STP Nuclear Operating Company; South Texas Project, Units 1 And 2; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing, 32332-32334 [E7-11300]

Download as PDF 32332 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Notices NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos . 50–097 and 50–157] cprice-sewell on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES Notice of License Terminations for Cornell University Zero Power Reactor (ZPR) and Cornell University Triga Reactor The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is noticing the termination of Facility Operating License No. R–89 for the Zero Power Reactor (ZPR) and Facility Operating License No. R–80 for the TRIGA Reactor. The NRC has terminated the license of the decommissioned ZPR and TRIGA reactor, at the Ward Center for Nuclear Studies (Ward Center) on the Cornell University campus in Cornell, New York, and has released the site for unrestricted use. The licensee requested termination of the license in a letter to NRC dated February 28, 2007. The Ward Center TRIGA Reactor and ZPR provided training for Nuclear Engineering students and various services for researchers in all departments of the College of Engineering, the College of Arts and Sciences (departments of Physics, Chemistry, Biology) and the College of Veterinary Medicine. The University permanently ceased operation of the ZPR on September 6, 1996. Cornell University stopped routine operation of the Ward Center TRIGA Reactor on June 30, 2002. Cornell submitted the Decommissioning Plan for the Ward Center on August 22, 2003, as supplemented on May 13, September 27, October 26 and December 13, 2005, and February 13, 2006. The NRC approved the Cornell decommissioning plan by Amendment No. 8, dated June 6, 2006, and by Amendment No. 14, dated June 15, 2006, for the Cornell TRIGA reactor and Cornell ZPR facility respectively. Cornell submitted the Final Status Survey (FSS) Plan for the Ward Center on October 10, 2006. The NRC approved the FSS Plan by letter dated October 26, 2006, noting that the survey plan was consistent with the guidance in NUREG–1757, ‘‘Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance’’ and the MARSSIM [Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual] methodology. Cornell submitted the FSS report for the former Ward Center on January 19, 2007. The NRC approved the FSS report by letter dated February 8, 2007, noting that the survey data was in accordance with the Decommissioning Plan and the FSS Plan. The report documented that VerDate Aug<31>2005 11:38 Jun 11, 2007 Jkt 211001 compliance with the criteria in the NRCapproved decommissioning plan for both reactors had been demonstrated. On April 27, 2007, NRC Region I issued inspection reports 05000097/ 2006001 and 05000157/2006001 for the research reactors at the Ward Center. The inspector interviewed licensee staff, observed work in progress, and reviewed selected documents related to the licensee’s FSS measurements. The inspector concluded that measurements, sampling, and analyses performed were consistent with criteria specified in the FSS Plan. The inspector also made confirmatory measurements throughout the facility and obtained six split samples (three exterior soil samples and three slag/gravel samples from beneath the reactor pool) which were submitted to the NRC’s analytical contractor. The confirmatory measurements and confirmatory sample results did not identify radioactive material in excess of the criteria specified in the FSS Plan. Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.82(b)(6), the NRC staff has concluded that both reactors have been decommissioned in accordance with the approved decommissioning plans and that the terminal radiation surveys and associated documentation demonstrate that the facilities and site may be released in accordance with the criteria in the NRC-approved decommissioning plans. Further, on the basis of the decommissioning activities carried out by Cornell, the NRC’s review of the licensee’s final status survey report, the results of NRC inspections conducted at the Ward Center, and the results of NRC confirmatory surveys, the NRC has concluded that the decommissioning process is complete and the facilities and sites may be released for unrestricted use. Therefore Facility Operating License Nos. R–89 and R–80 are terminated. For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the licensee’s letter dated February 28, 2007. The above referenced documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR) at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http:// www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who have problems in accessing the documents in ADAMS should call the NRC PDR reference staff at 1–800–397–4209 or 301–415–4737 or e-mail pdr@nrc.gov. PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day of June 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Keith I. McConnell, Deputy Director, Decommissioning and Uranium Recovery Licensing Directorate, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs. [FR Doc. E7–11333 Filed 6–11–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590–01–P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. 50–498 and 50–499] STP Nuclear Operating Company; South Texas Project, Units 1 And 2; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of amendments to Facility Operating Licenses, numbered NPF–76 and NPF–80, issued to STP Nuclear Operating Company et. al. (the licensee) for operation of the South Texas Project (STP), Units 1 and 2, respectively, located in Matagorda County, Texas. The proposed amendments would provide a new action for selected Technical Specifications (TSs) limiting conditions for operation to permit extending the completion times of action requirements, provided risk is assessed and managed. A new program, the Configuration Risk Management Program (CRMP), would be added to the Administrative Controls of TSs. The amendments request is a pilot submittal in support of risk-informed TS initiative 4b. The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) has separately developed a risk-informed methodology, documented in NEI 06–09 Rev. 0, which provides a method to evaluate and extend completion times using a CRMP in support of initiative 4b. This methodology document has been approved by the NRC staff in a safety evaluation dated May 17, 2007. Before issuance of the proposed license amendments, the Commission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission’s regulations. The Commission has made a proposed determination that the amendments request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission’s regulations in Title 10 E:\FR\FM\12JNN1.SGM 12JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Notices cprice-sewell on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), § 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendments 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. Does the proposed change to the Technical Specifications involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? The proposed changes to the Technical Specifications to add a new TS 3.13.1 and TS 3.13.2 and to change specific TS to apply the new TS 3.13.1 do not involve a significant increase in the probability of an accident previously evaluated because the changes involve no change to the plant or its modes of operation. In addition, the risk-informed configuration management program will be applied to effectively manage the availability of required systems, structures, and components to assure there is no significant increase in the probability of an accident. These proposed changes do not increase the consequences of an accident because the design-basis mitigation function of the affected systems is not changed and the riskinformed configuration management program will be applied to effectively manage the availability of systems, structures and components required to mitigate the consequences of an accident. The application of the risk-informed configuration management program is considered a substantial technological improvement over current methods. Changing TS 6.8.3.k to reference the EPRI [Electric Power Research Institute] RiskManaged Technical Specification Guidelines is an administrative change that establishes the industry standard as the STP licensing basis. Meeting the standard provides additional assurance that the risk management program properly manages the plant configuration risk. Consequently, it does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Changes to the affected TS require some minor grammatical and structure changes to effectively incorporate the reference to TS 3.13.1. These changes are editorial and administrative and have no safety significance. The changes to the TS Index are administrative and have no technical or safety significance. Therefore, none of the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed change to the Technical Specifications create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? VerDate Aug<31>2005 11:38 Jun 11, 2007 Jkt 211001 None of the proposed changes involves a new mode of operation or design configuration. There are no new or different systems, structures, or components proposed by these changes. Therefore, there is no possibility of a new or different kind of accident. 3. Does the proposed change to the Technical Specifications involve a significant reduction to a margin of safety? Proposed new TS 3.13.1 and TS 3.13.2 and the associated changes to the specifications that apply the new TS 3.13.1 implement a risk-informed configuration management program to assure that adequate margins of safety are maintained. Application of these new specifications and the configuration management program considers cumulative effects of multiple systems or components being out of service and does so more effectively than the current Technical Specifications. Therefore, application of these new specifications will not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. Changing TS 6.8.31k to reference the EPRI Risk-Managed Technical Specification Guidelines is an administrative change that establishes the industry standard as the STP licensing basis. Meeting the standard provides additional assurance that the risk management program properly manages the plant configuration risk. Consequently, it does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety. Changes to the affected TS require some minor grammatical and structure changes to effectively incorporate the reference to TS 3.13.1. These changes are editorial and administrative and have no safety significance. The changes to the TS Index are administrative and have no technical or safety significance. Based on the evaluation above, none of the proposed changes involves 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 amendments 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 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 amendments prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period should circumstances PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 32333 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, Rulemaking, Directives and Editing 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 (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1F21, 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 licenses 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 O1F21, 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, http://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 E:\FR\FM\12JNN1.SGM 12JNN1 cprice-sewell on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES 32334 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Notices 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. VerDate Aug<31>2005 11:38 Jun 11, 2007 Jkt 211001 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(c)(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 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 A.H. Gutterman, Esq., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004, the attorney for the licensee. For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated June 6, 2006, which PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 is available for public inspection at the Commission’s PDR, located at One White Flint North, File Public Area O1F21, 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, http:// 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 5th day of June, 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Mohan C Thadani, Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch IV, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E7–11300 Filed 6–11–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590–01–P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Sunshine Federal Register Notice Weeks of June 11, 18, 25, July 2, 9, 16, 2007. PLACE: Commissioners’ Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. STATUS: Public and closed. MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: DATE: Week of June 11, 2007 There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of June 11, 2007. Week of June 18, 2007—Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of June 18, 2007. Week of June 25, 2007—Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of June 25, 2007. Week of July 2, 2007—Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of July 2, 2007. Week of July 9, 2007—Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of July 9, 2007. Week of July 16, 2007—Tentative Wednesday, July 18, 2007 1 p.m. Briefing on Digital Instrumentation and Control (Public Meeting). E:\FR\FM\12JNN1.SGM 12JNN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 112 (Tuesday, June 12, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32332-32334]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-11300]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499]


 STP Nuclear Operating Company; South Texas Project, Units 1 And 
2; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility 
Operating Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration 
Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is 
considering issuance of amendments to Facility Operating Licenses, 
numbered NPF-76 and NPF-80, issued to STP Nuclear Operating Company et. 
al. (the licensee) for operation of the South Texas Project (STP), 
Units 1 and 2, respectively, located in Matagorda County, Texas.
    The proposed amendments would provide a new action for selected 
Technical Specifications (TSs) limiting conditions for operation to 
permit extending the completion times of action requirements, provided 
risk is assessed and managed. A new program, the Configuration Risk 
Management Program (CRMP), would be added to the Administrative 
Controls of TSs.
    The amendments request is a pilot submittal in support of risk-
informed TS initiative 4b. The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) has 
separately developed a risk-informed methodology, documented in NEI 06-
09 Rev. 0, which provides a method to evaluate and extend completion 
times using a CRMP in support of initiative 4b. This methodology 
document has been approved by the NRC staff in a safety evaluation 
dated May 17, 2007.
    Before issuance of the proposed license amendments, the Commission 
will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended (the Act), and the Commission's regulations.
    The Commission has made a proposed determination that the 
amendments request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under 
the Commission's regulations in Title 10

[[Page 32333]]

of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Sec.  50.92, this means 
that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed 
amendments 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. Does the proposed change to the Technical Specifications 
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of 
an accident previously evaluated?
    The proposed changes to the Technical Specifications to add a 
new TS 3.13.1 and TS 3.13.2 and to change specific TS to apply the 
new TS 3.13.1 do not involve a significant increase in the 
probability of an accident previously evaluated because the changes 
involve no change to the plant or its modes of operation. In 
addition, the risk-informed configuration management program will be 
applied to effectively manage the availability of required systems, 
structures, and components to assure there is no significant 
increase in the probability of an accident. These proposed changes 
do not increase the consequences of an accident because the design-
basis mitigation function of the affected systems is not changed and 
the risk-informed configuration management program will be applied 
to effectively manage the availability of systems, structures and 
components required to mitigate the consequences of an accident. The 
application of the risk-informed configuration management program is 
considered a substantial technological improvement over current 
methods.
    Changing TS 6.8.3.k to reference the EPRI [Electric Power 
Research Institute] Risk-Managed Technical Specification Guidelines 
is an administrative change that establishes the industry standard 
as the STP licensing basis. Meeting the standard provides additional 
assurance that the risk management program properly manages the 
plant configuration risk. Consequently, it does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    Changes to the affected TS require some minor grammatical and 
structure changes to effectively incorporate the reference to TS 
3.13.1. These changes are editorial and administrative and have no 
safety significance. The changes to the TS Index are administrative 
and have no technical or safety significance.
    Therefore, none of the proposed changes involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change to the Technical Specifications 
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from 
any accident previously evaluated?
    None of the proposed changes involves a new mode of operation or 
design configuration. There are no new or different systems, 
structures, or components proposed by these changes. Therefore, 
there is no possibility of a new or different kind of accident.
    3. Does the proposed change to the Technical Specifications 
involve a significant reduction to a margin of safety?
    Proposed new TS 3.13.1 and TS 3.13.2 and the associated changes 
to the specifications that apply the new TS 3.13.1 implement a risk-
informed configuration management program to assure that adequate 
margins of safety are maintained. Application of these new 
specifications and the configuration management program considers 
cumulative effects of multiple systems or components being out of 
service and does so more effectively than the current Technical 
Specifications. Therefore, application of these new specifications 
will not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
    Changing TS 6.8.31k to reference the EPRI Risk-Managed Technical 
Specification Guidelines is an administrative change that 
establishes the industry standard as the STP licensing basis. 
Meeting the standard provides additional assurance that the risk 
management program properly manages the plant configuration risk. 
Consequently, it does not involve a significant reduction in the 
margin of safety.
    Changes to the affected TS require some minor grammatical and 
structure changes to effectively incorporate the reference to TS 
3.13.1. These changes are editorial and administrative and have no 
safety significance. The changes to the TS Index are administrative 
and have no technical or safety significance.
    Based on the evaluation above, none of the proposed changes 
involves 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 
amendments 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 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 amendments 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, Rulemaking, 
Directives and Editing 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 (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 
O1F21, 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 licenses 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 
O1F21, 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, http://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

[[Page 32334]]

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(c)(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 transmitted either by 
means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725 or by e-mail to 
OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. A copy of the request for hearing and petition 
for leave to intervene should also be sent to A.H. Gutterman, Esq., 
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20004, the attorney for the licensee.
    For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment dated June 6, 2006, which is available for 
public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint 
North, File Public Area O1F21, 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, http://
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 5th day of June, 2007.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Mohan C Thadani,
Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch IV, Division of 
Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E7-11300 Filed 6-11-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P