Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 101 /Wednesday, May 27, 1998 / Notices 29039

Philadelphia Electric Company the

schedule of Thermo-Lag corrective

actions described in the Philadelphia

Electric Company submittals to the NRC

dated April 16 and December 29, 1993,

February 4 and December 19, 1994,

March 29 and August 2, 1995, May 2,

1996, and March 24, 1997. Based on the

information submitted by Philadelphia

Electric Company and provided during

the meetings, the NRC staff has

concluded that the schedules presented

by Philadelphia Electric Company are

reasonable. This conclusion is based on

the (1) amount of installed Thermo-Lag,

(2) the complexity of the plant-specific

fire barrier configurations and issues, (3)

the need to perform certain plant

modifications during outages as

opposed to those that can be performed

while the plant is at power, and (4)

integration with other significant, but

unrelated issues that Philadelphia

Electric Company is addressing at its

plant. In order to remove compensatory

measures such as fire watches, it has

been determined that resolution of the

Thermo-Lag corrective actions by

Philadelphia Electric Company must be

completed in accordance with current

Philadelphia Electric Company

schedules. By letter dated April 16,

1998, the NRC staff notified

Philadelphia Electric Company of its

plan to incorporate Philadelphia

Electric Company’s schedule

commitment into a requirement by

issuance of an order and requested

consent from the Licensee. By letter

dated April 27, 1998, the Licensee

provided its consent to issuance of a

Confirmatory Order.

III

The Licensee’s commitment as set

forth in its letter of April 27, 1998, is

acceptable and is necessary for the NRC

to conclude that public health and

safety are reasonably assured. To

preclude any schedule slippage and to

assure public health and safety, the NRC

staff has determined that the Licensee’s

commitment in its April 27, 1998, letter

be confirmed by this Order. The

Licensee has agreed to this action. Based

on the above, and the Licensee’s

consent, this Order is immediately

effective upon issuance.

IV

Accordingly, pursuant to sections

103, 161b, 161i, 161o, 182, and 186 of

the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as

amended, and the Commission’s

regulations in 10 CFR 2.202 and 10 CFR

Part 50, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,

effective immediately, that:

Philadelphia Electric Company shall

complete final implementation of ThermoLag 330–1 fire barrier corrective actions at

LGS, Units 1 and 2, described in the

Philadelphia Electric Company’s submittals

to the NRC dated April 16 and December 29,

1993, February 4 and December 19, 1994,

March 29 and August 2, 1995, May 2, 1996,

March 24, 1997, and January 14, 1998, by

completion of the April 1999 refueling outage

for LGS, Unit 2.

The Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation, may relax or rescind, in

writing, any provisions of this

Confirmatory Order upon a showing by

the Licensee of good cause.

V

Any person adversely affected by this

Confirmatory Order, other than the

Licensee, may request a hearing within

20 days of its issuance. Where good

cause is shown, consideration will be

given to extending the time to request a

hearing. A request for extension of time

must be made in writing to the Director,

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, D.C. 20555, and include a

statement of good cause for the

extension. Any request for a hearing

shall be submitted to the Secretary, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Attention: Chief, Rulemakings and

Adjudications Staff, Washington, D.C.

20555. Copies of the hearing request

shall also be sent to the Director, Office

of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U. S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, D.C. 20555, to the Deputy

Assistant General Counsel for

Enforcement at the same address, to the

Regional Administrator, NRC Region I,

475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia,

Pennsylvania 19406–1415, and to the

Licensee. If such a person requests a

hearing, that person shall set forth with

particularity the manner in which his/

her interest is adversely affected by this

Order and shall address criteria set forth

in 10 CFR 2.714(d).

If a hearing is requested by a person

whose interest is adversely affected, the

Commission will issue an Order

designating the time and place of any

such hearing. If a hearing is held, the

issue to be considered at such hearing

shall be whether this Confirmatory

Order should be sustained.

In the absence of any request for

hearing, or written approval of an

extension of time in which to request a

hearing, the provisions specified in

Section IV above shall be final 20 days

from the date of this Order without

further order or proceedings. If an

extension of time for requesting a

hearing has been approved, the

provisions specified in Section IV shall

be final when the extension expires if a

hearing request has not been received.

An answer or a request for hearing shall

not stay the immediate effectiveness of

this Order.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 19 day

of May 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Samuel J. Collins,

Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–13971 Filed 5–26–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–325 and 50–324]

Carolina Power & Light Company;

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units

No. 1 and 2 Environmental

Assessment and Finding of No

Significant Impact

Introduction

The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of amendments to

Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–71

and DPR–62 issued to the Carolina

Power & Light Company (CP&L or the

licensee) for operation of the Brunswick

Steam Electric Plant, Units No. 1 and 2

(BSEP 1 & 2), respectively, located at the

licensee’s site in Brunswick County,

North Carolina.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

This Environmental Assessment has

been prepared to address potential

environmental issues related to the

licensee’s application dated November

1, 1996, as supplemented by letters

dated October 13, 1997, February 26,

1998, March 13, 1998, April 24, 1998,

and May 22, 1998. The proposed

amendments will replace the current

BSEP 1 & 2 Technical Specifications

(CTS) in their entirety with Improved

Technical Specifications (ITS) based on

Revison 1 to NUREG–1433, ‘‘Standard

Technical Specifications General

Electric Plants BWR/4’’ dated April

1995, and the CTS for BSEP 1 & 2.

The Need for the Proposed Action

It has been recognized that nuclear

safety in all plants would benefit from

improvement and standardization of TS.

The Commission’s ‘‘NRC Interim Policy

Statement on Technical Specification

Improvements for Nuclear Power

Reactors,’’ (52 Fed. Reg. 3788, February

6, 1987), and later the Commission’s

‘‘Final Policy Statement on Technical

Specification Improvements for Nuclear

Power Reactors,’’ 58 FR 39132 (July 22,

1993), formalized this need. To facilitate
29040 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 101 /Wednesday, May 27, 1998 / Notices

the development of individual

improved TS, each reactor vendor

owners group (OG) and the NRC staff

developed standard TS (STS). For

General Electric plants, the STS are

published as NUREG–1433, and this

document was the basis for the new

BSEP 1 & 2 TS. The NRC Committee to

Review Generic Requirements (CRGR)

reviewed the STS and made note of the

safety merits of the STS and indicated

its support of conversion to the STS by

operating plants.

Description of the Proposed Change

The proposed revision to the TS is

based on NUREG–1433 and on guidance

provided in the Final Policy Statement.

Its objective is to completely rewrite,

reformat, and streamline the existing

TS. Emphasis is placed on human

factors principles to improve clarity and

understanding. The Bases section has

been significantly expanded to clarify

and better explain the purpose and

foundation of each specification. In

addition to NUREG–1433, portions of

the existing TS were also used as the

basis for the ITS. Plant-specific issues

(unique design features, requirements,

and operating practices) were discussed

at length with the licensee, and generic

matters with the OG.

The proposed changes from the

existing TS can be grouped into four

general categories, as follows:

1. Non-technical (administrative)

changes, which were intended to make

the ITS easier to use for plant operations

personnel. They are purely editorial in

nature or involve the movement or

reformatting of requirements without

affecting technical content. Every

section of the BSEP 1 & 2 TS has

undergone these types of changes. In

order to ensure consistency, the NRC

staff and the licensee have used

NUREG–1433 as guidance to reformat

and make other administrative changes.

2. Relocation of requirements, which

includes items that were in the existing

BSEP 1 & 2 TS. The TS that are being

relocated to licensee-controlled

documents are not required to be in the

TS under 10 CFR 50.36 and do not meet

any of the four criteria in the

Commission’s Final Policy Statement

for inclusion in the TS. They are not

needed to obviate the possibility that an

abnormal situation or event will give

rise to an immediate threat to the public

health and safety. The NRC staff has

concluded that appropriate controls

have been established for all of the

current specifications, information, and

requirements that are being moved to

licensee-controlled documents. In

general, the proposed relocation of

items in the BSEP 1 & 2 TS to the Final

Safety Analysis Report (FSAR),

appropriate plant-specific programs,

procedures and ITS Bases follows the

guidance of the General Electric STS

(NUREG–1433). Once these items have

been relocated by removing them from

the TS to licensee-controlled

documents, the licensee may revise

them under the provisions of 10 CFR

50.59 or other NRC staff-approved

control mechanisms, which provide

appropriate procedural means to control

changes.

3. More restrictive requirements,

which consist of proposed BSEP 1 & 2

ITS items that are either more

conservative than corresponding

requirements in the existing BSEP 1 &

2 TS, or are additional restrictions that

are not in the existing BSEP 1 & 2 TS

but are contained in NUREG–1433.

Examples of more restrictive

requirements include: placing a

Limiting Condition of Operation (LCO)

on plant equipment that is not required

by the present TS to be operable; more

restrictive requirements to restore

inoperable equipment; and more

restrictive surveillance requirements.

4. Less restrictive requirements are

relaxations of corresponding

requirements in the existing BSEP 1 &

2 TS that provide little or no safety

benefit and place unnecessary burdens

on the licensee. These relaxations were

the result of generic NRC actions or

other analyses. They have been justified

on a case-by-case basis for BSEP 1 & 2,

as will be described in the staff’s Safety

Evaluation to be issued with the license

amendment, which will be noticed in

the Federal Register.

In addition to the changes described

above, the licensee proposed certain

changes to the existing TS that deviated

from the STS in NUREG–1433. These

additional proposed changes are

described in the licensee’s application

and in the staff’s Notice of

Consideration of Issuance of

Amendment to Facility Operating

License and Opportunity for a Hearing

(62 FR 3719). Where these changes

represent a change to the current

licensing basis for BSEP 1 & 2, they have

been justified on a case-by-case basis

and will be described in the staff’s

Safety Evaluation to be issued with the

license amendment.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The Commission has completed its

evaluation of the proposed action and

concludes that the proposed TS

conversion would not increase the

probability or consequences of accidents

previously analyzed and would not

affect facility radiation levels or facility

radiological effluents.

Changes that are adminstrative in

nature would have no effect on the

technical content of the TS, and are

acceptable. The increased clarity and

understanding these changes bring to

the TS are expected to improve the

operator’s control of the plant in normal

and accident conditions.

Relocation of requirements to

licensee-controlled documents would

not change the requirements

themselves. Future changes to these

requirements may be made by the

licensee under 10 CFR 50.59 or other

NRC-approved control mechanisms,

which ensures continued maintenance

of adequate requirements. All such

relocations have been found to be in

conformance with the guidelines of

NUREG–1433 and the Final Policy

Statement, and, therefore, are

acceptable.

Changes involving more restrictive

requirements would be likely to

enhance the safety of plant operations

and are acceptable.

Changes involving less restrictive

requirements have been reviewed

individually. When requirements have

been shown to provide little or no safety

benefit or to place unnecessary burdens

on the licensee, their removal from the

TS is justified. In most cases, relaxations

previously granted to individual plants

on a plant-specific basis were the result

of a generic NRC action, or of

agreements reached during discussions

with the OG and are acceptable for

BSEP 1 & 2. Generic relaxations

contained in NUREG–1433 as well as

proposed deviations from NUREG–1433

have also been reviewed by the NRC

staff and are acceptable for BSEP 1 & 2.

In summary, the proposed revisions to

the TS were found to provide control of

plant operations such that reasonable

assurance will be provided so that the

health and safety of the public will be

adequately protected.

These TS changes will not increase

the probability or consequences of

accidents, no changes are being made in

the types of any effluent that may be

released offsite, and there is no

significant increase in the allowable

public or occupational radiation

exposure.

With regard to potential

nonradiological impacts, the proposed

action does not affect nonradiological

plant effluents and has no other

environmental impact.

Accordingly, the Commission

concludes that there are no significant

environmental impacts associated with

the proposed action.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 101 /Wednesday, May 27, 1998 / Notices 29041

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

Since the Commission has concluded

there is no significant environmental

impact associated with the proposed

amendments, any alternatives with

equal or greater environmental impact

need not be evaluated. The principal

alternative to this action would be to

deny the request for the amendment.

Such action would not reduce the

environmental impacts of plant

operations.

Alternative Use of Resources

This action did not involve the use of

any resources not previously considered

in the Final Environmental Statement

related to the operation of the BSEP 1

& 2 Electric Generating Plants.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on May 22, 1998, the staff consulted

with the North Carolina State official,

Mr. M. Fry, of the North Carolina

Department of Environment and Natural

Resources, Division of Radiation

Protection. 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 amendment.

For further details with respect to this

action, see the licensee’s letter dated

November 1, 1996, as supplemented on

October 13, 1997, February 26, 1998,

March 13, 1998, April 24, 1998, and

May 22, 1998, which are 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

University of North Carolina at

Wilmington, William Madison Randall

Library, 601 College Road, Wilmington,

North Carolina 28403–3297.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 22nd day

of May 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Gordon E. Edison,

Acting Director, Project Directorate II–1,

Division of Reactor Projects—I/II, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–14098 Filed 5–26–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL

MANAGEMENT

Proposed Collection; Comment

Request for 1998 Presidential

Management Intern Program

Application

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 OPM intends to submit

a request to the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) for renewal of

authority to publish the 1998

Presidential Management Intern

Program Application. The information

contained in the PMI application is used

by OPM’s Employment Service to obtain

nominations, and to screen and

establish a nationwide competitive

selection process. Applications are

mailed to educational institutions at the

beginning of each academic year.

Students are nominated by their deans

and chairpersons to compete in the PMI

Program. The application is completed

by the student (nominee) and submitted

to the school official for review and

nomination. After the initial review

process, nominees are invited to

participate in a structured assessment

center process. Selection as a PMI

Finalist is based on a review of the

nominee’s application, and

participation in a structured assessment

center process.

It is anticipated that 2000 applications

will be received and processed in 1998.

Number of hours required for

completing PMI application forms by

graduate programs deans or

chairpersons is 1 hour per

application=2000. Number of hours

required per graduate student for

completing application form is 1

hour=2000.

Comments are particularly invited on:

—Whether this collection of 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.

For copies of the clearance package,

call James M. Farron, Reports and Forms

Manager, on (202) 418–3208, or by email to jmfarron@opm.gov.

DATES: Comments on this proposal

should be received on or before July 27,

1998.

ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments

to: Kathleen A. Keeney, Presidential

Management Intern Program, William J.

Green Jr., Federal Building, Room 3400,

600 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA

19106.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathleen A. Keeney (215) 597–1920.

Janice R. Lachance,

Director, U.S. Office of Personnel

Management.

[FR Doc. 98–13919 Filed 5–26–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6325–01–M

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL

MANAGEMENT

Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory

Committee; Open Committee Meeting

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, June 11, 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