76670 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 236 / Thursday, December 7, 2000 / Notices

about the impact their request would

have on maintaining safety and

reducing unnecessary regulatory

burden. Ideally, measures for safety

impact would include changes in

person-rem dose or changes in core

damage frequency (CDF). Similarly,

measures for regulatory burden

reduction would include changes in

licensee costs or power production

capability. However, the staff recognizes

that it may not be possible or practical

to provide actual risk metrics or dollar

savings, and that more qualitative

measurements may be more realistic.

The staff invites comments from our

external stakeholders to ensure that the

measures are uniform, practical, and

meaningful, and provide the appropriate

yardstick for measuring the impact that

a proposed activity has on safety and

regulatory burden. This information

would be collected for many types of

external stakeholder submittals

including license amendments, topical

reports, rulemaking petitions, and

license renewal applications. The staff

encourages suggestions on what other

submittals such information should be

collected for in response to this

initiative. Recognizing that there are

many factors that could inhibit licensees

and other stakeholders from providing

such information, we invite comments

to obtain an understanding of what the

factors are and how they may be

overcome.

The information described above

would assist NRR in (1) allocating staff

resources and (2) measuring how the

work NRR staff completes contributes to

the agency goals of maintaining safety

and reducing unnecessary regulatory

burden. The staff is requesting

comments on this proposed information

collection initiative.

With respect to the first purpose,

allocating staff resources, NRR would

use the information collected to

improve its effectiveness by pursuing

those regulatory activities that maintain

safety (or involve acceptable reductions

in margin) but provide the highest

return in reducing unnecessary

regulatory burden. NRR is establishing a

‘‘work planning center’’ to centralize the

planning and scheduling of NRR work

activities, including the prioritization of

specific work items. The priority factors

include consideration of public health

and safety, operational significance,

statutory significance, and stakeholder

standing and merit. Also factored into

the work prioritization process is the

required responsiveness (e.g., normal,

increased, or immediate). The

information collected through this

initiative would become part of the

input for this work planning and

scheduling.

This use of information provided by

licensees in order to prioritize agency

work is similar to a regulatory approach

employed by the agency and licensees

in the early 1990’s for cost beneficial

licensing actions (CBLAs). In this

approach, licensees identified for the

agency those licensing actions that had

high economic benefits, minimal impact

on safety, and required minimal agency

review time. Such actions were termed

CBLAs, and the agency afforded these

actions higher priority treatment. One

difference between this proposed

information collection initiative and the

CBLA approach is that the latter was

limited in its scope to licensing actions

meeting the above criteria. A second,

more important distinction between the

two is that this proposed initiative has

another purpose, which we describe in

the following paragraph.

With respect to the second purpose,

measuring how the work NRR staff

completes contributes to the agency

goals of maintaining safety and reducing

unnecessary regulatory burden, the

information collected would support the

agency’s efforts toward becoming a

performance-based organization. This is

consistent with the enactment of the

Government Performance and Results

Act (GPRA). The agency has established

a framework for implementing the

performance-based approach called the

Planning, Budgeting, and Performance

Management (PBPM) process. This

PBPM process consists of setting the

strategic direction, budgeting resources,

and measuring and assessing

performance. The agency reports the

measures and assessment of

performance in yearly reports to the

President and the Congress. The

information collected as described in

this initiative would be used in these

yearly reports to demonstrate to

stakeholders that safety is being

maintained even as the staff allows for

unnecessary burden reduction. The staff

would also use the information

collected to demonstrate to stakeholders

what the staff has accomplished with

the resources that we have been given.

This type of information would allow

the staff to better align its outputs (e.g.,

license amendments) to NRR

performance goals (e.g., maintain

safety). By compiling this type of

information over the fiscal year, instead

of simply stating that the NRR staff

completed 1500 licensing actions per

year (outputs), the staff can also

quantify such performance measures as

direct cost savings to licensees, personrem savings, and reduced shutdown risk

that resulted from approval of those

licensing actions (outcomes).

The success of this voluntary

initiative is dependent on industry’s

willingness to provide the information.

The staff realizes that there may be

concerns with how we will use the

information collected to prioritize work

within NRR. The staff invites comments

and suggestions such that we may

directly address such concerns. We also

recognize that this information

collection initiative should be as simple

as possible while still providing

meaningful information. We encourage

comments on how to most simply

characterize the safety and regulatory

burden impact such that this

information collection initiative does

not become time-consuming or

resource-intensive.

After receiving formal comments in

response to this Federal Register notice,

the staff plans to hold a public meeting

to develop a consensus as to the type of

voluntary information that could be

used to measure impact on safety and

reduction in unnecessary regulatory

burden. This meeting is currently

planned for February 2001. Finally, if

reasonable and acceptable metrics can

be developed and made available to all

stakeholders, the staff expects to begin

using voluntary information submitted

under this initiative after October 1,

2001.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day

of December, 2000.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

John A. Zwolinski,

Director, Division of Licensing and Project

Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 00–31155 Filed 12–6–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

In the Matter of Mr. William Kimbley

Mrs. Joan Kimbley; Order Prohibiting

Involvement in NRC-Licensed

Activities (Effective Immediately)

I

Mr. William Kimbley and Mrs. Joan

Kimbley were previously officers of

Midwest Testing, Inc., an entity that was

a holder of NRC License No. 13–24866–

02 issued by the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission pursuant to 10 CFR Part 30.

The license authorized the possession

and use cesium-137 and americium-241

as sealed sources in moisture density

gauges. The license was issued on

August 19, 1992, and was terminated on

June 12, 1995.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 236 / Thursday, December 7, 2000 / Notices 76671

On June 12, 1995, a Confirmatory

Order was issued prohibiting Mr.

William Kimbley and Mrs. Joan Kimbley

from engaging in licensed activities for

five years from June 2, 1995. The Order

was issued due to deliberate violations

of NRC requirements involving: The

failure to provide personnel monitoring

devices to individuals using licensed

material; the failure to perform leak tests

of nuclear moisture density gauges; the

storage of licensed material at an

unauthorized location; the failure to

request a license amendment to name a

new Radiation Protection Officer; and,

the use of nuclear moisture density

gauges with an expired license.

II

In 1998, the NRC, during a review of

retired license files, identified that NRC

License No. 13–24866–01, issued to

Midwest Testing, Inc., contained

inadequate documentation regarding the

disposition of three nuclear moisture

density gauges. License No. 13–24866–

01 was superseded with License No. 13–

24866–02. License No. 13–24866–02

was terminated on June 12, 1995.

A review of records indicated that

during a November 18, 1994, telephone

conversation with NRC staff, Mr.

William Kimbley stated that two of his

gauges were gone, sold to other

authorized users. However, on

November 23, 1994, Mr. Kimbley stated

that he was unable to sell the gauges but

would transfer the gauges to an

authorized user. On December 14, 1998,

NRC staff contacted Mr. William

Kimbley to determine the final

disposition of the nuclear gauges.

During this telephone conversation, Mr.

William Kimbley stated that Midwest

Testing, Inc. was no longer in business

and that one gauge was at a repair shop

and the other two gauges were in

California being refurbished. A

subsequent NRC review of the license

files identified the companies that

received the gauges. The first company

stated that they received one gauge,

which was held by them for

nonpayment of repair service fees and

subsequently was sold to another

company licensed to possess nuclear

moisture density gauges. A second

company stated that they received the

other two gauges for storage on

December 1, 1994, and returned the

gauges to Mr. William Kimbley on

January 15, 1997. It was then

determined that a third company

received these two gauges from Mr.

William Kimbley for refurbishment on

May 14, 1997, and returned both gauges

to Mr. Kimbley on June 16, 1997. Due

to the uncertainty of the whereabouts of

these two gauges, a special inspection

was conducted January 5, 1999.

During this special inspection, Mr.

William Kimbley stated that he did not

have the gauges. After additional

discussion with Mr. William Kimbley,

the NRC found the two nuclear moisture

density gauges at the residence of Mr.

William Kimbley and Mrs. Joan

Kimbley. It was verified by the NRC on

January 8, 1999, that these two gauges

were transferred to a licensee authorized

to possess the gauges. NRC concluded

that Mr. William Kimbley and Mrs. Joan

Kimbley apparently had possessed these

gauges from January 15, 1997, to May

14, 1997, and from June 16, 1997 to

January 7, 1999, without a valid license

and contrary to the June 12, 1995,

Confirmatory Order.

The NRC Office of Investigations

initiated an investigation on January 5,

1999, to determine whether Mr. William

Kimbley and Mrs. Joan Kimbley

deliberately possessed licensed material

in violation of NRC requirements and

the June 12, 1995, Confirmatory Order.

The investigation also reviewed whether

Mr. William Kimbley made false

statements to NRC staff. As a result of

the investigation, it was determined that

Mr. William Kimbley and Mrs. Joan

Kimbley deliberately possessed licensed

material in violation of NRC

requirements and the June 12, 1995,

Confirmatory Order. In addition, the

investigation determined that Mr.

William Kimbley deliberately provided

inaccurate information to NRC staff on

November 18, 1994, December 14, 1998,

and January 5, 1999, when he denied he

had possession of the nuclear moisture

density gauges.

A predecisional enforcement

conference was conducted with Mr.

William Kimbley on September 8, 2000,

to discuss the possession of nuclear

moisture density gauges in apparent

deliberate violation of NRC

requirements and the June 12, 1995,

Confirmatory Order. Mr. William

Kimbley stated the gauges had been

stored at a licensed facility and were

subsequently shipped to the gauge

manufacturer for refurbishment. Mr.

William Kimbley stated that the

manufacturer returned the gauges to

him without informing him that they

were being returned. Mr. Kimbley stated

he had difficulty selling the gauges due

to their age and subsequently moved

them to his home where they were

found by the NRC. Mr. Kimbley stated

he knew the gauges were required to be

stored in a licensed facility and had

tried to keep them there. Mr. Kimbley

also stated that he did not consider

whether possessing the gauges violated

the June 12, 1995, Confirmatory Order.

III

Based on the above, it appears that

Mr. William Kimbley and Mrs. Joan

Kimbley deliberately violated Section

81 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as

amended (Act); 10 CFR 30.3; and the

June 12, 1995, Confirmatory Order.

Section 81 of the Act and 10 CFR 30.3

require, in part, that no person possess

byproduct material except as authorized

in a general or specific license.

Specifically, the NRC has concluded

that Mr. William Kimbley and Mrs. Joan

Kimbley deliberately violated NRC

requirements and the June 12, 1995,

Confirmatory Order since they

knowingly possessed two nuclear

moisture density gauges containing

byproduct material without an NRC

license between January 15, 1997, and

May 14, 1997, and between June 16,

1997 and January 7, 1999. In addition,

it appears that Mr. William Kimbley

deliberately violated 10 CFR 30.10. 10

CFR 30.10 requires, in part, that a

person may not deliberately submit to

NRC information that the person knows

to be incomplete or inaccurate. Mr.

William Kimbley deliberately violated

10 CFR 30.10 on November 18, 1994,

December 14, 1998, and January 5, 1999,

when he denied possessing nuclear

moisture density gauges. Consequently,

in light of the nature of the violations,

the length of time the violations existed,

and the deliberate nature of the

violations, I lack the requisite

reasonable assurance that licensed

activities can be conducted in

compliance with the Commission’s

requirements and that the health and

safety of the public will be protected if

Mr. William Kimbley and Mrs. Joan

Kimbley were permitted at this time to

be involved in NRC-licensed activities.

Therefore, the public health, safety and

interest require that Mr. William

Kimbley and Mrs. Joan Kimbley be

prohibited from any involvement in

NRC-licensed activities for a period of

five years from the date of this Order.

Additionally, Mr. William Kimbley and

Mrs. Joan Kimbley are required to notify

the NRC of their first employment in

NRC-licensed activities for a period of

five years following the prohibition

period. Furthermore, pursuant to 10

CFR 2.202, I find that the significance of

Mr. William Kimbley’s and Mrs. Joan

Kimbley’s conduct described above is

such that the public health, safety and

interest require that this Order be

immediately effective.

IV

Accordingly, pursuant to sections 81,

161b, 161i, 161o, 182 and 186 of the

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended,

76672 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 236 / Thursday, December 7, 2000 / Notices

and the Commission’s regulations in 10

CFR 2.202, 10 CFR 30.3, 10 CFR 30.10,

and 10 CFR 150.20, It Is Hereby

Ordered, Effective Immediately, That:

1. Mr. William Kimbley and Mrs. Joan

Kimbley are prohibited for five years

from the date of this Order from

engaging in NRC-licensed activities and

from possessing licensable byproduct

materials. NRC-licensed activities are

those activities that are conducted

pursuant to a specific or general license

issued by the NRC, including, but not

limited to, those activities of Agreement

State licensees conducted pursuant to

the authority granted by 10 CFR 150.20.

2. If Mr. William Kimbley and Mrs.

Joan Kimbley are currently involved

with another licensee in NRC-licensed

activities, they must immediately cease

those activities, and inform the NRC of

the name, address and telephone

number of the employer, and provide a

copy of this Order to the employer.

3. For a period of five years after the

five-year period of prohibition has

expired, Mr. William Kimbley and Mrs.

Joan Kimbley shall, within 20 days of

their acceptance of their first

employment offer involving NRClicensed activities or their becoming

involved in NRC-licensed activities, as

defined in Paragraph IV.1 above,

provide notice to the Director, Office of

Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555, of

the name, address, and telephone

number of the employer or the entity

where they are, or will be, involved in

the NRC-licensed activities. In the

notification, Mr. William Kimbley and

Mrs. Joan Kimbley shall include a

statement of their commitment to

compliance with regulatory

requirements and the basis why the

Commission should have confidence

that they will now comply with

applicable NRC requirements.

The Director, Office of Enforcement,

may, in writing, relax or rescind any of

the above conditions upon

demonstration by Mr. William Kimbley

and Mrs. Joan Kimbley of good cause.

V

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, Mr.

William Kimbley and Mrs. Joan Kimbley

must, and any other person adversely

affected by this Order may, submit an

answer to this Order, and may request

a hearing on this Order, within 20 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,

DC 20555, and include a statement of

good cause for the extension. The

answer may consent to this Order.

Unless the answer consents to this

Order, the answer shall, in writing and

under oath or affirmation, specifically

admit or deny each allegation or charge

made in this Order and shall set forth

the matters of fact and law on which Mr.

William Kimbley and Mrs. Joan Kimbley

or other person adversely affected relies

and the reasons as to why the Order

should not have been issued. Any

answer or request for a hearing shall be

submitted to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Attn:

Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff,

Washington, DC 20555. Copies also

shall be sent to the Director, Office of

Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555, to

the Assistant General Counsel for

Hearings and Enforcement at the same

address, to the Regional Administrator,

NRC Region III, 801 Warrenville Road,

Lisle, Illinois 60532, and to Mr. William

Kimbley and Mrs. Joan Kimbley if the

answer or hearing request is by a person

other than Mr. William Kimbley or Mrs.

Joan Kimbley. If a person other than Mr.

William Kimbley or Mrs. Joan Kimbley

requests a hearing, that person shall set

forth with particularity the manner in

which his or her interest is adversely

affected by this Order and shall address

the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.714(d).

If a hearing is requested by Mr.

William Kimbley or Mrs. Joan Kimbley

or a person whose interest is adversely

affected, the Commission will issue an

Order designating the time and place of

any hearing. If a hearing is held, the

issue to be considered at such hearing

shall be whether this Order should be

sustained.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(i), Mr.

William Kimbley and Mrs. Joan

Kimbley, may, in addition to demanding

a hearing, at the time the answer is filed

or sooner, move the presiding officer to

set aside the immediate effectiveness of

the Order on the ground that the Order,

including the need for immediate

effectiveness, is not based on adequate

evidence but on mere suspicion,

unfounded allegations, or error.

In the absence of any request for

hearing, or written approval of an

extension of time in which to request a

hearing, the provisions specified in

Section IV above shall be final 20 days

from the date of this Order without

further order or proceedings. If an

extension of time for requesting a

hearing has been approved, the

provisions specified in Section IV shall

be final when the extension expires if a

hearing request has not been received.

An Answer or a Request for Hearing

Shall Not Stay The Immediate

Effectiveness of this Order.

Dated this 28th day of November, 2000.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Carl J. Paperiello,

Deputy Executive Director for Materials,

Research and State Programs.

[FR Doc. 00–31156 Filed 12–6–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–305]

Nuclear Management Company, LLC;

Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant;

Environmental Assessment and

Finding of No Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) is considering

issuance of an amendment to Facility

Operating License No. DPR–43 issued to

the Nuclear Management Company, LLC

(NMC or the licensee), for operation of

the Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant

(KNPP or Kewaunee), located in

Kewaunee County, Wisconsin.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

The proposed action would increase

the number of fuel assemblies that can

be stored in the Kewaunee spent fuel

pools (SFPs) from 990 fuel assemblies to

1,205 fuel assemblies, an increase of 215

fuel assemblies, by installing 215 new

spent fuel storage racks in the new north

canal pool. In addition, the new spent

fuel storage racks will use Boral as the

neutron absorber material.

The proposed action is in accordance

with the licensee’s application for

amendment dated November 18, 1999,

as supplemented by letter dated August

7, 2000.

The Need for the Proposed Action

KNPP is a pressurized water reactor

(PWR) which commenced commercial

operation in 1974, and its current

operating license will expire in

December 2013. Initially, KNPP was

designed to accommodate 168 spent fuel

assemblies (SFAs). The last phase of reracking the SFP at KNPP was completed

in 1987, which provided for the current

storage capacity of 990 SFAs. Currently,

KNPP has two storage pools. The larger

south pool contains racks with a storage

capacity for 720 SFAs, and the smaller

north pool contains racks with a storage

capacity for 270 SFAs. There are

presently 718 SFAs stored in the south

pool and 106 SFAs stored in the north

pool. As a result of the present

unavailability of an off-site spent fuel