24574 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 85 / Monday, May 4, 1998 / Notices

ACTION: Notice of the OMB review of

information collection and solicitation

of public comment.

SUMMARY: The NRC has recently

submitted to OMB for review the

following proposal for the collection of

information under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. Chapter 35). The NRC hereby

informs potential respondents that an

agency may not conduct or sponsor, and

that a person is not required to respond

to, a collection of information unless it

displays a currently valid OMB control

number.

1. Type of submission, new, revision,

or extension: Revision.

2. The title of the information

collection: 10 CFR part 4,

‘‘Nondiscrimination in Federally

Assisted Commission Programs.’’

3. The form number if applicable:

3150–0053.

4. How often the collection is

required: Occasionally.

5. Who will be required or asked to

report: Recipients of Federal financial

assistance provided by the Nuclear

Regulatory Commission.

6. An estimate of the number of

responses: 30.

7. The estimated number of annual

respondents: 30.

8. An estimate of the total number of

hours needed annually to complete the

requirement or request: 8 hours

annually (16 minutes per recordkeeper).

9. An indication of whether Section

3507(d), Pub. L. 104–13 applies: Not

applicable.

10. Abstract: Recipients of NRC

financial assistance provide data to

demonstrate assurance to NRC that they

are in compliance with

nondiscrimination regulations and

policies.

A copy of the final supporting

statement may be viewed free of charge

at the NRC Public Document Room,

2120 L Street, NW (lower level),

Washington, DC. OMB clearance

requests are available at the NRC

worldwide web site (http://

www.nrc.gov) under the FedWorld

collection link on the home page tool

bar. The document will be available on

the NRC home page site for 60 days after

the signature date of this notice.

Comments and questions should be

directed to the OMB reviewer by June 3,

1998: Erik Godwin, Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs

(3150–0053), NEOB–10202, Office of

Management and Budget, Washington,

DC 20503.

Comments can also be submitted by

telephone at (202) 395–3084.

The NRC Clearance Officer is Brenda

Jo Shelton, 301–415–7233.

Dated at Rockville, Md., this 24th day of

April 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Brenda Jo Shelton,

NRC Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief

Information Officer.

[FR Doc. 98–11730 Filed 5–1–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–400]

Carolina Power and Light; 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. NPF–

63, issued to Carolina Power & Light

(CP&L or the licensee), for operation of

the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant

located in Wake and Chatham Counties,

North Carolina.

The proposed amendment would

revise Technical Specification (TS) 3/

4.3.2, ‘‘Engineered Safety Features

Actuation System Instrumentation’’ to

allow a 2-hour surveillance interval to

facilitate testing of the 6.9 kV

Emergency Bus Undervoltage relays.

Specifically, CP&L proposes modifying

TS Table 3.3.3 Items 9.a. and 9.b. to

change the Action from 15 to 15a.

Action 15a would maintain all of the

requirements of Action 15 and allow

removal of 6.9 kV Emergency Bus

Undervoltage relays for 2 hours for

surveillance testing provided the

redundant train Emergency 6.9 kV Bus

and associated undervoltage primary

and secondary relays are operable. With

the proposed modification, CP&L would

be able to perform surveillance testing

of the relays without entering TS 3.0.3.

To adequately perform a TS-required

surveillance test, the Harris Nuclear

Plant must enter TS 3.0.3 which could

lead to an unnecessary plant shutdown.

The surveillance interval for this test is

at least once per 31 days. There is

insufficient time between test

performance to process a license

amendment through normal means.

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.

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 amendment does not

involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of an accident

previously evaluated.

Loss-of-Offsite Power Emergency Bus

undervoltage relays are not accident

initiating components as described in the

Final Safety Analysis Report. The proposed

change allows a surveillance test interval to

facilitate required testing per the Harris

Nuclear Plant Technical Specifications (TS).

Redundancy of emergency buses, availability

of alternate automatic loss-of-offsite power

protection, and the capability of manual

initiation of affected components combined

with the short duration allowed for testing,

compensate for the new allowed surveillance

interval.

Therefore, the proposed change does not

involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of an accident

previously evaluated.

2. The proposed amendment does not

create the possibility of a new or different

kind of accident from any accident

previously evaluated.

Loss-of-Offsite Power Emergency Bus

undervoltage relays are not accident

initiating components as described in the

Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). The

proposed change only affects testing of the

Loss-of-Offsite Power Emergency Bus

undervoltage relays while not affecting other

structures, systems, or components.

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 amendment does not

involve a significant reduction in the margin

of safety.

The proposed change to testing of Loss-ofOffsite Power Emergency Bus undervoltage

relays does not affect any of the parameters

that relate to the margin of safety as

described in the Bases of the TS or the FSAR.

Accordingly, NRC Acceptance Limits are not

affected by this change.

Therefore, 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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 85 / Monday, May 4, 1998 / Notices 24575

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 and

Directives Branch, Division of

Administrative 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 6D59, 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 June 3, 1998, 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 Cameron

Village Regional Library, 1930 Clark

Avenue, Raleigh, North Carolina 27605.

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

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:

Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, or

may be delivered to the Commission’s

Public Document Room, the Gelman

Building, 2120 L Street, NW.,

Washington, DC, by the above date. 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

William D. Johnson, Vice President and

Senior Counsel, Carolina Power & Light

Company, Post Office Box 1551,

Raleigh, North Carolina 27602, 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
24576 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 85 / Monday, May 4, 1998 / Notices

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 24, 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

Cameron Village Regional Library, 1930

Clark Avenue, Raleigh, North Carolina

27605.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27 day

of April 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Scott C. Flanders,

Project Manager, Project Directorate II–1,

Division of Reactor Projects -I/II, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–11731 Filed 5–1–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–423]

Central Maine Power Co; Millstone

Nuclear Power Station, Unit 3;

Environmental Assessment and

Finding of No Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering approval under Title 10 of

the Code of Federal Regulations (10

CFR) § 50.80, by issuance of an Order,

of the transfer of control of Facility

Operating License No. NPF–49, to the

extent held by Central Maine Power

Company (CMP), which holds a partial

ownership interest in the Millstone

Nuclear Power Station, Unit 3, located

in New London County, Connecticut.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

The proposed action would consent to

the transfer of control of the license, to

the extent effected by a proposed

restructuring of CMP. Under the

restructuring, CMP would become a

wholly owned subsidiary of a newly

created holding company but would

continue to hold a partial ownership

interest in Millstone Unit 3. No direct

transfer of the license would occur.

Northeast Nuclear Energy Company

would continue to be the licensed

operator for Millstone Unit 3, and is not

involved in the proposed transaction.

The proposed action is in accordance

with the submittal, dated March 4, 1998,

from Central Maine Power Company, by

and through its counsel, Morgan, Lewis,

and Bockius.

The proposed action is needed, to the

extent the proposed restructuring of

CMP will effect a transfer of control of

the license as held by CMP, to permit

the restructuring to occur. CMP has

stated that the proposed restructuring

will provide long-term advantages

through increased management and

financial flexibility that will better

position CMP and its existing nonutility

subsidiaries to compete effectively in a

changing commercial and regulatory

environment. CMP has also stated that

this structure will also serve to insulate

CMP’s utility business from business

risks associated with the activities of the

nonutility subsidiaries and be consistent

with the corporate structure used by

many other utilities in the United

States.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The Commission has completed its

evaluation of the proposed corporate

restructuring and concludes that there

will be no physical or operational

changes to Millstone Unit 3. The

corporate restructuring will not affect

the qualifications or organizational

affiliation of the personnel who operate

or maintain the facility, as Northeast

Nuclear Energy Company, which is not

involved in the proposed restructuring

of CMP, will continue to be exclusively

responsible for the operation and

maintenance of Millstone Unit 3.

The Commission has evaluated the

environmental impact of the proposed

action and has determined that the

probability or consequences of accidents

will not be increased by the proposed

action, and that post-accident

radiological releases will not be greater

than previously determined. Further,

the Commission has determined that the

proposed action will not affect routine

radiological 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 not affect nonradiological

plant effluents and has no other

environmental impact. Therefore, the

Commission concludes that there are no

significant nonradiological

environmental impacts associated with

the proposed action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

Since the Commission has concluded

that there is no measurable

environmental impact associated with

the proposed action, any alternative

with equal or greater environmental

impact need not be evaluated.

As an alternative to the proposed

requested 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 Millstone Unit 3, dated

December 1984.

Agencies and Persons Contacted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on April 20, 1998, the staff consulted

with the Connecticut State Official,

Kevin T. A. McCarthy, of the Monitoring

and Radiation Division, Department of

Environmental Protection, 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 application

dated March 4, 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

Learning Resources Center, Three Rivers

Community-Technical College, 574 New

London Turnpike, Norwich,

Connecticut, and at the Waterford

Library, ATTN: Vince Juliano, 49 Rope

Ferry Road, Waterford, Connecticut.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day

of April 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Phillip F. McKee,

Deputy Director for Licensing, Special

Projects Office, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–11728 Filed 5–1–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P