18432 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 11, 1995 / Notices

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 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 the amendment is 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 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, 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 William

D. Beckner: 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 N. S. Reynolds, Esq.,

Winston & Strawn, 1400 L Street, NW.,

Washington DC 20005–3502, 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 April 4, 1995, as

supplemented by letter dated April 5,

1995, 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 New Orleans

Library, Louisiana Collection, Lakefront,

New Orleans, LA 70122.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day

of April 1995.

Chandu P. Patel,

Project Manager, Project Directorate IV–1,

Division of Reactor Projects—III/IV, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–8846 Filed 4–10–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

[Docket No. 50–483]

Union Electric Company (Callaway

Plant, Unit 1)

Exemption

I.

Union Electric Company (UE or the

licensee) is the holder of Facility

Operating License No. NPF–30, which

authorizes operation of Callaway Plant,

Unit 1 (the facility), at a rated power

level not in excess of 3565 megawatts

thermal. The facility is a pressurized

water reactor located at the licensee’s

site in Callaway County, Missouri. The

license provides among other things,

that it is subject to all rules, regulations,

and Orders of the U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission (the

Commission or NRC) now or hereafter

in effect.

II.

Section III.D.1.(a) of Appendix J to 10

CFR Part 50 requires the performance of

three Type A containment integrated

leakage rate tests (CILRTs), at

approximately equal intervals during

each 10-year service period. The third

test of each set shall be conducted when

the plant is shutdown for the 10-year

plant inservice inspection.

III.

By letters dated December 9, 1994,

and January 27, 1995, UE requested

relief from the requirement to perform a

set of three Type A tests at

approximately equal intervals during

each 10-year service period. The

requested exemption would permit an

interval extension for the third Type A

test of approximately 18 months (from

the currently scheduled outage, March

1995, until the next planned refueling

outage, September 1996). The

exemption request would also permit

the third Type A test of the first 10-year

service period not to correspond with

the end of the current American Society

of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and

Pressure Vessel Code (ASME Code) 10-

year plant inservice inspection interval.

The licensee’s request cites the

special circumstances of 10 CFR 50.12,
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 11, 1995 / Notices 18433

1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1) (1988).

paragraph (a)(2)(ii), as the basis for the

exemption. The underlying purpose of

the requirement to perform three Type

A CILRTs, at approximately equal

intervals during each 10-year service

period, is to assure that leakage through

the primary reactor containment is

detected and does not exceed allowable

leakage rate values. The licensee has

stated that the existing Type B and C

local leak rate test (LLRT) programs are

not being modified by this request, and

will continue to effectively detect

containment leakage caused by the

degradation of active containment

isolation components as well as

containment penetrations. It has been

the consistent and uniform experience

at Callaway during the three Type A

tests conducted from 1984 to date, that

any significant containment leakage

paths are detected by the Type B and C

testing. The Type A test results have

only been confirmatory of the results of

the Type B and C test results. Therefore,

consistent with 10 CFR 50.12, paragraph

(a)(2)(ii), application of the regulation in

this particular circumstance would not

serve, nor is it necessary to achieve, the

underlying purpose of the rule.

IV.

Section III.D.1.(a) of Appendix J to 10

CFR Part 50 states that a set of three

Type A leakage rate tests shall be

performed at approximately equal

intervals during each 10-year service

period.

The licensee proposes an exemption

to this section which would provide an

interval extension for the Type A test by

approximately 18 months. The

Commission has determined that

pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a)(1) this

exemption is authorized by law, will not

present an undue risk to the public

health and safety, and is consistent with

the common defense and security. The

Commission further determines that

special circumstances, as provided in 10

CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), are present justifying

the exemption; namely, that application

of the regulation in the particular

circumstances is not necessary to

achieve the underlying purpose of the

rule.

The NRC staff has reviewed the basis

and supporting information provided by

the licensee in the exemption request.

The NRC staff has noted that the

licensee has a good record of ensuring

a leak-tight containment. All Type A

tests were within the acceptance limits.

The first Type A test passed with

significant margin. The second Type A

test confirmed leakage previously

identified by Type C testing. The

licensee subsequently replaced all

containment boundary Essential Service

Water valves with an improved design

stainless steel valve. This replacement

improved LLRT results by 84% for the

affected penetrations. The licensee has

noted that the results of the Type A

testing have been confirmatory of the

Type B and C tests, which are

performed biennially, and will continue

to be performed. The NRC staff

considers that these inspections and

system enhancements, though limited in

scope, provide an important added level

of confidence in the continued integrity

of the containment boundary.

The NRC staff has also made use of a

draft staff report, NUREG–1493, which

provides the technical justification for

the present Appendix J rulemaking

effort which also includes a 10-year test

interval for Type A tests. The integrated

leakage rate test, or Type A test,

measures overall containment leakage.

However, operating experience with all

types of containments used in this

country demonstrates that essentially all

containment leakage can be detected by

local leakage rate tests (Type B and C).

According to results given in NUREG–

1493, out of 180 ILRT reports covering

110 individual reactors and

approximately 770 years of operating

history, only about 3% of leakage that

exceeds current requirements is

detectable only by CILRTs, and those

few failures were only marginally above

prescribed limits. This study agrees well

with previous NRC staff studies which

show that Type B and C testing can

detect a very large percentage of

containment leaks. The Callaway

experience has also been consistent

with this.

The Nuclear Management and

Resources Council (NUMARC), now the

Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), collected

and provided the NRC staff with

summaries of data to assist in the

Appendix J rulemaking effort. NUMARC

collected results of 144 ILRTs from 33

units; 23 ILRTs exceeded 1.0La. Of

these, only nine were not due to Type

B or C leakage penalties. The NEI data

also added another perspective. The NEI

data show that in about one-third of the

cases exceeding allowable leakage, the

as-found leakage was less than 2La; in

one case the as-found leakage was less

than 3La; one case approached 10La; and

in one case the leakage was found to be

approximately 21La. For about half of

the failed ILRTs the as-found leakage

was not quantified. These data show

that, for those ILRTs for which the

leakage was quantified, the leakage

values are small in comparison to the

leakage value at which the risk to the

public starts to increase over the value

of risk corresponding to La

(approximately 200La, as discussed in

NUREG–1493).

Based on generic and plant specific

data, the NRC staff finds the basis for

the licensee’s proposed exemption to

allow a one-time exemption to permit a

schedular extension of one cycle for the

performance of the Appendix J Type A

test to be acceptable.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the

Commission has determined that

granting this Exemption will not have a

significant impact on the environment

(60 FR 15611).

This Exemption is effective upon

issuance and shall expire at the

completion of the 1996 refueling outage.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 4th day

of April 1995.

Elinor G. Adensam,

Acting Director, Division of Reactor Projects—

III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–8847 Filed 4–10–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

[Release No. 34–35567; File No. SR–OCC–

95–02]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The

Options Clearing Corporation; Notice

of Filing of Proposed Rule Change

Seeking to Make the Stock Loan/Hedge

Program Available to Market-Maker

and Specialist Accounts Established

and Maintained by Clearing Members

April 5, 1995.

Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the

Securities Exchange Act of 1934

(‘‘Act’’),1 notice is hereby given that on

February 13, 1995, The Options Clearing

Corporation (‘‘OCC’’) filed with the

Securities and Exchange Commission

(‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule

change (File No. SR–OCC–95–02) as

described in Items I, II, and III below,

which items have been prepared

primarily by OCC. The Commission is

publishing this notice to solicit

comments on the proposed rule change

from interested persons.

I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement of the Terms of Substance of

the Proposed Rule Change

The purpose of the proposed rule

change is to make OCC’s Stock Loan/

Hedge Program available to accounts

established and maintained with OCC

by clearing members for market-makers

and specialists.