63736 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 1997 / Notices

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

N.S. Renolds, Esq., Winston & Stran,

1400 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

20005–3502, 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).

The Commission hereby provides

notice that this a proceeding on an

application for a license amendment

falling within the scope of section 134

of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982

(NWPA), 42 U.S.C. 10154. Under

section 134 of the NWPA, the

Commission, at the request of any party

to the proceeding, must use hybrid

hearing procedures with respect to ‘‘any

matter which the Commission

determines to be in controversy among

the parties.’’ The hybrid procedures in

section 134 provide for oral argument

on matters in controversy, preceded by

discovery under the Commission’s

rules, and the designation, following

argument, of only those factual issues

that involve a genuine and substantial

dispute, together with any remaining

questions of law, to be resolved in an

adjudicatory hearing. Actual

adjudicatory hearings are to be held on

only those issues found to meet the

criteria of section 134 and set for

hearing after oral argument.

The Commission’s rules

implementing section 134 of the NWPA

are found in 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart K,

‘‘Hybrid Hearing Procedures for

Expansion of Spent Nuclear Fuel

Storage Capacity at Civilian Nuclear

Power Reactors’’ (published at 50 FR

41670, October 15, 1985) to 10 CFR

2.1101 et seq. Under those rules, any

party to the proceeding may invoke the

hybrid hearing procedures by filing with

the presiding officer a written request

for oral argument under 10 CFR 2.1109.

To be timely, the request must be filed

within 10 days of an order granting a

request for hearing or petition to

intervene. (As outlined above, the

Commission’s rules in 10 CFR Part 2,

Subpart G, and 2.714 in particular,

continue to govern the filing of requests

for a hearing or petitions to intervene,

as well as the admission of contentions.)

The presiding officer shall grant a

timely request for oral argument. The

presiding officer may grant an untimely

request for oral argument only upon

showing of good cause by the requesting

party for the failure to file on time and

after providing the other parties an

opportunity to respond to the untimely

request. If the presiding officer grants a

request for oral argument, any hearing

held on the application shall be

conducted in accordance with the

hybrid hearing procedures. In essence,

those procedures limit the time

available for discovery and require that

an oral argument be held to determine

whether any contentions must be

resolved in adjudicatory hearing. If no

party to the proceedings requests oral

argument, or if all untimely requests for

oral argument are denied, then the usual

procedures in 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart G,

apply.

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application for

amendment dated March 27, 1997, as

supplemented on April 3, and

November 13, 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 New Orleans Library,

Louisiana Collection, Lakefront, New

Orleans, LA 70122.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day

of November 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Chandu P. Patel,

Project Manager, Project Directorate IV–1,

Division of Reactor Projects—III/IV, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–31517 Filed 12–1–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–245]

Northeast Nuclear Energy Company;

Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit

No. 1, Environmental Assessment and

Finding of No Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of an exemption

from Facility Operating License No.

DPR–21, issued to Northeast Nuclear

Energy Company (NNECO or the

licensee), for operation of the Millstone

Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1

(Millstone Unit 1), located in New

London County, Connecticut.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 1997 / Notices 63737

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

The proposed action would allow for

a one-time scheduler exemption from

the containment local leak rate testing

requirements of Title 10 of the Code of

Federal Regulation (10 CFR) part 50,

Appendix J, Option A, Sections

III.D.2.(a) and III.D.3. Appendix J

requires these tests to be performed at

every refueling outage with the interval

not to exceed 2 years. The temporary

scheduler exemption would extend the

interval for Type B and Type C local

leak rate testing (LLRT) of containment

penetrations beyond the 2-year limit of

10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J. Instead of

performing the tests within the 2-year

interval, NNECO would perform the

tests prior to containment integrity

being required for startup from the

current refueling outage.

The proposed action is in accordance

with the licensee’s application for

exemption dated October 16, 1997.

The Need for the Proposed Action

The proposed action is needed to

postpone testing to maximize the use of

limited resources during the current

outage to allow for improving the

Millstone Unit 1 Appendix J program.

The postponement would also allow

NNECO to avoid any additional

radiation exposure and expense in

testing a number of penetrations and

valves more than once during the

current refueling outage.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The proposed exemption would

postpone the next Type B and Type C

tests until prior to restart from the

current refueling outage (Refueling

Outage Cycle 15). The NRC staff has

reviewed the proposed exemption and

concluded that the Type B and Type C

tests are not required to ensure that

offsite doses will be acceptable. This

conclusion is based on the licensee’s

facility remaining shut down until after

the Type B and Type C tests are

performed. As long as Millstone Unit 1

remains shut down, containment

integrity is not required and, therefore,

testing for containment integrity is not

required.

The change will not increase the

probability or consequences of

accidents, no changes are being made in

the types of any effluents that may be

released offsite, and there is no

significant increase in the allowable

individual or cumulative occupational

radiation exposure. Accordingly, the

Commission concludes that there are no

significant radiological environmental

impacts associated with the proposed

action.

With regard to potential

nonradiological impacts, the proposed

action does involve features located

entirely within the restricted area as

defined in 10 CFR Part 20. It does not

affect nonradiological plant effluents

and has no other environmental impact.

Accordingly, the Commission concludes

that there are no significant

nonradiological environmental impacts

associated with the proposed action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

Since the Commission has concluded

there is no measurable environmental

impact associated with the proposed

action, any alternatives with equal or

greater environmental impact need not

be evaluated. 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 for the Millstone Nuclear

Power Station, Unit 1.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on October 30, 1997, the staff consulted

with the Connecticut State official,

Kevin Scott of the Department of

Environmental Protection, Radiation

Control Section, 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 the licensee’s letter

dated October 16, 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

Learning Resources Center, Three Rivers

Community-Technical College, 574 New

London Turnpike, Norwich,

Connecticut, and at the Waterford

Library, ATTN: Vince Juliano, 49 Rope

Ferry Road, Waterford, Connecticut.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day

of November 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Phillip F. McKee,

Deputy Director for Licensing, Special

Projects Office, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–31519 Filed 12–1–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Nuclear

Regulatory Commission.

DATE: Weeks of December 1, 8, 15, and

December 22, 1997.

PLACE: Commissioners’ Conference

Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,

Maryland.

STATUS: Public and Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

Week of December 1

There are no meetings the week of

December 1.

Week of December 8—Tentative

Thursday, December 11

2:00 p.m.—Briefing on Investigative

Matters (Closed—Ex. 5 & 7)

3:00 p.m.—Affirmation Session (Public

Meeting) (if needed)

Friday, December 12

9:00 a.m.—Meeting with Northeast

Nuclear on Millstone (Public

Meeting) (Contact: Bill Travers,

301–415–1200)

Week of December 15—Tentative

Wednesday, December 17

2:00 p.m.—Briefing on Integration and

Evaluation of Results from Recent

Lessons-Learned Reviews

(including 50.59 Process

Improvements) (Public Meeting)

(Contact: Eileen McKenna, 301–

415–2189)

3:30 p.m.—Affirmation Session (Public

Meeting) (if needed)

Thursday, December 18

10:00 a.m.—Meeting with Advisory

Committee on Nuclear Waste

(ACNW) (Public Meeting) (Contact:

John Larkins, 301–415–7360)

Week of December 22—Tentative

There are no meetings the week of

December 22.

*The schedule for Commission

meetings is subject to change on short