Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 120 /Tuesday, June 23, 1998 / Notices 34205

on the need to perform certain plant

modifications during outages as

opposed to those that can be performed

while the plant is at power. In order to

remove compensatory measures such as

fire watches, it has been determined that

resolution of the Thermo-Lag corrective

actions by VEPCO must be completed in

accordance with current VEPCO

schedules. By letter dated May 14, 1998,

the NRC staff notified VEPCO of its plan

to incorporate VEPCO’s schedule

commitment into a requirement by

issuance of an order and requested

consent from the Licensee. By letter

dated May 22, 1998, VEPCO provided

its consent to issuance of a Confirmatory

Order.

III

The Licensee’s commitment as set

forth in its letter of December 19, 1997,

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 December 18, 1997,

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:

Virginia Electric and Power Company shall

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

North Anna Power Station, Unit 1, described

in the VEPCO submittal to the NRC dated

December 18, 1997. Overall work package

closeout will be completed by the completion

of the next refueling outage scheduled to

begin in September 1998.

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, DC 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, DC

20555. Copies of the hearing request

shall also be sent to the Director, Office

of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U. S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555, to the Deputy

Assistant General Counsel for

Enforcement at the same address, to the

Regional Administrator, NRC Region II,

Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth

Street, SW., Suite 23T85, Atlanta,

Georgia 30303, 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, Md., this 15th day of

1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Samuel J. Collins,

Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–16648 Filed 6–22–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–333]

Power Authority of the State of New

York; James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear

Power Plant; Environmental

Assessment and Finding of no

Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of an exemption

from certain requirements of its

regulations to Facility Operating License

No. DPR–59, issued to Power Authority

of the State of New York (the licensee)

also known as the New York Power

Authority, for operation of the James A.

FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, located

in Oswego County, New York.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

The proposed action would exempt

the licensee from the requirements of 10

CFR 70.24, which requires in each area

in which special nuclear material is

handled, used, or stored a monitoring

system that will energize clear audible

alarms if accidental criticality occurs.

The proposed action would also exempt

the licensee from the requirements to

maintain emergency procedures for each

area in which this licensed special

nuclear material is handled, used, or

stored to ensure that all personnel

withdraw to an area of safety upon the

sounding of the alarm, to familiarize

personnel with the evacuation plan, to

designate responsible individuals for

safety upon the sounding of the alarm,

and to place radiation survey

instruments in accessible locations for

use in such an emergency. The

proposed action is in accordance with

the licensee’s application for exemption

dated April 24, 1998.

The Need for the Proposed Action

The purpose of 10 CFR 70.24 is to

ensure that if a criticality were to occur

during the handling of special nuclear

material, personnel would be alerted to

that fact and would take appropriate

action. At a commercial nuclear power

plant, the inadvertent criticality with

which 10 CFR 70.24 is concerned could

occur during fuel handling operations.

The special nuclear material that could

be assembled into a critical mass at a

commercial nuclear power plant is in

the form of nuclear fuel; the quantity of

other forms of special nuclear material

that is stored onsite in any given

location is small enough to preclude

achieving a critical mass. Because the

fuel is not enriched beyond 5.0 weight
34206 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 120 /Tuesday, June 23, 1998 / Notices

percent uranium-235, and because

commercial nuclear plant licensees have

procedures and features that are

designed to prevent inadvertent

criticality, the staff has determined that

it is unlikely that an inadvertent

criticality could occur due to the

handling of special nuclear material at

a commercial power reactor. Therefore,

the requirements of 10 CFR 70.24 are

not necessary to ensure the safety of

personnel during the handling of special

nuclear materials at commercial power

reactors.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The Commission has completed its

evaluation of the proposed action and

concludes that inadvertent or accidental

criticality will be precluded through

compliance with the James A.

FitzPatrick Technical Specifications, the

design of the fuel storage racks

providing geometric spacing of fuel

assemblies in their storage locations,

and administrative controls imposed on

fuel handling procedures.

The proposed exemption would not

result in an increase in the probability

or consequences of accidents, affect

radiological plant effluents, or result in

a change in occupational or offsite dose.

Therefore, there are no radiological

impacts associated with the proposed

exemption.

The proposed exemption would not

result in a change in nonradiological

effluents and will have no other

nonradiological environmental impact.

Accordingly, the Commission

concludes that there are no significant

environmental impacts associated with

the proposed action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

Since the Commission has concluded

that there is no significant

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 exemption,

the staff considered denial of the

requested exemption. Denial of the

request 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 related to the operation of the

James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power

Plant dated March 1973.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on June 4, 1998, the staff consulted with

the New York State Official, Jack Spath,

of the New York State Research and

Development Authority 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 April 24, 1998, which is available

for public inspection at the

Commission’s Public Document Room

located at the Gelman Building, 2120 L

Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the

local public document room located at

the Reference and Documents

Department, Penfield Library, State

University of New York, Oswego, New

York.

Dated at Rockville, Md., this 17th day of

June 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

S. Singh Bajwa,

Director, Project Directorate I–1, Division of

Reactor Projects—I/II, Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–16647 Filed 6–22–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY

CORPORATION

Proposed Submission of Information

Collections for OMB Review; Comment

Request; Multiemployer Plan

Regulations

AGENCY: Pension Benefit Guaranty

Corporation.

ACTION: Notice of intention to request

extension of OMB approval.

SUMMARY: The Pension Benefit Guaranty

Corporation (PBGC) intends to request

that the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) extend approval, under

the Paperwork Reduction Act, of

collections of information in the PBGC’s

regulations on multiemployer plans

under the Employee Retirement Income

Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). This

notice informs the public of the PBGC’s

intent and solicits public comment on

the collections of information.

DATES: Comments must be submitted by

August 24, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

the Office of the General Counsel, suite

340, Pension Benefit Guaranty

Corporation, 1200 K Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20005–4026, or

delivered to that address between 9 a.m.

and 4 p.m. on business days. Written

comments will be available for public

inspection at the PBGC’s

Communications and Public Affairs

Department, suite 240 at the same

address, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. on

business days.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Deborah C. Murphy, Attorney, Office of

the General Counsel, Pension Benefit

Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street,

NW., Washington, DC 20005–4026, 202–

326–4024. (For TTY/TDD users, call the

Federal relay service toll-free at 1–800–

877–8339 and ask to be connected to

202–326–4024.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: An agency

may not conduct or sponsor, and a

person is not required to respond to, a

collection of information unless it

displays a currently valid OMB control

number. OMB has approved and issued

control numbers for the collections of

information, described below, in the

PBGC’s regulations relating to

multiemployer plans. (The regulations

may be accessed on the PBGC’s web site

at http://www.pbgc.gov.) The PBGC

intends to request that OMB extend its

approval of these collections of

information for three years.

The PBGC is soliciting public

comments to—

• Evaluate whether the proposed

collections of information are necessary

for the proper performance of the

functions of the agency, including

whether the information will have

practical utility;

• Evaluate the accuracy of the

agency’s estimate of the burden of the

proposed collections of information,

including the validity of the

methodologies and assumptions used;

• Enhance the quality, utility, and

clarity of the information to be

collected; and

• Minimize the burden of the

collections of information on those who

are to respond, including through the

use of appropriate automated,

electronic, mechanical, or other

technological collection techniques or

other forms of information technology,

e.g., permitting electronic submission of

responses.

Comments should identify the

specific part number(s) of the

regulation(s) they relate to.