Nuclear Management Company; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing, 6466-6468 [05-2242]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
6466
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 24 / Monday, February 7, 2005 / Notices
The information collected on reviewer
background questionnaire (NSF 428A) is
used by managers to maintain an
automated database of reviewers for the
many disciplines represented by the
proposals submitted to the Foundation.
Information collected on gender, race,
and ethnicity is used in meeting NSF
needs for data to permit response to
Congressional and other queries into
equity issues. These data also are used
in the design, implementation, and
monitoring of NSF efforts to increase the
participation of various groups in
science, engineering, and education.
Confidentiality
When a decision has been made
(whether an award or a declination),
verbatim copies of reviews, excluding
the identities of the reviewers, and
summaries of review panel
deliberations, if any, are provided to the
PI. A proposer also may request and
obtain any other releasable material in
NSF’s file on his or her proposal.
Everything in the file except
information that directly identifies
either reviewers or other pending or
declined proposals is usually releasable
to the proposer.
While listings of panelists’ names are
released, the names of individual
reviewers, associated with individual
proposals, are not released.
The Foundation collects information
regarding race, ethnicity, disability, and
gender, as noted above. The FOIA and
the Privacy Act protect this information
from public disclosure.
Burden on the Public
The Foundation estimates that
anywhere from one hour to twenty
hours may be required to review a
proposal. It is estimated that
approximately five hours are required to
review an average proposal. Each
proposal receives an average of 6.3
reviews, with a minimum requirement
of three reviews.
Dated: February 2, 2005.
Suzanne H. Plimpton,
Reports Clearance Officer, National Science
Foundation.
[FR Doc. 05–2301 Filed 2–4–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555–01–M
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:04 Feb 04, 2005
Jkt 205001
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50–266 and 50–301]
Nuclear Management Company; Notice
of Consideration of Issuance of
Amendments 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. DPR–
24 and DPR–27 issued to Nuclear
Management Company (the licensee) for
operation of the Point Beach Nuclear
Plant, Units 1 and 2, located in Two
Rivers, Wisconsin.
The proposed amendment would
revise the Point Beach Nuclear Plant
(PBNP), Units 1 and 2, Updated Final
Safety Analysis Report to reflect the
Commission staff’s approval of the
WCAP–14439–P, Revision 2 analysis
entitled, ‘‘Technical Justification for
Eliminating Large Primary Loop Pipe
Rupture as the Structural Design Basis
for the Point Beach Nuclear Plant Units
1 and 2 for the Power Uprate and
License Renewal Program.’’
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 Title 10
of the Code of Federal Regulations (10
CFR), Section 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. Operation of PBNP in accordance with
the proposed amendments does not result in
a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of any accident previously
evaluated.
The proposed change revises the analysis
supporting the PBNP dynamic effects design
basis for primary loop piping. The proposed
change does not adversely affect accident
initiators or precursors nor alter the design
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
assumptions, conditions, or the manner in
which the plant is operated and maintained.
The proposed change does not alter or
prevent the ability of structures, systems, and
components from performing their intended
function to mitigate the consequences of an
initiating event within the assumed
acceptance limits. The proposed change does
not affect the source term, containment
isolation, or radiological release assumptions
used in evaluating the radiological
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated. Further, the proposed change does
not increase the types or amounts of
radioactive effluent that may be released
offsite, nor significantly increase individual
or cumulative occupational/public radiation
exposures. The proposed change is consistent
with safety analysis assumptions and
resultant consequences. Therefore, it is
concluded that this change does not
significantly increase the probability of
occurrence of an accident previously
evaluated.
2. Operation of PBNP in accordance with
the proposed amendments does not result in
a new or different kind of accident from any
accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change revises the analysis
supporting the PBNP dynamic effects design
basis for primary loop piping. The changes
do not impose any new or different
requirements or eliminate any existing
requirements. The changes do not alter
assumptions made in the safety analysis. The
proposed changes are consistent with the
safety analysis assumptions and current plant
operating practice. Therefore, the proposed
change does not create the possibility of a
new or different kind of accident from any
previously evaluated.
3. Operation of PBNP in accordance with
the proposed amendments does not result in
a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The proposed change revises the analysis
supporting the PBNP dynamic effects design
basis for primary loop piping. All the
recommended margins regarding leak-beforebreak conditions (margin on leak rate, margin
on flaw size, and margin on loads) are
satisfied for the primary loop piping. The
proposed change does not alter the manner
in which safety limits, limiting safety system
settings or limiting conditions for operation
are determined. The setpoints at which
protective actions are initiated are not altered
by the proposed changes. Sufficient
equipment remains available to actuate upon
demand for the purpose of mitigating an
analyzed event.
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.
E:\FR\FM\07FEN1.SGM
07FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 24 / Monday, February 7, 2005 / Notices
Normally, the Commission will not
issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of
publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license
amendment before expiration of the 60day period provided that its final
determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards
consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment
prior to the expiration of the 30-day
comment period should circumstances
change during the 30-day comment
period such that failure to act in a
timely way would result, for example in
derating or shutdown of the facility.
Should the Commission take action
prior to the expiration of either the
comment period or the notice period, it
will publish in the Federal Register a
notice of issuance. Should the
Commission make a final No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination,
any hearing will take place 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 and
Directives Branch, Division of
Administrative 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 6D59, Two
White Flint North, 11545 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30
a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays.
Documents may be examined, and/or
copied for a fee, at the NRC’s Public
Document Room, located at One White
Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21,
11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),
Rockville, Maryland.
The filing of requests for hearing and
petitions for leave to intervene is
discussed below.
Within 60 days after the date of
publication of this notice, 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 2.309,
which is available at the Commission’s
PDR, located at One White Flint North,
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:04 Feb 04, 2005
Jkt 205001
Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville
Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
Publicly available records will be
accessible from the Agencywide
Documents Access and Management
System’s (ADAMS) Public Electronic
Reading Room on the Internet at the
NRC Web site, https://www.nrc.gov/
reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a
request for a hearing or petition for
leave to intervene is filed by the above
date, the Commission or a presiding
officer designated by the Commission or
by the Chief Administrative Judge of the
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
Panel, will rule on the request and/or
petition; and the Secretary or the Chief
Administrative Judge of the Atomic
Safety and Licensing Board will issue a
notice of a hearing or an appropriate
order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, 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 general requirements: (1) The
name, address and telephone number of
the requestor or petitioner; (2) the
nature of the requestor’s/petitioner’s
right under the Act to be made a party
to the proceeding; (3) the nature and
extent of the requestor’s/petitioner’s
property, financial, or other interest in
the proceeding; and (4) the possible
effect of any decision or order which
may be entered in the proceeding on the
requestors/petitioner’s interest.
The petition must also identify the
specific contentions which the
petitioner/requestor seeks to have
litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a
specific statement of the issue of law or
fact to be raised or controverted. In
addition, the petitioner/requestor shall
provide a brief explanation of the bases
for 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/requestor 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. The
petition must include 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
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
6467
must be one which, if proven, would
entitle the petitioner to relief. A
petitioner/requestor who fails to satisfy
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.
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.
Nontimely requests and/or petitions
and contentions will not be entertained
absent a determination by the
Commission or the presiding officer of
the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
that the petition, request and/or the
contentions should be granted based on
a balancing of the factors specified in 10
CFR 2.309(a)(1)(I)–(viii).
A request for a hearing or a petition
for leave to intervene must be filed by:
(1) First class mail addressed to the
Office of the Secretary of the
Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
0001, Attention: Rulemaking and
Adjudications Staff; (2) courier, express
mail, and expedited delivery services:
Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor,
One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852,
Attention: Rulemaking and
Adjudications Staff; (3) E-mail
addressed to the Office of the Secretary,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
HEARINGDOCKET@NRC.GOV; or (4)
facsimile transmission addressed to the
Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC, Attention: Rulemakings and
Adjudications Staff at (301) 415–1101,
verification number is (301) 415–1966.
A copy of the request for hearing and
petition for leave to intervene should
also be sent to the Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
0001, and it is requested that copies be
E:\FR\FM\07FEN1.SGM
07FEN1
6468
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 24 / Monday, February 7, 2005 / Notices
transmitted either by means of facsimile
transmission to 301–415–3725 or by
email to OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. A
copy of the request for hearing and
petition for leave to intervene should
also be sent to Jonathan Rogoff, Esquire,
Vice President, Counsel & Secretary,
Nuclear Management Company, LLC,
700 First Street, Hudson, WI 54016,
attorney for the licensee.
For further details with respect to this
action, see the application for
amendment dated November 5, 2003,
which is available for public inspection
at the Commission’s PDR, located at
One White Flint North, File Public Area
O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first
floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly
available records will be accessible from
the Agencywide Documents Access and
Management System’s (ADAMS) Public
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet
at the NRC Web site, https://
www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.
Persons who do not have access to
ADAMS or who encounter problems in
accessing the documents located in
ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR
Reference staff by telephone at 1–800–
397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by e-mail
to pdr@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 31st day
of January 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Deirdre W. Spaulding,
Project Manager, Section 1, Project
Directorate III, Division of Licensing Project
Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. 05–2242 Filed 2–4–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–U
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 070–07001, Certificate No.
GDP–1, EA–04–123]
United States Enrichment Corporation,
Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant,
Paducah, KY; Confirmatory Order
Modifying License (Effective
Immediately)
The United States Enrichment
Corporation (USEC or Corporation) is
the holder of NRC Certificate of
Compliance No. GDP–1 issued by the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC
or Commission) pursuant to 10 CFR Part
76. The certificate authorizes USEC to
receive, and licensees shall be
authorized to transfer to the
Corporation, byproduct material, source
material, or special nuclear material to
the extent permitted under the
Certificate of Compliance. The
certificate was issued November 26,
1996, was most recently amended on
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:04 Feb 04, 2005
Jkt 205001
June 30, 2004, and is due to expire on
December 31, 2008.
On December 16, 2002, the NRC’s
Office of Investigations (OI) started an
investigation to determine whether a
Quality Control (QC) Manager at USEC’s
Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant
(PGDP) was discriminated against by
being suspended and later terminated
for raising safety concerns. On May 12,
2003, OI expanded its investigation to
determine whether the same QC
Manager was discriminated against, in
retaliation for the previously raised
safety concerns, by not being considered
for a position with a contractor
performing work for USEC at PGDP. OI,
in OI report No. 3–2002–040, did not
substantiate that the QC Manager was
suspended or terminated because of
raising safety concerns. However, based
on the facts and circumstances
described in OI Report Number 3–2002–
040, the NRC was concerned that the
former QC Manager may have been
discriminated against by not being
considered for a contract position. By
letter dated September 29, 2004, the
NRC identified to USEC the NRC’s
concern. The September 29th letter
offered USEC the opportunity either to
attend a predecisional enforcement
conference (PEC) or to request
alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in
which a neutral mediator with no
decision-making authority would
facilitate discussions between the NRC
and USEC and, if possible, assist the
NRC and USEC in reaching an
agreement on resolving the concern.
USEC chose to participate in ADR. On
November 22, 2004, the NRC and USEC
met at USEC headquarters in Bethesda,
Maryland in an ADR session mediated
by a professional mediator, arranged
through Cornell University’s Institute on
Conflict Resolution.
By letter dated December 6, 2004,
USEC enumerated the actions it has
already taken and additional actions it
agreed to take in order to enhance its
Safety Conscious Work Environment at
the PGDP. The agreed-upon additional
actions noted in Section IV of this
Confirmatory Order focus on Safety
Conscious Work Environment training
for managers of USEC contractors at the
PGDP and USEC managers who are
principal points of contact for USEC
contractors at the PGDP.
On January 24, 2005, USEC consented
to the NRC issuing this Confirmatory
Order with the commitments, as
described in Section IV below. USEC
further agreed in its January 24, 2005,
letter that this Confirmatory Order is to
be effective upon issuance and that it
has waived its right to a hearing. The
NRC has concluded that its concerns
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
can be resolved through effective
implementation of USEC’s
commitments.
I find that USEC’s commitments as set
forth in Section IV are acceptable and
necessary and conclude that with these
commitments the public health and
safety are reasonably assured. In view of
the foregoing, I have determined that the
public health and safety require that
USEC’s commitments be confirmed by
this Order. Based on the above and
USEC’s consent, this Order is
immediately effective upon issuance.
USEC is required to provide the NRC
with a letter summarizing its actions
when all of the Section IV requirements
have been completed.
Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 81,
161b, 161i, 161o, 182, 186 and 1710 of
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended, and the Commission’s
regulations in 10 CFR 2.202 and 10 CFR
Part 76, it is hereby ordered, effective
immediately, that Certificate of
Compliance No. GDP–1 is modified as
follows:
1. By no later than March 31, 2005,
USEC shall develop and conduct initial
Safety Conscious Work Environment
training for: (a) Managers of USEC
contractors at the PGDP; and (b) USEC
personnel who are principal points of
contact for USEC contractors at the
PGDP.
2. By no later than June 30, 2005,
USEC shall develop Safety Conscious
Work Environment refresher training for
the managers of USEC contractors at the
PGDP and revise its training program
requirements to conduct on-going
refresher training at a frequency
consistent with USEC’s General
Employee Training at the PGDP.
3. By no later than June 30, 2005,
USEC shall revise its training program
requirements to conduct initial Safety
Conscious Work Environment training
for: (a) New managers of USEC
contractors at the PGDP; and (b) USEC
personnel who become principal points
of contact for USEC contractors at the
PGDP, within ninety day of their
assumption of these duties.
The Director, Office of Enforcement,
may relax or rescind, in writing, any of
the above conditions upon a showing by
USEC of good cause.
Any person adversely affected by this
Confirmatory Order, other than the
Certificate holder, may request a hearing
within 20 days of its issuance. Where
good cause is shown, consideration will
be given to extending the time to request
a hearing. A request for extension of
time must be made in writing to the
Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555, and include a
E:\FR\FM\07FEN1.SGM
07FEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 24 (Monday, February 7, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6466-6468]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-2242]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301]
Nuclear Management Company; Notice of Consideration of Issuance
of Amendments 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.
DPR-24 and DPR-27 issued to Nuclear Management Company (the licensee)
for operation of the Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, located
in Two Rivers, Wisconsin.
The proposed amendment would revise the Point Beach Nuclear Plant
(PBNP), Units 1 and 2, Updated Final Safety Analysis Report to reflect
the Commission staff's approval of the WCAP-14439-P, Revision 2
analysis entitled, ``Technical Justification for Eliminating Large
Primary Loop Pipe Rupture as the Structural Design Basis for the Point
Beach Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 for the Power Uprate and License
Renewal Program.''
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 Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(10 CFR), Section 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. Operation of PBNP in accordance with the proposed amendments
does not result in a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change revises the analysis supporting the PBNP
dynamic effects design basis for primary loop piping. The proposed
change does not adversely affect accident initiators or precursors
nor alter the design assumptions, conditions, or the manner in which
the plant is operated and maintained. The proposed change does not
alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems, and components
from performing their intended function to mitigate the consequences
of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. The
proposed change does not affect the source term, containment
isolation, or radiological release assumptions used in evaluating
the radiological consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Further, the proposed change does not increase the types or amounts
of radioactive effluent that may be released offsite, nor
significantly increase individual or cumulative occupational/public
radiation exposures. The proposed change is consistent with safety
analysis assumptions and resultant consequences. Therefore, it is
concluded that this change does not significantly increase the
probability of occurrence of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Operation of PBNP in accordance with the proposed amendments
does not result in a new or different kind of accident from any
accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change revises the analysis supporting the PBNP
dynamic effects design basis for primary loop piping. The changes do
not impose any new or different requirements or eliminate any
existing requirements. The changes do not alter assumptions made in
the safety analysis. The proposed changes are consistent with the
safety analysis assumptions and current plant operating practice.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a
new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Operation of PBNP in accordance with the proposed amendments
does not result in a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The proposed change revises the analysis supporting the PBNP
dynamic effects design basis for primary loop piping. All the
recommended margins regarding leak-before-break conditions (margin
on leak rate, margin on flaw size, and margin on loads) are
satisfied for the primary loop piping. The proposed change does not
alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system
settings or limiting conditions for operation are determined. The
setpoints at which protective actions are initiated are not altered
by the proposed changes. Sufficient equipment remains available to
actuate upon demand for the purpose of mitigating an analyzed event.
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.
[[Page 6467]]
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result,
for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment
period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place 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 and
Directives Branch, Division of Administrative 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 6D59, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. Documents may
be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document
Room, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to
intervene is discussed below.
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, 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 2.309, which is available at the
Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area
01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide
Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic
Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, https://www.nrc.gov/
reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition
for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or a
presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief
Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel,
will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the
Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, 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 general requirements: (1) The name, address and telephone
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the
proceeding on the requestors/petitioner's interest.
The petition must also identify the specific contentions which the
petitioner/requestor seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the
petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for
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/requestor 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.
The petition must include 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/requestor
who fails to satisfy 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.
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.
Nontimely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be
entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the presiding
officer of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition,
request and/or the contentions should be granted based on a balancing
of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(a)(1)(I)-(viii).
A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must
be filed by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the
Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications
Staff; (2) courier, express mail, and expedited delivery services:
Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and
Adjudications Staff; (3) E-mail addressed to the Office of the
Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, HEARINGDOCKET@NRC.GOV;
or (4) facsimile transmission addressed to the Office of the Secretary,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Attention:
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff at (301) 415-1101, verification
number is (301) 415-1966. A copy of the request for hearing and
petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to the Office of
the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001, and it is requested that copies be
[[Page 6468]]
transmitted either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725
or by email to OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. A copy of the request for hearing
and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to Jonathan
Rogoff, Esquire, Vice President, Counsel & Secretary, Nuclear
Management Company, LLC, 700 First Street, Hudson, WI 54016, attorney
for the licensee.
For further details with respect to this action, see the
application for amendment dated November 5, 2003, which is available
for public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One White
Flint North, File Public Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first
floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be
accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's
(ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web
site, https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have
access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents
located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by
telephone at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 31st day of January 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Deirdre W. Spaulding,
Project Manager, Section 1, Project Directorate III, Division of
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 05-2242 Filed 2-4-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-U
