54656 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 1997 / Notices

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day

of October 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Douglas V. Pickett,

Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate

III–3, Division of Reactor Projects III/IV, Office

of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–27876 Filed 10–20–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. IA 97–070, ASLBP No. 98–734–

01–EA]

Magdy Elamir, M.D.; Establishment of

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

Pursuant to delegation by the

Commission dated December 29, 1972,

published in the Federal Register, 37

F.R. 28710 (1972), and Sections 2.105,

2.700, 2.702, 2.714, 2.714a, 2.717, 2.721,

and 2.772(j) of the Commission’s

Regulations, all as amended, an Atomic

Safety and Licensing Board is being

established to preside over the following

proceeding.

MAGDY ELAMIR, M.D.

Order Superseding Order Prohibiting

Involvement in NRC-Licensed Activities

(Effective Immediately)

IA 97–070

In accordance with 10 C.F.R. § 202,

this Board is established as a result of

the petitioner, Dr. Magdy Elamir,

President of Newark Medical

Associates, P.A., requesting a hearing on

a September 15, 1997, NRC Order. The

Order prohibits Dr. Elamir from

engaging in NRC-licensed activities for

five years, requires him to inform the

NRC of any NRC licensed entity or

entities where Dr. Elamir is involved

and prohibits such involvements, and

requires him to provide a copy of the

Order to all such NRC-licensed entities.

The Board is comprised of the

following administrative judges:

Charles Bechhoefer, Chairman, Atomic

Safety and Licensing Board Panel,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, D.C. 20555

Dr. Peter S. Lam, Atomic Safety and

Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

D.C. 20555

Dr. Jerry R. Kline, Atomic Safety and

Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

D.C. 20555

All correspondence, documents and

other materials in this proceeding shall

be filed with the Judges in accordance

with 10 C.F.R. § 2.701.

Issued at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th

day of October 1997.

B. Paul Cotter, Jr.,

Chief Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety

and Licensing Board Panel.

[FR Doc. 97–27878 Filed 10–20–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–22]

Notice of Proposed Issuance of a

License Amendment and an Order

Authorizing Disposition of Component

Parts Termination of Facility License

and Opportunity for Hearing; Waltz Mill

Test Reactor

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of a license

amendment and an order authorizing

the Westinghouse Electric Corporation

(the licensee) to dismantle the Waltz

Mill Test Reactor facility and dispose of

the component parts, and termination of

Facility License No. TR–2, in

accordance with the licensee’s

application dated July 31, 1997.

The license amendment would be

issued following the Commission’s

review and approval of the licensee’s

detailed plan for removal of the reactor

vessel internal contents, the reactor

vessel, the biological shield, and

disposal of radioactive components. The

license amendment would authorize

implementation of the approved plan.

Following completion of the authorized

activities and verification by the

Commission that acceptable radioactive

contamination levels have been

achieved, the Commission would issue

an order terminating the TR–2 license,

and relicensing the remaining facility

under a Special Nuclear Materials

license existing at other parts of the

facility at Waltz Mill. Prior to issuance

of the license amendment and order, the

Commission will have made the

findings required by the Atomic Energy

Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and

the Commission’s regulations.

By November 20, 1997, the licensee

may file a request for a hearing with

respect to issuance of the subject

amendment and order, 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 petition for leave to

intervene. Requests for a hearing and

petitions for leave to intervene shall be

filed in accordance with the

Commission’s ‘‘Rules for Practice for

Domestic Licensing Proceedings’’ in 10

CFR Part 2. If a request for a hearing or

petition for leave to intervene is filed by

the above date, the Commission or an

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board,

designated by the Commission or by the

Chairman of the Atomic Safety and

Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the

request and/or petition and the

Secretary or the designated Atomic

Safety and Licensing Board will issue a

notice of hearing or an appropriate

order.

As required by 10 CFR 2.714, a

petition for leave to intervene shall set

forth with particularity the interest of

the petitioner in the proceeding, and

how that interest may be affected by the

results of the proceeding. The petition

should specifically explain the reasons

why intervention should be permitted

with particular reference to the

following factors: (1) the nature of the

petitioner’s right under the Act to be

made a party to the proceeding; (2) the

nature and extent of the petitioner’s

property, financial, or other interest in

the proceeding; and (3) the possible

effect of any order which may be

entered in the proceeding on the

petitioner’s interest. The petition should

also identify the specific aspect(s) of the

subject matter of the proceeding as to

which petitioner wishes to intervene.

Any person who has filed a petition for

leave to intervene or who has been

admitted as a party may amend the

petition without requesting leave of the

Board up to fifteen (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 fifteen (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,

and the bases for each contention set

forth with reasonable specificity.

Contentions shall be limited to matters

within the scope of the action under

consideration. 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.

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,
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 1997 / Notices 54657

Washington, D.C. 20555, Attention:

Docketing and Service Branch, or may

be delivered to the Commission’s Public

Document Room, the Gelman Building,

2120 L Street, NW., Washington, D.C. 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,

D.C. 20555, and to Lisa A. Campagna,

Assistant General Counsel, Law

Department, Westinghouse Electric

Corporation, P.O. Box 355, Pittsburgh,

Pennsylvania 15230, 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 petitioner 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 licensee’s application

dated July 31, 1997, which is available

for public inspection at the

Commission’s Public Document Room,

2120 L Street, NW., Washington, D.C.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day

of October 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Seymour H. Weiss,

Director, Non-Power Reactors and

Decommissioning Project Directorate,

Division of Reactor Program Management,

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–27873 Filed 10–20–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–440]

The Cleveland Electric Illuminating

Company, et al. Perry Nuclear Power

Plant, Unit No. 1; Environmental

Assessment and Finding of No

Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering approval, by issuance of an

order under 10 CFR 50.80, of the

indirect transfer of Facility Operating

License No. NPF–58, to the extent it is

held by the Duquesne Light Company

(Duquesne Light) for the Perry Nuclear

Power Plant, Unit No. 1 (PNPP), located

in Lake County, Ohio.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed

The proposed action would consent to

the indirect transfer of the license with

respect to a proposed merger between

DQE, Inc. and Allegheny Power System,

Inc. DQE, Inc. is the parent holding

company of Duquesne Light, which

holds a license to possess an interest in

PNPP. Duquesne Light, The Cleveland

Electric Illuminating Company (CEI),

Toledo Edison Company, Centerior

Service Company (CSC), OES Nuclear,

Inc., Ohio Edison Company, and

Pennsylvania Power Company are

holders of Facility Operating License

No. NPF–58, dated November 13, 1986.

Facility Operating License No. NPF–58

authorizes the holders to possess the

PNPP, and authorizes CEI and CSC to

use and operate PNPP in accordance

with the conditions and requirements

set forth in the operating license. By

letter dated August 1, 1997, the

Commission was informed that DQE,

Inc. and Allegheny Power have entered

into a merger agreement which will

result in the indirect transfer of control

of the interest held by Duquesne Light

in the PNPP operating license to

Allegheny Power, which will be

renamed Allegheny Energy, Inc.

(Allegheny Energy).

According to the application, the

merger will have no adverse effect on

either the technical management or

operation of PNPP since CEI and CSC,

responsible for the operation and

maintenance of PNPP, are not involved

in the merger. The Toledo Edison

Company, Ohio Edison Company, OES

Nuclear, Inc., CEI, CSC, and

Pennsylvania Power Company will

remain licensees responsible for their

possessory interests and related

obligations. No direct transfer of the

license will result from the merger.

The proposed action is in accordance

with Duquesne Light’s request for

approval dated August 1, 1997.

The Need for the Proposed Action

The proposed action is required to

obtain the necessary consent to the

indirect transfer of the license discussed

above. According to the application, the

underlying transaction is needed to

create a stronger, more competitive

enterprise that is expected to save over

$1 billion in net savings over the first 10

years, thereby enhancing Duquesne

Light’s financial resources to possess its

interests in the PNPP.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The proposed action involves

administrative activities unrelated to

plant operation.

The proposed action will not result in

an increase in the probability or

consequences of accidents or result in a

change in occupational or offsite dose.

Therefore, there are no radiological

impacts associated with the proposed

action.

The proposed action will not result in

a change in nonradiological plant

effluents and will have no other

nonradiological environmental impact.

Accordingly, the Commission

concludes that there are no

environmental impacts associated with

this action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

As an alternative to the proposed

action, the staff considered denial of the

proposed action. Denial of the

application would result in no change

in current environmental impacts. The

environmental impacts of the proposed

action and the alternative action are

similar.

Alternative Use of Resources

This action does not involve the use

of any resources not previously

considered in the ‘‘Final Environmental

Statement Related to the Operation of

Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and

2,’’ dated August 1982, in NUREG–0884.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on October 1, 1997, the staff consulted

with the Ohio State official regarding

the environmental impact of the

proposed action. The State official had

no comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

Based upon the environmental

assessment, the Commission concludes

that the proposed action will not have

a significant effect on the quality of the

human environment. Accordingly, the

Commission has determined not to

prepare an environmental impact

statement for the proposed action.

For further details with respect to the

proposed action, see Duquesne Light’s

submittal dated August 1, 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

Perry Public Library, 3753 Main Street,

Perry, Ohio 44081.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day

of October 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Gail H. Marcus,

Director, Project Directorate III–3 Division of

Reactor Projects III/IV Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–27875 Filed 10–20–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P