Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 20, 2004 / Notices 61695

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Notice of Permit Applications Received 

Under the Antarctic Conservation Act 

of 1978 (Pub. L. 95–541)

AGENCY: National Science Foundation.

ACTION: Notice of Permit Applications 

Received under the Antarctic 

Conservation Act of 1978, Pub. L. 95–

541. 

SUMMARY: The National Science 

Foundation (NSF) is required to publish 

notice of permit applications received to 

conduct activities regulated under the 

Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. 

NSF has published regulations under 

the Antarctic Conservation Act as Title 

45 Part 670 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations. This is the required notice 

to permit applications received.

DATES: Interested parties are invited to 

submit written data, comments, or view 

with respect to this permit application 

by November 19, 2004. This application 

may be inspected by interested parties 

at the Permit Office, address below.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be 

addressed to Permit Office, Room 755, 

Office of Polar Programs, National 

Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson 

Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nadene G. Kennedy at the above 

address or (703) 292–7405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

National Science Foundation, as 

directed by the Antarctic Conservation 

Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95–541), as 

amended by the Antarctic Science, 

Tourism and Conservation Act of 1996, 

has developed regulations for the 

establishment of a permit system for 

various activities in Antarctica and 

designation of certain animals and 

certain geographic areas a requiring 

special protection. The regulations 

establish such a permit system to 

designate Antarctic Specially Protected 

Areas. 

The applications received are as 

follows: 

Permit Application No. 2005–016

1. Applicant: Julie Rose, 3616 

Trousdale Parkway, AHF 301, Los 

Angeles, CA 90089–0371. 

Activity for Which Permit is 

Requested: Introduce a non-indigenous 

species to Antarctica. The applicant 

proposes to use marine phytoplankton 

cultures and non-fluorescent marine 

bacterial cultures to study the feeding 

rates of Antarctic protistan grazers. 

Marine phytoplankton samples will be 

collected during the course of the cruise 

and the samples will be taken back to 

the United States for further study. 

Location: Southern Oceans south of 

60 degrees South, and Ross Sea. 

Dates: December 1, 2004 to February 

1, 2005.

Nadene G. Kennedy, 

Permit Officer, Office of Polar Programs.

[FR Doc. 04–23466 Filed 10–19–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7555–01–M

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. 50–293] 

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 

Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station; Notice 

of Consideration of Issuance of 

Amendment to Facility Operating 

License, Proposed No Significant 

Hazards Consideration Determination, 

and Opportunity for a Hearing 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (the Commission) is 

considering issuance of an amendment 

to Facility Operating License No. DPR–

35 issued to Entergy Nuclear 

Operations, Inc. (the licensee) for 

operation of the Pilgrim Nuclear Power 

Station located in Plymouth, MA. 

The proposed amendment would 

approve an engineering evaluation 

performed in accordance with Pilgrim 

Nuclear Power Station Technical 

Specification (TS) 3.6.D.3 to justify 

continued power operation with safety 

relief valve (SRV)–3C discharge pipe 

temperature exceeding 212 degrees 

Fahrenheit (°F) for greater than 24 hours 

as required by TS 3.6.D.4. 

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. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

Indication of elevated SRV discharge pipe 

temperature is attributed to leakage past the 

SRV pilot valve. Excessive leakage, 

corresponding to temperatures greater than 

255°F, has the potential to affect SRV 

operability by affecting the SRV setpoint or 

response time. Continued operation with the 

discharge pipe of the SRV indicating 

temperatures less than 255°F ensures that the 

leakage past the SRV is maintained below the 

threshold for a leakage rate that would 

potentially have an effect on SRV setpoint or 

response time. 

Administrative controls are in place to 

ensure that margin to the 255°F value is 

maintained to assure reliable operation and 

to reduce the potential for damage to the SRV 

pilot seat and disc. The SRV continues to 

perform the intended design/safety function 

with no adverse effect because the leakage 

past the SRV is maintained below the 

threshold for a leakage rate that could 

potentially have an adverse impact on the 

ability of the SRV to perform the design 

function. The impact of the leakage on other 

systems is small and all systems continue to 

be able to perform their intended design 

functions. Current accident analyses remain 

bounding and there is no significant increase 

in the consequences of any accident 

previously evaluated. In addition, as a result 

of the leakage, normal plant operating 

parameters are not affected and consequently 

there is no increased risk in a plant transient. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated[.] 

2. Does the proposed change create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

Continued plant operation with elevated 

SRV–3C discharge pipe temperature within 

the bounds of the established administrative 

controls ensures that the leakage past the 

SRV is maintained below the threshold for a 

leakage rate that would potentially have an 

effect on SRV setpoint or response time. This 

ensures that the SRV will perform the 

intended design/safety function. The leakage 

does not adversely impact the ability of any 

system to perform its design function. The 

methods governing plant operation and 

testing remain consistent with current safety 

analysis assumptions. Therefore, the 

proposed change does not create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated.

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

Continued operation with the of SRV–3C 

discharge pipe indicating temperature in 

excess of 212 °F does not adversely affect 

existing plant safety margins or the reliability 

of the equipment assumed to operate in the 

safety analysis. The leakage does not result 

in excess SRV setpoint drift or response time 

61696 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 20, 2004 / Notices 

changes. The imposed administrative 

controls on plant operation provide 

assurance that there will be no adverse effect 

on the ability of the SRV to perform the 

intended design/safety function. There are no 

changes being made to safety analysis 

assumptions, safety limits or safety system 

settings that would adversely affect plant 

safety. Therefore, the proposed change does 

not involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety.

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

The Commission is seeking public 

comments on this proposed 

determination. Any comments received 

within 30 days after the date of 

publication of this notice will be 

considered in making any final 

determination. 

Normally, the Commission will not 

issue the amendment until the 

expiration of 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, 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 

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 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 20, 2004 / Notices 61697

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 the J. M. Fulton, Esquire, 

Assistant General Counsel, Pilgrim 

Nuclear Power Station, 600 Rocky Hill 

Road, Plymouth, Massachusetts 02360–

5599, attorney for the licensee. 

For further details with respect to this 

action, see the application for 

amendment dated October 12, 2004, 

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, 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 14th day 

of October, 2004.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

George F. Wunder, 

Project Manager, Section 2, Project 

Directorate I, Division of Licensing Project 

Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 04–23427 Filed 10–19–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. 70–7005] 

Issuance of Environmental 

Assessment and Finding of No 

Significant Impact for Modification of 

Exemption From Certain NRC 

Licensing Requirements for Special 

Nuclear Material for Waste Control 

Specialists, LLC., Andrews County, TX

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission.

ACTION: Environmental assessment and 

finding of no significant impact. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James R. Park, Project Manager, 

Environmental and Performance 

Assessment Directorate, Division of 

Waste Management and Environmental 

Protection, Office of Nuclear Material 

Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555. Telephone: (301) 415–5835; 

Fax number: (301) 415–5397; E-mail: 

jrp@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is considering 

issuance of an Order pursuant to 

Section 274f of the Atomic Energy Act 

that would modify an Order transmitted 

to Waste Control Specialists, LLC (WCS) 

on November 21, 2001. The Order was 

published in the Federal Register on 

November 15, 2001 (66 FR 57489). The 

2001 Order exempted WCS from certain 

NRC regulations and permitted WCS, 

under specified conditions, to possess 

waste containing special nuclear 

material (SNM), in greater quantities 

than specified in 10 CFR part 150, at 

WCS’s facility located in Andrews 

County, Texas, without obtaining an 

NRC license pursuant to 10 CFR part 70. 

The current action is in response to a 

request by WCS dated August 6, 2003, 

as modified by letter dated March 15, 

2004. NRC has prepared an 

Environmental Assessment (EA) in 

accordance with the requirements of 10 

CFR part 51. Based on the EA, the NRC 

has concluded that a Finding of No 

Significant Impact (FONSI) is 

appropriate for the proposed action as 

modified with additional conditions. 

The modified Order that incorporates 

the results of the NRC staff’s evaluation 

will be issued following the publication 

of this Notice. 

II. Environmental Assessment 

Background 

As stated above, the 2001 Order 

exempted WCS from certain NRC 

regulations and permitted WCS, under 

specified conditions, to possess waste 

containing SNM, in greater quantities 

than specified in 10 CFR part 150, at 

WCS’s facility located in Andrews 

County, Texas, without obtaining an 

NRC license pursuant to 10 CFR part 70. 

The 2001 Order permits WCS to possess 

SNM without regard for mass. Rather 

than relying on mass to ensure 

criticality safety, concentration-based 

limits are being applied, such that 

accumulations of SNM at or below these 

concentration limits would not pose a 

criticality safety concern. The 

methodology used to establish these 

limits is discussed in the 2001 Safety 

Evaluation Report (SER) that supported 

the 2001 Order. 

The WCS facility is licensed by the 

State of Texas, an NRC Agreement State, 

under a 10 CFR part 30 equivalent 

radioactive materials license. The 

facility also is licensed by the Texas 

Commission on Environmental Quality 

to treat and dispose of hazardous waste. 

In 1997, WCS began accepting Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 

and Toxic Substance Control Act 

(TSCA) wastes for treatment, storage, 

and disposal. Later that year, WCS 

received a license from the Texas 

Department of Health for treatment and 

storage of mixed waste and low-level 

waste. The mixed waste and low-level 

waste streams may contain quantities of 

SNM. 

By letter dated August 6, 2003, WCS 

requested that the list of reagents 

identified in Condition 5 of the 2001 

Order be modified to include an 

additional 18 reagents. WCS uses 

reagents in chemically stabilizing mixed 

waste that contains SNM. In response to 

an NRC staff request for additional 

information dated September 30, 2003, 

WCS submitted a modified request by 

letter dated March 15, 2004. 

Review Scope 

The purpose of this EA is to assess the 

environmental impacts of WCS’s 

requested modification to its 2001 

Order. This EA does not approve or 

deny the requested action. A separate 

Safety Evaluation Report (SER) also will 

be issued in support of the approval or 

denial of the requested action. This EA 

will determine whether to issue or 

prepare an Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS). Should the NRC issue 

a FONSI, no EIS will be prepared.