17882 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 70 / Friday, April 11, 1997 / Notices

(1) Classification of LSC Funds and

Property: i.e., unrestricted, temporarily

restricted or permanently restricted in

the financial statements. The Guide

classifies LSC funds as temporarily

restricted net assets that remain

restricted until eligible expenses are

incurred on permissible activity,

unearned LSC funds (i.e., formerly

deferred support) as refundable

advances until earned, and property

purchased with LSC funds as a

permanent restricted net asset. We

invite comments on the impact of this

treatment of LSC funds and property.

(2) Electronic transfer of Grant

Activity: LSC is seeking to establish a

uniform and effective means by which

a recipient can electronically file audits

and other financial reports with LSC.

The electronic transfer necessarily

would require uniform presentation of

financial data. We solicit comments on

the advisability and feasibility of

accomplishing this result.

(3) Cost Allocations: We invite

comments on what guidance would be

useful regarding cost allocation

procedures and bases.

(4) Appropriation of Net Assets/Fund

Balances: The Guide proposes treating

all unexpended funds at the end of the

grant year as ‘‘net assets,’’ including

amounts which could be deemed to be

an excess ‘‘fund balance’’ subject to

recovery by LSC under 45 CFR 1628. We

also invite comment on the appropriate

accounting treatment of reserves for

encumbrances and contingencies which

should be included in net assets (fund

balances).

Where possible, comments should

reference applicable paragraph numbers

in the proposed revision.

Dated: April 8, 1997.

Merceria L. Ludgood,

Deputy Director.

[FR Doc. 97–9411 Filed 4–10–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7050–01–P

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

National Science Foundation Proposal/

Award Information—Grant Proposal

Guide; Submission for OMB Review:

Comment Request

In compliance with the requirement

of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 for

opportunity for public comment on

proposed data collection projects, the

National Science Foundation (NSF) will

publish periodic summaries of proposed

projects. Such a notice was published at

Federal Register, 4815, dated January

31, 1997. No comments were received.

This material is being submitted for

OMB review with no changes. Send any

written comments to Desk Officer, OMB,

3145–0058, OIRA, Office of

Management and Budget, Washington,

DC 20503. Written comments should be

received by May 1, 1997.

Comments are invited on (a) whether

the proposed collection of information

is necessary for the proper performance

of the functions of the agency, including

whether the information shall have

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the

agency’s estimate of the burden of the

proposed collection of information; (c)

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and

clarity of the information on

respondents, including through the use

of automated collection techniques or

other forms of information technology.

Proposed project. ‘‘National Science

Foundation Proposal/Award

Information—Grant Proposal Guide.’’

The missions of the NSF are to: increase

the Nation’s base of scientific and

engineering knowledge and strengthen

its ability to support research in all

areas of science and engineering; and

promote innovative science and

engineering education programs that

can better prepare the Nation to meet

the challenges of the future. The

foundation is also committed to

ensuring the Nation’s supply of

scientists, engineers, and science

educators. In its role as leading Federal

supporter of science and engineering,

NSF also has an important role in

national science policy planning.

The information collected is used to

help the Foundation fulfill this

responsibility by initiating and

supporting merit-selected research and

education projects in all the scientific

and engineering disciplines. NSF

receives more than 30,000 proposals

annually for new or renewal support for

research, and math/science/engineering

education projects, and makes

approximately 10,000 new awards. This

support is made primarily through

grants contracts, and other agreements

awarded to approximately 2,800

colleges, universities, academic

consortia, nonprofit institutions, and

small businesses. The awards are based

on mainly on evaluations of proposal

merit submitted to the Foundation (see

OMB Clearance No. 3145–0060).

The Foundation has a continuing

commitment to monitor the operations

of its review and award processes to

identify and address excessive reporting

burdens. The Foundation is also

committed to monitor and identify any

real or apparent inequities based on

gender, race, ethnicity, or handicap of

the proposed principal investigator(s)/

project director(s) or the co-principal

investigator(s)/co-project director(s).

The collection of this information is a

part of the regular submission of

proposals to the Foundation.

Dated: April 4, 1997.

Gail A. McHenry,

NSF Clearance Officer.

[FR Doc. 97–9309 Filed 4–10–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555–01–M

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–263, 50–282, 50–306, and

72–10]

Northern States Power Company

(Monticello and Prairie Island Units 1

and 2 Nuclear Generating Plants and

Prairie Island Independent Spent Fuel

Storage Installation); Order Approving

Transfer of Control of Licenses and

Notice of Consideration of Proposed

Issuance of Associated Amendments,

Proposed No Significant Hazards

Consideration Determination, and

Opportunity for a Hearing

I

Northern States Power Company

(NSP) is owner and operator of

Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant,

Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant,

Units 1 and 2, and Prairie Island

Independent Spent Fuel Storage

Installation (ISFSI). NSP is governed by

Facility Operating Licenses Nos. DPR–

22, DPR–42, and DPR–60 issued by the

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC)

pursuant to Part 50 of Title 10 of the

Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR

Part 50). Prairie Island Nuclear

Generating Plant’s Units 1 and 2 Facility

Operating Licenses Nos. DPR–42, and

DPR–60 were issued on August 9, 1973,

and October 29, 1974, respectively. NSP

was issued Provisional Operating

License No. DPR–22 for the Monticello

Nuclear Generating Plant on September

8, 1970, and Facility Operating License

No. DPR–22 on January 9, 1981. NSP is

also governed by Materials License No.

SNM–2506 issued by the U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission (NRC) pursuant

to 10 CFR Part 72 on October 19, 1993.

The Monticello Nuclear Generating

Plant is located in Wright County,

Minnesota. The Prairie Island Nuclear

Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, and the

Prairie Island ISFSI are located in

Goodhue County, Minnesota.

II

By letter dated October 20, 1995, NSP

informed the Commission that it intends

to transfer ownership of the facility

operating licenses for Monticello

Nuclear Generating Plant, the Prairie
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 70 / Friday, April 11, 1997 / Notices 17883

Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1

and 2, and the Prairie Island ISFSI from

NSP to a newly formed NSP, which will

result from a merger between NSP and

WEC Sub Corp., a subsidiary of

Wisconsin Electric Corporation (WEC).

In connection with the proposed

transaction, WEC will be renamed

Primergy Corporation (Primergy) and

will own two operating utility

subsidiaries: (1) The New NSP, which

will be a Wisconsin corporation

(referred to herein as ‘‘New NSP’’), and

(2) a current WEC subsidiary, Wisconsin

Electric Power Company (WEPCO), into

which Northern States Power

(Wisconsin), a former subsidiary of NSP,

will have merged, and which will be

called Wisconsin Energy Company. New

NSP will continue to operate primarily

the same facilities in the same locations

as those that NSP currently does.

The transfer of Facility Operating

Licenses Nos. DPR–22, DPR–42, and

DPR–60 is subject to NRC’s approval

under 10 CFR 50.80. The transfer of

Prairie Island ISFSI License No. SNM–

2506 is subject to NRC’s approval under

10 CFR 72.50. After reviewing the

information submitted in the letter of

October 20, 1995, and other information

before the Commission, the NRC staff

has determined that New NSP is

qualified to hold the licenses to the

extent and for the purposes NSP is now

authorized to hold the licenses, and that

the transfer, subject to the conditions set

forth herein, is otherwise consistent

with applicable provisions of law,

regulations, and orders issued by the

Commission. These findings are

supported by the accompanying safety

evaluation dated April 1, 1997.

III

Accordingly, pursuant to Sections

161b, 161i, and 184 of the Atomic

Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42

USC §§ 2201(b), 2201(i), and 2234, and

10 CFR 50.80 and 10 CFR 72.50, IT IS

HEREBY ORDERED that the

Commission consents to the proposed

transfer of control of the licenses

described herein from NSP to New NSP

subject to the following: (1) The

issuance of approved amendments fully

reflecting the transfers approved by this

Order at the time such transfers are

effected; (2) should the transfers not be

completed by September 30, 1997, this

Order shall become null and void

provided, however, on application and

for good cause shown, such date may be

extended; and (3) New NSP shall

provide the Director of the Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation a copy of

any application, at the time it is filed,

to transfer (excluding grants of security

interests or liens) from New NSP to its

parent or to any other affiliated

company, facilities for the production,

transmission, or distribution of electric

energy having a depreciated book value

exceeding ten percent (10%) of New

NSP’s consolidated net utility plant, as

recorded on New NSP’s books of

account, consistent with NSP’s letter

dated August 28, 1996, to the NRC.

This Order is effective upon issuance.

IV

By May 12, 1997, any person

adversely affected by this Order may file

a request for a hearing with respect to

issuance of the Order. Any person

requesting a hearing shall set forth with

particularity how that interest is

adversely affected by this Order and

shall address the criteria set forth in 10

CFR 2.714(d), in the same manner as is

more fully discussed below regarding

requests for hearing and petitions for

leave to intervene in connection with

proposed facility license amendments.

If a hearing is held concerning this

Order, the Commission will issue an

Order designating the time and place of

such hearing.

The issue to be considered at any

such hearing shall be whether this

Order should be sustained.

Any request for a hearing must be

filed with the Secretary of the

Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555,

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. Copies should also be sent to the

Office of the General Counsel, and to the

Directors, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation and Office of Nuclear

Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555, and to Gary

Johnson, Northern States Power

Company, 414 Nicollet Mall,

Minneapolis, MN 55401, attorney for

the licensee.

V

With respect to Facility Operating

Licenses Nos. DPR–22, DPR–42, and

DPR–60, described herein, notice is

hereby given that the Commission is

considering the issuance of amendments

to the licenses to reflect the above

transfer approved by the Commission.

NSP stated in a letter dated December 6,

1995, that the application does not

involve a request for any change in the

design, operation, or administrative

controls of the Monticello Nuclear

Generating Plant, or the Prairie Island

Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2,

or any change in the terms and

conditions of the existing licenses or

technical specifications. NSP further

stated in its submittal dated October 20,

1995, that the financial capability of the

owner and operator will be maintained,

that New NSP (as owner and operator)

will remain qualified to be the holder of

the licenses, and that the transfer of the

licenses is consistent with applicable

provisions of law, regulations, and

orders issued by the Commission.

Before issuance of the proposed

facility license amendments, the

Commission will have made findings

required by the Atomic Energy Act of

1954, as amended (the Act), and the

Commission’s regulations.

The Commission has made a

proposed determination that the facility

amendment requests involve 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

amendments 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 the

margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR

50.91(a), NSP has submitted its analysis

of the issue of no significant hazards

consideration, which is given below:

The proposed amendment[s] will not

involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of an accident

previously evaluated.

As a result of the proposed license

amendment[s], there will be no physical

change to the facilities and all Limiting

Conditions for Operation, Limiting Safety

System Settings and Safety Limits specified

in the Technical Specifications will remain

unchanged. Also, the facilities’ Quality

Assurance Program, Emergency Plan,

Security Plan, and Operator Training and

Requalification Program will be unaffected.

Therefore, this amendment will not cause a

significant increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated.

The proposed amendment[s] will not

create the possibility of a new or different

kind of accident from any accident

previously analyzed.

The proposed amendment[s] will have no

effect on the physical configuration of the

facilities or the manner in which they will

operate. The design and design basis of the

facilities will remain the same. The current

safety analyses will therefore remain

complete and accurate in addressing the

design basis events and in analyzing accident

response and consequences for the facilities.

The Limiting Conditions for Operations,

Limiting Safety System Settings and Safety

Limits specified in the Technical

Specifications for the facilities are not

affected by the proposed license

amendment[s].
17884 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 70 / Friday, April 11, 1997 / Notices

As such, the conditions for which the

design basis accident analysis have been

performed will remain valid. Therefore, the

proposed license amendment[s] cannot create

the possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from any accident previously

evaluated.

The proposed amendment[s] will not

involve a significant reduction in the margin

of safety.

Facility safety margins are established

through Limiting Conditions for Operation,

Limiting Safety System Settings and Safety

Limits specified in the Technical

Specifications. Since there will be no change

to the physical design or operation of the

facilities, there will be no change to any of

these margins. Thus the proposed license

amendment[s] will not involve a significant

reduction in any margin of safety.

Based upon the analysis and description of

the transaction in our submittal dated

October 20, 1995, the proposed license

amendment[s] only reflects a change in

ownership of NSP and will not involve a

significant increase in the probability or

consequences of any accident previously

evaluated, create the possibility of a new or

different kind of accident from any accident

previously evaluated, or involve a reduction

in a margin of safety. As a result, the

proposed change meets the requirements of

10 CFR Part 50, Section 50.95(c) and does not

involve a significant hazards consideration.

The NRC staff has reviewed the

licensee’s analysis and, based on this

review, it appears that the three

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff

proposes to determine that the

amendment requests involve no

significant hazards consideration.

The Commission is seeking public

comments on this proposed

determination. Any comments received

within 30 days after the date of

publication of this notice will be

considered in making any final

determination.

Normally, the Commission will not

issue the amendments until the

expiration of the 30-day notice period.

However, should circumstances change

during the notice period such that

failure to act in a timely way would

result, for example, in derating or

shutdown of the facility, the

Commission may issue the license

amendments before the expiration of the

30-day notice period, provided that its

final determination is that the

amendments involve no significant

hazards consideration. The final

determination will consider all public

and State comments received. Should

the Commission take this action, it will

publish in the Federal Register a notice

of issuance and provide for opportunity

for a hearing after issuance. The

Commission expects that the need to

take this action will occur very

infrequently.

Written comments may be submitted

by mail to the Chief, Rules Review and

Directives Branch, Division of Freedom

of Information and Publications

Services, Office of Administration, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001, and

should cite the publication date and

page number of this Federal Register

notice. Written comments may also be

delivered to Room 6D22, Two White

Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike,

Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to

4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. Copies of

written comments received may be

examined at the NRC Public Document

Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L

Street, NW., Washington, DC.

The filing of requests for hearing and

petitions for leave to intervene is

discussed below.

By May 2, 1997, the licensee may file

a request for a hearing with respect to

issuance of the amendments to the

subject facility operating licenses, 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 request

for a hearing and a petition for leave to

intervene. Requests for a hearing and a

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

Minneapolis Public Library, Technology

and Science Department, 300 Nicollet

Mall, Minneapolis, Minnesota. If a

request for a hearing or a 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 that 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 that the

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 that 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 that supports the contention

and on which the petitioner intends to

rely in providing 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. The

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 amendments

under consideration. The contention

must be one that, if proven, would

entitle the petitioner to relief. A

petitioner who fails to file such a

supplement that 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 requests involve no
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 70 / Friday, April 11, 1997 / Notices 17885

significant hazards consideration, the

Commission may issue the amendments

and make them immediately effective,

notwithstanding the request for a

hearing. Any hearing held would take

place after issuance of the amendments.

If the final determination is that the

amendment requests involve 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. When 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 Mr.

John N. Hannon: 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 Gary Johnson,

Northern States Power Company, 414

Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 55401,

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 on the basis of 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 the

transfer of control of licenses dated

October 20, 1995, the application for

amendments dated December 6, 1995,

and NSP’s commitment to notify NRC of

certain transfers of assets dated August

28, 1996, which 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 Minneapolis Public

Library, Technology and Science

Department, 300 Nicollet Mall,

Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day

of April 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Samuel J. Collins,

Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

Carl J. Paperiello,

Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety

and Safeguards.

[FR Doc. 97–9303 Filed 4–10–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–387 50–388]

Pennsylvania Power and Light

Company Susquehanna Steam Electric

Station, Units 1 and 2; Notice of

Consideration of Issuance of

Amendments to Facility Operating

Licenses and Opportunity for a

Hearing

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of amendments to

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–14

and NPF–22, issued to Pennsylvania

Power and Light Company (the

licensee), for operation of Susquehanna

Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2,

located in Luzerne County,

Pennsylvania.

The proposed amendment would

change the technical specifications for

each unit by increasing the High

(Upscale) rod block setpoints associated

with the rod block monitor (RBM)

system for the two loop and single loop

operation. Specifically, the nominal trip

setpoints would be changed from 0.63W

+ 41% to 0.58W + 52% for two loop

operation and from 0.63W + 35% to

0.58W + 47% for single loop operation.

In addition, the allowable values would

be changed for two loop operation from

0.63W + 43% to 0.58W + 55% and for

single loop operation from 0.63W + 37%

to 0.58W + 50%. It also would change

the RBM channel calibration frequency

requirements from quarterly for Unit 1,

from semiannually for Unit 2 to during

refueling outage periods; and the

allowed out-of-service times for the

RBM system from 24 hours to 7 days

with one RBM channel inoperable, and

from one hour to 48 hours with both

RBM channels inoperable.

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.

By May 12, 1997, the licensee may file

a request for a hearing with respect to

issuance of the amendment to the

subject facility operating license 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 request

for a hearing and a petition for leave to

intervene. Requests for a hearing and a

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 Osterhout

Free Library, Reference Department, 71

South Franklin Street, Wilkes-Barre, PA

18701. 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 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