Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 117 / Monday, June 17, 1996 / Notices 30641

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:

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 20555–0001, and to Lillian M.

Cuoco, Esq., Senior Nuclear Counsel,

Northeast Utilities Service Company,

P.O. Box 270, Hartford, CT 06141–0270,

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 May 23, 1996, 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

Learning Resources Center, Three Rivers

Community-Technical College, 574 New

London Turnpike, Norwich,

Connecticut, and the Waterford Library,

ATTN: Vince Juliano, 49 Rope Ferry

Road, Waterford, Connecticut.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day

of June 1996.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Maudette Griggs,

Project Manager, Northeast Utilities Project

Directorate, Division of Reactor Projects—I/

II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 96–15256 Filed 6–14–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

[Docket Nos. 50–272 AND 50–311]

Public Service Electric & Gas

Company; 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–70

and DPR–75 issued to the Public Service

Electric & Gas Company (the licensee)

for operation of the Salem Nuclear

Generating Station, Units 1 and 2,

located in Salem County, New Jersey.

The proposed amendments would

make the following changes to the

Technical Specifications: (1) Revise the

Reactor Vessel Level Indication System

(RVLIS) Action Statements to facilitate

actions necessary for channel testing to

be performed in Mode 3; (2) revise the

Channel Calibration definition to better

account for temperature detector

channel calibration methodology; and

(3) delete a requirement to install a

jumper in the Auxiliary Feedwater

actuation logic since a design change

will result in the jumper function being

performed by a relay.

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.

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
30642 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 117 / Monday, June 17, 1996 / Notices

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:

1. The proposed change does not involve

a significant increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated.

RVLIS is part of the safety-related display

instrumentation [Updated Final Safety

Ananlysis Report] UFSAR section 7.5. Its

function is to display information for the

operator ‘‘to enable him to perform required

manual functions and to determine the effect

of manual actions taken following a reactor

trip due to operational occurrences or

accident conditions discussed in Section 15.’’

RVLIS performs no automatic functions

designed to mitigate the consequences of any

accident.

Since no hardware changes are being made

by this proposal and since the RVLIS is a

post-accident monitoring system, no increase

in the probability of any evaluated accident

will occur as a result of implementation of

the proposed change.

Other redundant, diverse instrumentation

is available to operators to indicate

inadequate core cooling.

Since RVLIS indication has limited use

under normal conditions, performs no

automatic function to mitigate an accident,

and since it is augmented during emergency

conditions by other independent indications

of inadequate core cooling, its increased

[allowed outage time] AOT does not involve

a significant increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated.

2. The proposed change does not create the

possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from any accident previously

evaluated.

RVLIS is a Post Accident Monitoring

System which does not initiate a transient or

initiate any mitigating function. RVLIS’s

function is to assist the operator once an

accident occurs.

Since no hardware changes are being made

by this proposal and since the RVLIS is

utilized as a post-accident monitoring system

and is not considered a contributor to an

accident, implementation of the proposed

change does not create the possibility of a

new or different kind of accident from any

accident previously evaluated.

3. The proposed change does not involve

a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

The proposed amendment to TS Table 3.3–

11 will permit vendor recommended

preventive maintenance-type activities to be

performed on RVLIS following startups from

extended outages. This will, potentially,

enhance RVLIS reliability and availability

and ensure that EOP [emergency operating

procedure] data continues to be accurate.

Since the RVLIS is a post-accident

monitoring system that has no automatic

initiation function, changing the AOT will

have no significant impact on the margin of

safety provided by RVLIS. In addition, since

there are independent, diverse indications of

inadequate core cooling available to the

operator, changing the AOT for RVLIS will

not significantly reduce the margin of safety

provided by the post-accident monitoring

system.

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

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 Rules Review and

Directives Branch, Division of Freedom

of Information and Publications

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 6D22, 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 17, 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 Salem

Free Public Library, 112 West

Broadway, Salem, New Jersey. 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
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 117 / Monday, June 17, 1996 / Notices 30643

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:

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 John F.

Stolz: 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–

0001, and to Mark J. Wetterhahn,

Esquire, Winstron and 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 May 31, 1996, 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

Salem Free Public Library, 112 West

Broadway, Salem, New Jersey.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day

of June 1996.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Leonard N. Olshan,

Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate

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

of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 96–15261 Filed 6–14–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

[Docket Nos. 50–247 and 50–286]

Consolidated Edison Company of New

York; Indian Point Nuclear Generating

Units 2 and 3; Issuance of Director’s

Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206

Notice is hereby given that the

Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation, has taken action with regard

to a Petition dated May 18, 1995, by Ms.

Connie Hogarth (Petition for action

under 10 CFR 2.206). The Petition

pertains to Indian Point Nuclear

Generating Units 2 and 3.

In the Petition, the Petitioner

requested that the operating licenses for

Indian Point Units 2 and 3 be

suspended until the licensees have

completed the actions requested by

Generic Letter 95–03. The Petitioner

also requested that the U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission hold a public

meeting in the vicinity of the plant to

explain its response to this request.

The Director, Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation, has determined to

deny the Petition. The reasons for this

denial are explained in the ‘‘Director’s

Decision Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206’’

(DD–96–06), the complete text of which

follows this notice, and is available for

public inspection at the Commission’s

Public Document Room, the Gelman

Building, 2120 L Street, NW.,

Washington, D.C.

A copy of the Decision will be filed

with the Secretary of the Commission

for the Commission’s review in

accordance with 10 CFR 2.206(c) of the

Commission’s regulations. As provided

by this regulation, the Decision will

constitute the final action of the

Commission 25 days after the date of

issuance unless the Commission, on its

own motion, institutes a review of the

Decision within that time.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day

of June 1996.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

William T. Russell,

Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

ATTACHMENT TO ISSUANCE OF

DIRECTOR’S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR

2.206–96–06

Director’s Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206

I. Introduction

On May 18, 1995, Ms. Connie Hogarth

(Petitioner) filed a Petition with the U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206. The

Petitioner requested that the operating

licenses for Indian Point Nuclear

Generating Units 2 and 3 be suspended

until the licensees have completed the

actions requested by Generic Letter (GL)

95–03, ‘‘Circumferential Cracking of

Steam Generator Tubes.’’ The Petitioner

also requested that the NRC hold a

public meeting to explain its response to

the suspension request.

The Petitioner stated that the impetus

for GL 95–03 was the discovery at the

Maine Yankee plant of steam generator

tube cracks that had previously gone

undetected due to inadequate

inspection procedures. The Petitioner

also stated that while GL 95–03 calls for

comprehensive examination of steam

generator tubes, it appears to allow

licensees to postpone their evaluations

until the next scheduled inspection.

On June 16, 1995, I informed the

Petitioner that the Petition had been