9000 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 39 / Thursday, February 27, 1997 / Notices

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 Morris

Area Public Library District, 604 Liberty

Street, Morris, Illinois 60450. 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

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:

Docketing and Services Branch, or may

be delivered to the Commission’s Public

Document Room, the Gelman Building,

2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, by

the above date. Where petitions are filed

during the last 10 days of the notice

period, it is requested that the petitioner

promptly so inform the Commission by

a toll-free telephone call to Western

Union at 1–(800) 248–5100 (in Missouri

1–(800) 342–6700). The Western Union

operator should be given Datagram

Identification Number N1023 and the

following message addressed to Robert

A. Capra: petitioner’s name and

telephone number, date petition was

mailed, plant name, and publication

date and page number of this Federal

Register notice. 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

60603, 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 February 17, 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 Morris Area Public Library District,

604 Liberty Street, Morris, Illinois

60450.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day

of February 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Robert M. Pulsifer,

Project Manager, Project Directorate III–2,

Division of Reactor Projects—III/IV, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–4855 Filed 2–26–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

[Docket No. 50–336]

Northeast Nuclear Energy Company;

Notice of Withdrawal of Application for

Amendment to Facility Operating

License

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) has

granted the request of Northeast Nuclear

Energy Company (the licensee) to

withdraw its October 24, 1995,

application for proposed amendment to

Facility Operating License No. DPR–65

for the Millstone Nuclear Power Station,

Unit No. 2, located in New London,

Connecticut.

The proposed amendment would

have revised the Technical

Specifications to defer the next required

surveillance to inspect steam generator

tubes, from October 20, 1996, to the next

refueling outage or no later than October

20, 1997, whichever is earlier.

The Commission had previously

issued a Notice of Consideration of

Issuance of Amendment published in
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 39 / Thursday, February 27, 1997 / Notices 9001

the Federal Register on November 27,

1995 (60 FR 58402). However, by letter

dated February 4, 1997, the licensee

withdrew the proposed change.

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application for

amendment dated October 24, 1995, as

supplemented March 7, 1996, and the

licensee’s letter dated February 4, 1997,

which withdrew the application for

license amendment. The above

documents are 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 CommunityTechnical College, 574 New London

Turnpike, Norwich, Connecticut, and

the Waterford Library, ATTN: Vince

Juliano, 49 Rope Ferry Road, Waterford,

Connecticut.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day

of February 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Daniel G. McDonald,

Senior Project Manager Special Projects

Office—Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–4856 Filed 2–26–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

Northeast Utilities; Notice of Document

Availability and Public Meeting

On January 31, 1997, the U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission (NRC) received

from Northeast Nuclear Energy

Company (NNECO), the licensee for the

Millstone Nuclear Power Station, its

comprehensive plan for resolving

employee safety concerns. The plan is

in response to an NRC Order. On

October 24, 1996, the Director of the

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

sent an Order to NNECO requiring: (1)

A comprehensive plan for resolving the

Millstone station employees’ safety

concerns; and (2) an independent thirdparty oversight of NNECO’s

implementation of this plan. Copies of

NNECO’s Comprehensive Plan

pertaining to the employee safety

concerns program are available at the

Waterford Public Library, ATTN: Mr.

Vincent Juliano, 49 Rope Ferry Road,

Waterford, Connecticut, and the

Learning Resources Center, Three Rivers

Community-Technical College, 574 New

London Turnpike, Norwich,

Connecticut.

The NRC will hold a public meeting

regarding the comprehensive plan for

resolving the Millstone station

employees’ safety concerns. The

meeting will be held in the near future

at the Waterford Town Hall in

Waterford, Connecticut. The meeting

will be open to public attendance and

will be transcribed. The NRC has

elected to hold such a public meeting

because of the public’s interest.

The structure of the public meeting

shall be as follows:

NRC opening remarks

Members of the public comments and

questions

NRC closing remarks

Meeting concludes

The purpose of this public meeting is

to obtain comments from members of

the public for NRC staff use in

evaluating NNECO’s comprehensive

plan addressing employee safety

concerns. The staff will not offer any

preliminary views on its evaluation of

the comprehensive plan. The public

meeting will be chaired by a senior NRC

official who will limit presentations to

the above subject.

A meeting notice will be issued

stating the date and time of the meeting.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day

of February 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Helen N. Pastis,

Senior Project Manager, Special Projects

Office—Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–4854 Filed 2–26–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

[Docket No. 50–362]

Southern California Edison Company;

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. NPF–

15 issued to Southern California Edison

Company (the licensee) for operation of

the San Onofre Nuclear Generating

Station (SONGS), Unit No. 3 located in

San Diego County, California.

The proposed amendment would

defer implementation of Surveillance

Requirement 3.3.5.6 of Technical

Specification 3.3.5, ‘‘Engineered Safety

Features Actuation System (ESFAS)

Instrumentation’’ for the 30 subgroup

relays identified in Attachment C of the

licensee’s February 18, 1997, letter to no

later than the upcoming SONGS Unit 3

Cycle 9 refueling outage (currently

scheduled to begin on April 12, 1997).

The exigent circumstances for this TS

amendment request exist because it

would avoid an undesirable transient

associated with an unnecessary plant

shutdown and this would minimize

potential safety consequences and

operational risks associated with such

action. In the event of a planned or

unplanned shutdown of Unit 3, prior to

the Cycle 9 refueling outage, testing in

accordance with Surveillance

Requirement 3.3.5.6 will be completed

prior to increasing in Modes from that

shutdown.

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.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6) for

amendments to be granted under

exigent circumstances, the NRC staff

must determine that the amendment

request involves 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

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. The proposed change does not involve

a significant increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated.

The proposed change would defer

completion of Surveillance Requirement (SR)

3.3.5.6 of Technical Specification (TS) 3.3.5

for 30 Emergency Safety Feature Actuation

System (ESFAS) subgroup relays until the

Unit 3, Cycle 9 refueling outage.

Operation of the facility would remain

unchanged as a result of the proposed change

and no assumptions or results of any

accident analyses are affected. Based on other

surveillance testing, the response time

margin available for these subgroup relays,

results of response time testing on Unit 2

relays, and the history of no failures since the

1989 to 1993 time period, the capability of

these ESFAS subgroup relays to perform their

specified safety function has been

demonstrated and they are operable.

Therefore, the proposed change will not

involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of an accident

previously evaluated.

2. The proposed change does not create the

possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from any accident previously

evaluated.

The proposed change would defer

completion of SR 3.3.5.6 of TS 3.3.5 for 30

ESFAS subgroup relays until the Unit 3,

Cycle 9 refueling outage.