29186 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2001 / Notices

SUMMARY: NASA hereby gives notice

that Phoenix Systems International, Inc.,

of Ashtabula, OH, has applied for an

exclusive patent license to practice the

invention described in NASA Case No.

KSC–12235–1, entitled High

Temperature Decomposition of

Hydrogen Peroxide,’’ which is assigned

to the United States of America as

represented by the Administrator of the

National Aeronautics and Space

Administration. Written objections to

the prospective grant of a license should

be sent to Randy Heald, Patent Counsel,

John F. Kennedy Space Center, Kennedy

Space Center, FL 32899.

DATE(S): Responses to this notice must

be received by July 30, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Melanie Chan, Licensing

Commercialization Manager, John F.

Kennedy Space Center, Mail Code YA–

C1, Kennedy Space Center, FL 32899,

melanie.chan-1@ksc.nasa.gov,

telephone (321) 867–6367.

Dated: May 22, 2001.

Edward A. Frankle,

General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 01–13396 Filed 5–25–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7510–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–445 and 50–446]

TXU Electric; Notice of Consideration

of Issuance of Amendment to Facility

Operating License and Opportunity for

a Hearing

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC or the Commission)

is considering issuance of an

amendment to Facility Operating

License Nos. NPF–87 and NPF–89,

issued to TXU Electric (TXU or the

licensee), for operation of the Comanche

Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES),

Units 1 and 2, respectively. The

facilities are located in Somervell and

Hood Counties, Texas.

The proposed amendment would

incorporate changes into the CPSES,

Units 1 and 2, Operating Licenses and

Technical Specifications. These

changes, which would reflect a

proposed increase in the licensed power

for operation of both CPSES, Units 1

and 2, to 3458 MWt, represent an

increase of approximately 1.4 percent of

the currently licensed power level for

CPSES, Unit 1, and an increase of

approximately 0.4 percent for CPSES,

Unit 2. In addition, the licensee requests

that Texas Municipal Power Agency

(TMPA) be removed from both CPSES,

Units 1 and 2, licenses since transfer of

ownership from TMPA to TXU was

completed.

Before issuance of the proposed

license amendment, the Commission

will have made findings required by the

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended

(the Act) and the Commission’s

regulations.

By June 28, 2001, the licensee may

file a request for a hearing with respect

to issuance of the amendment to the

subject facility operating licenses, 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

petitions 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, located at One

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike

(first floor), Rockville, Maryland, and is

accessible electronically through the

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

NRC/CFR/index.html). 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 (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 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

must 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 that may be entered

in the proceeding on the petitioner’s

interest. The petition must 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

that must include a list of the

contentions that the petitioner seeks to

have litigated in the hearing. 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 each

contention and a concise statement of

the alleged facts or expert opinion that

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.

The 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 that, if proven, would

entitle the petitioner to relief. A

petitioner who fails to file such a

supplement that 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.

Requests for a hearing and petitions

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, located at One

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike

(first floor), Rockville, Maryland, by the

above date. A copy of the request for a

hearing and the petition should also be

sent to the Office of the General

Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001, and to George L. Edgar, Esq.,

Morgan, Lewis and Bockius, 1800 M

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036,

attorney for the licensee.

Nontimely filings of petitions for

leave to intervene, amended petitions,

supplemental petitions, and/or requests

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2001 / Notices 29187

for a hearing will not be entertained

absent a determination by the

Commission, the presiding officer, or

the 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 10

CFR 50.92.

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application for

amendment dated April 5, 2001, which

is available for public inspection at the

Commission’s Public Document Room

(PDR), located at One White Flint North,

11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),

Rockville, Maryland, and accessible

electronically through the Agencywide

Documents Access and Management

System (ADAMS) Public Electronic

Reading Room link at the NRC Web site

(http://www.nrc.gov). If there are

problems accessing the document

located in ADAMS, contact the PDR

Reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301–

415–4737, or send an email to

pdr@nrc.gov.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day

of May 2001.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

David H. Jaffe,

Senior Project Manager, Section 1, Project

Directorate IV & Decommissioning Division

of Licensing Project Management, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 01–13398 Filed 5–25–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 30–595]

South Carolina Electric & Gas; V.C.

Summer Nuclear Station,

Environmental Assessment and

Finding of No Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) is considering

issuance of an exemption from 10 CFR

55.59 for Facility Operating License No.

NPF–12, issued to South Carolina

Electric & Gas Company (SCE&G, the

licensee), for operation of the V.C.

Summer Nuclear Station, located in

Jenkinsville, South Carolina.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

The proposed action would allow the

licensed operator requalification

examinations for the V.C. Summer

Nuclear Station to be rescheduled. The

requested exemption would extend the

completion date for the examinations

from May 31, 2001, to August 31, 2001.

The proposed action is in accordance

with the licensee’s application for

exemption dated January 12, 2001.

The Need for the Proposed Action

The proposed action would extend

the current V.C. Summer Nuclear

Station requalification program from

May 31, 2001, to August 31, 2001. On

October 13, 2000, during routine

shutdown inspections, SCE&G

discovered a leak in a weld in the

reactor coolant system. Activities to

determine the root cause and extent of

condition and to repair the leak

extended through the end of February

2001, months beyond the original

scheduled plant restart. To provide the

necessary level of licensed operator

support to ensure safety throughout the

extended plant outage, SCE&G

postponed the training and other

requalification program activities

originally planned during that time.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The NRC has completed its evaluation

of the proposed action and concludes,

as set forth below, that there are no

environmental impacts associated with

the extension of the operator

requalification examinations from May

31, 2001, to August 31, 2001. The

proposed action will not significantly

increase the probability or consequences

of accidents, no changes are being made

in the types or amounts of any effluents

that may be released off site, and there

is no significant increase in

occupational or public radiation

exposure. Therefore, there are no

significant radiological environmental

impacts associated with the proposed

action.

With regard to potential

nonradiological impacts, the proposed

action does not involve any historic

sites. It does not affect nonradiological

plant effluents and has no other

environmental impact. Therefore, there

are no significant nonradiological

environmental impacts associated with

the proposed action.

Accordingly, the NRC concludes that

there are no significant environmental

impacts associated with the proposed

action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

As an alternative to the proposed

action, the staff considered denial of the

proposed action (i.e., the ‘‘no-action’’

alternative). Denial of the application

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 V.C. Summer Nuclear

Station.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on May 18, 2001, the staff consulted

with the South Carolina State official,

Henry Porter of the Division of Waste

Management, regarding the

environmental impact of the proposed

action. The State official had no

comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

On the basis of the environmental

assessment, the NRC concludes that the

proposed action will not have a

significant effect on the quality of the

human environment. Accordingly, the

NRC 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 12, 2001. Documents may

be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at

the NRC’s Public Document Room,

located at One White Flint North, 11555

Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,

Maryland. Publicly available records

will be accessible electronically from

the ADAMS Public Library component

on the NRC Web site, http:www.nrc.gov

(the Public Electronic Reading Room).

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd

day of May 2001.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Karen R. Cotton,

Project Manager, Section 1, Project

Directorate II, Division of Licensing Project

Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 01–13399 Filed 5–25–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment

Request

Upon Written Request, Copies

Available From: Securities and