Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 57 / Tuesday, March 25, 1997 / Notices 14169

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 the amendment is issued before the

expiration of the 30-day hearing period,

the Commission will make a final

determination on the issue of no

significant hazards consideration. If a

hearing is requested, 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 John F.

Stolz, Director, Project Directorate I–2:

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 Jay Silberg, Esquire, Shaw,

Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge, 2300 N

Street NW., Washington, DC 20037,

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 March 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 Osterhout Free Library, Reference

Department, 71 South Franklin Street,

Wilkes-Barre, PA 18701.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day

of March 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Chester Poslusny,

Project Manager, Project Directorate I–2,

Division of Reactor Projects—I/II, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–7507 Filed 3–24–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

[Docket No. 50–482]

Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating

Corporation; Notice of Withdrawal of

Application for Amendment to Facility

Operating License

The United States Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) has

granted the request of Wolf Creek

Nuclear Operating Corporation (the

licensee) to withdraw its December 3,

1996, application for proposed

amendment to Facility Operating

License No. NPF–42 for the Wolf Creek

Generating Station, located in Coffey

County Kansas.

The proposed amendment would

have changed the Action Statement

associated with Item 7.b, RWST Level—

Low-Low Coincident with Safety

Injection, Table 3.3–3, Engineered

Safety Features Actuation System

Instrumentation, from Action 16 to

Action 28.

The Commission had previously

issued a Notice of Consideration of

Issuance of Amendment published in

the Federal Register on January 2, 1997

(62 FR 133). However, by letter dated

February 28, 1997, the licensee

withdrew the proposed change.

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application for

amendment dated December 3, 1996,

and the licensee’s letter dated February

28, 1997, which withdrew the

application for license amendment. The

above documents are available for

public inspection at the Commission’s

Public Document Room, 2120 L Street,

N.W., Washington, D.C., and the local

public documents rooms located at

Emporia State University, William Allen

White Library, 1200 Commercial Street,

Emporia, Kansas 66801 and Washburn

University School of Law Library,

Topeka, Kansas 66621.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 17th day

of March 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

James C. Stone,

Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate

IV–2, Division of Reactor Projects III/IV, Office

of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–7504 Filed 3–24–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

[Docket Nos. STN 50–528, STN 50–529, and

STN 50–530]

Arizona Public Service Company; Palo

Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Unit

Nos. 1, 2, and 3 Environmental

Assessment and Finding of No

Significant Impact

The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of amendments to

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–41,

NPF–51, and NPF–74, issued to Arizona

Public Service Company (the licensee),

for operation of the Palo Verde Nuclear

Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and

3, located in Maricopa County, Arizona.
14170 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 57 / Tuesday, March 25, 1997 / Notices

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

The proposed action would modify

the licenses for Palo Verde Nuclear

Generating Station (PVNGS), Unit Nos.

1, 2, and 3, to authorize revision of the

Updated Final Safety Analysis Report

(UFSAR) to reflect a revised electrical

grid stability analysis. The revised

analysis addresses a previously

unanalyzed condition of loss of two

offsite transmission lines. This

condition results from the construction

by the Salt River Project of a new high

voltage transmission line over two of

five existing transmission lines serving

PVNGS.

The proposed action is in accordance

with the licensee’s application dated

December 27, 1996.

The Need for the Proposed Action

The proposed action would permit

the licensee to revise the UFSAR to

incorporate the previously unanalyzed

simultaneous loss of two transmission

lines, making this condition part of the

licensing basis for the facility.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The Commission has completed its

evaluation of the proposed action and

concludes that there is no significant

environmental consideration involved

with the proposed action. Incorporation

of the event involving the simultaneous

loss of two of five offsite power sources

does not affect the existing design or

operation of the plants, does not involve

any modifications to the plants or any

increase in the licensed power for the

plants, does not affect plant effluents,

and does not create any new or

unreviewed environmental impacts that

were not considered in the Final

Environmental Statement (FES).

The revised analysis for loss of offsite

transmission lines demonstrates that the

loss would not result in a loss of offsite

power (LOOP) event to the site. The

remaining electrical power supply lines

will continue to supply power to all

three units following the grid

disturbance resulting from the

postulated simultaneous loss of two

power supply lines. Thus the loss of

these two lines will not affect the plants’

operation. The revised analysis does

not, therefore, increase the

environmental impacts of postulated

accidents discussed in Section 5.9.2 of

the FES, and is of no measurable

environmental impact.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

Since the Commission has concluded

that 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 Related to the Operation of

the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating

Station, Units 1, 2, and 3,’’ dated

February 1982.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on March 17, 1997, the staff consulted

with the Arizona State official, Mr.

William Wright of the Arizona

Radiation Regulatory Agency, regarding

the environmental impact of the

proposed action. The State official had

no comments.

Finding of ØNo Significant Impact

Based on 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 December 27, 1996, which is

available for public inspection at the

Commission’s Public Document Room,

which is located at The Gelman

Building, 2120 L Street, NW.,

Washington, D.C., and at the local

public document room located at the

Phoenix Public Library, 1221, N. Central

Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85004.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day

of March 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

James W. Clifford,

Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate

IV–2, Division of Reactor Projects III/IV, Office

of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–7505 Filed 3–24– 97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

Advisory Committee on the Medical

Uses of Isotopes: Meeting Notice

AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission will convene a meeting of

the Advisory Committee on the Medical

Uses of Isotopes on April 10–11, 1997.

Topics will include discussions of: the

Commission’s Staff Requirements

Memorandum entitled ‘‘Materials/

Medical Oversight (DSI 7)’’; NRC’s

Medical Policy Statement of 1979;

criteria and racking of medical

procedures by risk; regulatory use of

industry standards; misadministrations;

the advisory committee process; and

status reports on proposed rulemaking

and guidance documents. In addition,

on April 11, 1997, the members of the

Committee will prepare for a May 15,

1997, meeting with the Commissioners.

The Commission briefing will be

Noticed separately.

LOCATION: The meeting will take place at

the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Two White Flint North,

11545 Rockville Pike, Room T2B3,

Rockville, MD 20852–2738. All sessions

of the meeting will be open to the

public.

DATES: The meeting will begin at 8:30

a.m., on April 10, 1997, and 8:00 a.m.

on April 11, 1997.

ADDRESSES: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Two White Flint North,

11545 Rockville Pike, Room T2B3,

Rockville, MD 20852–2738.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT:

William B. McCarthy, Ph.D., U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office

of Nuclear Material Safety and

Safeguards, MS T8F5, Washington, DC

20555, Telephone (301) 415–7900.

Conduct of the Meeting

Judith Ann Stitt, M.D., will chair the

meeting. Dr. Stitt will conduct the

meeting in a manner that will facilitate

the orderly conduct of business. The

following procedures apply to public

participation in the meeting:

1. Persons who wish to provide a

written statement should submit a

reproducible copy to William B.

McCarthy (address listed previously), by

April 4, 1997. Statements must pertain

to the topics on the agenda for the

meeting.

2. At the meeting, questions from

members of the public will be permitted

at the discretion of the Chairman.

3. The transcript and written

comments will be available for

inspection, and copying, for a fee, at the

NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L

Street, N.W., Lower Level, Washington,

DC 20555, telephone (202) 634–3273, on

or about April 18, 1997. Minutes of the

meeting will be available on or about

May 23, 1997.