Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 125 /Tuesday, June 30, 1998 / Notices 35617

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 June 18, 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

Coastal Region Library, 8619 W. Crystal

Street, Crystal River, Florida.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day

of June 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Leonard A. Wiens,

Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate

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

of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–17354 Filed 6–29–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–244]

Rochester Gas and Electric

Corporation; 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. DRP–

18 issued to Rochester Gas and Electric

Corporation (the licensee) for operation

of the R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant

located in Wayne County, New York.

The proposed amendment would

revise the Ginna Station Improved

Technical Specifications (ITS) to reflect

a planned modification to the spent fuel

pool (SFP) storage racks. Specifications

associated with SFP boron

concentration, fuel assembly storage,

and maximum limit on the number of

fuel assemblies which can be stored in

the SFP would be revised.

The Commission had previously

issued a Notice of Consideration of

Issuance of an Amendment published in

the Federal Register on May 12, 1998

(63 FR 26213). This notice contained the

Commission’s proposed determination

that the requested amendment involved

no significant hazards considerations,

offered an opportunity for comments on

the Commission’s proposed

determination, and offered an

opportunity for the applicant to request

a hearing on the amendment and for

persons whose interest might be affected

to petition for leave to intervene.

Due to oversight, the May 12, 1998,

Notice of Consideration of Amendment

did not provide notice that this

application involves a proceeding on an

application for a license amendment

falling within the scope of section 134

of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.

Such notice is required by the

Commission’s regulations, 10 CFR

2.1107.

The Commission hereby provides

such notice that this is a proceeding on

an application for a license amendment

falling within the scope of section 134

of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982

(NWPA), 42 U.S.C. 10154. Under

section 134 of the NWPA, the

Commission, at the request of any party

to the proceeding, must use hybrid

hearing procedures with respect to ‘‘any

matter which the Commission

determines to be in controversy among

the parties.’’

The hybrid procedures in section 134

provide for oral argument on matters in

controversy, preceded by discovery

under the Commission’s rules and the

designation, following argument of only

those factual issues that involve a

genuine and substantial dispute,

together with any remaining questions

of law, to be resolved in an adjudicatory

hearing. Actual adjudicatory hearings

are to be held on only those issues

found to meet the criteria of section 134

and set for hearing after oral argument.

The Commission’s rules

implementing section 134 of the NWPA

are found in 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart K,

‘‘Hybrid Hearing Procedures for

Expansion of Spent Fuel Storage

Capacity at Civilian Nuclear Power

Reactors’ (published at 50 FR 41662

dated October 15, 1985). Under those

rules, any party to the proceeding may

invoke the hybrid hearing procedures by

filing with the presiding officer a

written request for oral argument under

10 CFR 2.1109. To be timely, the request

must be filed within ten (10) days of an

order granting a request for hearing or

petition to intervene. (As outlined

below, the Commission’s rules in 10

CFR Part 2, Subpart G continue to

govern the filing of requests for a

hearing and petitions to intervene, as

well as the admission of contentions.)

The presiding officer must grant a

timely request for oral argument. The

presiding officer may grant an untimely

request for oral argument only upon a

showing of good cause by the requesting

party for the failure to file on time and

after providing the other parties an

opportunity to respond to the untimely

request. If the presiding officer grants a

request for oral argument, any hearing

held on the application must be

conducted in accordance with the

hybrid hearing procedures. In essence,

those procedures limit the time

available for discovery and require that

an oral argument be held to determine

whether any contentions must be

resolved in an adjudicatory hearing. If

no party to the proceeding timely

requests oral argument, and if all

untimely requests for oral argument are

denied, then the usual procedures in 10

CFR Part 2, Subpart G apply.

By July 30, 1998, the licensee, if it

wishes to invoke the hybrid hearing

procedures, may file a request for such

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 invoke

the hybrid hearing procedures and to

participate as a party in such 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 Rochester Public Library,

115 South Avenue, Rochester, New

York 14610. If a request for a hearing

and petition for leave to intervene

seeking to invoke the hybrid hearing

procedures in accordance with this

notice 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

petition; and the Secretary or the

designated Atomic Safety and Licensing

Board will issue a notice of hearing or

an appropriate order. Requests for

hearing and petitions for leave to

intervene that do not seek to invoke the

hybrid procedures are not authorized by

this notice and would be considered

untimely.

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
35618 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 125 /Tuesday, June 30, 1998 / Notices

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.

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.

A request for a hearing and a petition

for leave to intervene that seeks to

invoke the hybrid hearing procedures in

accordance with this notice 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 Mr. Nicholas S.

Reynolds, Winston & Strawn, 1400 L

Street, NW., attorney for the licensee.

Untimely 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 31, 1997, as

supplemented June 18, 1997, October

10, 1997, October 20, 1997, November

11, 1997, December 22, 1997, January

15, 1998, January 27, 1998, March 30,

1998, April 23, 1998, April 27, 1998,

May 8, 1998, and May 22, 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

Rochester Public Library, 115 South

Avenue, Rochester, New York 14610.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day

of June 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Guy S. Vissing,

Senior Project Manager Project Directorate

I–1, Division of Reactor Projects—I/II, Office

of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–17353 Filed 6–29–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–321 and 50–366 and

License Nos. DPR–57 and NPF–5]

Southern Nuclear Operating Company

Inc.; Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant,

Units 1 and 2; Confirmatory Order

Modifying License; Effective

Immediately

I

Southern Nuclear Operating

Company, Inc. (SNC/the licensee) is the

holder of Facility Operating License

Nos. DPR–57 and NPF–5, which

authorizes operation of Edwin I. Hatch

Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, located in

Appling County, Georgia.

II

The staff of the U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission (NRC) has been

concerned that Thermo-Lag 330–1 fire

barrier systems installed by licensees

may not provide the level of fire

endurance intended and that licensees

that use Thermo-Lag 330–1 fire barriers

may not be meeting regulatory

requirements. During the 1992 to 1994

timeframe, the NRC staff issued Generic

Letter (GL) 92–08, ‘‘Thermo-Lag 330–1

Fire Barriers’’ and subsequent requests

for additional information that

requested licensees to submit plans and

schedules for resolving the Thermo-Lag

issue. The NRC staff has obtained and

reviewed all licensees’ corrective plans

and schedules. The staff is concerned

that some licensees may not be making

adequate progress toward resolving the

plant-specific issues, and that some

implementation schedules may be either

too tenuous or too protracted. For

example, several licensees informed the

NRC staff that their completion dates

had slipped by 6 months to as much as

3 years.