67416 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 1997 / Notices

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 030–31373–CivP; ASLBP No.

98–735–01–CivP; EA 97–207]

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board; In

the Matter of Conam Inspection, Inc.,

Itasca, Illinois (License No. 12–16559–

01), Order Imposing Civil Monetary

Penalty; Notice of Hearing

December 18, 1997.

Notice is hereby given that, by

Memorandum and Order (Granting

Request for Hearing and Scheduling

Prehearing Conference), dated December

17, 1997, the Atomic Safety and

Licensing Board has granted the request

of Conam Inspection, Inc. (Conam or

Licensee), for a hearing in the abovetitled proceeding. The hearing concerns

the Order Imposing a Civil Monetary

Penalty in the amount of $16,000,

issued by the NRC Staff on November 5,

1997 (published at 62 FR 60923

(November 13, 1997)). The parties to the

proceeding are Conam and the NRC

Staff. The issues to be considered at the

hearing are (a) whether the Licensee was

in violation of the Commission’s

requirements as set forth in Violations

I.B and I.C of the Notice of Violation

and Proposed Imposition of Civil

Penalty (NOV), dated June 9, 1997; and

(b) whether, on the basis of such

violations and the additional violations

set forth in the NOV that the Licensee

admitted, the Order Imposing a Civil

Monetary Penalty should be sustained.

Materials concerning this proceeding

are on file at the Commission’s Public

Document Room, 2120 L St. N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20555, and at the

Commission’s Region III Office, 801

Warrenville Road, Lisle, Illinois 60532–

4351.

During the course of this proceeding,

the Licensing Board, as necessary, will

conduct one or more prehearing

conferences and evidentiary hearing

sessions. The time and place of these

sessions will be announced in Licensing

Board Orders. The first prehearing

conference is scheduled for January 14,

1998, and is to be conducted through a

telephone conference call. Except for

conferences conducted by telephone

conference calls (which are in any event

to be transcribed), members of the

public are invited to attend any such

sessions.

Dated: December 18, 1997 at Rockville,

Maryland.

For the Atomic Safety and Licensing

Board.

Charles Bechhoefer,

0Chairman Administrative Judge.

[FR Doc. 97–33551 Filed 12–23–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Advisory Committee on Reactor

Safeguards, Subcommittee Meeting on

Fire Protection; Notice of Meeting

The ACRS Subcommittee on Fire

Protection will hold a meeting on

January 22, 1998, Room T–2B3, 11545

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.

The meeting will be open to public

attendance.

The agenda for the subject meeting

shall be as follows:

Thursday, January 22, 1998–8:30 a.m.

until the conclusion of business.

The Subcommittee will review the

staff’s schedule and status for the

development of the proposed Fire

Protection Rule. The purpose of this

meeting is to gather information,

analyze relevant issues and facts, and

formulate proposed positions and

actions, as appropriate, for deliberation

by the full Committee.

Oral statements may be presented by

members of the public with the

concurrence of the Subcommittee

Chairman; written statements will be

accepted and made available to the

Committee. Electronic recordings will

be permitted only during those portions

of the meeting that are open to the

public, and questions may be asked only

by members of the Subcommittee, its

consultants, and staff. Persons desiring

to make oral statements should notify

the cognizant ACRS staff engineer

named below five days prior to the

meeting, if possible, so that appropriate

arrangements can be made.

During the initial portion of the

meeting, the Subcommittee, along with

any of its consultants who may be

present, may exchange preliminary

views regarding matters to be

considered during the balance of the

meeting.

The Subcommittee will then hear

presentations by and hold discussions

with representatives of the NRC staff,

and other interested persons regarding

this review.

Further information regarding topics

to be discussed, whether the meeting

has been canceled or rescheduled, the

Chairman’s ruling on requests for the

opportunity to present oral statements

and the time allotted therefor can be

obtained by contacting the cognizant

ACRS staff engineer, Mr. Amarjit Singh

(telephone 301/415–6899) between 7:30

a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (EST). Persons

planning to attend this meeting are

urged to contact the above named

individual one or two working days

prior to the meeting to be advised of any

potential changes to the agenda, etc.,

that may have occurred.

Dated: December 17, 1997.

Gail H. Marcus,

Acting Deputy Executive Director.

[FR Doc. 97–33552 Filed 12–23–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Advisory Committee on Reactor

Safeguards Subcommittee Meeting on

Human Factors; Revised

The meeting of the ACRS

Subcommittee on Human Factors

scheduled to be held on January 20,

1998, Room T–2B3, 11545 Rockville

Pike, Rockville, Maryland has been

rescheduled for Wednesday, January 21,

1998, 8:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Notice of

this meeting was previously published

in the Federal Register on Tuesday,

December 16, 1997. (62 FR 65824). All

other items pertaining to this meeting

remain the same as previously

published.

For further information please contact

the cognizant ACRS staff engineer, Mr.

Noel F. Dudley (telephone 301/415–

6888) between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m.

(EST).

Dated: December 17, 1997.

Gail H. Marcus,

Acting Deputy Executive Director.

[FR Doc. 97–33553 Filed 12–23–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 40–08968]

Hydro Resources, Inc.; Issuance of the

Safety Evaluation Report for the

Crownpoint Uranium Solution Mining

Project, Crownpoint, NM

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) staff has issued its

Safety Evaluation Report (SER), dated

December 1997, for Hydro Resources,

Inc.’s (HRI’s) proposed Crownpoint

Uranium Solution Mining Project at

Crownpoint, NM. The SER documents

the NRC staff’s safety review of the

project. The SER and the Crownpoint
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 1997 / Notices 67417

Uranium Mining Project Final

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS),

dated February 1997 (NUREG–1508),

provide the basis for NRC’s decision to

issue a 10 CFR Part 40 source material

license to HRI. The staff will issue a

license to HRI 30 days from issuance of

the SER. The license will authorize HRI

to construct and operate in situ leach

(ISL) mining facilities at the Crownpoint

Project for a period of five years. In

preparing the SER, the NRC staff

reviewed HRI’s license application

submittals and its Consolidated

Operations Plan, Revision 2.0 (dated

August 15, 1997), against the applicable

regulations in 10 CFR parts 19, 20, 40,

and 71. The SER supports the NRC

staff’s finding that issuing the license to

HRI will be in accordance with the

aforementioned regulations, and with

all applicable safety requirements of the

Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA), as

amended.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Robert D. Carlson of the Uranium

Recovery Branch, Mail Stop TWFN 7–

J9, Division of Waste Management,

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and

Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555.

Telephone (301) 415–8165; e-mail

RDC@NRC.GOV.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April

25, 1998, HRI submitted an application

to NRC proposing to construct and

operate an ISL uranium mining facility

in McKinley County, near Church Rock,

New Mexico. HRI later amended its

application to include additional ISL

operations in McKinley County, near an

area of land referred to as Unit 1, and

Crownpoint, NM. Together, the three

sites comprise HRI’s Crownpoint

Uranium Solution Mining Project.

The NRC staff’s environmental review

of the Crownpoint Project is

documented in the FEIS, pursuant to

CFR Part 51. The NRC staff concluded

that HRI’s proposed Crownpoint Project

was environmentally acceptable, and

that potential impacts of the proposed

project could be mitigated. These

mitigative measures will be enumerated

as conditions in HRI’s source materials

license. Additionally, the NRC staff

completed its safety evaluation of the

Crownpoint Project and documented its

review in the SER. Based on its review,

the NRC staff concluded that issuance of

a source material license, with certain

conditions specified in the license,

would not be inimical to the common

defense and security or to the public’s

health and safety, and otherwise meets

the requirements of 10 CFR parts 19, 20,

40, and 71, and the AEA. The NRC

staff’s conclusions in the FEIS and SER

provide the bases for NRC’s decision to

tissue a source material license to HRI

30 days from issuance of the SER.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 4th day

of December 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Joseph J. Holonich,

Chief, Uranium Recovery Branch, Division

of Waste Management, Office of Nuclear

Material Safety and Safeguards.

[FR Doc. 97–33549 Filed 12–23–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 2590–01–M

NUCLEAR WASTE TECHNICAL

REVIEW BOARD

Notice of Meeting

Board Meeting: January 20 (beginning

at 1 p.m.) & 21, 1998—Amargosa Valley,

Nevada: Department of Energy (DOE)

program update, public input to the

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board,

the DOE thermal testing program,

saturated zone hydrology, and the

saturated zone expert elicitation project.

Pursuant to its authority under

section 5051 of Public Law 100–203, the

Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act

of 1987, the Nuclear Waste Technical

Review Board will hold its winter

meeting on Tuesday and Wednesday,

January 20–21, 1998, in Amargosa

Valley, Nevada. The meeting, which is

open to the public, will be held at the

Longstreet Inn and Casino, HCR 70, Box

559, Amargosa Valley, Nevada 89020;

Tel (702) 372–1777; Fax (702) 372–1280.

The meeting will include an update

on the DOE’s nuclear waste

management program and activities at

Yucca Mountain, Nevada, and sessions

on the DOE’s thermal testing program,

saturated zone flow and transport

modeling, and the saturated zone expert

elicitation project. A session also will be

held concerning the board’s activities

under the Government Performance and

Results Act (GPRA). A detailed agenda

will be available approximately two

weeks prior to the meeting by fax or email, or at the Board’s website,

www.nwtrb.gov.

In 1993, the Congress passed the

Government Performance and Results

Act, intending to improve confidence in

government by holding agencies

accountable for activities that affect

taxpayers lives. The law requires every

federal agency to develop a strategic

plan, including the critical component

of a statement addressing how the

agency plans to conduct itself while

carrying out its mission. During the

GPRA session at the winter meeting in

Amargosa Valley, Nevada, the Board

would like to solicit comments from the

public concerning the Board’s value

statement, which follows.

The Board takes very seriously its role

as a major source of technical and

scientific peer review of the nation’s

program to package, transport, and

dispose of high-level radioactive waste

and spent nuclear fuel. To that end, the

Board will:

• Ensure Board practices and

procedures are conducted with integrity

and objectivity that are beyond

reproach.

• Produce timely, complete,

comprehensive, and thoughtful

scientific and techical analyses.

• Communicate the Board’s findings

and recommendations at least twice a

year clearly, and in a timely manner that

is most beneficial to the Congress, the

Department of Energy, and the public.

• Ensure the Board’s findings and

recommendations are based on current

and accurate information.

• Ensure the Board conducts itself in

an open and accessible manner.

The Board will ask those present to

answer three questions:

1. Does the Board conduct its

meetings in an open, objective, and fair

manner? For example, are members of

the public treated with respect and

consideration when participating in the

meetings?

2. Given the technical and often

detailed nature of the Board’s work,

does the Board explain its major points

and positions in reports and letters so

that they are understandable? For

example, is there a general

understanding of the reasons for the

Board’s recommendation to construct an

east-west crossing of the potential

repository block at Yucca Mountain?

3. Most important, to what extent is

the Board a credible source of scientific

and technical advice to the Department

of Energy and the Congress? In general,

what is the basis for your opinion?

In responding to these questions,

those present will be asked to keep in

mind that the scope of the Board’s work

is defined specifically in federal law.

That law, P.L. 100–203, December 22,

1987, mandates that the Board is to

evaluate the scientific and technical

work of the Department of Energy in its

commercial nuclear waste disposal

program, including waste packaging and

transportation activities.

Time has been set aside for oral

comments from the public on these

issues. Depending on the number of

speakers, time limits may have to be

imposed. Preprinted comment sheets

will be available at the meeting for use

in submitting written comments.

Also, additional time has been set

aside on both days for the public to