Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 116 /Wednesday, June 17, 1998 / Notices 33097

2. The title of the information

collection: NRC Form 212,

Qualifications Investigation, and NRC

Form 212A, Qualifications Investigation

Secretarial/Clerical.

3. The form number if applicable:

NRC Form 212, NRC Form 212A.

4. How often the collection is

required: Whenever Human Resources’

specialists determine qualification

investigations are required in

conjunction with applications for

employment related to vacancies.

5. Who will be required or asked to

report: Supervisors, former supervisors,

and/or other references of external

applicants.

6. An estimate of the number of

responses: NRC Form 212, 1400

annually, NRC Form 212A, 300

annually.

7. The estimated number of annual

respondents: NRC Form 212, 1400

annually, NRC Form 212A, 300

annually.

8. An estimate of the total number of

hours needed annually to complete the

requirement or request. NRC Form 212,

350 hours (15 minutes per response),

NRC Form 212A, 75 hours (15 minutes

per response).

9. An indication of whether Section

3507(d), Pub. L. 104–13 applies: Not

applicable.

10. Abstract: Information requested

on NRC Forms 212 and 212A is used to

determine the qualifications and

suitability of external applicants for

employment in professional and

secretarial or clerical positions with the

NRC. The completed form may be used

to examine, rate and/or assess the

prospective employee’s qualifications.

The information regarding the

qualifications of applicants for

employment is reviewed by professional

personnel of the Office of Human

Resources, in conjunction with other

information in the NRC files, to

determine the qualifications of the

applicant for appointment to the

position under consideration.

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 July

17, 1998.

Erik Godwin, Office of Information and

Regulatory Affairs (3150–0033 and

3150–0034), 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, Maryland, this 9th day

of June 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Brenda Jo. Shelton,

NRC Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief

Information Officer.

[FR Doc. 98–16020 Filed 6–16–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–295/304–LA, ASLBP No.

98–744–04–LA]

Commonwealth Edison Company;

Establishment of Atomic Safety and

Licensing Board

Pursuant to delegation by the

Commission dated December 29, 1972,

published in the Federal Register, 37

F.R. 28710 (1972), and Sections 2.105,

2.700, 2.702, 2.714, 2.714a, 2.717, 2.721

of the Commission’s Regulations, all as

amended, an Atomic Safety and

Licensing Board is being established to

preside over the following proceeding.

Commonwealth Edison Company

Zion Nuclear Power Station

This Board is being established

pursuant to a petition to intervene

submitted by Edwin D. Dienethal. The

petition was filed in response to a notice

of a proposed determination that the

issuance of a license amendment to the

Commonwealth Edison Company for the

Zion Nuclear Power Station would

involve no significant hazards

considerations. The license amendment

would make several technical

specification changes, reinstate license

conditions that were deleted by a

previous amendment and modify

staffing requirements and management

titles to reflect a shutdown status. The

notice was published in the Federal

Register at 63 FR 25101, 25105 (May 6,

1998).

The Board is comprised of the

following administrative judges:

Thomas S. Moore, Chairman, Atomic

Safety and Licensing Board Panel,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, D.C. 20555.

Dr. Jerry R. Kline, Atomic Safety and

Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

D.C. 20555.

Frederick J. Shon, Atomic Safety and

Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

D.C. 20555.

All correspondence, documents and

other materials shall be filed with the

Judges in accordance with 10 C.F.R.

2.701.

Issued at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th

day of June 1998.

B. Paul Cotter, Jr.,

Chief Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety

and Licensing Board Panel.

[FR Doc. 98–16124 Filed 6–16–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–269 and 50–287]

Duke Energy Corporation; Notice of

Consideration of Issuance of

Amendments to Facility Operating

Licenses, Proposed No Significant

Hazards Consideration Determination,

and Opportunity For a Hearing

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of amendments to

Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–38

and DPR–55, issued to the Duke Energy

Corporation (the licensee), for operation

of the Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1

and 3, respectively, located in Seneca,

South Carolina.

If approved, the proposed

amendments would amend the Oconee

Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 3

Technical Specifications (TS) to allow

continued operation with certain steam

generator tubes that exceed their repair

limit as a result of tube end anomalies

(TEAs). These tubes would be

temporarily exempt from the

requirement for sleeving, rerolling, or

removal from service until repaired

during the next scheduled refueling

outages for the respective unit or plant

conditions that result in an extended

cold shutdown of greater than 7 days.

Oconee TS Section 4.17.2, Steam

Generator Tubing Surveillance

Acceptance Criteria, requires that the

steam generators be operable and all

tubes that are examined and found to

exceed their repair criteria be repaired

by sleeving or rerolling, or removed

from service. During the recent Unit 2

refueling outage, several indications of

TEAs were found and repaired. As a

result, a detailed reanalysis of the Unit

1 and 3 steam generator tube

surveillance data that was obtained

during the previous refueling outages

for each unit was conducted. This

reanalysis determined that 372
33098 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 116 /Wednesday, June 17, 1998 / Notices

indications out of 2951 TEAs not

previously repaired for Unit I and 61 out

of 66 TEAs not previously repaired on

Unit 3 extended beyond the upper

surface of the tubesheet clad. These

indications, if they had been found

during the respective refueling outages,

would have met the criteria for repair

during the outage.

When these findings were discussed

with the staff on June 3, 1998, a Notice

of Enforcement Discretion was issued

verbally on June 3, 1998, to exercise

discretion not to enforce compliance

with TS 4.17.2 for the Unit 1 and Unit

3 steam generator tubes that exceed the

repair limit as a result of TEAs for the

period from 12:25 p.m. on June 3, 1998,

until issuance of the related

amendments. The request for license

amendments was submitted by letter

dated June 4, 1998. Since the proposed

amendments are designed to complete

the review process and implement the

proposed TS changes, pursuant to the

NRC’s policy regarding exercising

discretion for an operating facility set

out in Section VII.c of the ‘‘General

Statement of Policy and Procedures for

NRC Enforcement Actions’’

(Enforcement Policy), NUREG–1600,

and be effective for the period until the

issuance of the related TS amendments,

these circumstances require that the

amendments be processed under exigent

circumstances.

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

amendments 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:

[This proposed change has been evaluated

against the standards in 10 CFR 50.92 and

has been determined to involve no significant

hazards, in 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:

This evaluation addresses the potential

effects of a missed surveillance and repair

opportunity for steam generator tubes. As

described in the technical justification,

operating with some steam generator tubes

with TEAs and repairable indications in

Units 1 and 3 does not increase the

probability of an accident evaluated in the

SAR [Safety Analysis Report] because this

condition is not an accident initiator. There

is no physical change to the plant SSCs

[structures, systems, components] or

operating procedures. Neither electrical

power systems, nor important to safety

mechanical SSCs will be adversely affected.

The steam generators have been evaluated as

operable for normal and accident conditions.

There are no shutdown margin, reactivity

management, or fuel integrity concerns.

This activity will not adversely affect the

ability to mitigate any SAR described

accidents. The total evaluated main steam

line break leakage from the areas evaluated

is 0.023 gpm [gallons per minute] for Unit 1

which is the limiting unit. The resulting

leakage was considerably less than that

assumed in the off site dose analysis of 0.7

gpm for each unit. Therefore both Units 1

and 3 met the MSLB [Main Steamline Break]

leakage requirements for steam generator

integrity with no compensatory actions

required. There is no adverse impact on

containment integrity, radiological release

pathways, fuel design, filtration systems,

main steam relief valve setpoints, or radwaste

systems.

There is no increase in accident initiation

likelihood or consequences, therefore

analyzed accident scenarios are not

impacted.

2. Create the possibility of a new or

different kind of accident from any kind of

accident previously evaluated:

There is no increased risk of unit trip, or

challenge to the RPS [Reactor Protection

System] or other safety systems. There is no

physical effect on the plant, i.e., none on RCS

[Reactor Coolant System] temperature, boron

concentration, control rod manipulations,

core configuration changes, and no impact on

nuclear instrumentation. There is no

increased risk of a reactivity excursion. No

new failure modes or credible accident

scenarios are postulated from this activity.

The MSLB scenario has been evaluated and

the potential for damage to the steam

generator tubes is not increased.

3. Involve a significant reduction in a

margin of safety[:]

No function of any important to safety SSC

will be adversely affected or degraded as a

result of continued operation. No safety

parameters, setpoints, or design limits are

changed. There is no adverse impact to the

nuclear fuel, cladding, RCS, or required

containment systems. Therefore, the margins

of safety as defined in the bases to any

Technical Specifications are not reduced as

a result of this change.

Duke [Duke Energy Corporation] has

concluded, based on the above, that there are

no significant hazards considerations

involved in this amendment request.

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 amendments 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

amendments before the expiration of the

14-day notice period, provided that its

final determination is that the

amendments involve 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 July 16, 1998, the licensee may file

a request for a hearing with respect to

issuance of the amendments to the

subject facility operating licenses 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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 116 /Wednesday, June 17, 1998 / Notices 33099

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 Oconee

County Library, 501 West South Broad

Street, Walhalla, South Carolina. 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

amendments 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 amendments are 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 amendments

and make them immediately effective,

notwithstanding the request for a

hearing. Any hearing held would take

place after issuance of the amendments.

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,

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 Mr.

J. Michael McGarry, III, Winston and

Strawn, 1200 17th Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20036, 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)(l)–(v) and 2.714(d).

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application for

amendments dated June 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

Oconee County Library, 501 West South

Broad Street, Walhalla, South Carolina.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day

of June 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

David E. LaBarge,

Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate

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

of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–16019 Filed 6–16–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. IA 97–070; ASLBP No. 98–734–

01–EA]

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board;

Notice of Evidentiary Hearing

June 10, 1998.

In the Matter of: Magdy Elamir, M.D.,

Newark, New Jersey; Order Superseding

Order Prohibiting Involvement in NRCLicensed Activities (Effective Immediately).

This proceeding concerns the request

of Magdy Elamir, M.D., for a hearing

with respect to the Order Superseding

Order Prohibiting Involvement in NRC

Licensed Activities (Effective

Immediately), dated September 15,

1997, published at 62 FR 49536

(September 22, 1997). The parties to the

proceeding are Dr. Elamir and the NRC

Staff. The issue to be considered is

whether the Superseding Order should

be sustained—in particular, whether the

NRC Staff’s currently effective

suspension of Dr. Elamir from engaging

in NRC-licensed activities should be

continued for a period of five years from

July 31, 1997, as a result of alleged

deliberate violations of NRC

requirements.

Notice is hereby given that, as set

forth in the Atomic Safety and Licensing

Board’s Memorandum and Order

(Telephone Conference: Lifting of Stay;

Schedules for Proceeding and Hearing),

dated May 1, 1998, the evidentiary

hearing in this proceeding will

commence on Tuesday, July 14, 1998,

beginning at 9:30 a.m., at Room 204–205