Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 78 / Friday, April 21, 2000 / Notices 21489

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

Bryan A. Snapp, Esquire, Assoc. General

Counsel, PP&L, Inc., 2 North Ninth St.,

GENTW3, Allentown, PA 18101–1179,

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 April 10, 2000, which

is available for public inspection at the

Commission’s Public Document Room,

the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street,

NW., Washington, DC, and accessible

electronically through the ADAMS

Public Electronic Reading Room link at

the NRC Web site (http://www.nrc.gov).

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day

of April 2000.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Robert G. Schaaf,

Project Manager, Section 1, Project

Directorate I, Division of Licensing Project

Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 00–9963 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 030–20563, License No. 52–

21368–01, EA 99–262]

In the Matter of Western Soil, Inc.,

Mayaguez, Puerto Rico 00681; Order

Imposing Civil Monetary Penalty

I

Western Soil, Inc. (Licensee) is the

current holder of Materials License No.

52–21368–01 originally issued by the

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC

or Commission) on December 13, 1983,

to Caribbean Soil Testing Company, Inc.

On April 12, 1994, an amendment was

issued transferring the license to

Western Soil, Inc. The license expires

on April 30, 2004. The license

authorizes Western Soil, Inc. to use

sealed sources contained in portable

gauging devices for measuring

properties of materials.

II

An inspection of the Licensee’s

activities was conducted on September

28–29, 1999. The results of this

inspection indicated that the Licensee

had not conducted its activities in

compliance with NRC requirements. A

written Notice of Violation and

Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty

(Notice) was served upon the Licensee

by letter dated November 24, 1999. The

Notice states the nature of the

violations, the provisions of the NRC’s

requirements that the Licensee violated,

and the amount of the civil penalty

proposed for the violation cited in Part

I of the Notice.

The Licensee responded to the Notice

by letters dated December 20, 1999, and

February 16, 2000. In its responses, the

Licensee admits the violations in Part II

of the Notice, but contests the violation

in Part I of the Notice insofar as it stated

that the licensee failed to maintain

constant surveillance of licensed

material. The Licensee also took issue

with certain statements made in the

cover letter forwarding the Notice. In

addition, the Licensee requested that

NRC consider categorizing the violation

in Part I of the Notice as a first offense,

rather than as a recurring one.

III

After consideration of the Licensee’s

responses and the statements of fact,

explanation, and argument for

mitigation contained therein, the NRC

staff has determined, as set forth in the

Appendix to this Order, that the

violation cited in Part I of the Notice

occurred as stated and that the penalty

proposed for the violation designated in

Part I of the Notice should be imposed.

21490 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 78 / Friday, April 21, 2000 / Notices

IV

In view of the foregoing and pursuant

to Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act

of 1954, as amended (Act), 42 U.S.C.

2282, and 10 CFR 2.205, It Is Hereby

Ordered That:

The Licensee pay a civil penalty in

the amount of $2,750 within 30 days of

the date of this Order, in accordance

with NUREG/BR–0254. In addition, at

the time of making payment, the

Licensee shall submit a statement

indicating when and by what method

payment was made, to the Director,

Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, One White

Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike,

Rockville, MD 20852–2738.

V

The Licensee may request a hearing

within 30 days of the date of this Order.

Where good cause is shown,

consideration will be given to extending

the time to request a hearing. A request

for extension of time must be made in

writing to the Director, Office of

Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555,

and include a statement of good cause

for the extension. A request for a

hearing should be clearly marked as a

‘‘Request for an Enforcement Hearing’’

and shall be submitted to the Secretary,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications

Staff, Washington, DC 20555. Copies

also shall be sent to the Director, Office

of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555, to

the Assistant General Counsel for

Materials Litigation and Enforcement at

the same address, and to the Regional

Administrator, NRC Region II, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 61

Forsyth St., SW, Suite 23T85, Atlanta,

GA 30303.

If a hearing is requested, the

Commission will issue an Order

designating the time and place of the

hearing. If the Licensee fails to request

a hearing within 30 days of the date of

this Order (or if written approval of an

extension of time in which to request a

hearing has not been granted), the

provisions of this Order shall be

effective without further proceedings. If

payment has not been made by that

time, the matter may be referred to the

Attorney General for collection.

In the event the Licensee requests a

hearing as provided above, the issues to

be considered at such hearing shall be:

(a) whether the Licensee was in

violation of the Commission’s

requirements as set forth in Part I of the

Notice referenced in Section II above,

and

(b) whether, on the basis of such

violation, this Order should be

sustained.

Dated this 12th day of April 2000.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

R.W. Borchardt,

Director, Office of Enforcement.

Appendix—Evaluations and

Conclusions

On November 24, 1999, a Notice of

Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil

Penalty (Notice) was issued for violations

identified during an NRC inspection. The

licensee’s response denies Violation I in part

and provides additional information in

support of mitigation of the violation, and

admits Violation II.A and B. The NRC’s

evaluation and conclusion regarding the

licensee’s arguments are as follows:

Restatement of the Violation in Part I of the

Notice

10 CFR 20.1801 requires the licensee to

secure from unauthorized removal or access

licensed materials that are stored in

controlled or unrestricted areas. 10 CFR

20.1802 requires the licensee to control and

maintain constant surveillance of licensed

material that is in a controlled or unrestricted

area and that is not in storage. As defined in

10 CFR 20.1003, controlled area means an

area, outside of a restricted area but inside

the site boundary, access to which can be

limited by the licensee for any reason;

unrestricted area means an area, access to

which is neither limited nor controlled by

the licensee.

Contrary to the above, on June 4, 1999, the

licensee failed to secure from unauthorized

removal or limit access to a moisture/density

portable nuclear gauge containing

approximately 10 millicuries of cesium-137

and 50 millicuries of americium-241 in a

vehicle while at a temporary job site, which

is an unrestricted area, nor did the licensee

control and maintain constant surveillance of

this licensed material. As a result, the gauge

was stolen.

Summary of Licensee’s Response to the

Violation in Part I of the Notice

In response to the violation, the licensee

stated that on June 4, 1999, the technician

did not abandon or leave the gauge. The

licensee further stated that after completing

density tests, the technician secured the

gauge to the bed of the pick up truck with

only a stabilization belt. The licensee stated

that the case was not secured to the vehicle

with a chain and padlock because the

technician was discussing work with the

project manager at a distance of 300–400 feet

from the gauge. The licensee admitted the

technician’s mistake, but indicated that it

was not a typical situation during operations

and that the gauge was not abandoned.

NRC Evaluation of Licensee’s Response to

the Violation in Part I of the Notice

Regarding the regulatory basis for the

violation of 10 CFR 20.1801 and 20.1802, the

technician’s presence at a distance of 300–

400 feet from the gauge was, in this case,

unacceptable for maintaining adequate

surveillance and control over unsecured

licensed material because the gauge was

stolen. This is a clear indication that it was

not adequately surveilled or controlled.

Summary of Licensee’s Request for

Mitigation

The licensee took issue with the

characterization of the violation as similar to

a violation identified in March 1994 when

the license was under the control of the

previous owner, Caribbean Soil Testing

Company, Inc. The licensee stated that in

June 1997, Western Soil, Inc. assumed

responsibility for the license and committed

to the programs required by the NRC. The

licensee noted inadequacies in Carribean

Soil’s procedures for handling gauges and

implemented improvements, including use of

a chain and padlock to secure gauges to

vehicles. The licensee stated that it was

unaware of the previous violation until

NRC’s letter of November 24, 1999,

transmitting the Notice. Furthermore, the

licensee asserts that the prior violation, as

recalled by the former owner of the company,

related to a case padlock, not to stolen

equipment. Based on this, the licensee

requested that the violation be considered a

first time offense and not a recurring one.

The licensee also disagreed with the

finding that the transportation case for the

stolen gauge contained the gauge key, as

stated in NRC’s November 24, 1999, cover

letter forwarding the Notice. The licensee

stated that, during the inspection, the NRC

inspector found keys inside an envelope in

the transportation case which belonged to a

gauge in storage. The licensee further

explained that keys are normally stored in

the transportation cases of ‘‘out of service’’

gauges to ensure that the keys travel with the

gauges when they are shipped for service, as

opposed to gauges being used in the field,

which did not have keys with them. The

licensee stated that on the day of the NRC

inspection, the transportation case of the

gauge returning from the field did not

contain its key.

NRC Evaluation of Licensee’s Request for

Mitigation

In accordance with Section VI.B.2. of the

Enforcement Policy, when activities under

the license have been the subject of any

escalated enforcement action within the last

two inspections, the NRC considers whether

credit is warranted for identification or

corrective action in assessing the amount of

the civil penalty. In this case, because the

activities under the license had been the

subject of escalated enforcement action

within the last two inspections, the NRC

applied these factors in assessing the amount

of the civil penalty.

Although the licensee stated that it was

unaware of the previous violation until

NRC’s letter of November 24, 1999,

transmitting the Notice, as part of the

application, the licensee submitted a letter

dated August 19, 1997, which stated that the

new owner agreed with all constraints,

conditions requirements, representations and

commitments identified in the existing

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 78 / Friday, April 21, 2000 / Notices 21491

license. This letter is referenced in License

Condition 21 of the NRC license which

requires, in part, that the licensee maintain

the corrective actions for previous

enforcement actions. Corrective actions from

the previous enforcement action issued on

June 14, 1994, regarding security of material,

were documented in a letter dated August 29,

1994, from Caribbean Soil Testing Company,

Inc. which stated, ‘‘we have attached a chain

to the handle of the gauge box and lock it

with the open bed of the pick up truck.’’ The

NRC therefore holds the new owner

responsible for the previous escalated

enforcement actions and associated

corrective action effectiveness. In this case,

as explained in the cover letter forwarding

the Notice, the licensee did not maintain

effective corrective action such as would

have prevented this violation from occurring.

In addition, the licensee stated that the

previous violation of June 14, 1994, was not

associated with a stolen gauge but rather, was

associated with a case padlock. The current

violation need not be a duplicate of the

previous enforcement action, but these two

actions are similar in that both of these

violations involve the licensee’s failure to

control licensed material. The fact that the

prior violation was not identical to this

violation had no bearing upon the amount of

the civil penalty that was assessed.

Regarding the location of the gauge keys,

the inspector observed a gauge in storage

with the gauge key in an envelope inside the

transportation case, and questioned the

licensee about the stolen gauge. The

licensee’s Radiation Safety Officer (RSO)

stated to the inspector that the stolen gauge’s

transportation case also contained its key in

an envelope, and that the practice of

transporting gauges with their keys was not

uncommon. The RSO told the inspector that

the stolen gauge was found with a broken

transport case lock; however, the envelope

which contained the key inside the

transportation case appeared to be

untampered with. This finding was

documented in the October 19, 1999,

inspection report and was neither challenged

nor questioned by Western Soil, Inc. during

the November 9, 1999, predecisional

enforcement conference. In its letters dated

December 20, 1999, and February 16, 2000,

Western Soil, Inc. provided information

contrary to this finding. However, the

reconciliation of this conflicting information

regarding the location of the keys has no

effect on the outcome of the final

enforcement action including the potential

civil penalty. Although the location of the

keys does affect the magnitude of the safety

significance; the severity level of the

violation and associated civil penalty were

based solely on the licensee’s failure to

maintain adequate security over licensed

material which resulted in the gauge being

stolen and in the public domain. Such a

violation is categorized at Severity Level III

in accordance with Supplements IV.C.9 and

VI.C.I of the Enforcement Policy.

NRC Conclusion

For the above reasons, the NRC staff

concludes that the violation occurred as

stated and that mitigation of the civil penalty

is not warranted.

[FR Doc. 00–9967 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–373 and 50–374]

Commonwealth Edison Company,

LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2;

Environmental Assessment and

Finding of No Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) is considering

issuance of amendments to Facility

Operating Licenses Nos. NPF–11 and

NPF–18, issued to Commonwealth

Edison Company (ComEd, the licensee)

for operation of LaSalle County Station,

Units 1 and 2, located in LaSalle

County, Illinois.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

The proposed action would allow

ComEd to increase the maximum reactor

core power level for facility operation

from 3323 megawatts-thermal (MWt) to

3489 MWt, which is a five percent

increase in rated core power.

The proposed action is in accordance

with ComEd’s application for

amendments dated July 14, 1999, as

supplemented by letters dated January

21, February 15, February 23, March 10,

March 24, March 31, and April 7, 2000.

Need for the Proposed Action

The proposed action is needed to

allow ComEd to increase the electrical

output of each LaSalle unit and, thus,

provide additional electrical power to

service domestic and commercial areas

of the licensee’s grid. Power uprate has

been widely recognized by the industry

as a safe and cost-effective method to

increase generating capacity. The

proposed uprate will provide the

licensee with additional operational

flexibility.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

ComEd has submitted an

environmental evaluation supporting

the proposed extended power uprate

action and provided a summary of its

conclusions concerning both the

radiological and non-radiological

environmental impacts of the proposed

action. Based on its independent

analyses and the evaluation performed

by the licensee, the staff concludes that

the proposed increase in power is not

expected to result in a significant

environmental impact.

Radiological Environmental Assessment

Radwaste Systems

ComEd concluded that the operation

of the radwaste systems that process

radioactive effluents at LaSalle would

not be impacted by operation at uprated

power conditions and the slight increase

in effluents discharged would continue

to meet the requirements of 10 CFR part

20, ‘‘Standards for Protection Against

Radiation,’’ and 10 CFR part 50,

appendix I, ‘‘Numerical Guides for

Design Objectives and Limiting

Conditions for Operation to Meet the

Criterion ‘As Low as is Reasonably

Achievable’ for Radioactive Material in

Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power

Reactor Effluents.’’ Therefore, power

uprate does not have an adverse effect

on the processing of radioactive

effluents and there are no significant

environmental effects from radiological

releases.

Dose Consideration

ComEd evaluated the effects of power

uprate on the radiation sources within

the plant and the radiation levels during

normal and post-accident conditions.

For normal operations, the licensee

determined that conservatism in the

analyses and the margins added to

calculated doses and specific shield

thickness are sufficient to accommodate

any increases attributed to the five

percent increase in rated thermal power.

For post-accident conditions, the

resulting radiation levels were

determined to be within current

regulatory limits. In addition, the

licensee determined that there would be

no effect on the plant or habitability or

the control room envelope or the

Technical Support Center. The licensee

evaluated the whole body and thyroid

doses at the exclusion area boundary

that might result from the postulated

design basis loss-of-coolant accident

and determined the doses remain below

established regulatory limits.

Summary

The proposed power uprate will not

significantly increase the probability or

consequences of accidents, will not

involve any new radiological release

pathways, will not result in a significant

increase in occupational or public

radiation exposure, and will not result

in significant additional fuel cycle

environmental impacts. Accordingly,

the Commission concludes that there

are no significant radiological

environmental impacts associated with

the proposed action.