Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 121 / Friday, June 22, 2001 / Notices 33583

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 John H. O’Neill, Jr., Shaw,

Pittman, Potts, and Trowbridge, 2300 N

Street, NW, Washington, DC 20037,

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 November 15, 1999,

as supplemented by letters dated March

15, June 15, June 19, July 28, August 17,

September 14, October 19, and

December 21, 2000, February 6,

February 23, March 19, May 11, and

June 13, 2001, 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.

Publicly available records will be

accessible electronically from the

Agencywide Documents Access and

Management Systems (ADAMS) Public

Electronic Reading Room on the Internet

at the NRC Web site, http://

www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html.

If you do not have access to ADAMS or

if there are problems in accessing the

documents located in ADAMS, contact

the NRC Public Document Room

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

415–4737 or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day

of June 2001.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Beth A. Wetzel,

Senior Project Manager, Section I, Project

Directorate III, Division of Licensing Project

Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 01–15710 Filed 6–21–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–354]

PSEG Nuclear Limited Liability

Company; Hope Creek Generating

Station; Environmental Assessment

and Finding of No Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) is considering

issuance of an amendment to Facility

Operating License (FOL) No. NPF–57,

issued to PSEG Nuclear LLC, (the

licensee), for operation of the Hope

Creek Generating Station (HCGS)

located in Lower Alloways Creek

Township, Salem County, New Jersey.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed

The proposed license amendment

would revise the FOL and Technical

Specifications (TSs) for the HCGS, to

allow the licensee to increase the

licensed core power level from 3,293

megawatts thermal (MWt) to 3,339 MWt,

which represents a 1.4-percent increase

in the allowable thermal power. The

NRC authorized HCGS for full power

production at 3,293 MWt with issuance

of the FOL on July 25, 1986. In addition

to the power uprate, the proposed

license amendment would allow the

licensee to make editorial changes to the

TS Bases and Index sections.

The proposed action is in accordance

with the licensee’s application for

license amendment dated December 1,

2000, as supplemented by letters dated

February 12, May 7, and May 14, 2001.

The Need for the Proposed Action

The proposed action would allow an

increase in power generation at HCGS to

provide additional electrical power for

distribution to the grid. In certain

circumstances, power uprate has been

recognized as a safe and cost-effective

method to increase generating capacity.

The proposed action would also allow

editorial changes to the TS Bases and

Index sections to provide corrections to

references and typographical errors.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The NRC has completed its evaluation

of the proposed action and concludes

that implementation of the proposed

amendment would not have a

significant impact on the environment.

With regard to potential radiological

impacts, the licensee has evaluated the

proposed 1.4-percent power uprate with

respect to its effect on the consequences

of postulated design-basis accidents and

on normal releases of liquid and gaseous

effluents. For postulated design-basis

accidents, the effects of the proposed

power uprate are bounded by current

licensing basis dose analyses. No

increase in the probability of these

accidents is expected to occur. For

liquid and gaseous effluents, the offsite

doses resulting from normal releases are

not impacted by the proposed power

uprate because the uprated power is less

than the core power level that was used

for the source term development in the

existing analyses. The release volumes

from the liquid and solid waste

processing systems are not expected to

change as a result of the proposed

power level change. The proposed

editorial changes to the TSs are

administrative in nature and would

have no radiological impact. The

proposed action will not significantly

increase the probability or consequences

of accidents, no changes are being made

in the types of any effluents that may be

released offsite, and there is no

significant increase in occupational or

public radiation exposure. Based on the

33584 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 121 / Friday, June 22, 2001 / Notices

1 15 U.S.C. 78l(d).

2 17 CFR 240.12d2–2(d).

3 15 U.S.C. 78l(b).

4 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(1).

above, the staff concludes that 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. With regard to other nonradiological impacts, the licensee

performed an environmental evaluation,

as documented in the submittal dated

May 14, 2001, that considered thermal

effects, consumptive uses, and

particulate emissions. This evaluation

was performed assuming a 1.5-percent

uprated power value, thus bounding the

proposed 1.4-percent power uprate. The

evaluation was performed as required

by the Environmental Protection Plan

(EPP) for HCGS (Appendix B to FOL No.

NPF–57). The EPP states that

‘‘[e]nvironmental concerns identified in

the FES–OL [Final Environmental

Statement—Operating Licensing Stage

(NUREG–1074, dated December 1984)]

which relate to water quality matters are

regulated by way of the licensee’s

NPDES [New Jersey Pollution Discharge

Elimination System] permit.’’ The

NJDES permit imposes limits on plant

effluents that are discharged to the

Delaware River estuary. The licensee’s

environmental evaluation concluded

that there are no significant nonradiological environmental impacts

associated with the proposed power

uprate and that the current NJDES

permit limits would not require any

changes. The proposed editorial changes

to the TSs are administrative in nature

and would have no non-radiological

impact. Based on the above, the staff

concludes that there are no significant

non-radiological 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 HCGS.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on June 7, 2001, the staff consulted with

the New Jersey State official, Mr. Dennis

Zannoni, of the New Jersey Department

of Environmental Protection, 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 December 1, 2000, as

supplemented by letter dated February

12, May 7, and May 14, 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 Agencywide

Documents Access and Management

Systems (ADAMS) Public Electronic

Reading Room on the Internet at the

NRC web site, http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/

ADAMS/index.html. If you do not have

access to ADAMS or if there are

problems in accessing the documents

located in ADAMS, contact the NRC

Public Document Room (PDR) Reference

staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737

or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day

of June 2001.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Richard B. Ennis,

Project Manager, Section 2, Project

Directorate I, Division of Licensing Project

Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 01–15707 Filed 6–21–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

Issuer Delisting; Notice of Application

to Withdraw From Listing and

Registration; (Stillwater Mining,

Common Stock, $.01 Par Value) File

No. 1–13053

June 15, 2001.

Stillwater Mining Company, a

Delaware corporation (‘‘Issuer’’), has

filed an application with the Securities

and Exchange Commission

(‘‘Commission’’), pursuant to Section

12(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of

1934 (‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule 12d2–2(d)

thereunder,2 to withdraw its Common

Stock, $.01 par value (‘‘Security’’), from

listing and registration on the American

Stock Exchange LLC (‘‘Amex’’).

The Board of Directors (‘‘Board’’) of

the Issuer approved a resolution on

January 9, 2001 to withdraw the

Security from listing on the Exchange

and to list the Security on the New York

Stock Exchange (‘‘NYSE’’). The Issuer

represents that on June 26, 2001 the

Security will begin trading on the

NYSE. The Issuer stated that the Board

took such action in order to avoid the

direct and indirect costs and the

division of the market resulting from

dual listing on the Amex and NYSE.

The Issuer stated in its application

that is has met the requirements of

Amex Rule 18 by complying with all

applicable laws in effect in the State of

Delaware, in which it is incorporated,

and with the Amex’s rules governing an

issuer’s voluntary withdrawal of a

security from listing and registration.

The Issuer’s application relates solely to

the withdrawal of the Security from

listing on the Amex and shall have no

affect upon its listing on the NYSE or its

registration under Section 12(b) of the

Act.3

Any interested person may, on or

before July 9, 2001 submit by letter to

the Secretary of the Securities and

Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street,

NW, Washington, DC 20549–0609, facts

bearing upon whether the application

has been made in accordance with the

rules of the Amex and what terms, if

any, should be imposed by the

Commission for the protection of

investors. The Commission, based on

the information submitted to it, will

issue an order granting the application

after the date mentioned above, unless

the Commission determines to order a

hearing on the matter.

For the Commission, by the Division of

Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated

authority.4

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–15681 Filed 6–21–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M