2182 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 15, 1997 / Notices

licensee has entered into a Settlement

Agreement with the NRC executed on

January 3, 1997. Under the terms of the

Settlement Agreement, Dr. Agarwal

agrees to the termination of his NRC

license and that he will not apply for an

NRC license or engage in NRC-licensed

activities for a period of five years from

the date of the execution of the

Settlement Agreement; and the NRC

agrees that it will take no further

enforcement action for the matters set

forth in the Order and Demand.

IV

Accordingly, pursuant to sections 81,

161b, 161i, 161o, 186, and 234 of the

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended,

and the Commission’s regulations in 10

CFR 2.202, 2.204, and 10 CFR Parts 30

and 35, It is hereby ordered that:

A. By February 7, 1997, Dr. Agarwal

shall transfer all NRC-licensed material

to an authorized recipient.

B. Within seven days following the

completion of the transfer, Dr. Agarwal

shall provide to the Regional

Administrator, Region I:

1. a completed NRC Form 314 to

certify that the licensed material has

been transferred, and

2. the results of a radiation survey,

conducted and prepared in accordance

with 10 CFR 30.36(j)(2), of the premises

where licensed activities were carried

out.

C. Upon written approval by NRC

Region I of the information submitted

under Section IV.B., NRC Byproduct

Materials License No. 29–28784–01 is

hereby terminated.

D. For a period of five years from

November 22, 1996, neither Dr. Agarwal

nor a successor entity shall be involved

in or exercise any control over licensed

activities within the jurisdiction of the

NRC, including, but not limited to,

involvement as owner, authorized user,

controlling shareholder, or radiation

safety officer.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 6th day

of January 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

James Lieberman,

Director, Office of Enforcement.

[FR Doc. 97–980 Filed 1–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

Docket No. 50–286

Power Authority of the State of New

York; 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. DPR–

64 issued to the Power Authority of the

State of New York for operation of the

Indian Point Nuclear Generating Station

Unit No. 3 (IP3) located in Westchester

County, New York.

The proposed amendment would

revise the IP3 Technical Specifications

(TS) to allow the storage of fuel

assemblies with nominal enrichments

up to 5.0 weight percent (w/o) Uranium235 (U–235).

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.

The Commission has made a

proposed determination 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) Does the proposed license amendment

involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of any accident

previously evaluated?

Response:

The proposed license amendment does not

involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of any accident

previously evaluated. This statement is based

on an evaluation of relevant hypothetical

accident scenarios, the NRC’s evaluation of

Westinghouse extended burnup fuel, and the

criticality analysis of the Indian Point 3 fresh

and spent fuel pits.

Evaluation of Relevant Hypothetical

Accident Scenarios

Increasing the enrichment of fuel stored in

the spent fuel pit will not increase the

probability of occurrence of the following

hypothetical accident scenarios:

1. misload of a fuel assembly;

2. spent fuel assembly drop in the spent

fuel pit;

3. spent fuel cask drop;

4. loss of spent fuel pit cooling system

flow; or

5. seismic event.

1. Misload of a Fuel Assembly

Detailed instructions and administrative

controls govern refueling operations,

precluding the misload of an assembly. The

proposed storage of extended burnup fuel

will not result in these administrative

controls being relaxed in any manner. The

probability of inserting an assembly into the

wrong location is not impacted by the

enrichment and burnup of the fuel.

Consequently, the proposed changes will not

increase the probability of misloading a fuel

assembly.

2. Spent Fuel Assembly Drop in the Spent

Fuel Pit

The probability of a spent fuel assembly

drop in the spent fuel pit is a function of the

structural integrity of the fuel storage

building overhead crane and the integrity of

the crane-assembly coupling. The probability

of such a drop is not affected by the

enrichment or burnup of the fuel. Therefore,

the use and storage of extended burnup fuel

will not increase the probability of a fuel

assembly drop.

3. Spent Fuel Cask Drop

The probability of a spent fuel cask drop

will not be affected by the increased

enrichment of the fuel. The probability of

such an event occurring is a function of the

overhead crane’s integrity, which will not be

affected by this amendment. In addition,

administrative controls are in place to

preclude the occurrence of such an event.

4. Loss of Spent Fuel Pit Cooling System Flow

A reevaluation of the Indian Point Unit 3

decay heat removal analysis to address the

storage of extended burnup fuel concluded

that the existing spent fuel pit cooling system

is adequate to handle the heat load associated

with extended burnup fuel since any

incremental increase in decay heat for

extended burnup fuel is more than

compensated for by the greater time interval

between refueling outages. In the unlikely

event the cooling system should experience

a failure, adequate time is available to

provide an alternate cooling system, which is

not affected by the fuel’s enrichment. In

addition, an existing off normal operating

procedure (ONOP) is available to compensate

for any postulated loss of spent fuel pit

cooling. Consequently, the storage of

extended burnup fuel in the spent fuel pit

will not involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of a loss of

cooling system flow event.

5. Seismic Event

The enrichment of the fuel has no effect on

the probability of a seismic event occurring.

In support of Amendment 90 to Indian Point

3’s Operating License, a seismic analysis of

the spent fuel storage racks was performed.

This analysis, which was summarized in
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 15, 1997 / Notices 2183

Reference 3 [See application dated November

22, 1996] is still applicable.

NRC Evaluation of Westinghouse Extended

Burnup Fuel

Westinghouse’s analysis of the use of

extended burnup fuel is documented in

WCAP–10125 (Proprietary), ‘‘Extended

Burnup Evaluation of Westinghouse Fuel’’.

On October 11, 1985, the NRC issued a Safety

Evaluation Report (SER) on this WCAP

(Reference 2), which concluded that: 1) fuel

damage is not expected to occur as a result

of normal operation and anticipated

operational occurrences (Condition I and II

events); 2) fuel damage during postulated

accidents (Condition III and IV events) would

not be severe enough to prevent control rod

insertion when it is required; and 3) core

coolability will always be maintained, even

after postulated accidents (Condition III and

IV events). These conclusions support the

determination that the use of extended

burnup fuel will not increase the probability

or consequences of any accident previously

evaluated.

The consequences from accidents

involving extended burnup fuel, both during

operations and fuel handling, are evaluated

in Reference 6 [See application]. This report,

which was the basis for the NRC’s

determination of no environmental impact,

documents the amount of radioactivity

released from extended burnup fuel during

an accident may be greater than that released

from lower burnup fuel. However, the

projected offsite dose incurred during

accidents with extended burnup fuel is still

within 10 CFR 100 criteria. Reference 6 [See

application] concludes that since there is an

order of magnitude uncertainty in the risk

estimates for accidents, any increased risk

from the increased fission products in

extended burnup fuel is small compared to

the uncertainties associated with risk

estimates. Consequently, the proposed

changes do not significantly increase the

consequences of any accident previously

evaluated.

Criticality Analysis of the Indian Point 3

Fresh and Spent Fuel Pits

Westinghouse performed a criticality

analysis of the Indian Point 3 fresh and spent

fuel storage racks to determine whether the

storage of Westinghouse 15x15 fuel assembly

designs with nominal enrichments up to 5.0

w/o U–235 would result in the effective

neutron multiplication factor, Keff, exceeding

design and licensing basis criticality limits.

The analysis demonstrated that these criteria

would be met during design basis conditions

using the fuel storage configurations

proposed in this submittal.

Although the analysis identified three

scenarios which would exceed the criticality

limits, each of these scenarios are outside the

design and licensing basis, since they entail

the occurrence of two, independent,

concurrent events. Specifically, the analysis

assumes the occurrence of the initiating

accident event and the loss of all soluble

boron in the spent fuel pit water. However,

the analysis also documents that 700 ppm of

soluble boron in the spent fuel pit water will

maintain Keff within acceptable limits. The

Indian Point Unit 3 spent fuel pit boron

concentration is maintained at a minimum of

1000 ppm during fuel handling operations,

which is more than adequate to offset the

potential reactivity increases incurred from

even the most limiting criticality accident

scenarios. If credit for integral burnable

neutron absorbers is taken, the boron

concentration to maintain Keff less than or

equal to 0.95 is considerably reduced.

Consequently, as supported by the NRC’s

issuance of similar license amendments to

other plants whose criticality analyses have

identified similar issues, the proposed

amendment does not significantly increase

the probability or consequences of any

accident previously evaluated.

The administrative changes proposed by

this amendment request do not involve a

significant increase in the probability or

consequences of any accident previously

evaluated as they do not involve any plant

hardware changes, nor do they change the

way the plant systems function.

(2) Does the proposed license amendment

create the possibility of a new or different

kind of accident from any previously

evaluated?

Response:

The proposed changes do not create the

possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from any previously evaluated. This

determination is based on the NRC’s SER

regarding Westinghouse extended burnup

fuel, Indian Point 3 decay heat removal

analysis, and spent fuel pit criticality

analysis.

The only aspect of the plant that will be

physically changed by the proposed

amendment will be the enrichment and

burnup of the fuel, which will not introduce

any new fuel failure mechanisms. While

some characteristics of fuel performance

change with extended burnup, these

considerations have been factored into the

design of the fuel. The NRC issued a Safety

Evaluation Report (SER) regarding the

Westinghouse extended burnup fuel design

on October 11, 1985 (Reference 2). In

addition, Reference 6 [See application]

documents that each fuel vendor has

adequately considered the performance of

extended burnup fuel to preclude the

introduction of a new or different type of fuel

failure mechanism.

Two site specific evaluations demonstrate

the storage of spent and/or fresh extended

burnup fuel will not introduce any new fuel

storage accidents at Indian Point Unit 3.

First, the Authority has verified the existing

spent fuel pit cooling system can adequately

handle the heat load associated with

extended burnup fuel. Second, the criticality

analysis performed by Westinghouse

demonstrates the criticality limits will

continue to be satisfied during design basis

conditions. While three scenarios outside of

the design basis have been identified as

potentially resulting in an increase in spent

fuel pit criticality, spent fuel pit soluble

boron concentrations are maintained

sufficiently high to preclude even the most

limiting criticality scenarios from occurring.

Consequently, the proposed amendment will

not create a new or different kind of accident

from any previously evaluated.

The administrative changes proposed by

this amendment request do not create the

possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from any previously evaluated as

the changes do not affect current plant

configuration or how the plant operates.

(3) Does the proposed amendment involve

a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

Response:

The proposed changes do not involve a

significant reduction in a margin of safety.

This determination is based on the fact that

the spent fuel pit racks are not being

physically altered, the results of the Indian

Point 3 spent fuel pit criticality analysis, the

spent fuel pit decay heat analysis, and the

NRC issuance of similar amendments to other

licensees.

The main safety function of the fresh and

spent fuel racks is to maintain the fuel

assemblies in a safe configuration through all

normal and abnormal conditions. The

proposed changes will not result in any

changes to the fresh and spent fuel racks or

the manner in which they perform. Thus, the

margin of safety associated with the fresh and

spent fuel racks’’ ability to physically

maintain the fuel in a safe configuration is

not significantly reduced by the proposed

changes.

A criticality analysis was performed

regarding the Indian Point 3 fresh and spent

fuel storage racks’ ability to store extended

burnup fuel within design and licensing

basis criticality limits. The analysis

concludes during design basis conditions

these limits would not be violated. However,

it identified three events outside the design

and licensing basis which would violate

these limits. Nevertheless, if credit is taken

for the soluble boron in the spent fuel pit

water, criticality is adequately controlled

even during these three events.

Consequently, as supported by the NRC

issuance of similar license amendments to

other plants whose criticality analyses have

identified similar issues, the proposed

amendment does not involve a significant

reduction in the margin of safety associated

with the control of criticality.

An evaluation was performed to address

the spent fuel pit heat load associated with

the storage of extended burnup fuel. The

analysis concluded the existing spent fuel

cooling system will adequately dissipate the

heat. Thus, there is no significant reduction

in the margin of safety with regards to spent

fuel cooling.

The administrative changes proposed by

this amendment request do not involve a

significant reduction in a margin of safety.

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 request involves 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
2184 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 15, 1997 / Notices

considered in making any final

determination.

Normally, the Commission will not

issue the amendment 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

amendment before the expiration of the

30-day notice period, provided that its

final determination is that the

amendment involves 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 February 14, 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 White

Plains Public Library, 100 Martine

Avenue, White Plains, New York 10610.

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 S. Singh

Bajwa: 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 Mr. Charles M. Pratt, 10

Columbus Circle, New York, New York

10019, 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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 15, 1997 / Notices 2185

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 November 22, 1996,

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 White Plains Public Library, 100

Martine Avenue, White Plains, New

York 10610.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day

of January 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

George F. Wunder,

Project Manager, Project Directorate 1–1,

Division of Reactor Projects—I/II, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–982 Filed 1–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

Biweekly Notice

Applications and Amendments to

Facility Operating Licenses Involving

No Significant Hazards Considerations

I. Background

Pursuant to Public Law 97-415, the

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(the Commission or NRC staff) is

publishing this regular biweekly notice.

Public Law 97-415 revised section 189

of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as

amended (the Act), to require the

Commission to publish notice of any

amendments issued, or proposed to be

issued, under a new provision of section

189 of the Act. This provision grants the

Commission the authority to issue and

make immediately effective any

amendment to an operating license

upon a determination by the

Commission that such amendment

involves no significant hazards

consideration, notwithstanding the

pendency before the Commission of a

request for a hearing from any person. This biweekly notice includes all

notices of amendments issued, or

proposed to be issued from December

20, 1996, through January 3, 1997. The

last biweekly notice was published on

January 2, 1997 (62 FR 121).

Notice Of Consideration Of Issuance Of

Amendments To Facility Operating

Licenses, Proposed No Significant

Hazards Consideration Determination,

And Opportunity For A Hearing

The Commission has made a

proposed determination that the

following 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 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. The basis for this

proposed determination for each

amendment request is shown below.

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 amendment 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

amendment before the expiration of the

30-day notice period, provided that its

final determination is that the

amendment involves no significant

hazards consideration. The final

determination will consider all public

and State comments received before

action is taken. 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 a hearing and petitions

for leave to intervene is discussed

below.

By February 14, 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 for the particular

facility involved. 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 a 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.