29256 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 102 /Thursday, May 28, 1998 / Notices

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

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:

Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, or

may be delivered to the Commission’s

Public Document Room, the Gelman

Building, 2120 L Street, NW.,

Washington, DC, by the above date. 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

John Flynn, Esq., Detroit Edison

Company, 2000 Second Avenue, Detroit,

Michigan 48226, 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 May 20, 1998, 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

Monroe County Library System, Ellis

Reference and Information Center, 3700

South Custer Road, Monroe, Michigan

48161.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd

day of May 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Andrew J. Kugler,

Project Manager, Project Directorate III–1,

Division of Reactor Projects—III/IV, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–14146 Filed 5–27–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–341]

Detroit Edison Company; FERMI 2

Environmental Assessment and

Finding of No Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of an exemption

from certain requirements of its

regulations to Facility Operating License

No. NPF–43, issued to Detroit Edison

Company (the licensee), for operation of

the Fermi 2 plant, located in Monroe

County, Michigan.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

The proposed action would exempt

the licensee, in certain cases, from the

requirements of 10 CFR 70.24(a), which,

in part, requires a monitoring system in

each area in which special nuclear

material is handled, used, or stored, that

will energize clear audible alarms if

accidental criticality occurs.

The proposed action is in accordance

with the licensee’s application for

exemption dated April 27, 1998.

The Need for the Proposed Action

The purpose of 10 CFR 70.24 is to

ensure that if a criticality were to occur

during the handling of special nuclear

material, personnel would be alerted to

that fact and would take appropriate

action. At a commercial nuclear power

plant, the inadvertent criticality with

which 10 CFR 70.24 is concerned could

occur during fuel handling operations.

The special nuclear material that could

be assembled into a critical mass at a

commercial nuclear power plant is in

the form of nuclear fuel; the quantity of

other forms of special nuclear material

that is stored onsite in any given

location (e.g., calibration sources or in-
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 102 /Thursday, May 28, 1998 / Notices 29257

core instrumentation that is not in use)

is small enough to preclude achieving a

critical mass. Because the fuel is not

enriched beyond 5.0 weight percent

uranium-235, and because commercial

nuclear plant licensees have procedures

and features that are designed to prevent

inadvertent criticality, the staff has

determined that it is unlikely that an

inadvertent criticality could occur due

to the handling of special nuclear

material at a commercial power reactor.

Therefore, an exemption from the

requirements of 10 CFR 70.24 in

selected cases will not have a negative

impact on the safety of personnel during

the handling of special nuclear

materials at commercial power reactors.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The Commission has completed its

evaluation of the proposed action and

concludes that inadvertent or accidental

criticality will be precluded through

compliance with the Fermi 2 Technical

Specifications, the design of the fuel

storage racks providing geometric

spacing of fuel assemblies in their

storage locations, and administrative

controls imposed on fuel handling

procedures.

The proposed exemption will not

result in an increase in the probability

or consequences of accidents, affect

radiological plant effluents or offsite

dose, or cause any significant

occupational exposures. Therefore,

there are no radiological impacts

associated with the proposed

exemption.

The proposed exemption will not

result in a change in nonradiological

effluents and will have no other

nonradiological environmental impact.

Accordingly, the Commission

concludes that there are no significant

environmental impacts associated with

the proposed action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

Since the Commission has concluded

that there is no significant

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 exemption,

the staff considered denial of the

requested exemption. Denial of the

request 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

Fermi 2 dated August 1981.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on May 7, 1998, the staff consulted with

the Michigan State official, Dennis

Hahn, of the Michigan Department of

Environmental Quality, regarding the

environmental impact of the proposed

action. The State official had no

comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

Based upon 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 April 27, 1998, which is available

for public inspection at the

Commission’s Public Document Room

located at the Gelman Building, 2120 L

Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the

local public document room located at

the Monroe County Library System,

3700 South Custer Road, Monroe,

Michigan 48161.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day

of May 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Andrew J. Kugler,

Project Manager, Project Directorate III–1,

Division of Reactor Projects III/IV, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–14102 Filed 5–27–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket 72–1021]

Transnuclear, Inc.; Issuance of

Environmental Assessment and

Finding of No Significant Impact

By letter dated April 9, 1998,

Transnuclear, Inc. (TN or applicant)

requested an exemption, pursuant to 10

CFR 72.7, from the requirements of 10

CFR 72.234(c). TN, located in

Hawthorne, New York, is seeking

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC

or the Commission) approval to

fabricate six TN–32 dry spent fuel

storage casks prior to receipt of a

Certificate of Compliance (COC). The

casks are intended for use under the

general license provisions of Subpart K

of 10 CFR Part 72 by Wisconsin Electric

Power Company (WEPCo) at the Point

Beach Nuclear Power Station (Point

Beach) located in Two Rivers,

Wisconsin. The TN–32 dry spent fuel

storage cask is currently used at Surry

Power Station under a site-specific

license.

Environmental Assessment (EA)

Identification of Proposed Action

The applicant is seeking Commission

approval to fabricate six TN–32 casks

prior to the Commission’s issuance of a

COC. The applicant requests an

exemption from the requirements of 10

CFR 72.234(c), which state that

‘‘Fabrication of casks under the

Certificate of Compliance must not start

prior to receipt of the Certificate of

Compliance for the cask model.’’ The

proposed action before the Commission

is whether to grant this exemption

under 10 CFR 72.7.

Need for the Proposed Action

Point Beach was using the Ventilated

Storage Cask, Model No. 24, fabricated

by Sierra Nuclear, Corp. (VSC–24),

however, they have not been able to

load a cask for 2 years. The VSC–24

vendor is under a demand for

information, and a confirmatory action

letter regarding closure lid weld issues

that prevents Point Beach from loading

any VSC–24s. To ensure future

operations, Point Beach requires another

cask option if they cannot load VSC–

24s. TN requests the exemption to

ensure the availability of storage casks

so that WEPCo can continue operating

the Point Beach Units 2 and 1 past

March 2000 and late 2000, respectively,

and to restore full core off-load

capability. Three casks are required to

ensure continued operation into 2001,

and three additional casks are required

to restore full core off-load capability.

Therefore, to support the March 2000

loading, WEPCo requests the delivery of

the first cask by December 1999. TN

states that to meet this schedule,

purchase of cask components must

begin promptly and fabrication must

begin by September 1998.

The TN–32 COC application, dated

September 24, 1997, is under

consideration by the Commission. It is

anticipated, if approved, the TN–32

COC may be issued in late 1999.

The proposed fabrication exemption

will not authorize use of the casks to

store spent fuel. That will occur only

when, and if, a COC is issued. NRC

approval of the fabrication exemption

request should not be construed as an

NRC commitment to favorably consider

TN’s application for a COC. TN will

bear the risk of all activities conducted

under the exemption, including the risk

that the six casks TN plans to construct