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
30644 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 117 / Monday, June 17, 1996 / Notices

referred to my office for preparation of

a Director’s Decision. I informed the

Petitioner that her request for immediate

suspension of the operating licenses of

Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2

and 3 was denied because the continued

operation of these units posed no undue

risk to public health and safety. I further

informed the Petitioner that her request

for a public meeting to explain the

denial of her request for license

suspension was denied, primarily

because the NRC assessment of risk

associated with steam generator tube

rupture events has already been

articulated in public documents.

II. Discussion

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 required by GL

95–03. The Petitioner’s request appears

to be based on her belief that without

the immediate completion of the

requested actions of GL 95–03, the

steam generators in Indian Point

Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3 could

be susceptible to one or more steam

generator tube ruptures brought about

by existing circumferential cracks.

Generic Letter 95–03 was issued on

April 28, 1995, after Maine Yankee shut

down due to primary-to-secondary

leakage through theretofore undetected

circumferential steam generator tube

cracks. The generic letter was intended

to alert licensees to the importance of

performing steam generator inspections

with equipment capable of detecting

degeneration to which the steam

generator tubes are susceptible. GL–95–

03 requested three actions of licensees

of pressurized water reactors. It

requested (1) that they evaluate their

operating experience to determine

whether or not they could have a

circumferential cracking problem, (2)

that based on this evaluation they

develop a safety assessment justifying

continued operation until the next

scheduled steam generator tube

inspection, and (3) that they develop a

plan for inspecting for circumferential

cracking during the next steam

generator tube inspection.

Stress corrosion cracking of the Indian

Point Unit 2 steam generator tubes was

first detected during the 1993 refueling

outage. During the 1995 refueling outage

Unit 2 conducted a steam generator

inspection as required by their technical

specifications; this inspection included

a complete examination of all areas

deemed most susceptible to

circumferential cracking. This

inspection, which used enhanced

techniques and eddy current probes

sensitive to indications of

circumferential cracking, identified 114

tubes with potential circumferential

crack indications; however, these may

actually have been closely spaced axial

indications. Since the licensee could not

conclusively determine that these 114

tubes did not contain indications of

circumferential cracks the worst case

was assumed, that is, that the

indications were in fact circumferential.

The indications were logged as

circumferential and all of these tubes

were removed from service before the

unit was restarted. All of the logged

circumferential indications were deep

within the tubesheet. The fact that the

indications were all within the

tubesheet is significant since, if a

circumferential failure were to occur at

this location, the structural strength lent

to the tubes by the tubesheet would

reduce the amount of primary-to

secondary leakage. The licensee for

Indian Point Unit 2 will continue to use

inspection techniques capable of

detecting circumferentially oriented

tube degradation.

Because pitting corrosion had caused

deterioration of the Indian Point Unit 3

steam generators, they were replaced in

1989 with steam generators designed

and fabricated to reduce the possibility

of corrosion-related problems;

specifically, the new generators have

tubes made of thermally treated Alloy

690. Four other nuclear plants in the

United States have thermally treated

Alloy 690 tubes and to date neither

Indian Point Unit 3 nor any of the other

four units have experienced tube cracks.

Circumferential cracking of steam

generator tubes is accompanied by other

forms of tube degradation that are

readily detected by bobbin coil

inspections. Since the bobbin coil

inspections at Indian Point 3 have

detected no service induced tube

degradation, the staff has concluded that

Indian Point 3 does not have a

circumferential tube cracking problem.

Indian Point 3 has not yet experienced

steam generator tube degradation;

nevertheless, the licensee has

committed to performing an augmented

inspection for indications of

circumferential cracking during the next

scheduled steam generator inspection.

Unit 3 is currently operating and this

inspection is required by May 1997.

The requirements placed on licensees

to ensure steam generator tube integrity

go beyond the requested actions of GL–

95–03. Steam generator tube

degradation is dealt with through a

combination of inservice inspection,

tube plugging and repair criteria,

primary-to-secondary leak rate

monitoring, and water chemistry

analysis. In addition to the steam

generator inspections required by their

technical specifications, both Indian

Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3

are required to monitor primary-tosecondary leakage to ensure that, in the

event that steam generator tubes begin

to leak, operators will be able to bring

the plant to a depressurized condition

before a tube ruptures. In addition, both

units are required to implement

secondary water chemistry management

programs that are designed to minimize

steam generator tube corrosion.

The layers of protection that licensees

are required to implement make

multiple steam generator tube ruptures

unlikely events. The NRC issued the

results of its study of the risk and

potential consequences of a range of

steam generator tube rupture events in

NUREG–0844, ‘‘NRC Integrated Program

for the Resolution of Unresolved Safety

Issues A–3, A–4, and A–5 Regarding

Steam Generator Tube Integrity’’ dated

September 1988. The staff estimated the

risk contribution due to the potential for

multiple steam generator tube ruptures.

A combination of circumstances is

required to produce such failures,

specifically: (1) A main steam line break

or other loss of secondary system

integrity, (2) the existence of a large

number of tubes susceptible to rupture

in a particular steam generator, (3) the

failure of operators to take action to

avoid high differential pressure, and (4)

the actual simultaneous rupture of a

large number of tubes. In the NUREG–

0844 assessment, the staff concluded

that the probability of simultaneous

multiple tube failure was small

(approximately 10¥5), and the risk

resulting from releases during steam

generator tube ruptures with loss of

secondary system integrity was also

small.

III. Conclusion

Based on the facts that (1) adequate

steam generator tube inspections have

been performed at both Indian Point

Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3, (2)

Unit 2 steam generator tubes that

showed signs of circumferential

cracking have been removed from

service, (3) Unit 3 steam generator tubes

show no sign of service induced

corrosion, (4) Items (1), (2), and (3)

above collectively constitute an

acceptable response to the requested

actions of GL–95–03 for both units, (5)

operational limits are placed on primary

to secondary leakage, (6) the risk of

multiple steam generator tube rupture

events is small, and (7) the NRC

assessment of risk associated with steam

generator tube rupture events has

already been articulated in public
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 117 / Monday, June 17, 1996 / Notices 30645

documents (NUREG–0844 and GL 95–

03), I have concluded that neither the

suspension of the licenses of Indian

Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3

nor the holding of a public meeting to

explain this decision is warranted.

The Petitioner’s request for action

pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 is denied. As

provided in 10 CFR 2.206(c), a copy of

the Decision will be filed with the

Secretary of the Commission for the

Commission’s review. This Decision

will constitute the final action of the

Commission 25 days after 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.

[FR Doc. 96–15262 Filed 6–14–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL

MANAGEMENT

Proposed Collection; Comment

Request Review of a Revised

Information Collection RI 30–2, RI 30–

44

AGENCY: Office of Personnel

Management.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(Public Law 104–13, May 22, 1995), this

notice announces that the Office of

Personnel Management will be

submitting to the Office of Management

and Budget a request for clearance of a

revised information collection. RI 30–2,

Annuitant’s Report of Earned Income, is

used annually to determine if disability

retirees under age 60 have earned

income which will result in the

termination of their annuity benefits.

Beginning with the 1995 information

collection, only annuitants who have

qualifying earned income are required

to respond. RI 30–44, Annuitant’s

Report of Income-Followup, is sent to

annuitants whose returned RI 30–2

forms are unusable or damaged.

We estimate 21,000 RI 30–2 forms and

260 RI 30–44 forms are completed

annually. The RI 30–2 takes

approximately 35 minutes to complete

for an estimated annual burden of

12,250 hours. The RI 30–44 takes

approximately 5 minutes to complete

for an estimated annual burden of 22

hours. The total annual estimated

burden is 12,272 hours.

For copies of this proposal, contact

Jim Farron on (202) 418–3208, or E-mail

to jmfarron@mail.opm.gov

DATES: Comments on this proposal

should be received by August 16, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments

to—Victor C. Roy, Chief, Eligibility

Division, Retirement and Insurance

Service, U.S. Office of Personnel

Management, 1900 E Street, NW., Room

2342, Washington, DC 20415.

FOR INFORMATION REGARDING

ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATION CONTACT:

Mary Beth Smith-Toomey, Management

Services Division, (202) 606–0623.

U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Lorraine A. Green,

Deputy Director.

[FR Doc. 96–15215 Filed 6–14–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6325–01–M

January 1996 Pay Adjustments

AGENCY: Office of Personnel

Management.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The rates of basic pay and

locality payments for certain categories

of Federal employees were adjusted in

January 1996, as authorized by the

President. This notice documents those

pay adjustments for the public record.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Brenda Roberts, Office of Compensation

Policy, Human Resources Systems

Service, Office of Personnel

Management, (202) 606–2858 or FAX

(202) 606–4264.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August

31, 1995, the President issued an

alternative plan under the authority of

5 U.S.C. 5303 and 5304a. The

alternative plan set forth the January

1996 pay adjustments for General

Schedule (GS) employees, including a 2-

percent adjustment in GS rates of basic

pay and various adjustments in locality

payments in the 48 contiguous States

and the District of Columbia.

On December 28, 1995, the President

signed Executive Order 12984 (61 FR

237). This order implemented increases

in rates of basic pay for various

categories of Federal employees

effective on the first day of the first

applicable pay period beginning on or

after January 1, 1996. The 1996 General

Schedule, reflecting the 2-percent

general increase approved by the

President, was published in Schedule 1

of Executive Order 12984.

Executive Order 12984 also included

the percentage amounts of the 1996

locality payments as established by the

President’s alternative plan of August

31, 1995. (See section 5 and schedule 9

of Executive Order 12984 (61 FR 246).)

The publication of this notice satisfies

the requirement in section 5(b) of

Executive Order 12984 that OPM

publish appropriate notice of the 1996

locality payments in the Federal

Register.

Locality payments are authorized for

General Schedule employees under 5

U.S.C. 5304 and 5304a. They apply in

the 48 contiguous States and the District

of Columbia. In 1996, there are 27

separate locality pay areas with locality

payments ranging from 4.13 to 9.40

percent. These 1996 locality pay

percentages, which replaced the lower

locality pay percentages that were

applicable in 1995, became effective on

the first day of the first applicable pay

period beginning on or after January 1,

1996. An employee’s locality-adjusted

annual rate of pay is computed by

increasing his of her scheduled annual

rate of basic pay (as defined in 5 U.S.C.

5302 (8) and 5 CFR 531.602) by the

applicable locality pay percentage. (See

5 CFR 531.604 and 531.605.)

On December 8, 1995, the Director of

the Office of Personnel Management

(OPM), on behalf of the President’s Pay

Agent, extended the 1996 locality-based

comparability payments to the same

Governmentwide and single-agency

categories of non-GS employees that

were authorized to receive the 1995

locality payments. The

Governmentwide categories include

members of the Senior Executive

Service, the Foreign Service, and the

Senior Foreign Service; employees in

senior-level (SL) and scientific or

professional (ST) positions;

administrative law judges; and Contract

Appeals Board members.

Schedule 4 of Executive Order 12984

reflected a decision by the President to

increase the rates of basic pay for

members of the Senior Executive

Service by 2 percent at levels ES–1

through ES–5. The rate for ES–6 remains

unchanged, since it cannot exceed the

rate for level IV of the Executive

Schedule, which remains unchanged.

(Public Law 104–52, November 19,

1995, provided that there would be no

increase in the rates of basic pay for the

Executive Schedule. See Schedule 5 of

Executive Order 12984.)

Although not specifically addressed

in Executive Order 12984, rates of basic

pay for certain other Governmentwide

categories of employees were also

adjusted in January 1996. The minimum

rate of basic pay for senior-level (SL)

and scientific or professional (ST)

positions increased by 2 percent (to

$83,160) because it is calculated as a

percentage of the minimum rate of basic

pay for GS–15 of the General Schedule.