33580 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 121 / Friday, June 22, 2001 / Notices

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission is considering issuance of

a license amendment to Master

Materials License No. 42–23539–01AF,

issued to the United States Air Force, to

perform remediation in accordance with

the submitted decommissioning plan of

its OT–10 Radiation Training Sites

located on Kirtland Air Force Base, New

Mexico, and leading to subsequent

release of the property for unrestricted

use.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

Blair Spitzberg, Chief Fuel Cycle

Decommissioning Branch (FCDB) at

(817) 860–8191 or Rachel Carr, FCDB at

(817) 276–6552.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July

14, 2000, the licensee submitted a

decommissioning plan (DP) to the NRC

for review that summarized the

decommissioning activities which will

be undertaken to remediate four training

sites on the north central part of

Kirtland Air Force Base. The area of

land on this part of the base had been

used since 1961 until 1990 as a site for

the education and training of U.S.

Department of Defense (DOD), U.S.

Department of Energy (DOE) and

Federal Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA) and other federal and state

personnel as radiological incident

responders to detect contaminants

generated during a simulated

radiological incident. The surface area is

seeded with known quantities of

Brazilian thorium oxide sludge which

was applied and tilled into site solids to

simulate dispersed plutonium. The sites

are owned by the U.S. Government and

are regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission under the United States Air

Force Master Materials License 42–

23539–01AF.

The NRC will require the licensee to

remediate the four radiation training

sites to meet NRC’s decommissioning

criteria and, during decommissioning

activities, to maintain doses within NRC

requirements and as low as reasonably

achievable.

NRC Approval Process

Prior to approving the

decommissioning plan, NRC will have

made findings required by the Atomic

Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and

NRC’s regulations. These findings will

be documented in an Environmental

Assessment. The Environmental

Assessment may also lead to the

development of an Environmental

Impact Statement if the NRC is unable

to support the Finding of No Significant

Impact (FONSI). A FONSI briefly states

the reasons why an action will not have

a significant impact on the human

environment. The FONSI must be

published in the Federal Register prior

to approval of a DP supported by an

Environmental Assessment.

Documents

The Decommissioning Plan submitted

by Kirtland Air Force Base is available

for public inspection from the Publicly

Available Records (PARS) component of

NRC’s document system (ADAMS). The

Accession Number for the document is

(ML011560740). ADAMS is accessible

from the NRC web site at http://

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

(the Public Electronic Reading Room).

Assistance with the Public Electronic

Reading Room may be obtained by

calling (800) 397–4209.

Notice of Opportunity for Hearing

The NRC hereby provides notice that

this is a proceeding on an application

for amendment of a license falling

within the scope of subpart L, ‘‘Informal

Hearing Procedures for Adjudications in

Materials and Operator Licensing

Proceedings,’’ of NRC’s rules of practice

for domestic licensing proceedings in 10

CFR Part 2. Pursuant to § 2.1205(a), any

person whose interest may be affected

by the proceeding may file a request for

a hearing in accordance with

§ 2.1205(d). A request for a hearing must

be filed within thirty (30) days of the

date of publication of this Federal

Register notice.

The request for a hearing must be

filed with the office of the Secretary

either:

1. By delivery to the Rulemakings and

Adjudications Staff of the Office of the

Secretary at One White Flint North,

11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville MD

20852–2738; or

2. By mail, telegram or facsimile

addressed to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington DC

20555–0001. Attention: Rulemakings

and Adjudications Staff.

In addition to meeting other

applicable requirements of 10 CFR Part

2 of the NRC’s regulations, a request for

a hearing filed by a person other than

an applicant must describe in detail:

1. The interest of the requestor in the

proceeding;

2. How that interest may be affected

by the results of the proceeding,

including the reasons why the requestor

should be permitted a hearing, with

particular reference to the factors set out

in § 2.1205(h);

3. The requester’s area of concern

about the licensing activity that is the

subject matter of the proceeding; and

4. The circumstances establishing that

the request for a hearing is timely in

accordance with 2.1205(d)—that is, filed

within 30 days of the date of this notice.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.1205(f),

each request for a hearing must also be

served, by delivering it personally or by

mail, to:

1. The applicant, Department of the

Air Force, USAF Radioisotope

Committee, HQ AFMOA/SGZR, 110

Luke Ave, Suite 405, Bolling AFB, DC

20322–7050; and

2. The NRC staff, by delivery to the

General Counsel, One White Flint

North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,

MD 20852, or by mail, addressed to the

General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555.

Dated at Arlington, Texas, this 13th day of

June, 2001.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

D. Blair Spitzberg,

Chief, Fuel Cycle Decommissioning Branch,

Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region

IV.

[FR Doc. 01–15708 Filed 6–21–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–309]

Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company,

et al.; Maine Yankee Atomic Power

Station; Notice of Receipt and

Availability for Comment of Revised

License Termination Plan

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC) is in receipt of and is making

available for public inspection and

comment the revised License

Termination Plan (LTP) for the Maine

Yankee Atomic Power Station (MYAPS)

located in Lincoln County, Maine.

Maine Yankee Atomic Power

Company (MYAPC) submitted its

proposed LTP for MYAPS by

application dated January 13, 2000. The

NRC published notice of the receipt and

availability for comment of the LTP in

the Federal Register on March 23, 2000

(65 FR 15657). On May 17, 2000, the

NRC published notice of the license

amendment request and opportunity for

hearing associated with the LTP (65 FR

31357).

On June 1, 2001, MYAPC filed a

revised LTP. The MYAPS LTP revision

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, where it may be examined,

and/or copied for a fee. Publicly

available records will be accessible

electronically from the ADAMS Public

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 121 / Friday, June 22, 2001 / Notices 33581

Library Component on the NRC Web

site, http:\\www.nrc.gov (the Electronic

Reading Room). In addition, the revised

LTP may be accessed on the MYAPC

web site, www.maineyankee.com.

Comments regarding the MYAPS LTP

may be submitted in writing and

addressed to Mr. Michael Webb, Mail

Stop O–7 D1, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555–

0001, telephone (301) 415–1347 or email mkw@nrc.gov.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day

of June 2001.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Robert A. Gramm,

Chief, Section 1, Project Directorate IV,

Division of Licensing Project Management,

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 01–15709 Filed 6–21–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–266 and 50–301]

Nuclear Manaagement Company, LLC;

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of

Amendment to Facility Operating

License and Opportunity for a Hearing

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of an amendment

to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–

24 and DPR–27, issued to Nuclear

Management Company, LLC (NMC or

the licensee), for operation of the Point

Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2,

located in Manitowoc County,

Wisconsin.

The proposed amendment would be a

full conversion from the current

Technical Specifications (CTS) to a set

of improved Technical Specifications

(ITS) based on NUREG–1431, ‘‘Standard

Technical Specifications (STS) for

Westinghouse Plants,’’ Revision 1, dated

April 1995. The STS have been

developed by the Commission’s staff

through working groups composed of

both NRC staff members and industry

representatives, and has been endorsed

by the staff as part of an industry-wide

initiative to standardize and improve

the Technical Specifications (TSs) for

nuclear power plants. As part of the

proposed amendment, the licensee has

applied the criteria contained in the

Commission’s ‘‘Final Policy Statement

on Technical Specification

Improvements for Nuclear Power

Reactors (Final Policy Statement),’’

published in the Federal Register on

July 22, 1993 (58 FR 39132), to the CTS,

and, using NUREG–1431 as a basis,

proposed ITS for Point Beach, Units 1

and 2. The criteria in the Final Policy

Statement were subsequently added to

10 CFR 50.36, ‘‘Technical

Specifications,’’ in a rule change that

was published in the Federal Register

on July 19, 1995 (60 FR 36953). The rule

change became effective on August 18,

1995.

The licensee has categorized the

proposed changes to the CTS into four

general groupings. These groupings are

characterized as administrative changes,

relocation changes, more restrictive

changes, and less restrictive changes.

Administrative changes are those that

involve restructuring, renumbering,

rewording, interpretation, and complex

rearranging of requirements, and other

changes not affecting technical content

or substantially revising an operating

requirement. The reformatting,

renumbering, and rewording processes

reflect the attributes of NUREG–1431

and does not involve technical changes

to the existing TSs. The proposed

changes include: (a) Identifying plantspecific wording for system names, etc.,

(b) changing the wording of

specification titles in the CTS to

conform to STS, (c) splitting up

requirements that are currently grouped,

or combining requirements that are

currently in separate specifications, (d)

deleting specifications whose

applicability has expired, and (e)

wording changes that are consistent

with the CTS but that more clearly or

explicitly state existing requirements.

Such changes are administrative in

nature and do not impact initiators of

analyzed events or assumed mitigation

of accident or transient events.

Relocation changes are those

involving relocation of requirements

and surveillances for structures,

systems, components, or variables that

do not meet the criteria for inclusion in

TSs. Relocated changes are those CTS

requirements that do not satisfy or fall

within any of the four criteria specified

in the Commission’s policy statement

and may be relocated to appropriate

licensee-controlled documents.

The licensee’s application of the

screening criteria to Point Beach, Units

1 and 2, is described in Attachment 6 to

the November 15, 1999, application.

The affected structures, systems,

components, or variables are not

assumed to be initiators of analyzed

events and are not assumed to mitigate

accident or transient events. The

requirements and surveillances for these

affected structures, systems,

components, or variables will be

relocated from the TSs to

administratively controlled documents

such as the quality assurance program,

the Updated Final Safety Analysis

Report (UFSAR), the ITS Bases, the

Technical Requirements Manual (TRM)

that is incorporated by reference in the

UFSAR, the Core Operating Limits

Report (COLR), the Offsite Dose

Calculation Manual, the Inservice

Testing Program, the Inservice

Inspection Program, or other licenseecontrolled documents. Changes made to

these documents will be made pursuant

to 10 CFR 50.59 or other appropriate

control mechanisms, and may be made

without prior NRC review and approval.

In addition, the affected structures,

systems, components, or variables are

addressed in existing surveillance

procedures that are also subject to 10

CFR 50.59. These proposed changes will

not impose or eliminate any

requirements.

More restrictive changes are those

involving more stringent requirements

compared to the CTS for operation of

the facility. These more stringent

requirements do not result in operation

that will alter assumptions relative to

the mitigation of an accident or

transient event. The more restrictive

requirements will not alter the operation

of process variables, structures, systems,

and components described in the safety

analyses.

Less restrictive changes are those

where CTS requirements are relaxed,

relocated or eliminated, or new plant

operational flexibility is provided.

When requirements have been shown to

provide little or no safety benefit, their

removal from the TSs may be

appropriate. In most cases, relaxations

previously granted to individual plants

on a plant-specific basis were the result

of (a) generic NRC actions, (b) new NRC

staff positions that have evolved from

the technological advancements and

operating experience, or (c) resolution of

the Owners Groups’ comments on the

ITS. Generic relaxations contained in

NUREG–1431 were reviewed by the staff

and found to be acceptable because they

are consistent with current licensing

practices and NRC regulations. The

licensee’s design will be reviewed to

determine if the specific design basis

and licensing basis are consistent with

the technical basis for the model

requirements in NUREG–1431, thus

providing a basis for these revised TSs,

or if relaxation of the requirements in

the CTS is warranted based on the

justification provided by the licensee.

These administrative, relocation,

more restrictive, and less restrictive

changes to the requirements of the CTS

do not result in operations that will alter

assumptions relative to mitigation of an

analyzed accident or transient event.

In addition to the proposed changes

solely involving the conversion, there