Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 143 / Monday, July 27, 1998 / Notices 40137

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH

REVIEW COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., Wednesday,

July 19, 1998.

PLACE: Room 6005, 6th Floor, 1730 K

Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

STATUS: Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The

Commission will hear oral argument on

the following:

1. Secretary of Labor on behalf of

Bowling v. Mountain Top Trucking Co.,

Docket Nos. KENT 95–604–D, etc.

(Issues include whether the judge erred

in determining that coal truck drivers

did not establish that they were

constructively discharged and whether

the judge abused his discretion in

finding that a discriminatee’s back pay

award should be reduced because he

did not mitigate his damages by

requesting the Secretary of Labor to

reopen his previously withdrawn

application for temporary

reinstatement.)

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m., Wednesday,

July 29, 1998.

PLACE: Room 6005, 6th Floor, 1730 K

Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

STATUS: Closed [Pursuant to 5 U.S.C.

§ 552b(c)(10)].

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: It was

determined by a unanimous vote of the

Commission that the Commission

consider and act upon the following in

closed session:

1. Secretary of Labor on behalf of

Bowling v. Mountain Top Trucking Co.,

Docket Nos. KENT 95–604–D, etc. (See

oral argument listing, supra, for issues.)

Any person attending oral argument

or an open meeting who requires special

accessibility features and/or auxiliary

aids, such as sign language interpreters,

must inform the Commission in advance

of those needs. Subject to 29 CFR

§ 2706.150(a)(3) and § 2706.160(d).

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Jean Ellen (202) 653–5629/(202) 708–

9300 for TDD Relay/1–800–877–8339

for toll free.

Jean H. Ellen,

Chief Docket Clerk.

[FR Doc. 98–20130 Filed 7–23–98; 1:02 pm]

BILLING CODE 6735–01–M

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–287]

Duke Energy Corporation; 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. DPR–

55 issued to Duke Energy Corporation

(the licensee) for operation of the

Oconee Nuclear Station Unit 3 located

in Seneca, South Carolina.

If approved, the proposed amendment

would extend, on a one-time basis,

Technical Specification Surveillance

4.18.3 for hydraulic and mechanical

snubber testing. The tests are required to

be performed at a frequency of 18

months, with a maximum allowed

frequency of 22 months, 15 days. The

proposed amendment would extend this

to a maximum of 25 months to coincide

with the revised start date of the

Oconee, Unit 3, refueling outage. The

start date for the refueling outage has

been delayed due to the management

decision to extend the present operating

cycle, which resulted in the

surveillances becoming due prior to the

start of the refueling outage.

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.

The Commission has made a

proposed determination 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:

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?

No. A review of the previous two hydraulic

and mechanical snubber functional tests,

discussed in this amendment request

concluded that no adverse effects should

occur as a result of the one-time extension.

As a consequence, there should be no

adverse affects to the piping systems and

components which are restrained by

snubbers for seismic and pipe whip events.

There is a high level of confidence that the

snubbers should be available to perform their

intended function during the requested

extension period. Thus, the probability and

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated will not be significantly increased.

2. Create the possibility of a new or

different kind of accident from the accidents

previously evaluated?

No. Since the one-time extension should

not cause any adverse effects on the

snubbers’ capability to restrain piping

systems and components, a new or different

kind of accident from the accidents which

were previously evaluated will not occur.

The snubbers should be available to perform

their intended function during the requested

extension period.

3. Involve a significant reduction in a

margin of safety?

No. The margin of safety will not be

significantly reduced by this amendment

request because the snubbers and the systems

supported by the snubbers should be

available to perform their intended function

during the requested extension period. In

addition, the review of functional tests which

are discussed in the amendment request

concluded that no adverse effects should

occur as a result of the one-time extension.

Duke [Duke Energy Corporation] has

concluded, based on the above information,

that there are no significant hazards 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 30 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 30-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

30-day notice period, provided that its

final determination is that the
40138 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 143 / Monday, July 27, 1998 / Notices

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 and provide for opportunity

for a hearing after 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’s 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 August 26, 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 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 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 a hearing is requested, the

Commission will make a final

determination on the issue of no

significant hazards consideration. 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 Mr.

J. Michael McGarry, III, Winston and

Strawn, 1200 17th Street, NW.,

Washington, DC, 20005, 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)(i)–(v) and 2.714(d).

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application for

amendment dated July 20, 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 21st day

of July 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. 98–19971 Filed 7–24–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P