34452 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 2, 1996 / Notices

concentration limits for radium,

uranium, and sulfate to be disposed by

deep well injection will not cause

significant environmental impacts.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

Since the NRC staff has concluded

that there are no significant

environmental impacts associated with

the proposed action, any alternatives

with equal or greater environmental

impacts need not be evaluated. The

principal alternative to the proposed

action would be to deny the requested

action. Since the environmental impacts

of the proposed action and this noaction alternative are similar, there is no

need to further evaluate alternatives to

the proposed action.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

The NRC staff consulted with the

State of Nebraska, Department of

Environmental Quality (NDEQ), in the

development of the Environmental

Assessment. A facsimile copy of the

final Environmental Assessment was

transmitted to Mr. Frank Mills of the

NDEQ on June 11, 1996. In a telephone

conversation on June 11, 1996, Mr. Mills

indicated that the NDEQ had no

comments on the Environmental

Assessment.

Finding of No Significant Impact

The NRC staff has prepared an

Environmental Assessment for the

proposed amendment of NRC Source

Material License SUA–1534. On the

basis of this assessment, the NRC staff

has concluded that the environmental

impacts that may result from the

proposed action would not be

significant, and therefore, preparation of

an Environmental Impact Statement is

not warranted.

The Environmental Assessment and

other documents related to this

proposed action are available for public

inspection and copying at the NRC

Public Document Room, in the Gelman

Building, 2120 L Street NW.,

Washington, DC 20555.

Dated at Rockville, MD., this 25th day of

June 1996.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Joseph J. Holonich,

Chief, Uranium Recovery Branch, Division

of Waste Management, Office of Nuclear

Material Safety and Safeguards.

[FR Doc. 96–16876 Filed 7–1–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

[Docket Nos. 50–361 and 50–362]

Southern California Edison Co.; 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 Nos. NPF–

10 and NPF–15 issued to Southern

California Edison Company (the

licensee) for operation of the San Onofre

Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 2

and 3 located in San Diego County,

California.

The proposed amendment would

revise Technical Specifications 3.3.11,

‘‘Post Accident Monitoring

Instrumentation (PAMI),’’ and 5.5.2.13,

‘‘Diesel Fuel Oil Testing Program.’’

Specifically, the number of instruments

required to measure reactor coolant inlet

temperature (Tcold), and reactor coolant

outlet temperature (Thot), will be revised

from two per loop to two (with one per

steam generator). The proposed change

would also revise criteria for diesel fuel

oil testing. The changes described above

would reinstate provisions of the

current San Onofre Nuclear Generating

Station (SONGS), Unit Nos. 2 and 3

technical specifications that were

revised as part of Amendment Nos. 127

and 116. These amendments adopted

the recommendations of NUREG–1432,

‘‘Standard Technical Specifications

Combustion Engineering Plants.’’

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:

1. The proposed change does not involve

a significant increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated.

Proposed Technical Specification Change

Number NPF–10/15–466 (PCN–466),

Supplement 1 addresses modifications to the

Technical Specifications for San Onofre

Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) Units 2

and 3 approved by NRC Amendment Nos.

127 and 116. NRC Amendment Nos. 127 and

116 approved changes to adopt the

recommendations of NUREG–1432,

‘‘Standard Technical Specifications

Combustion Engineering Plants,’’ requested

through Proposed Technical Specification

Change Number NPF–10/15–299 (PCN–299).

The proposed changes were identified during

drafting of the procedure changes required to

implement NRC Amendment Nos. 127 and

116.

PCN–466 Supplement 1 is required to

restore certain provisions of the current

Technical Specifications that were not

properly incorporated in Amendment Nos.

127 and 116. Changes are proposed that

would revise Technical Specification (TS) TS

3.3.11, ‘‘Post Accident Monitoring

Instrumentation (PAMI),’’ and TS 5.5.2.13,

‘‘Diesel Fuel Oil Testing Program.’’

Specifically, the proposed change corrects

the number of instruments required to

measure TCold and THot from two per loop to

two (with one cold leg RDT [RTD] and one

hot leg RTD per steam generator) in TS

3.3.11. Also, the proposed change revises

diesel fuel oil testing requirements specified

in TS 5.5.2.13. In particular, the viscosity

limit specified in the Administrative Controls

is revised to the correct range per ASTM–

D975–81, which is consistent with the Bases

to SR 3.8.3.3. Also, a typographical error in

paragraph b is corrected. The ASTM standard

for sampling fuel oil is restored to ASTM–

D4057–81.

These provisions are contained in the

current Technical Specifications, TS 3/

4.3.3.6, ‘‘Accident Monitoring

Instrumentation,’’ and in SR 4.8.1.1.2.c of TS

3/4.8.1.1, ‘‘A.C. Sources.’’

Operation of the facility would remain

unchanged as a result of the proposed

changes. Therefore, the proposed change will

not involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of any 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.

The proposed change will restore

provisions of the current Technical

Specifications for SONGS Units 2 and 3. The

proposed change would correct the number

of instruments required to be operable to

measure TCold and THot from two per loop to

two (with one cold leg RDT [RTD] and one

hot leg RTD per steam generator), and revise

diesel fuel oil testing requirements.

Operation of the facility would remain

unchanged as a result of the proposed

change. Therefore, the proposed change will

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 change will restore

provisions of the current Technical
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 2, 1996 / Notices 34453

Specifications for SONGS Units 2 and 3 and

make certain changes for clarity. Operation of

the facility would remain unchanged as a

result of the proposed change. Therefore, the

proposed change will not involve a

significant reduction in a margin of safety.

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 Chief, 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 August 1, 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 Main

Library, University of California, P.O.

Box 19557, Irvine, California 92713. 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:

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
34454 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 2, 1996 / Notices

operator should be given Datagram

Identification Number N1023 and the

following message addressed to William

H. Bateman, Director, Project Directorate

IV–2: 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 T. E. Oubre, Esquire,

Southern California Edison Company, P.

O. Box 800, Rosemead, California

91770, 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 June 3, 1996, as

superseded by application dated June

25, 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 Main Library, University

of California, P. O. Box 19557, Irvine,

California 92713.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day

of June 1996.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Mel B. Fields,

Project Manager, Project Directorate IV–2,

Division of Reactor Projects III/IV, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 96–16877 Filed 7–1–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Nuclear

Regulatory Commission.

DATE: Weeks of July 1, 8, 15, and 22,

1996.

PLACE: Commissioners’ Conference

Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,

Maryland.

STATUS: Public and Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

Week of July 1

Tuesday, July 2

10:00 a.m.

Briefing on Alternatives for Regulating

Fuel Cycle Facilities (Public Meeting)

(Contact: Ted Sherr, 301–415–7218)

Wednesday, July 3

10:00 a.m.

Briefing on BPR Project on Redesigned

Material Licensing Process (Public

Meeting)

(Contact: Pat Rathbun, 301–415–7178)

11:30 a.m.

Affirmation Session (Public Meeting) (if

needed)

Week of July 8—Tentative

Wednesday, July 10

11:30 a.m.

Affirmation Session (Public Meeting) (if

needed)

Week of July 15—Tentative

There are no meetings scheduled for the

Week of July 15.

Week of July 22—Tentative

There are no meetings scheduled for the

Week of July 22.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: By a vote of 3–

0 on June 26, the Commission

determined pursuant to U.S.C. 552b(e)

and § 9.107(a) of the Commission’s rules

that ‘‘Affirmation of Innovative

Weaponry, Inc.—Request for a Hearing’’

(Public Meeting) be held on June 26,

and on less than one weeks’ notice to

the public.

The schedule for Commission

meetings is subject to change on short

notice. To verify the status of meetings

call (Recording)—(301) 415–1292.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Bill Hill (301 415–1661.

The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule

can be found on the Internet at:

http://www.nrc.gov/SECY/smj/schedule.htm.

This notice is distributed by mail to several

hundred subscribers; if you no longer wish

to receive it, or would like to be added to it,

please contact the Office of the Secretary,

Attn: Operations Branch, Washington, D.C.

20555 (301–415–1963).

In addition, distribution of this meeting

notice over the internet system is available.

If you are interested in receiving this

Commission meeting schedule electronically,

please send an electronic message to

alb@nrc.gov or dkw@nrc.gov.

Dated: June 28, 1996.

William M. Hill, Jr.,

SECY Tracking Officer, Office of the

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–17011 Filed 6–28–96; 2:29 pm]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

[Docket Nos. 50–528, 50–529 and 50–530]

Arizona Public Service Company; Palo

Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Unit

Nos. 1, 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 acted on a Petition for

action under 10 CFR § 2.206 received

from Mr. Thomas J. Saporito, Jr., on

behalf of Florida Energy Consultants,

Inc., dated May 27, 1994, as

supplemented on July 8, 1994, for the

Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station,

Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3.

In a letter dated May 27, 1994, the

Petitioner requested that the NRC (1)

institute a show-cause proceeding

pursuant to 10 CFR § 2.202 to modify,

suspend, or revoke the operating

licenses for Palo Verde; (2) issue a

notice of violation against the licensee

for continuing to employ The Atlantic

Group (TAG) as a labor contractor at

Palo Verde; (3) investigate alleged

material false statements made by

William F. Conway, Executive Vice

President at Palo Verde, during his

testimony at a Department of Labor

hearing (ERA Case No. 92–ERA–030)

and, in the interim, require that he be

relieved of any authority over

operations at Palo Verde; (4) investigate

the licensee’s statements in a letter of

August 10, 1993, from Mr. Conway to

the former NRC regional administrator,

Mr. Bobby H. Faulkenberry, that Mr.

Saporito gave materially false,

inaccurate, and incomplete information

on his application for unescorted access

to Palo Verde and that, as a result, he

lacks trustworthiness and reliability for

access to Palo Verde; (5) investigate the

circumstances surrounding the February

1994 termination of licensee employee

Joseph Straub, a former radiation

protection technician at Palo Verde, to

determine if his employment was

illegally terminated by the licensee

because he engaged in ‘‘protected

activity’’ during the course of his

employment; (6) require the licensee to

respond to a ‘‘chilling effect’’ letter

regarding the circumstances

surrounding Mr. Straub’s termination

from Palo Verde and to specify whether

any measures were taken to ensure that

his termination did not have a chilling

effect at Palo Verde; and (7) initiate

appropriate actions to require the

licensee to immediately conduct eddy

current testing on all steam generators at

Palo Verde because the steam generator

tubes were recently found to be subject

to cracking.

In a letter dated July 8, 1994, the

Petitioner raised six additional issues.

This supplemental Petition asked the

NRC to (1) institute a show-cause

proceeding pursuant to 10 CFR § 2.202

for the modification, suspension, or

revocation of the Palo Verde operating

licenses for Units 1, 2, and 3; (2) modify

the Palo Verde operating licenses to

require operation at 86-percent power or

less; (3) require the licensee to submit

a No Significant Hazards safety analysis