32252 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 113 / Friday, June 12, 1998 / Notices

affect the qualifications of CMP as a

holder of Facility Operating License No.

NPF–49, and that the transfer of control

of the license, to the extent effected by

the proposed restructuring, is otherwise

consistent with applicable provisions of

law, regulations, and orders issued by

the Commission, subject to the

conditions set forth herein. These

findings are supported by a Safety

Evaluation dated June 2, 1998.

III

Accordingly, pursuant to Sections

161b, 161i, 161o, and 184 of the Atomic

Energy Act of 1954, as amended; 42

U.S.C. Subsections 2201(b), 2201(i),

2201(o), and 2234; and 10 CFR 50.80, it

is hereby ordered that the Commission

approves the application regarding the

proposed restructuring of CMP subject

to the following: (1) CMP 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 CMP to its

proposed parent or to any other

affiliated company, facilities for the

production, transmission, or

distribution of electric energy having a

depreciated book value exceeding 10

percent (10%) of CMP’s consolidated

net utility plant, as recorded on CMP’s

books of account; and (2) should the

restructuring of CMP not be completed

by December 31, 1998, this Order shall

become null and void, provided,

however, on application and for good

cause shown, such date may be

extended.

This Order is effective upon issuance.

IV

By July 13, 1998, 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).

If a hearing is to be held, 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–

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. Copies should be also sent

to the Office of the General Counsel and

to the Director, Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555–0001; Lillian M. Cuoco, Esq.,

Northeast Utilities Service Company,

P.O. Box 270, Hartford, Connecticut,

06106–5127, Senior Nuclear Counsel to

NNECO; and to Kevin P. Gallen, Esq.,

Morgan, Lewis, and Bockius, 1800 M

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036–

5869, Counsel for CMP.

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application for approval

regarding the corporate restructuring

dated March 4, 1998, the NRC staff’s

Safety Evaluation dated 1998, and

Environmental Assessment and Finding

of No Significant Impact dated April 24,

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 Learning Resources

Center, Three Rivers CommunityTechnical College, 574 New London

Turnpike, Norwich, Connecticut, and at

the Waterford Library, ATTN: Vince

Juliano, 49 Rope Ferry Road, Waterford,

Connecticut.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day

of June 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Samuel J. Collins,

Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–15641 Filed 6–11–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–259, 50–260 and 50–296]

Tennessee Valley Authority; Notice of

Consideration of Issuance of

Amendment to Facility Operating

Licenses and Opportunity for a

Hearing

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC, the Commission) is

considering issuance of an amendment

to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–

33, DPR–52 and DPR–68 issued to the

Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA or the

licensee) for operation of the Browns

Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN), Units 1, 2

and 3, located in Limestone County,

Alabama.

Originally, in a letter dated September

6, 1996, the licensee proposed changes

for a full conversion from the current

Technical Specifications (TS) to a set of

TS based on NUREG–1433, Revision 1,

‘‘Standard Technical Specifications for

General Electric Plants, BWR/4,’’ dated

April 1995. NUREG–1433 has been

developed through working groups

composed of both NRC staff members

and the BWR/4 owners and has been

endorsed by the staff as part of an

industry-wide initiative to standardize

and improve TS. In addition to the

above changes related to conversion of

the current TS to be similar to the

Improved Standard Technical

Specifications (ISTS) in NUREG 1433,

the licensee proposed three less

restrictive changes that are not

considered within the scope of the

normal ISTS conversion process. The

licensee’s proposed changes in its

application dated September 6, 1996,

including the three additional changes,

were originally noticed on October 23,

1996 (61 FR 55026).

By letters dated June 6, and December

11, 1996, April 11, May 1, August 14,

October 15, November 5 and 14,

December 3, 4, 15, 22, 23, 29, and 30,

1997, January 23, March 12 and 13,

April 16, 20, and 28, May 7, 14, and 19,

and June 2, 1998, the licensee provided

supplemental information, and

proposed additional changes. Some of

these changes were ‘‘less restrictive and

plant specific changes’’ that were not

included in the original notice (61 FR

55026). They were addressed in 63 FR

29763, June 1, 1998. Certain additional

‘‘less restrictive and plant specific

changes’’ were not noticed in 63 FR

29763, and are noticed here. These

changes involve: surveillance

requirements (SR) relating to

comparison of the core reactivity

difference between actual and expected

critical rod configuration, change to the

calibration frequency for Local Power

Range Monitors, and an alternate SR for

BFN Unit 3, for position verification of

the low pressure core injection cross tie

valves.

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 13, 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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 113 / Friday, June 12, 1998 / Notices 32253

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 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 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.

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 September 6, 1996

as supplemented June 6, and December

11, 1996, April 11, May 1, August 14,

October 15, November 5 and 14,

December 3, 4, 15, 22, 23, 29, and 30,

1997, January 23, March 12 and 13,

April 16, 20, and 28, May 7, 14, and 19,

and June 2, 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 8th 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. 98–15708 Filed 6–11–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–361 and 50–362]

Southern California Edison Company,

et al., San Onofre Nuclear Generating

Station, Units 2 and 3; Issuance of

Director’s Decision Under 10 CFR

2.206

Notice is hereby given that the

Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation, has acted on a Petition for

action under 10 CFR 2.206 received

from Ms. Patricia Borchmann dated June

23, 1997, as supplemented by letters

dated June 28, July 11, and October 21,

1997, for the San Onofre Nuclear

Generating Station (SONGS), Units 2

and 3.

The Petitioner requested that the Unit

2 and Unit 3 outages be extended until

all outstanding public health and safety

concerns identified were fully resolved.

In its letter dated September 22, 1997,

acknowledging the Petition, the Nuclear

Regulatory Commission (Commission or

NRC) informed the Petitioner that as a

result of its evaluation of the concerns

raised, only two issues would be

considered pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 for

preparation of a Director’s Decision. The

first issue involves whether, when

responding to issues regarding SONGS

identified by members of the public, the

NRC has fragmented responses and

failed to comprehensively address

issues in total and whether issues

identified at SONGS when considered

as a whole, reveal trends or systemic

problems in the operation of the SONGS

units. The second issue involves the

SONGS analysis of evacuation time in

the emergency preparedness plan.

The Director of the Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation has determined that

the Petitioner’s request should be

denied for the reasons stated in the