Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 235 / Thursday, December 7, 1995 / Notices 62893

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Collection of Information Submitted for

OMB Review

In compliance with the requirement

of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 for

opportunity for public comment on

proposed data collection projects, the

National Science Foundation (NSF) will

publish periodic summaries of proposed

projects. To request more information

on the proposed project or to obtain a

copy of the data collection plans and

instruments, call Herman Fleming NSF

Clearance Officer of (703) 306–1243.

Comments are invited on (a) whether

the proposed collection of information

is necessary for the proper performance

of the functions of the agency, including

whether the information shall have

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the

agency’s estimate of the burden of the

propose collection of information; (c)

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and

clarity of the information on

respondents, including through the use

of automated collection techniques or

other forms of information technology.

Send Comments to Herman Fleming,

Clearance Officer, National Science

Foundation 4201 Wilson Boulevard,

Suite 485, Arlington, VA 22230. Written

comments should be received by

December 20, 1995.

Proposed Project: Fastlane Baseline

Data Collection.

Abstract: Information will be

collected from faculty and

administration at 21 colleges and

universities. The purpose of the data

collection is to establish baseline

measures of applicant burden and

customer perceptions about the NSF

and Federal grant application process.

The baseline measures will be used in

future years to measures the effect of

Fastland (NSF’s electronic proposal

preparation system) and will provide

customer input to the system design.

The data will also be used by NIH and

the Department of Energy for similar

purposes.

Respondents/Burden hours: 320

respondents (16 individuals at 20

institutions) will be interviewed for

about one-hour each.

Dated: November 30, 1995.

Herman G. Fleming,

NSF Clearance Officer.

[FR Doc. 95–29811 Filed 12–6–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555–01–M

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–298]

Exemption

In the Matter of: Nebraska Public Power

District (Cooper Nuclear Station).

I.

Nebraska Public Power District (the

licensee) is the holder of Facility

Operating License No. DPR–46, which

authorizes operation of the Cooper

Nuclear Station (CNS) at power levels

not in excess of 2381 megawatts

thermal. The facility consists of a

boiling water reactor at the licensee’s

site in Nemaha County, Nebraska. The

operating license provides, among other

things, that CNS is subject to all rules,

regulations, and orders of the

Commission now or hereafter in effect.

II.

The licensee requested, in its

application dated May 13, 1994, an

exemption from the pressure test

requirements of Section III.D.2(b)(ii) of

Appendix J, ‘‘Primary Reactor

Containment Leakage Testing For

Water-Cooled Power Reactors,’’ to 10

CFR Part 50 (Appendix J to 10 CFR Part

50). The staff discussed the details of

the proposed exemption with the

licensee in a telephone conference call

on September 28, 1995. The proposed

exemption would allow the licensee to

leak test the personnel air lock at CNS

at a test pressure less than Pa, (the

calculated peak containment internal

pressure resulting from the containment

design basis accident), under certain

conditions. The reduced pressure test of

the air lock would be conducted as the

first of two tests during a restart from

refueling or cold shutdown, prior to

entry into an operational mode

requiring containment leaktight

integrity by the CNS Technical

Specifications (TSs). As stated in CNS

TS 4.7.A.2.f.5, for periodic leakage

testing of the personnel air lock, Pa is 58

psig and the reduced test pressure is 3

psig.

This leakage test is part of the Type

B tests required by Appendix J to 10

CFR Part 50 to verify containment

integrity. Because an air lock allows

entry into the containment and is part

of the containment pressure boundary,

excessive leakage through the air lock

could compromise containment

integrity. The air lock consists of an

inner and outer door and the leakage

test is performed by pressurizing the

space between the doors.

Section III.D.2 of Appendix J to 10

CFR Part 50 specifies the required

periodic retest schedule for Type B

tests, including testing of air locks.

Pursuant to Section III.D.2(b)(ii),

licensees are required to leakage test air

locks, opened during periods when

containment integrity is not required by

the TSs, at the end of such periods. This

section applies to testing of air locks

during restart from refueling or cold

shutdown because the CNS TSs do not

require containment integrity for either

of these operational modes. This section

states that the air lock test shall be

performed at a pressure that is not less

than Pa.

The proposed exemption is concerned

with Section III.D.2(b)(ii); however,

there are two other sections in

Appendix J which have requirements on

testing air locks. Section III.D.2(b)(i)

requires an air lock test every 6 months

at a test pressure of Pa and Section

III.D.2(b)(iii) requires a test every 3 days

when the air lock is used during a

period when containment integrity is

required by the TSs. The latter section

requires the test pressure to be Pa, or the

test pressure specified in the TSs, which

for CNS is specified as 3 psig in TS

4.7.A.2.f.5.

The licensee stated in its application

that it currently tests the personnel air

lock twice during the restart of the plant

for power operation from refueling or

cold shutdown: (1) Prior to the reactor

being taken critical, or the reactor water

temperature being above 100°C (212°F),

and (2) after the last entry into

containment for leak inspection during

restart. The time between the two tests

is about 24 to 48 hours, and the second

test is at low reactor power prior to

entry into the run mode, the full power

mode of operation.

The first test is in accordance with

Section III.D.2(b)(ii) and is performed at

the conclusion of the period when

containment integrity is not required by

the TSs. This test is conducted prior to

entry into an operational mode

requiring containment integrity. The

second test is in accordance with

Section III.D.2(b)(iii) and is performed at

3-day intervals while the air lock is

being used when containment integrity

is required. As stated above, in

accordance with this section, the second

test could be conducted at a test

pressure of 3 psig at CNS, because this

pressure is stated in TS 4.7.A.2.f.5.

However, because the licensee also

performs the second test to meet the 6-

month interval requirement in Section

III.D.2(b)(i), the second test is conducted

at Pa.

The proposed exemption would not

change the number of air lock tests for

the restart to power operation for CNS,

the manner in which the second test is
62894 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 235 / Thursday, December 7, 1995 / Notices

conducted, the time when the tests

would be run, nor the acceptance

criteria for the tests. The proposed

exemption also would not change the

requirements of Section III.D.2(b)(i)

regarding the 6-month periodic test of

the air lock at Pa, nor the existing CNS

safety limits, safety settings, power

operations, or effluent limits.

III.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a), ‘‘Specific

exemptions,’’ the Commission may,

upon application of any interested

person or upon its own initiative, grant

such exemptions in this part as it

determines are authorized by law, will

not present an undue risk to the public

health and safety, are consistent with

the common defense and security, and

for which special circumstances

identified in 50.12(a)(2) are present.

The licensee is proposing to conduct

the first air lock test during restart at a

test pressure of 3 psig, which is less

than Pa, which is not presently allowed

by Section III.D.2(b)(ii). The air lock

leakage measured at the reduced test

pressure would be extrapolated to a

value consistent with Pa, then that value

would be compared to the acceptance

criteria in Appendix J for Type B tests

to confirm that containment integrity is

verified. If containment integrity is

verified, the measured air lock leakage

is considered acceptable.

For CNS, by testing the air lock at

reduced pressure of 3 psig, a strongback

(structural bracing) would not have to

be installed on the inner air lock door.

During the test, the space between the

inner and outer doors is pressurized.

The strongback is needed when the test

pressure is Pa because the pressure

exerted on the inner door during the test

is in a direction opposite to the pressure

on the inner door during an accident,

and the test pressure is sufficiently high

to damage the inner door without the

strongback. The reduced pressure test is

conducted at a pressure low enough

such that the strongback is not needed

to protect the inner door.

When no maintenance or repairs have

been performed on the air lock that

could affect its sealing capability and

the periodic 6-month test at Pa has been

performed successfully, there is no

reason to expect the air lock to leak

excessively because it has been opened

during a plant shutdown or refueling

outage. When the air lock is tested at a

pressure less than Pa in preparation for

restart from refueling or cold shutdown,

the air lock would have been

successfully tested at Pa within the

previous six months.

Accordingly, the Commission

concludes that the licensee’s proposed

exemption to conduct the first air lock

test during the restart from refueling or

cold shutdown (when the air lock was

opened while containment integrity was

not required by the TSs) at the reduced

pressure of 3 psig in CNS TS 4.7.A.2.f.5

is acceptable, provided no maintenance

or repairs have been performed on the

air lock which would affect its sealing

capability since the last 6-month test

required by Section III.D.2(b)(i) of

Appendix J. Section III.D.2(b)(i) requires

a test of the air lock at not less than Pa

every 6 months since the initial fuel

loading and this requirement is not

being changed by this exemption. If

maintenance or repairs have been

performed on the air lock affecting its

sealing capability since the last 6-month

test, the first test prior to entering a

condition which requires containment

integrity must meet the test pressure

requirements of Section III.D.2(b)(ii) and

be conducted at a test pressure not less

than Pa.

Although the licensee conducts the

second air lock test during restart at Pa

to meet Section III.D.2(b)(i) and thus

begin the 6-month interval for air lock

tests during the power operating cycle,

this exemption does not require that the

second test be conducted at Pa. The

entry into an operational mode which

requires containment integrity by the

TSs must be based on an assurance that

the containment has such integrity. This

assurance can not rely on a test to be

conducted hours or days in the future

after the operational mode has been

entered, unless the proper test can only

be conducted after entering the

operational mode (i.e., the proper

conditions for the test do not exist in the

prior mode). An air lock test at Pa could

be conducted before entering the

operational mode requiring containment

integrity and has been conducted in this

manner in the past at CNS. Therefore, in

approving this exemption to allow the

first air lock test during restart to be

conducted at the reduced test pressure

of 3 psig, the staff does not rely on the

second test being conducted at Pa. The

method used to correlate the reduced

pressure leakage rates to the full

pressure leakage rates shall be in

accordance with the NRC staff’s safety

evaluation and the Franklin Research

Center technical evaluation report

enclosed with the exemption of

September 3, 1982.

The special circumstances for

granting this exemption pursuant to 10

CFR 50.12 have been identified in the

licensee’s application dated May 13,

1994. The purpose of Appendix J to 10

CFR Part 50 is to ensure that the

containment leaktight integrity can be

verified periodically throughout the

service lifetime of the containment

(including the air lock) so as to maintain

containment leakage within the limits

specified in the design basis accident

analyses that were part of the basis for

licensing CNS. The proposed alternative

test method is sufficient to achieve the

underlying purpose of the regulation in

that it provides adequate assurance of

the leaktight integrity of the air lock,

and thus of the containment.

Consequently, the special

circumstances described in 10 CFR

50.12(a)(2)(ii) exist in that the

application of the regulation in these

particular circumstances is not

necessary to achieve the underlying

purpose of the rule in that the licensee

has proposed an acceptable alternative

test method that accomplishes the intent

of the regulation.

IV.

Based on the findings and

conclusions above, the Commission has

determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR

50.12(a), the exemption requested by the

licensee in its letter dated May 13, 1994,

is authorized by law, will not present an

undue risk to the public health and

safety, is consistent with the common

defense and security, and has present

special circumstances which are

identified in 50.12(a)(2). The

Commission hereby grants to the

licensee an exemption from the

requirements in Section III.D.2(b)(ii) of

Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50, to allow

reduced pressure testing of the

personnel airlock in accordance with TS

4.7.A.2.f.5, prior to entry into

operational modes requiring

containment integrity, provided there

has been no maintenance or repair of

the air lock that could affect its sealing

capability since the last 6-month test of

the air lock.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the

Commission has also determined that

the issuance of the exemption will have

no significant impact on the

environment. An Environmental

Assessment and Finding of No

Significant Impact was noticed in the

Federal Register on November 6, 1995

(60 FR 57250).

For further details with respect to this

action, see the licensee’s request for

exemption dated May 13, 1994, 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

Commission’s Local Public Document

Room at the Auburn Public Library, 118

15th Street, Auburn, NE 68305.

This exemption is effective upon

issuance.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 235 / Thursday, December 7, 1995 / Notices 62895

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 30th day

of November 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Jack W. Roe,

Director Division of Reactor Projects III/IV,

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–29812 Filed 12–6–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

[Docket No. 50–219]

GPU Nuclear Corporation; Notice of

Consideration of Issuance of

Amendment to Facility Operating

License 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–

16, issued to GPU Nuclear Corporation

(GPUN, the licensee), for operation of

the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating

Station, located in Ocean County, New

Jersey.

The proposed amendment would

amend paragraph 2.C.(5) of Facility

Operating License DPR–16 to eliminate

the administrative process associated

with obtaining separate NRC approvals

for reviewing inspection results and

obtaining restart authorization prior to

the end of each refueling outage. In

addition, the phrase ‘‘once per 24

months’’ has been changed to ‘‘per

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.

By January 8, 1996, 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 Ocean

County Library, Reference Department,

101 Washington Street, Toms River, NJ

08753. 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.

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, Attention:

Docketing and Services Branch, or may

be delivered to the Commission’s Public

Document Room, the Gelman Building,

2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, by

the above date. Where petitions are filed

during the last 10 days of the notice

period, it is requested that the petitioner

promptly so inform the Commission by

a toll-free telephone call to Western

Union at 1–(800) 248–5100 (in Missouri

1–(800) 342–6700). The Western Union

operator should be given Datagram

Identification Number N1023 and the

following message addressed to Phillip

F. McKee: Petitioner’s name and

telephone number; date petition was

mailed; plant name; and publication

date and page number of this Federal

Register notice. A copy of the petition

should also be sent to the Office of the

General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555, and to Ernest L. Blake, Jr.,

Esquire. Shaw, Pittman, Potts &

Trowbridge, 2300 N Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20037, 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).

If a request for a hearing is received,

the Commission’s staff may issue the

amendment after it completes its

technical review and prior to the

completion of any required hearing if it

publishes a further notice for public

comment of its proposed finding of no

significant hazards consideration in

accordance with 10 CFR 50.91 and

50.92.

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application for

amendment dated October 26, 1995,