This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

54310 

Vol. 70, No. 177 

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

10 CFR Part 54 

[Docket No. PRM–54–03] 

Joseph Scarpelli, Mayor of Brick 

Township, NJ; Receipt of Petition for 

Rulemaking 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; notice 

of receipt. 

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is publishing for 

public comment a notice of receipt of a 

petition for rulemaking, dated July 20, 

2005, which was filed with the 

Commission by Michele R. Donato, 

Esquire, on behalf of Mayor Joseph 

Scarpelli of Brick Township. The 

petition was docketed by the NRC on 

July 25, 2005, and has been assigned 

Docket No. PRM–54–03. The petitioner 

requests that the NRC amend its 

regulations to provide that a renewed 

license will be issued only if the plant 

operator demonstrates that the plant 

meets all criteria and requirements that 

would be applicable if the plant was 

being proposed de novo for initial 

construction. 

DATES: Submit comments by November 

28, 2005. Comments received after this 

date will be considered if it is practical 

to do so, but the Commission is able to 

assure consideration only for comments 

received on or before this date. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any one of the following methods. 

Please include PRM–54–03 in the 

subject line of your comments. 

Comments on petitions submitted in 

writing or in electronic form will be 

made available for public inspection. 

Because your comments will not be 

edited to remove any identifying or 

contact information, the NRC cautions 

you against including any information 

in your submission that you do not want 

to be publicly disclosed. 

Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001, ATTN: 

Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. 

E-mail comments to: SECY@nrc.gov. If 

you do not receive a reply e-mail 

confirming that we have received your 

comments, contact us directly at (301) 

415–1966. You may also submit 

comments via the NRC’s rulemaking 

Web site at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. 

Address questions about our rulemaking 

Web site to Carol Gallagher (301) 415– 

5905; e-mail cag@nrc.gov. Comments 

can also be submitted via the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

Hand deliver comments to: 11555 

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 

20852, between 7:30 am and 4:15 pm 

Federal workdays. (Telephone (301) 

415–1966.) 

Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission at (301) 

415–1101. 

Publicly available documents related 

to this petition may be viewed 

electronically on the public computers 

located at the NRC’s Public Document 

Room (PDR), Room O1 F21, One White 

Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, 

Rockville, Maryland. The PDR 

reproduction contractor will copy 

documents for a fee. Selected 

documents, including comments, may 

be viewed and downloaded 

electronically via the NRC rulemaking 

Web site at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. 

Publicly available documents created 

or received at the NRC after November 

1, 1999, are available electronically at 

the NRC’s Electronic Reading Room at 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ 

adams.html. From this site, the public 

can gain entry into the NRC’s 

Agencywide Document Access and 

Management System (ADAMS), which 

provides text and image files of NRC’s 

public documents. If you do not have 

access to ADAMS or if there are 

problems in accessing the documents 

located in ADAMS, contact the PDR 

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

415–4737 or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael T. Lesar, Chief, Rules and 

Directives Branch, Division of 

Administrative Services, Office of 

Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001, Telephone: 301–415–7163 or Toll 

Free: 800–368–5642. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Petitioner 

The petitioner is the Mayor of Brick 

Township, New Jersey. Brick Township 

is situated in the northern part of Ocean 

County, directly on the border of 

Monmouth County, New Jersey. Brick 

Township is located approximately 18 

miles north of the Oyster Creek Nuclear 

Generating Station. The petitioner states 

that Brick Township experienced great 

growth over the past four decades. 

Today, Brick Township is home to over 

77,000 residents. In 1970, Brick 

Township had 35,057 residents. 

The petitioner states that Ocean 

County is located on the Jersey Shore, 

approximately 50 miles south of New 

York City and 50 miles east of 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Ocean 

County encompasses nearly 640 square 

miles. The petitioner states that its 

location on the Atlantic Ocean makes 

Ocean County one of the premier tourist 

destinations in the United States. 

The petitioner states that Oyster Creek 

Nuclear Generating Station, which is 

located in Lacey Township, became 

operational in 1969. In 1970, one year 

after Oyster Creek began producing 

electricity, Ocean County, New Jersey 

had 208,470 residents. The petitioner 

also states that according to the 2000 

Census, Ocean County today has 

510,916 residents, a growth of over 245 

percent. 

Background 

The petitioner submitted two letters 

dated July 7, 2005, and July 13, 2005, 

respectively. These letters are being 

treated as one petition. The petitioner 

also included letters from the New 

Jersey Chapter of the Sierra Club and the 

New Jersey Environmental Federation in 

support of the petition. 

The petitioner states that there have 

been numerous incidents that have 

occurred since Oyster Creek began 

operating that have raised concerns 

among many people about using nuclear 

power to generate energy, particularly in 

densely populated areas. The petitioner 

states that the near catastrophe at Three 

Mile Island, the realized catastrophe at 

Chernobyl, the controversy about Yucca 

Mountain and the terrorist attacks of 

September 11, 2001, have raised 

concerns about the safety and security 

of nuclear power plants. 

The petitioner believes that the 

evacuation of the communities 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 14, 2005 / Proposed Rules 54311 

surrounding Oyster Creek is of 

particular concern and requires 

extensive review and consideration. The 

petitioner states that traffic congestion is 

a growing concern in Ocean County as 

the infrastructure has not kept up with 

the population growth. Any large scale 

evacuation would likely be fraught with 

difficulties that would endanger lives. 

The Proposed Amendment 

The petitioner requests that the NRC 

amend its regulations to provide that a 

renewed license will be issued only if 

the plant operator demonstrates that the 

plant meets all criteria and requirements 

that would be applicable if the plant 

was being proposed de novo for initial 

construction. The petitioner also 

requests that § 54.29 be amended to 

provide that a renewed license may be 

issued by the Commission if the 

Commission finds that, upon a de novo 

review, the plant would be entitled to 

an initial operating license in 

accordance with all criteria applicable 

to initial operating licenses, as set out in 

the Commission’s regulations, including 

10 CFR parts 2, 19, 20, 21, 26, 30, 40, 

50, 51, 54, 55, 71, 100, and the 

appendices to these regulations. The 

petitioner requests that corresponding 

amendments be made to §§ 54.4, 54.19, 

54.21, and 54.23, and that § 54.30 be 

rescinded. The petitioner states that the 

criteria to be examined as part of a 

renewal application should include 

such factors as demographics, siting, 

emergency evacuation, site security, etc. 

The petitioner believes that this analysis 

should be performed in a manner that 

focuses the NRC’s attention on the 

critical plant-specific factors and 

conditions that have the greatest 

potential to affect public safety. 

Problems With the Current Process 

The petitioner believes that the 

process and criteria currently 

established in part 54 is seriously 

flawed. The petitioner states that the 

process for license renewal appears to 

be based on the theory that if the plant 

was originally licensed at the site, it is 

satisfactory to renew the license, barring 

any significant issues having to do with 

passive systems, structures, and 

components (SSCs). The petitioner 

states that the regulations for license 

renewal should be broadened and 

sufficiently comprehensive to cover all 

of the facets (including consideration of 

a worst-case scenario) that were 

considered for initial construction. 

Alternatively, the petitioner states that 

the license renewal process should 

examine all issues related to the plant 

and its original license, and then 

concentrate on any issues that are new 

to that plant or have changed since the 

original license was issued or that 

deviate from the original licensing basis. 

Key Renewal Issues 

The petitioner states that as Oyster 

Creek approaches the end of its 40 year 

operating license, it is necessary to 

answer important questions about the 

plant. The petitioner states that these 

questions are specific to the Oyster 

Creek plant and those who live near the 

plant deserve to have these questions 

reviewed. These questions include the 

following: 

• Could a new plant, designed and 

built to current standards, be licensed 

on the same site today? With the growth 

of Ocean County, which continues 

today, it is not certain that a nuclear 

plant would be permitted there today. 

• The design of Oyster Creek’s reactor 

has been prohibited for nearly four 

decades. Does that reactor conform to 

today’s standards? Would Oyster Creek 

receive a license today with that 

reactor? 

• In light of the terrorist attacks of 

September 11, 2001, would Oyster 

Creek’s storage system, which is located 

close to Route 9, be acceptable today? 

• Is the evacuation plan realistic in 

today’s Ocean County? Would the 

tremendous growth of Ocean County 

over the past four decades, and the 

failure of Ocean County’s infrastructure 

to keep pace with this growth, inhibit 

Oyster Creek’s likelihood of receiving an 

operating license? 

• Would a license be permitted in 

light of the public opposition to the 

plant? To date, 21 municipalities in 

Ocean County, as well as Congressmen 

Smith, Saxton and Pallone, New Jersey 

Department of Environmental Protection 

Commissioner Bradley, and the Ocean 

County Board of Chosen Freeholders, 

have expressed either their concern for 

a thorough review and/or their 

opposition to the re-licensing. 

• In recent weeks, two studies 

released by the National Academy of 

Sciences have raised serious concerns 

about nuclear plant security and the 

health effects of low-level radiation 

upon people who reside near nuclear 

plants. Should these two scientific 

studies and other relevant scientific data 

regarding human health and antiterrorism be taken into account when 

considering Oyster Creek’s license 

renewal application? 

Conclusion 

The petitioner states that many key 

factors that affect nuclear plant 

licensing evolve over time: Population 

grows, local/state Federal regulations 

evolve, public awareness increases, 

technology improves, and plant 

economic values change. The petitioner 

believes that all of these factors should 

be examined and weighed in the formal 

10 CFR part 54 relicensing process. 

Accordingly, the petitioner requests that 

the NRC amend its regulations related to 

license renewal as described previously 

in the section titled, ‘‘The Proposed 

Amendment.’’

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 8th day 

of September, 2005. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Annette Vietti-Cook, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 05–18192 Filed 9–13–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2005–22156; Directorate 

Identifier 2005–CE–43–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Burkhardt 

Grob Luft-Und Raumfahrt GmbH & CO 

KG Model G103 TWIN ASTIR 

Sailplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a 

new airworthiness directive (AD) for all 

Burkhardt Grob Luft-Und Raumfahrt 

GmbH & CO KG (Grob) Model G103 

TWIN ASTIR sailplanes. This proposed 

AD would require you to replace the 

elevator lever, part number (P/N) 103–

3521, with a part of improved design, 

P/N 103–3523. This proposed AD 

results from mandatory continuing 

airworthiness information (MCAI) 

issued by the airworthiness authority for 

Germany. We are issuing this proposed 

AD to prevent cracks in the elevator 

lever, which could cause the elevator 

lever to fail. This failure could result in 

loss of control of the sailplane. 

DATES: We must receive any comments 

on this proposed AD by October 14, 

2005. 

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following to 

submit comments on this proposed AD: 

• DOT Docket Web site: Go to http:// 

dms.dot.gov and follow the instructions 

for sending your comments 

electronically. 

• Government-wide rulemaking Web 

site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov 

and follow the instructions for sending 

your comments electronically.