34880 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 3, 1996 / Notices

Dated: June 27, 1996.

Gerald B. Lindrew,

Director, Pension and Welfare Benefits

Administration, Office of Policy and

Legislative Analysis.

[FR Doc. 96–17045 Filed 7–2–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–29–M

Working Group on Guidance for

Selecting and Monitoring Service

Providers Advisory Council on

Employee Welfare and Pension

Benefits Plans; Meeting

Pursuant to the authority contained in

section 512 of the Employee Retirement

Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29

U.S.C. 1142, a public meeting of the

Working Group on Guidance for

Selecting and Monitoring Service

Providers of the Advisory Council on

Employee Welfare and Pension Benefits

Plans will be held on July 16, 1996, in

Room S3215 A & B, U.S. Department of

Labor Building, Third and Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210.

The purpose of the meeting, which

will run from 9:30 a.m. to noon and

from 1 to 3:30 p.m., is for the group to

determine whether its focus will be on

what type of general guidance would be

useful to fiduciaries who must select

and monitor service providers for plans

or whether its focus should be narrowed

to specific service providers such as

investment consultants and investment

managers.

The group also plans to conduct an

informal survey on codes of conduct in

the plan community to establish current

industry practices.

Members of the public are encouraged

to file a written statement pertaining to

any topic concerning ERISA by

submitting 20 copies on or before July

5, 1996, to Sharon Morrissey, acting

executive secretary, ERISA Advisory

Council, U.S. Department of Labor,

Room N–5677, 200 Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210.

Individuals or representatives of

organizations wishing to address the

Working Group on Guidance for

Selecting and Monitoring Service

Providers should forward their request

to the acting executive secretary or

telephone (202) 219–8753. Oral

presentations will be limited to 10

minutes, but an extended statement may

be submitted for the record. Individuals

with disabilities, who need special

accommodations, should contact Sharon

Morrissey by July 10, 1996, at the

address indicated in this notice.

Organizations or individuals may also

submit statements for the record

without testifying. Twenty (20) copies of

such statements should be sent to the

Acting Executive Secretary of the

Advisory Council at the above address.

Papers will be accepted and included in

the record of the meeting if received on

or before July 5.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 27th day of

June 1996.

Olena Berg,

Assistant Secretary, Pension and Welfare

Benefits Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–17046 Filed 7–2–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–29–M

NATIONAL BANKRUPTCY REVIEW

COMMISSION

Meeting

AGENCY: National Bankruptcy Review

Commission

ACTION: Notice of Public Meeting

TIME AND DATES: Thursday, July 18,

1996; 9 A.M. to 4:45 P.M. and Friday,

July 19, 1996; 8:30 A.M. to 2:30 P.M.

PLACE: Thurgood Marshall Federal

Judiciary Building, Federal Judicial

Center/Education Center, One

Columbus Circle, NE., Washington, DC

20544. The public should enter through

the South Lobby entrance of the

Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary

Building.

STATUS: The meeting will be open to the

public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: General

administrative matters for the

Commission, including substantive

agenda; Commission working groups

will consider the following substantive

matters: improving jurisdiction and

procedure; consumer bankruptcy;

Chapter 11: uses and consequences;

small businesses and partnerships: a

special case?; government as creditor or

debtor; mass torts, future claims, and

bankruptcy; service to the estate: ethical

and economic choices; the global

economy: preparing for transnational

insolvencies. An open forum for public

participation will be held on July 18,

1996 from 11:15 a.m. to 12 p.m.

CONTACT PERSONS FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION: Contact Susan JensenConklin or Carmelita Pratt at the

National Bankruptcy Review

Commission, Thurgood Marshall

Federal Judiciary Building, One

Columbus Circle, NE., Suite G–350,

Washington, DC 20544; Telephone

Number: (202) 273–1813.

Susan Jensen-Conklin,

Deputy Counsel.

[FR Doc. 96–17017 Filed 7–2–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6820–36–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–348 and 50–364]

Southern Nuclear Operating Company,

Inc.; Notice of Consideration of

Issuance of Amendment 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. NPF–2

and NPF–8, issued to Southern Nuclear

Operating Company, Inc. (the licensee),

for operation of the Joseph M. Farley

Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 located in

Houston County, Alabama.

The proposed amendments would

revise Technical Specification (TS)

Table 4.3–1 to delete the requirement

for surveillance of the manual safety

injection to the reactor trip circuitry

until the next unit shutdown, following

which, this testing will be performed

prior to Mode 2 entry. This change is

applicable only during Unit 1, cycle 14

and Unit 2, cycle 11.

This requested TS change is a

followup to a Notice of Enforcement

Discretion (NOED) granted to the

licensee that is in effect from the time

of issuance on June 21, 1996, until

approval of this exigent TS. NRC

Inspection Manual, Part 9900,

‘‘Operations—Notice of Enforcement

Discretion,’’ requires that a followup TS

amendment be issued within 4 weeks

from the issuance of the NOED.

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.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6) for

amendments to be granted under

exigent circumstances, the NRC staff

must determine 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:
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 3, 1996 / Notices 34881

1. Operation of the Farley Nuclear Plant

Units 1 and 2 in accordance with the

proposed license amendment does not

involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of an accident

previously evaluated.

Since the SI [safety injection] manual

actuation handswitch is not taken credit for

in any transient or accident analyses,

including LOCA [loss-of-coolant accident],

non-LOCA, and steam generator tube rupture

for either safety injection and/or reactor trip,

failure to test the reactor trip function of the

manually initiated SI signal for the remainder

of operating cycle or following each units

shutdown, prior to Mode 2 entry, would not

increase the probability or consequences of

an accident previously evaluated. In

addition, operator action required by

procedures will ensure that a reactor trip is

verified to have occurred anytime SI is

automatically actuated and prior to manual

SI actuation.

2. The proposed license amendment does

not create the possibility of a new or different

kind of accident from any accident

previously evaluated.

Implementation of the proposed

amendment does not introduce any change to

the plant design basis. Any hypothetical

failure of the handswitch contacts to cause a

failure to manually trip the reactor is

compensated for by the redundant trip

features associated with the reactor trip

system. Examples are the reactor manual trip

handswitch, reactor trip setpoints set to

actuate prior to reaching SI setpoints, and the

redundant train manual SI handswitch.

Therefore, SNC [Southern Nuclear Operating

Company] concludes that the proposed

license amendment does not create the

possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from any accident previously

evaluated.

3. The proposed license amendment does

not involve a significant reduction in a

margin of safety.

Changing the surveillance frequency to

allow for continued operation with the SI

manual input to reactor trip system not tested

does not involve a reduction in the margin

of safety because of the redundant features

associated with the reactor trip system and

because of operator actions required by

emergency response procedures (ERPs). In

addition, for power levels above 35% RTP

[rated thermal power], the SI handswitch has

been shown to result in the intended

function by tripping the reactor through the

turbine trip logic. Therefore, SNC concludes

based on the above, that the proposed change

does not result in a significant reduction of

margin with respect to plant safety as defined

in the Final Safety Analysis Report or the

bases of the FNP [Farley Nuclear Plant]

technical specifications.

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 15 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 15-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

15-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. 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 2, 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 HoustonLove Memorial Library, 212 W.

Burdeshaw Street, P.O. Box 1369,

Dothan, Alabama. 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
34882 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 3, 1996 / Notices

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 20555–0001, 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 Herbert

N. Berkow: 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 M. Stanford

Blanton, Esq., Balch and Bingham, P.O.

Box 306, 1710 Sixth Avenue,

Birmingham, Alabama, 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 24, 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

Houston-Love Memorial Library, 212 W.

Burdeshaw Street, P.O. Box 1369,

Dothan, Alabama.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day

of June 1996.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Byron L. Siegel,

Project Manager, Project Directorate II–2,

Division of Reactor Projects—I/II, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 96–16964 Filed 7–2–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

Boraflex Degradation in Spent Fuel

Pool Storage Racks; Issued

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of Issuance.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) has issued Generic

Letter 96–04 to notify all licensees of

nuclear power reactors about problems

that have been encountered with using

Boraflex in spent fuel storage racks for

the nonproductive absorption of

neutrons, and for licensees that use

Boraflex, to request implementation of

certain actions and require the submittal

of a written response. This generic letter

is available in the NRC Public

Document Room under accession

number 9606240132.

DATES: The generic letter was issued on

June 26, 1996.

ADDRESSEES: Not applicable.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Laurence I. Kopp at (301) 415–2879.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

information that is being requested will

enable the NRC staff to determine

whether licensees are complying with

the current licensing basis for the

facility with respect to GDC 62 for the

prevention of criticality in fuel storage

and handling, and 5-percent

subcriticality margins that are either

contained in the technical

specifications, or committed to in the

updated FSARs, of plants containing

Boraflex in the spent fuel storage racks.

The staff is not establishing a new

position for such compliance in this

generic letter.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day

of June, 1996.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Elinor G. Adensam,

Deputy Director, Division of Reactor Program

Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 96–16963 Filed 7–2–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

Advisory Committee on Reactor

Safeguards; Meeting Notice

In accodance with the purposes of

Sections 29 and 182b. of the Atomic

Energy Act (42 U.S.C. 2039, 2232b), the

Advisory Committee on Rector

Safeguards will hold a meeting on

August 8–10, 1996, in Conference Room

T–2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville,

Maryland. The date of this meeting was

previously published in the Federal

Register on Monday, November 27,

1995 (60 FR 58393).

Thursday, August 8, 1996

8:30 A.M.–8:45 A.M.: Opening Remarks

by the ACRS Chairman

(Open)—The ACRS Chairman will

make opening remarks regarding

conduct on the meeting and comment

briefly regarding items of current

interest. During this session, the

Committee will discuss priorities for

preparation of ACRS reports.

8:45 A.M.–10:45 A.M.: Supplemental

Safety Evaluation Report for

Evolutionary Plant Designs

(Open/Closed)—The Committee will

hear presentations by and hold

discussions with representatives of the

NRC staff, General Electric Nuclear

Energy (GENE), and ABB-Combustion

Engineering (ABB–CE) regarding the

proposed changes to the GENE

Advanced Boiling Water Reactor

(ABWR) and ABB–CE System 80+

evolutionary plant designs and the

associated NRC staff Safety Evaluation

Report. Other interested parties will

participate, as appropriate.

A portion of this session may be

closed to discuss GENE and ABB–CE

proprietary information applicable to

this matter.