that there are no significant

nonradiological environmental impacts

associated with the proposed action.

Alternative to the Proposed Action

Since the Commission has concluded

there is no measurable environmental

impact associated with the proposed

action, any alternatives with equal or

greater environmental impact need not

be evaluated. As an alternative to the

proposed action, the staff considered

denial of the proposed action. Denial of

the application would result in no

change in current environmental

impacts. The environmental impacts of

the proposed action and the alternative

action are similar.

Alternative Use of Resources

This action does not involve the use

of any resources not previously

considered in the Final Environmental

Statement for the Prairie Island Nuclear

Generating Plant.

Agencies ad Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on April 7, 1998, the staff consulted

with the Minnesota State official, Mike

McCarthy of the Department of Public

Service, regarding the environmental

impact of the proposed action. The state

official had no comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

Based upon the environmental

assessment, the Commission concludes

that the proposed action will not have

a significant effect on the quality of the

human environment. Accordingly, the

Commission has determined not to

prepare an environmental impact

statement for the proposed action.

For further details with respect to the

proposed action, see the licensee’s letter

dated March 6, 1998, 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

Minneapolis Public Library, Technology

and Science Department, 300 Nicollet

Mall, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day

of April, 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Cynthia A. Carpenter,

Director, Project Directorate III–1, Division

of Reactor Projects—III/IV, Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–11339 Filed 4–28–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Survey of Steel Mills: Support of a Risk

Assessment of Generally and

Specifically Licensed Devices

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Survey of Steel Mills:

Withdrawal.

SUMMARY: On August 14, 1997, (62 FR

43556) NRC announced its intentions to

conduct a survey of the steel industry

for obtaining data tailored to a risk

analysis. The survey would have

provided empirical data about

discoveries of radioactive material in

the recycling stream. A risk analysis

would use this information as the basis

to systematically evaluate the

effectiveness of current regulation and

possible regulatory changes. The

analysis supports regulatory changes

toward improving the control of

radioactive devices commonly used in

many industries.

The NRC received three letters from

trade associations and a steel mill. All

of these letters indicated that their

organizations would not support the

survey. Because participation in the

survey would be voluntary and the

letters were negative, the response rate

for the survey would likely be low,

resulting in insufficient data for a risk

analysis as originally planned.

Therefore, the NRC has decided not to

conduct the survey.

NRC is continuing the risk analysis

with appropriate adjustments to

accommodate for the lack of data

available without the survey. The NRC

will re-evaluate the need for the survey

after the risk analysis is completed. If

the NRC decides to conduct the survey

at a later date, the survey will be

announced in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Christopher Ryder, Mail Stop TWFN

10E–50, Division of Systems

Technology, Office of Nuclear

Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555, telephone (301) 415–6102;

electronic mail address:

CPR@NRC.GOV.

Dated at Rockville, MD., this 22nd day of

April, 1998.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 82 /Wednesday, April 29, 1998 / Notices 23479

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Donald A. Cool,

Director, Division of Industrial and Medical

Nuclear Safety, Office of Nuclear Material

Safety and Safeguards.

[FR Doc. 98–11341 Filed 4–28–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL

MANAGEMENT

Submission for OMB Review;

Comment Request for Reclearance of

a Revised Information Collection: Form

RI 20–1

AGENCY: Office of Personnel

Management.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub.

L. 104–13, May 22, 1995), this notice

announces that the Office of Personnel

Management (OPM) intends to submit to

the Office of Management and Budget a

request for reclearance of a revised

information collection. RI 20–1,

Application for Minimum Annuity, is

completed by annuitants to determine if

they qualify for minimum annuity

under the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 8345(f).

Comments are particularly invited on:

whether this information is necessary

for the proper performance of functions

of the Office of Personnel Management,

and whether it will have practical

utility; whether our estimate of the

public burden of this collection of

information is accurate, and based on

valid assumptions and methodology;

and ways in which we can minimize the

burden of the collection of information

on those who are to respond, through

the use of appropriate technological

collection techniques or other forms of

information technology.

Approximately 50 RI 20–1 forms will

be completed annually. We estimate it

takes approximately 15 minutes to

complete the form. The annual burden

is 13 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 June 29,

1998.

ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments

to Lorraine E. Dettman, Chief,

Operations Support Division,

Retirement and Insurance Service, U.S.

Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E

Street, NW, Room 3349, Washington,

DC 20415.

FOR INFORMATION REGARDING

ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATION CONTACT:

Mary Beth Smith-Toomey, Budget &

Administrative Services Division, (202)

606–0623.

U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Janice R. Lachance,

Director.

[FR Doc. 98–11405 Filed 4–28–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6325–01–M

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL

MANAGEMENT

Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory

Committee; Open Committee Meetings

According to the provisions of section

10 of the Federal Advisory Committee

Act (Pub. L. 92–463), notice is hereby

given that a meeting of the Federal

Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee

will be held on Thursday, May 7, 1998. The meeting will start at 10:00 a.m.

and will be held in Room 5A06A, Office

of Personnel Management Building,

1900 E Street, NW., Washington, DC. The Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory

Committee is composed of a Chair, five

representatives from labor unions

holding exclusive bargaining rights for

Federal blue-collar employees, and five

representatives from Federal agencies.

Entitlement to membership on the

Committee is provided for in 5 U.S.C.

5347.

The Committee’s primary

responsibility is to review the Prevailing

Rate System and other matters pertinent

to establishing prevailing rates under

subchapter IV, chapter 53, 5 U.S.C., as

amended, and from time to time advise

the Office of Personnel Management. This scheduled meeting will start in

open session with both labor and

management representatives attending.

During the meeting either the labor

members or the management members

may caucus separately with the Chair to

devise strategy and formulate positions.

Premature disclosure of the matters

discussed in these caucuses would

unacceptably impair the ability of the

Committee to reach a consensus on the

matters being considered and would

disrupt substantially the disposition of

its business. Therefore, these caucuses

will be closed to the public because of

a determination made by the Director of

the Office of Personnel Management

under the provisions of section 10(d) of

the Federal Advisory Committee Act

(Pub. L. 92–463) and 5 U.S.C.

552b(c)(9)(B). These caucuses may,

depending on the issues involved,

constitute a substantial portion of a

meeting. Annually, the Chair compiles a report

of pay issues discussed and concluded

recommendations. These reports are

available to the public, upon written

request to the Committee’s Secretary.

The public is invited to submit

material in writing to the Chair on

Federal Wage System pay matters felt to

be deserving of the Committee’s

attention. Additional information on

this meeting may be obtained by

contacting the Committee’s Secretary,

Office of Personnel Management,

Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory

Committee, Room 5559, 1900 E Street,

NW., Washington, DC 20415 (202) 606–

1500.

Dated: April 20, 1998.

Phyllis G. Heuerman,

Acting Chair, Federal Prevailing Rate

Advisory Committee.

[FR Doc. 98–11356 Filed 4–28–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6325–01–P

POSTAL SERVICE

Revised Form 8125, Plant-Verified

Drop Shipment (PVDS) Verification/

Clearance and New Facsimile

Consolidated Form 8125, Plant-Verified

Drop Shipment (PVDS) Verification/

Clearance; Consolidated

AGENCY: Postal Service.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice presents pending

revisions to Form 8125, Plant-Verified

Drop Shipment (PVDS) Verification/

Clearance, and Form 8125–C, a new

Plant-Verified Drop Shipment (PVDS)

Verification/Clearance—Consolidated

form intended for use as a computergenerated facsimile. The Mailer’s

Technical Advisory Committee (MTAC)

8125 Redesign Work Group developed

the revised forms. The Postal Service

expects the revised hard copy Form

8125 to be available this summer. Once

the final format is approved, Forms

8125 and 8125–C will be available on

the USPS Web (www.usps.gov/busctr/

welcome.htm under business forms).

In addition, Form 2866–IP, In-Plant

Verification for Second- and FourthClass Matter, will be eliminated upon

implementation of the revised forms

8125 and 8125–C. Form 2866–IP is used

by some Periodicals mailers who pay

postage through the Centralized Postage

Payment (CPP) program.

To ensure that the revised Forms 8125

and facsimile 8125–C meet the needs of

customers, the Postal Service is seeking

comments from PVDS mailers regarding

the revisions described in this notice.

Copies of the revised draft Forms 8125

and 8125–C are available for review on

the USPS Web page in the business

section under Rates & Classification