Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 107 / Monday, June 4, 2001 / Notices 30027

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended

(the Act) and the Commission’s

regulations.

By July 5, 2001, 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 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

Agencywide Documents Access and

Management System (ADAMS) Public

Electronic Reading Room link at the

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

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.

A request for a hearing and 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, 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 Mary O’Reilly, Attorney,

FirstEnergy Legal Department,

FirstEnergy Corporation, 76 S. Main

Street, Akron, OH 44308, attorney for

the licensee.

Nontimely filings of petitions for

leave to intervene, amended petitions,

supplemental petitions and/or requests

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

50.92.

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application for

amendment dated March 19, 2001

(ADAMS Accession No. ML010810433),

which is available for public inspection

at the Commission’s Public Document

Room, located at One White Flint North,

11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),

Rockville, Maryland, 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 23rd day

of May 2001.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Lawrence J. Burkhart,

Project Manager, Section 1, Project

Directorate I, Division of Licensing Project

Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 01–13899 Filed 6–1–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–395]

South Carolina Electric and Gas

Company, V. C. Summer Nuclear

Station; Exemption

1.0 Background

South Carolina Electric & Gas

Company (SCE&G) is the holder of

Facility Operating License No. NPF–12,

which authorizes operation of the V.C.

Summer Nuclear Station (the facility), at

steady-state core power levels not in

excess of 2900 megawatts thermal. The

license provides, among other things,

that the V. C. Summer Nuclear Station

is subject to all rules, regulations, and

orders of the Commission now or

hereafter in effect.

The facility consists of a pressurized

water reactor located in Fairfield County

in South Carolina.

2.0 Purpose

Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of

Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Section

30028 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 107 / Monday, June 4, 2001 / Notices

55.59(a)(1), each licensed operator is

required to successfully complete a

requalification program developed by

the licensee that has been approved by

the Commission. This program is to be

conducted for a continuous period not

to exceed 24 months in duration and

upon its conclusion must be promptly

followed by a successive requalification

program. In addition, pursuant to 10

CFR 55.59(a)(2), each licensed operator

must pass a comprehensive

requalification written examination and

an annual operating test.

The Code of Federal Regulations at 10

CFR 55.11 states that ‘‘The Commission

may, upon application by an interested

person, or upon its own initiative, grant

such exemptions from the requirements

of the regulations in this part as it

determines are authorized by law and

will not endanger life or property and

are otherwise in the public interest.’’

3.0 Discussion

By letter dated January 12, 2001,

SCE&G requested a change to the cycle

dates for the 2-year requalification

training program required by 10 CFR

55.59. This request constitutes a request

for exemption under 10 CFR 55.11 from

the requirements of 10 CFR 55.59(a)(1)

and (a)(2). The schedular exemption

requested would extend the period for

the current cycle of the V. C. Summer

Nuclear Station requalification program

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

The next requalification period would

begin on September 1, 2001, and end on

August 31, 2003, with subsequent

requalification periods remaining on a

September to August schedule. 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

this 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. The

affected licensed operators will

continue to demonstrate and possess the

required levels of knowledge, skills, and

abilities needed to safely operate the

plant throughout the transitional period

via continuation of the current licensed

operator requalification program, and

the limited 3-month delay in

completion of requalification for the

current perod will have a negligible

effect on operator qualification.

4.0 Conclusion

Accordingly, the Commission has

determined that pursuant to 10 CFR

55.11, granting an exemption to SCE&G

from the requirements in 10 CFR

55.59(a)(1) and (a)(2) is authorized by

law and will not endanger life or

property and is otherwise in the public

interest.

Therefore, the Commission hereby

grants SCE&G an exemption from the

schedular requirements of 10 CFR

55.59(a)(1) and (2) to allow the period

for current cycle of the V. C. Summer

Nuclear Station requalification program

to be extended beyond 24 months but

not exceeding 27 months, expiring on

August 31, 2001. The successive 2-year

requalification cycles will continue with

September 1 as the start date and

August 31 as the end date.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the

Commission has determined that the

granting of this exemption will not have

a significant effect on the quality of the

human environment (66 FR 29187).

This exemption is effective upon

issuance, and expires on August 31,

2001.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day

of May 2001.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Bruce A. Boger,

Director, Division of Inspection Program

Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 01–13901 Filed 6–1–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–247]

License No. DPR–26; Consolidated

Edison Company of New York, Inc.;

Receipt of Petition for Director’s

Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206

Notice is hereby given that by Petition

dated April 24, 2001, as supplemented

by letter dated May 3, 2001, Mr. David

A. Lochbaum, on behalf of Union of

Concerned Scientists, requested that the

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

issue a Demand for Information (DFI) to

licensees that use security personnel

supplied by Wackenhut Corporation

(Wackenhut), requiring them to provide

a docketed response explaining how

they comply with the requirement of

Title 10 of the Code of Federal

Regulations (10 CFR) section 26.10 that

licensees ‘‘provide reasonable measures

for the early detection of persons who

are not fit to perform activities within

the scope of this part’’ and the

requirement of 10 CFR 26.20 that

‘‘licensee policy should also address

other factors that could affect fitness for

duty such as mental stress, fatigue and

illness.’’

The petitioner also requested that the

DFI should require each licensee to

generally describe its policy for the

aforementioned factors and to explicitly

describe its policy for these factors as

applied to the security personnel

supplied by Wackenhut.

As a basis for this request, the

petitioner stated that:

‘‘An individual employed by Wackenhut

Corporation and assigned duties as a security

officer at Indian Point 2 was fired on June 26,

2000 * * *. The individual had worked five

straight 12-hour shifts [(12 hours on shift

followed by 12 hours off for 5 straight days)]

and declined to report for a sixth straight 12-

hour shift because he reported to his

management—in writing—that it would be

‘‘physically and mentally exhausting.’’ The

individual reported to his management—in

writing—that he was fully aware of his

condition and ‘‘would not want to be

negligent in performing [his] duties as a

security officer.’’

The security officer had unescorted access

to Indian Point 2 and thus was covered by

10 CFR part 26 as specified in Section 26.2

* * *.’’

The petitioner also indicated that

Wackenhut employees are required by

terms of their employment application,

Collective Bargaining Agreement, and

the Security Officer’s Handbook to

report to work when required.

Thus, the petitioner contends that a

worker employed by Wackenhut at an

NRC-licensed facility reported to his

management that he felt unfit for duty,

declined to report for mandated

overtime, and was terminated.

The petitioner also stated that ‘‘10

CFR 26.20 requires all licensees to have

formal policy and written procedures

for factors that could render plant

workers unfit for duty. Fatigue is

specifically mentioned in 10 CFR

26.20.’’ The petitioner contends that the

Wackenhut’s contractual right conflicts

with the Federal regulations in 10 CFR

26.10 (a) and (b) and that in the subject

case, the individual essentially provided

‘‘reasonable measures for early

detection’’ of a condition rendering him

unfit to perform activities within the

scope of part 26. The petitioner further

stated that rather than respecting the

individual’s judgment or seeking

another opinion by a Medical Review

Officer or other health care professional,

Wackenhut fired that individual.

This Petition has been accepted for

review pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 of the

NRC’s regulations, and has been referred

to the Director of the Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation for action. In

accordance with Section 2.206,