Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 180 / Wednesday, September 17, 1997 / Notices 48899

subject matter of the proceeding as to

which petitioner wishes to intervene.

Any person who has filed a petition for

leave to intervene or who has been

admitted as a party may amend the

petition without requesting leave of the

Board up to 15 days prior to the first

prehearing conference scheduled in the

proceeding, but such an amended

petition must satisfy the specificity

requirements described above.

Not later than 15 days prior to the first

prehearing conference scheduled in the

proceeding, a petitioner shall file a

supplement to the petition to intervene

which must include a list of the

contentions which are sought to be

litigated in the matter. Each contention

must consist of a specific statement of

the issue of law or fact to be raised or

controverted. In addition, the petitioner

shall provide a brief explanation of the

bases of the contention and a concise

statement of the alleged facts or expert

opinion which support the contention

and on which the petitioner intends to

rely in proving the contention at the

hearing. The petitioner must also

provide references to those specific

sources and documents of which the

petitioner is aware and on which the

petitioner intends to rely to establish

those facts or expert opinion. Petitioner

must provide sufficient information to

show that a genuine dispute exists with

the applicant on a material issue of law

or fact. Contentions shall be limited to

matters within the scope of the

amendment under consideration. The

contention must be one which, if

proven, would entitle the petitioner to

relief. A petitioner who fails to file such

a supplement which satisfies these

requirements with respect to at least one

contention will not be permitted to

participate as a party.

Those permitted to intervene become

parties to the proceeding, subject to any

limitations in the order granting leave to

intervene, and have the opportunity to

participate fully in the conduct of the

hearing, including the opportunity to

present evidence and cross-examine

witnesses.

If a hearing is requested, the

Commission will make a final

determination on the issue of no

significant hazards consideration. The

final determination will serve to decide

when the hearing is held.

If the final determination is that the

amendment request involves no

significant hazards consideration, the

Commission may issue the amendment

and make it immediately effective,

notwithstanding the request for a

hearing. Any hearing held would take

place after issuance of the amendment.

If the final determination is that the

amendment request involves a

significant hazards consideration, any

hearing held would take place before

the issuance of any amendment.

A request for a hearing or a petition

for leave to intervene must be filed with

the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention:

Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, or

may be delivered to the Commission’s

Public Document Room, the Gelman

Building, 2120 L Street, NW.,

Washington, DC, by the above date. A

copy of the petition should also be sent

to the Office of the General Counsel,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001, and to

General Counsel, Carolina Power &

Light Company, P.O. Box 1551, Raleigh,

North Carolina 27602, attorney for the

licensee.

Nontimely filings of petitions for

leave to intervene, amended petitions,

supplemental petitions and/or requests

for hearing will not be entertained

absent a determination by the

Commission, the presiding officer or the

presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing

Board that the petition and/or request

should be granted based upon a

balancing of the factors specified in 10

CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i)–(v) and 2.714(d).

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application for

amendments dated August 6, 1997, as

supplemented on August 26, 1997,

which is available for public inspection

at the Commission’s Public Document

Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L

Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the

local public document room located at

the University of North Carolina at

Wilmington, William Madison Randall

Library, 601 S. College Road,

Wilmington, North Carolina 28403–

3297.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day

of September 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

David C. Trimble,

Project Manager, Project Directorate II–1,

Division of Reactor Projects—I/II, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–24680 Filed 9–16–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. STN 50–456 AND STN 50–457]

Commonwealth Edison Company;

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 License Nos. NPF–72

and NPF–77 issued to the

Commonwealth Edison Company

(ComEd, the licensee) for operation of

the Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2,

located in Will County, Illinois.

The proposed amendments would

revise Technical Specifications (TS)

Section 3.4.8, Figure 3.4–1 and Table

4.4–4 and also revise TS Bases Section

3/4.4.8. The revisions reduce the TS

maximum allowable dose equivalent

(DE) iodine-131 (I–131) concentration in

the primary coolant from 0.35 to 0.10

microcuries per gram for the remainder

of the present Braidwood, Unit 1,

operating cycle (i.e., Cycle 7); this

operating cycle is projected to end in

September 1998.

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 requested involve no

significant hazards consideration. Under

the Commission’s regulations in 10 CFR

50.92, this means that operation of the

facility in accordance with the proposed

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. The proposed change does not

involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of an

accident previously evaluated.

Generic Letter 95–05, ‘‘Voltage-Based

Repair Criteria For Westinghouse Steam

Generator Tubes Affected By Outside

Diameter Stress Corrosion Cracking,’’

allows lowering of the RCS [Reactor

Coolant System] DE I–131 activity as a

means for accepting higher projected
48900 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 180 / Wednesday, September 17, 1997 / Notices

leak rates if justification for equivalent

I–131 below 0.35 μCi/gm [microcuries

per gram] is provided. Four methods for

determining the impact of a release of

activity to the public were reviewed to

provide this justification. These four

methods are as follows:

Method 1: NRC NUREG 0800,

Standard Review Plan (SRP)

Methodology.

Method 2: Methodology described in

a report by J.P. Adams and C.L. Atwood,

‘‘The Iodine Spike Release Rate During

a Steam Generator Tube Rupture,’’

Nuclear Technology, Vol. 94, p. 361

(1991) using Braidwood Station reactor

trip data.

Method 3: Methodology described in

a report by J.P. Adams and C.L. Atwood,

‘‘The Iodine Spike Release Rate During

a Steam Generator Tube Rupture,’’

Nuclear Technology, Vol. 94, p. 361

(1991) using normalized industry

reactor trip data.

Method 4: Methodology described in

a draft EPRI Report TR–103680,

Revision 1, November 1995, ‘‘Empirical

Study of Iodine Spiking in PWR Plants’’.

The effect of reducing the RCS DE I–

131 activity limit on the amount of

activity released to the environment

remains unchanged when the maximum

site allowable primary-to-secondary leak

rate is proportionately increased and the

iodine release rate spike factor is

assumed to be 500 in accordance with

the SRP. With an RCS DE I–131 activity

limit of 1.0 μCi/gm, the maximum site

allowable leakage limit was calculated,

in accordance with the NRC SRP

methodology, to be 9.33 gallons per

minute (gpm). The 9.33 gpm allowable

leakage limit was calculated for leakage

at the normal operating reactor coolant

temperature and pressure. This

corresponds to a room temperature and

pressure leakage limit of 6.63 gpm.

ComEd has evaluated the reduction of

the RCS DE I–131 activity to 0.10 μCi/

gm along with the increase of the

allowable leakage to 94 gpm (66.3 gpm

at room temperature and pressure) and

has concluded:

—assuming a spike factor of 500, the

maximum activity released is not

changed, and

—the offsite dose, including the iodine

spiking factor, will be less than the

10CFR100 limits.

Based on the NRC SRP methodology

for dose assessments and assuming the

iodine spike factor of 500 is applicable

at the new 0.1 μCi/gm RCS DE I–131

activity limit, the Control Room dose,

the Low Population Zone dose, and the

dose at the Exclusion Area Boundary

continue to satisfy the appropriately

small fraction of the 10CFR100 dose

limits.

An evaluation of the Control Room

dose, attributed to an MSLB [main

steamline break] accident concurrent

with steam generator primary-tosecondary leakage at the maximum site

allowable limit, was performed in

support of a license amendment request

for application of a 1.0 volt Interim

Plugging Criteria. This evaluation

concluded that the activity released to

the environment from an MSLB

accident (154 Curies for a Pre-accident

iodine spike and 105 Curies for an

accident-initiated iodine spike) is

bounded by the activity released to the

environment from the Loss of Coolant

design basis accident (1290 Curies).

Therefore, the Control Room dose, due

to the MSLB accident scenario, is

bounded by the existing Loss of Coolant

Accident (LOCA) analysis. The

maximum site allowable primary-tosecondary leakage is limited by the

offsite dose at the Exclusion Area

Boundary due to an accident-initiated

spike.

The report by J.P. Adams and C.L.

Atwood, ‘‘The Iodine Spike Release Rate

During a Steam Generator Tube

Rupture,’’ Nuclear Technology, Vol. 94,

p. 361 (1991), concluded that the NRC

SRP methodology, which specifies a

release rate spike factor of 500 for iodine

activity from the fuel rod to the RCS, is

conservative when the RCS DE I–131

concentration is greater than 0.3 μCi/gm.

In order to evaluate whether a release

rate spike factor of 500 is conservative

below 0.3 μCi/gm, actual operating data

from the previous reactor trips of

Braidwood Units 1 and 2, with and

without fuel defects, were reviewed and

analyzed using the methodology

presented in Section II.C of the Adams

and Atwood report (Method 2). The

same five data screening criteria

described in the Adams and Atwood

report were applied to the Braidwood

data to ensure consistency and validity

when comparing the Braidwood results

to the data in the Adams and Atwood

report. Of the reactor trip events at

Braidwood Units 1 and 2, seventeen (17)

met the five data screening criteria.

Seven (7) of the seventeen (17)

Braidwood trips occurred during cycles

with no fuel defects. In all seven of

these instances, the calculated spike

factor was much less than the spike

factor of 500 assumed in the NRC SRP

methodology. Braidwood Unit 1 Cycle 7

is currently operating with no fuel

defects and an RCS DE I–131 activity of

approximately 3E–4 μCi/gm. The seven

previous trips, with no fuel defects, had

steady-state iodine values that are

reasonably close to the current operating

conditions. It is, therefore reasonable to

conclude that, assuming continued

operation with little to no fuel defects,

the calculated spike factors from these

events would reflect an actual event for

Unit 1 Cycle 7, i.e., the spike factor will

be less than 500.

Since some of the spike factors were

greater than 500 when the RCS DE I–131

activity, prior to the accident, was less

than 0.3 μCi/gm, ComEd examined the

conservatisms in the current release rate

calculation. The primary reason for

these high ratios (up to 12,000) is not

because the absolute post-trip release

rate is high (factor numerator), but

rather because the steady-state release

rate (factor denominator) is low. The

Braidwood specific data resulted in six

(6) events with a calculated release rate

spike factor greater than 500. It is not

expected, based upon the Unit 1 Cycle

7 fuel conditions, that a spiking factor

greater than 500 would occur. The

revised RCS DE I–131 activity limit will

also ensure that the operating cycle will

not continue if significant fuel defects

develop.

In order to evaluate the Braidwood

specific data against the NRC SRP

methodology, the release rate for a

steady-state RCS DE I–131 activity of 1.0

μCi/gm was calculated. Using the

Braidwood specific data, the pre-trip

steady-state release rate is 27.5 Ci/hr.

Using a release rate spike factor of 500

for the accident-initiated spike, the posttrip maximum release rate would be

13,733 Ci/hr (SRP Methodology). The

highest post-trip iodine release rate from

the Braidwood trip data, Event 15, was

1335 Ci/hr. Although this value is lower

than that determined by the NRC SRP

Method at 1.0 μCi/gm, Braidwood is

also requesting an increase in the

allowable primary-to-secondary leak

rate. By decreasing the TS RCS DE I–131

activity limit by a factor of ten and

increasing the allowable leak rate by a

factor of ten, the maximum iodine

release rate is 1373 Ci/hr. None of the

Braidwood data exceeds 1373 Ci/hr,

although eight (8) of the 168 data points

in the Adams and Atwood report exceed

1373 Ci/hr. The eight (8) data points had

a pre-trip RCS DE I–131 activity

between 0.09 μCi/gm and 0.6 μCi/gm.

Only one (1) of the eight (8) data points

had a pre-trip DE I–131 activity below

0.1 μCi/gm.

If the Braidwood data were plotted

with the Adams and Atwood data, the

conclusions of the Adams and Atwood

report would not be compromised.

Where the Braidwood data contains

spike factors greater than 500, the RCS

DE I–131 concentrations are below 0.3

μCi/gm. Since the Braidwood data does

not include data near 0.1 μCi/gm (the

requested new TS limit), it is

appropriate to use the Adams and
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 180 / Wednesday, September 17, 1997 / Notices 48901

Atwood database near 0.1 μCi/gm to

determine if a spike factor of 500 is

appropriate. The Adams and Atwood

database contains forty-two (42) data

points with a Pre-Trip RCS DE I–131

activity between 0.05 μCi/gm and 0.15

μCi/gm. Thirty-four (34) of these fortytwo (42) data points (81%) have spike

factors less than 500. Using the entire

Adams and Atwood database, 130 of the

168 data points (77%) have an iodine

spike factor less than 500. Therefore, it

is reasonable to assume that a spike

factor of 500 would not be exceeded for

a majority of the events if an MSLB

accident were to occur while the RCS

DE I–131 activity is at or below 0.1 μCi/

gm. The highest spike factor seen in the

Adams and Atwood report near a PreTrip RCS DE I–131 activity of 0.1 μCi/

gm was 1160 (at 0.093 μCi/gm). This

release rate is less than the calculated

Braidwood maximum value of 1373 Ci/

hr.

The predominant factors in

calculating the offsite dose are the posttrip iodine release rate from the fuel and

the flowrate at which the activity is

being released to the environment, not

whether the spike factor is greater than

or less than 500. The post-trip DE I–131

release rate will determine the level of

activity in the RCS that will be released.

The flowrate will determine at what rate

this activity is released to the

environment. Method 3, which used a

different approach in the Adams and

Atwood report, concluded that, at a

95% confidence of a 90 percentile, the

post-trip iodine release rate was

bounded by 1.09 Ci/hr-MWe. For

Braidwood Station, which has a MWe

rating of 1175, the post-trip iodine

release rate, at a 95% confidence of a 90

percentile, should not exceed 1280 Ci/

hr. One (1) of the seventeen (17) reactor

trips from Braidwood exceeded 1280 Ci/

hr. This reactor trip had a post-trip

iodine release rate of 1335 Ci/hr (spike

factor of 3471). The second highest posttrip iodine release rate from the

Braidwood data was 802 Ci/hr (spike

factor of 1483).

For the combined Adams/Atwood and

Braidwood data sets, below 0.1 μCi/gm,

all but one data point is bounded by the

1373 Ci/hr release rate. This one data

point is bounced [bounded] by the 95%

confidence. This data suggests that the

possibility for a post-trip iodine fuel

release rate to exceed 1373 Ci/hr, when

the pre-trip RCS DE I–131 concentration

is at or below 0.1 μCi/gm, is small.

In the fourth method, the results from

a Draft Electric Power Research Institute

(EPRI) Report TR-103680, Rev. 1,

November 1995, ‘‘Empirical Study of

Iodine Spiking In PWR Power Plants’’

were applied. The objective of the EPRI

study was to quantify the iodine spiking

in a postulated Main Steam Line Break/

Steam Generator Tube Rupture (MSLB/

SGTR) accident sequences. In the EPRI

report, an iodine spike factor between

40 and 150 was determined to match

data from existing plant trips. The

maximum iodine spike factor value of

150 was applied to a steady-state

equilibrium RCS DE I–131 activity of

0.33 μCi/gm. The resulting two-hour

average iodine concentration for a

postulated MSLB/SGTR accident

sequence was determined to be 3.1 μCi/

gm. Since the EPRI report is based on

industry data and the EPRI method

predicted a post-accident iodine

activity, which is a small fraction of the

activity predicted by the NRC SRP

methodology, it can be expected that,

for the proposed 0.10 μCi/gm limit

under an MSLB/SGTR accident

sequence, the post-accident iodine

activity would typically be a small

fraction of the RCS DE I–131 activity

predicted by the NRC SRP methodology.

For Braidwood, using the SRP

methodology with an RCS DE I–131

activity of 1.0 μCi/gm and a spike factor

of 500, the Post-Trip RCS activity two

hours after the event would be near 35.5

μCi/gm. At an RCS DE I–131 activity of

0.1 μCi/gm, it would require a spike

factor of nearly 5000 to obtain a PostTrip RCS DE I–131 activity near 35.5

μCi/gm. With a Post-Trip RCS DE I–131

activity of 35.5 μCi/gm, an increase in

the allowable leak rate could impact the

10CFR100 limits. To accommodate for

an increase in the allowable leak rate by

a factor of ten, the resultant activity

would need to be below 3.55 μCi/gm.

None of the seventeen (17) post-trip data

from Braidwood has exceeded 3.55 μCi/

gm. The maximum Post-Trip RCS

activity seen at Braidwood is 3.29 μCi/

gm at approximately three hours after

the event.

Based on evaluations by the four

methods above, Braidwood can

conclude that the current methodology

(Method 1) used to predict iodine

spiking is conservative. Although dose

projections indicate with confidence

that the iodine spiking factor limit will

be met, the conservatisms in the offsite

dose calculation provide added

assurance that the 10CFR100 limits,

General Design Criteria (GDC) 19

criteria, and the requirements of NRC

Generic Letter 95–05 will be satisfied if

the iodine spike factor exceeds 500 or

the post-trip fuel release rate exceeds

1373 Ci/hr. These conservatisms

include, but are not limited to:

1. The RCS DE I–131 activity is more

likely to be less than the TS limit. With

the current Braidwood Unit 1 RCS DE

I–131 activity near 3E–4 μCi/gm with no

fuel defects, the spike factor is expected

to be considerably smaller than the 500

value.

2. The meteorological data used is at

the fifth percentile. It is expected that

the actual dispersion of the iodine

would result in less exposure at the site

boundary than the 30 Rem limit of

10CFR100.

3. Iodine partitioning is not accounted

for in the faulted SG. With the high pH

of the secondary water, some

partitioning is expected to occur. An

iodine partition factor of 0.1 is more

realistic (per Table 15.1–3 of Byron/

Braidwood UFSAR) than the 1.0 valued

[value] (no partitioning) used in the

offsite dose calculation. This reduces

the calculated dose by 90%.

4. Primary-to-secondary leakage is not

expected to be at the TS limit (150 gpd)

in each of the four SGs prior to the

event. Currently, minimal primary-tosecondary leakage (less than 5 gpd)

exists at Braidwood Unit 1.

5. The activity in the RCS is not

expected to increase instantaneously

with the spike in iodine released from

the defective fuel.

6. It is unlikely, for the short time

period this amendment is being

requested (remainder of Cycle 7), that an

accident-initiated iodine spike for

Braidwood Unit 1 would be greater than

the NRC SRP assumed value.

7. The results from the Braidwood

tube pull data indicate that the Interim

Plugging Criteria leak rate is

conservative.

These proposed changes do not result

in a significant increase in the

consequences of an accident previously

analyzed.

The RCS DE I–131 activity limit is not

considered as a precursor to any

accident. Therefore, this proposed

change does not result in a significant

increase in the probability of an

accident previously analyzed.

2. The proposed change does not

create the possibility of a new or

different kind of accident from any

accident previously evaluated.

The changes proposed in this

amendment request conservatively

reduce the Unit 1 RCS DE I–131 activity

limit at which action needs to be taken.

The changes do not directly affect plant

operation. These changes will not result

in the installation of any new

equipment or systems or the

modification of any existing equipment

or systems. No new operating

procedures, conditions or configurations

will be created by this proposed

amendment.

Accordingly, this proposed change

does not create the possibility of a new
48902 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 180 / Wednesday, September 17, 1997 / Notices

or different kind of accident from any

accident previously evaluated.

3. The proposed change does not

involve a significant reduction in a

margin of safety.

NRC Generic Letter 95–05 allows

lowering of the RCS dose equivalent

iodine as a means for accepting higher

projected leakage rates provided

justification for the RCS DE I–131

activity below 0.35 μCi/gm is provided.

Four methods for determining the fuel

rod iodine release rates and spike

factors during an accident were

reviewed. Each of these methods

utilized actual industry data, including

Braidwood Units 1 and 2, for pre- and

post-reactor trip RCS DE I–131

activities. Each of the methods

demonstrated that the actual fuel rod

iodine release rates are a small fraction

of the release rate as calculated using

the NRC SRP methodology. Although

these values are a small fraction of that

determined by the NRC SRP Method,

Braidwood is also requesting an

increase in the allowable primary-tosecondary leak rate. By decreasing the

TS RCS DE I–131 activity limit by a

factor of ten and increasing the

allowable leak rate by a factor of ten, the

activity released to the public would be

equal to or less than the activity

calculated by the SRP method for each

of the seventeen reactor trip events

reviewed at Braidwood. The predicted

end-of-cycle 7 leak rate is 62.4 gpm

(Room T/P). The calculated site

boundary dose due to this leakage is

28.2 Rem. This dose meets the

requirements of 10CFR100 and GDC 19.

All design basis and off-site dose

calculation assumptions remain

satisfied. This proposed change would

not result in a reduction in a margin of

safety.

Therefore, based on the above

evaluation, ComEd has concluded that

these changes involve no significant

hazards considerations.

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 requested involve 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 amendments until the

expiration of the 30-day notice period.

However, should circumstances change

during the notice period such that

failure to act in a timely way would

result, for example, in derating or

shutdown of the facility, the

Commission may issue the license

amendments before the expiration of the

30-day notice period, provided that its

final determination is that the

amendments involve no significant

hazards consideration. The final

determination will consider all public

and State comments received. Should

the Commission take this action, it will

publish in the Federal Register a notice

of issuance and provide for opportunity

for a hearing after issuance. The

Commission expects that the need to

take this action will occur very

infrequently.

Written comments may be submitted

by mail to the Chief, Rules and

Directives Branch, Division of Freedom

of Information and Publications

Services, Office of Administration, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001, and

should cite the publication date and

page number of this Federal Register

notice. Written comments may also be

delivered to Room 6D22, Two White

Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike,

Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to

4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. Copies of

written comments received may be

examined at the NRC Public Document

Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L

Street, NW., Washington, DC.

The filing of requests for hearing and

petitions for leave to intervene is

discussed below.

By October 17, 1997, the licensee may

file a request for a hearing with respect

to issuance of the amendments to the

subject facility operating license and

any person whose interest may be

affected by this proceeding and who

wishes to participate as a party in the

proceeding must file a written request

for a hearing and a petition for leave to

intervene. Requests for a hearing and a

petition for leave to intervene shall be

filed in accordance with the

Commission’s ‘‘Rules of Practice for

Domestic Licensing Proceedings’’ in 10

CFR Part 2. Interested persons should

consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.714

which is available at the Commission’s

Public Document Room, the Gelman

Building, 2120 L Street, NW.,

Washington, DC, and at the local public

document room located at the

Wilmington Public Library, 201 S.

Kankakee Street, Wilmington, Illinois

60481. If a request for a hearing or

petition for leave to intervene is filed by

the above date, the Commission or an

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board,

designated by the Commission or by the

Chairman of the Atomic Safety and

Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the

request and/or petition; and the

Secretary or the designated Atomic

Safety and Licensing Board will issue a

notice of hearing or an appropriate

order.

As required by 10 CFR 2.714, a

petition for leave to intervene shall set

forth with particularity the interest of

the petitioner in the proceeding, and

how that interest may be affected by the

results of the proceeding. The petition

should specifically explain the reasons

why intervention should be permitted

with particular reference to the

following factors: (1) the nature of the

petitioner’s right under the Act to be

made party to the proceeding; (2) the

nature and extent of the petitioner’s

property, financial, or other interest in

the proceeding; and (3) the possible

effect of any order which may be

entered in the proceeding on the

petitioner’s interest. The petition should

also identify the specific aspect(s) of the

subject matter of the proceeding as to

which petitioner wishes to intervene.

Any person who has filed a petition for

leave to intervene or who has been

admitted as a party may amend the

petition without requesting leave of the

Board up to 15 days prior to the first

prehearing conference scheduled in the

proceeding, but such an amended

petition must satisfy the specificity

requirements described above.

Not later than 15 days prior to the first

prehearing conference scheduled in the

proceeding, a petitioner shall file a

supplement to the petition to intervene

which must include a list of the

contentions which are sought to be

litigated in the matter. Each contention

must consist of a specific statement of

the issue of law or fact to be raised or

controverted. In addition, the petitioner

shall provide a brief explanation of the

bases of the contention and a concise

statement of the alleged facts or expert

opinion which support the contention

and on which the petitioner intends to

rely in proving the contention at the

hearing. The petitioner must also

provide references to those specific

sources and documents of which the

petitioner is aware and on which the

petitioner intends to rely to establish

those facts or expert opinion. Petitioner

must provide sufficient information to

show that a genuine dispute exists with

the applicant on a material issue of law

or fact. Contentions shall be limited to

matters within the scope of the

amendments under consideration. The

contention must be one which, if

proven, would entitle the petitioner to

relief. A petitioner who fails to file such

a supplement which satisfies these

requirements with respect to at least one
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 180 / Wednesday, September 17, 1997 / Notices 48903

contention will not be permitted to

participate as a party.

Those permitted to intervene become

parties to the proceeding, subject to any

limitations in the order granting leave to

intervene, and have the opportunity to

participate fully in the conduct of the

hearing, including the opportunity to

present evidence and cross-examine

witnesses.

If a hearing is requested, the

Commission will make a final

determination on the issue of no

significant hazards consideration. The

final determination will serve to decide

when the hearing is held.

If the final determination is that the

amendments requested involve no

significant hazards consideration, the

Commission may issue the amendments

and make them immediately effective,

notwithstanding the request for a

hearing. Any hearing held would take

place after issuance of the amendments.

If the final determination is that the

amendments requested involve a

significant hazards consideration, any

hearing held would take place before

the issuance of any amendment.

A request for a hearing or a petition

for leave to intervene must be filed with

the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention:

Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, or

may be delivered to the Commission’s

Public Document Room, the Gelman

Building, 2120 L Street, NW.,

Washington, DC, by the above date. A

copy of the petition should also be sent

to the Office of the General Counsel,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001, and to

Michael I. Miller, Esquire; Sidley and

Austin, One First National Plaza,

Chicago, Illinois 60690, attorney for the

licensee.

Nontimely filings of petitions for

leave to intervene, amended petitions,

supplemental petitions and/or requests

for hearing will not be entertained

absent a determination by the

Commission, the presiding officer or the

presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing

Board that the petition and/or request

should be granted based upon a

balancing of the factors specified in 10

CFR 2.714(a)(1) (i)–(v) and 2.714(d).

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application for

amendment dated September 2, 1997,

which is available for public inspection

at the Commission’s Public Document

Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L

Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the

local public document room located at

the Wilmington Public Library, 201 S.

Kankakee Street, Wilmington, Illinois

60481.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day

of September 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

M. D. Lynch,

Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate

III–2, Division of Reactor Projects, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–24675 Filed 9–16–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 030–00001; License No. 24–

04206–01; EA 97–155]

Mallinckrodt Medical, Inc. Maryland

Heights, Missouri; Order Imposing

Civil Monetary Penalty

I

Mallinckrodt Medical, Inc. (Licensee)

is the holder of Materials License No.

24–04206–01 which was first issued by

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC or Commission) on January 6,

1975, and renewed in its entirety on

October 12, 1990. The license authorizes

the Licensee to prepare and package for

distribution Mo–99/Tc–99m generators

and other radioactive materials in

accordance with the conditions

specified therein.

II

An inspection of the Licensee’s

activities was conducted during January

10–12, 1997, with continuing review

through April 8, 1997. The results of

this inspection indicated that the

Licensee had not conducted its

activities in full compliance with NRC

requirements. A written notice of

violation and Proposed Imposition of

Civil Penalty (notice) was served upon

the Licensee by letter dated May 30,

1997. The Notice states the nature of the

violation, the provision of the NRC’s

requirements that the Licensee had

violated, and the amount of the civil

penalty proposed for the violation.

The Licensee responded to the notice

in a letter dated June 30, 1997. In its

response, the Licensee admitted that the

violation occurred and agreed that a

civil penalty is warranted. The Licensee

contested the fact that the NRC

categorized it as a ‘‘b’’ category,

industrial processor, as listed in Table

1A-Base Civil Penalties of NUREG–

1600, ‘‘General Statement of Policy and

Procedures for NRC Enforcement

Actions.’’

III

After consideration of the Licensee’s

response and the statements of fact,

explanation, and argument for

mitigation contained therein, the NRC

staff has determined, as set forth in the

Appendix to this Order, that the

violation occurred as stated and that the

penalty proposed for the violation

designated in the Notice should be

imposed.

IV

In view of the foregoing and pursuant

to Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act

of 1954, as amended (Act), 42 U.S.C.

2282, and 10 CFR 2.205, It is hereby

ordered that:

The Licensee pay a civil penalty in the

amount of $13,750 within 30 days of the date

of this Order, by check, draft, money order,

or electronic transfer, payable to the

Treasurer of the United States and mailed to

James Lieberman, Director, Office of

Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, One White Flint North, 11555

Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852–2738.

V

The Licensee may request a hearing

within 30 days of the date of this Order.

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, D.C. 20555,

and include a statement of good cause

for the extension. A request for a

hearing should be clearly marked as a

‘‘Request for an Enforcement Hearing’’

and shall be addressed to the Director,

Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

D.C. 20555, with a copy to the

Commission’s Document Control Desk,

Washington, D.C. 20555. Copies also

shall be sent to the Assistant General

Counsel for Hearings and Enforcement

at the same address and to the Regional

Administrator, NRC Region III, 801

Warrenville Road, Lisle, Illinois 60532–

4351.

If a hearing is requested, the

Commission will issue an Order

designating the time and place of the

hearing. If the Licensee fails to request

a hearing within 30 days of the date of

this Order (or if written approval of an

extension of time in which to request a

hearing has not been granted), the

provisions of this Order shall be

effective without further proceedings. If

payment has not been made by that

time, the matter may be referred to the

Attorney General for collection.

In the event the Licensee requests a

hearing as provided above, the issue to

be considered at such hearing shall be:

Whether on the basis of the violation

admitted by the Licensee, this Order should

be sustained.