31534 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 110 /Tuesday, June 9, 1998 / Notices

changes, see the application for

amendments.

Before issuance of the proposed

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.

By July 9, 1998, 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 FR 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 Athens

Public Library, 405 E. South Street,

Athens, Alabama. 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 reference 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.

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

General Counsel, Tennessee Valley

Authority, 400 West Summit Drive, ET

10H, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902,

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).

If a request for a hearing is received,

the Commission’s staff may issue the

amendment after it completes its

technical review and prior to the

completion of any required hearing if it

publishes a further notice for public

comment of its proposed finding of no

significant hazards consideration in

accordance with 10 CFR 50.91 and

50.92. For further details with respect to

this action, see the application for

amendments dated October 1, 1997, as

supplemented October 14, 1997, March

16, April 1 and 28, May 1, and 20, 1998,

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 Athens Public Library,

405 E. South Street, Athens, Alabama.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day

of June 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

L. Raghavan,

Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate

II–3, Division of Reactor Projects-I/II, Office

of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–15267 Filed 6–8–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–244]

Rochester Gas and Electric

Corporation and R.E. Ginna Nuclear

Power Plant; Environmental

Assessment and Finding of No

Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering revoking an exemption

issued to Rochester Gas and Electric

Corporation (the licensee), holder of

Facility Operating License No. DPR–18

for operation of the R.E. Ginna Nuclear

Power Plant located in Wayne County,

New York.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of Proposed Action

The proposed action would revoke

one of the exemptions from the

requirements of Section III.G of

Appendix R to 10 CFR Part 50 issued on

March 21, 1985. By letter dated January

13, 1998, the licensee informed the NRC

that the exemption from Section III.G of

Appendix R to 10 CFR Part 50 for the
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 110 /Tuesday, June 9, 1998 / Notices 31535

R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant issued

in connection with the absence of a

continuous fire-rated barrier at the

common boundary between Fire Areas

ABBM and ABI at the Refueling Water

Storage Tank (RWST) is no longer

required. The licensee indicated that the

barrier has now been sealed by insertion

of a 12-inch minimum depth of kaowool

into a 6-inch gap around the

circumference of the tank and closure of

the gap by a 3⁄4-inch thick steel plate.

Therefore, a continuous fire-rated

barrier is not absent at this location.

The proposed action is in response to

the licensee’s letter dated January 13,

1998.

The Need for the Proposed Action

The proposed action is needed

because there no longer is a basis or

underlying need for the exemption since

the barrier at the common boundary

between Fire Areas ABBM and ABI at

the RWST has been sealed.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The Commission has completed its

evaluation of the proposed action and

concludes that there is no significant

environmental impact if the subject

exemption is revoked.

The proposed revocation is an

administrative action that reflects that

there no longer is a need or basis for the

exemption in light of the licensee’s

corrective action. Therefore, the

proposed action would not increase the

probability or consequences of

accidents, no changes are being made in

the types of any effluents that may be

released offsite, and there is no

significant increase in the allowable

individual or cumulative occupational

radiation exposure. Accordingly, the

Commission concludes that there are no

significant radiological environmental

impacts associated with the proposed

action.

With regard to potential

nonradiological impacts, the proposed

action does not affect nonradiological

plant effluents and has no other

environmental impact. Accordingly, the

Commission concludes that there are no

significant nonradiological

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 action, the

staff considered not revoking the

exemption. Not revoking the exemption

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 For the R.E. Ginna Nuclear

Power Plant dated December 1973.’’

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on May 4, 1998, the staff consulted with

the Ms. Hide Volt of the New York State

Energy Research and Development

Authority, 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 January 13,1998, 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

Rochester Public Library, 115 South

Avenue, Rochester, New York.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day

of June 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

S. Singh Bajwa,

Director, Project Directorate I–1, Division of

Reactor Projects—I/II, Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–15269 Filed 6–8–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Public Meeting on NRC Regulatory

Oversight of DOE Facilities

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission and the Department of

Energy.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) and the U.S.

Department of Energy (DOE) will hold a

public meeting on Thursday, June 25,

1998, in Aiken, South Carolina, to

address issues related to pilot program

for NRC’s external regulation of certain

DOE facilities. The Receiving Basin for

Offsite Fuels (RBOF) at DOE’s Savannah

River Site (SRS) has been selected at the

third pilot project within the program.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Department of Energy and the Nuclear

Regulatory Commission will hold a joint

public meeting to provide information

on this pilot project on Thursday, June

25, 1998, at 6:30 p.m. at the City of

Aiken Conference Center, City

Municipal Building, 215 The Alley,

Aiken, South Carolina.

In June 1997, DOE and NRC agreed to

pursue NRC external regulation of

certain DOE facilities on a pilot program

basis. A pilot program of NRC simulated

regulation has been established to

collect information on the desirability of

NRC oversight and on whether to seek

legislation to authorize such oversight.

The DOE and the NRC expect to

evaluate six to ten DOE facilities during

the two year pilot program which began

in November 1997. The RBOF at the

SRS has been chosen as one of the pilot

facilities.

The major areas of discussion at this

meeting will be:

• The overall pilot program and

background information.

• The RBOF Work Plan.

• Major issues affecting NRC

oversight (generic and site-specific).

One of the main purposes of the

meeting is to describe the process

through which stakeholders may

participate in the pilot program.

Stakeholders will be invited to ask

questions and submit comments

relevant to the objectives of the pilot

program and the process by which those

objectives are proposed to be addressed

at the RBOF. Issues raised by

stakeholders will be addressed in the

final report following the pilot

evaluation at RBOF.

Since 1994, DOE has been considering

whether there are advantages to be

gained from external regulation of

existing DOE facilities. Two advisory

groups recommended that the NRC be

considered as the external regulator of

nuclear and radiological safety at DOE

sites. External regulation by the NRC

may improve the efficiency and

effectiveness of DOE’s radiological

safety programs. DOE facilities would be

regulated consistent with other facilities

of the same type engaged in similar

activities, and the NRC could maintain

complete independence because it has

no responsibility for operating the

facilities.

A number of background documents

pertaining to the issue of NRC oversight