6466 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 24 / Monday, February 7, 2005 / Notices 

The information collected on reviewer 

background questionnaire (NSF 428A) is 

used by managers to maintain an 

automated database of reviewers for the 

many disciplines represented by the 

proposals submitted to the Foundation. 

Information collected on gender, race, 

and ethnicity is used in meeting NSF 

needs for data to permit response to 

Congressional and other queries into 

equity issues. These data also are used 

in the design, implementation, and 

monitoring of NSF efforts to increase the 

participation of various groups in 

science, engineering, and education.

Confidentiality 

When a decision has been made 

(whether an award or a declination), 

verbatim copies of reviews, excluding 

the identities of the reviewers, and 

summaries of review panel 

deliberations, if any, are provided to the 

PI. A proposer also may request and 

obtain any other releasable material in 

NSF’s file on his or her proposal. 

Everything in the file except 

information that directly identifies 

either reviewers or other pending or 

declined proposals is usually releasable 

to the proposer. 

While listings of panelists’ names are 

released, the names of individual 

reviewers, associated with individual 

proposals, are not released. 

The Foundation collects information 

regarding race, ethnicity, disability, and 

gender, as noted above. The FOIA and 

the Privacy Act protect this information 

from public disclosure. 

Burden on the Public 

The Foundation estimates that 

anywhere from one hour to twenty 

hours may be required to review a 

proposal. It is estimated that 

approximately five hours are required to 

review an average proposal. Each 

proposal receives an average of 6.3 

reviews, with a minimum requirement 

of three reviews.

Dated: February 2, 2005. 

Suzanne H. Plimpton, 

Reports Clearance Officer, National Science 

Foundation.

[FR Doc. 05–2301 Filed 2–4–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7555–01–M

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket Nos. 50–266 and 50–301] 

Nuclear Management Company; Notice 

of Consideration of Issuance of 

Amendments to Facility Operating 

License, Proposed No Significant 

Hazards Consideration Determination, 

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 (the licensee) for 

operation of the Point Beach Nuclear 

Plant, Units 1 and 2, located in Two 

Rivers, Wisconsin. 

The proposed amendment would 

revise the Point Beach Nuclear Plant 

(PBNP), Units 1 and 2, Updated Final 

Safety Analysis Report to reflect the 

Commission staff’s approval of the 

WCAP–14439–P, Revision 2 analysis 

entitled, ‘‘Technical Justification for 

Eliminating Large Primary Loop Pipe 

Rupture as the Structural Design Basis 

for the Point Beach Nuclear Plant Units 

1 and 2 for the Power Uprate and 

License Renewal Program.’’

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. 

The Commission has made a 

proposed determination that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. Under 

the Commission’s regulations in Title 10 

of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 

CFR), Section 50.92, this means that 

operation of the facility in accordance 

with the proposed amendment would 

not (1) involve a significant increase in 

the probability or consequences of an 

accident previously evaluated; or (2) 

create the possibility of a new or 

different kind of accident from any 

accident previously evaluated; or (3) 

involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR 

50.91(a), the licensee has provided its 

analysis of the issue of no significant 

hazards consideration, which is 

presented below:

1. Operation of PBNP in accordance with 

the proposed amendments does not result in 

a significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of any accident previously 

evaluated. 

The proposed change revises the analysis 

supporting the PBNP dynamic effects design 

basis for primary loop piping. The proposed 

change does not adversely affect accident 

initiators or precursors nor alter the design 

assumptions, conditions, or the manner in 

which the plant is operated and maintained. 

The proposed change does not alter or 

prevent the ability of structures, systems, and 

components from performing their intended 

function to mitigate the consequences of an 

initiating event within the assumed 

acceptance limits. The proposed change does 

not affect the source term, containment 

isolation, or radiological release assumptions 

used in evaluating the radiological 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated. Further, the proposed change does 

not increase the types or amounts of 

radioactive effluent that may be released 

offsite, nor significantly increase individual 

or cumulative occupational/public radiation 

exposures. The proposed change is consistent 

with safety analysis assumptions and 

resultant consequences. Therefore, it is 

concluded that this change does not 

significantly increase the probability of 

occurrence of an accident previously 

evaluated. 

2. Operation of PBNP in accordance with 

the proposed amendments does not result in 

a new or different kind of accident from any 

accident previously evaluated. 

The proposed change revises the analysis 

supporting the PBNP dynamic effects design 

basis for primary loop piping. The changes 

do not impose any new or different 

requirements or eliminate any existing 

requirements. The changes do not alter 

assumptions made in the safety analysis. The 

proposed changes are consistent with the 

safety analysis assumptions and current plant 

operating practice. Therefore, the proposed 

change does not create the possibility of a 

new or different kind of accident from any 

previously evaluated. 

3. Operation of PBNP in accordance with 

the proposed amendments does not result in 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety. 

The proposed change revises the analysis 

supporting the PBNP dynamic effects design 

basis for primary loop piping. All the 

recommended margins regarding leak-beforebreak conditions (margin on leak rate, margin 

on flaw size, and margin on loads) are 

satisfied for the primary loop piping. The 

proposed change does not alter the manner 

in which safety limits, limiting safety system 

settings or limiting conditions for operation 

are determined. The setpoints at which 

protective actions are initiated are not altered 

by the proposed changes. Sufficient 

equipment remains available to actuate upon 

demand for the purpose of mitigating an 

analyzed event.

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

The Commission is seeking public 

comments on this proposed 

determination. Any comments received 

within 30 days after the date of 

publication of this notice will be 

considered in making any final 

determination. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 24 / Monday, February 7, 2005 / Notices 6467

Normally, the Commission will not 

issue the amendment until the 

expiration of 60 days after the date of 

publication of this notice. The 

Commission may issue the license 

amendment before expiration of the 60-

day period provided that its final 

determination is that the amendment 

involves no significant hazards 

consideration. In addition, the 

Commission may issue the amendment 

prior to the expiration of the 30-day 

comment period should circumstances 

change during the 30-day comment 

period such that failure to act in a 

timely way would result, for example in 

derating or shutdown of the facility. 

Should the Commission take action 

prior to the expiration of either the 

comment period or the notice period, it 

will publish in the Federal Register a 

notice of issuance. Should the 

Commission make a final No Significant 

Hazards Consideration Determination, 

any hearing will take place after 

issuance. The Commission expects that 

the need to take this action will occur 

very infrequently. 

Written comments may be submitted 

by mail to the Chief, Rules and 

Directives Branch, Division of 

Administrative Services, Office of 

Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001, and should cite the publication 

date and page number of this Federal 

Register notice. Written comments may 

also be delivered to Room 6D59, Two 

White Flint North, 11545 Rockville 

Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 

a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. 

Documents may be examined, and/or 

copied for a fee, at the NRC’s Public 

Document Room, located at One White 

Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 

11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), 

Rockville, Maryland.

The filing of requests for hearing and 

petitions for leave to intervene is 

discussed below. 

Within 60 days after the date of 

publication of this notice, 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 2.309, 

which is available at the Commission’s 

PDR, located at One White Flint North, 

Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville 

Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. 

Publicly available records will be 

accessible from the Agencywide 

Documents Access and Management 

System’s (ADAMS) Public Electronic 

Reading Room on the Internet at the 

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

reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a 

request for a hearing or petition for 

leave to intervene is filed by the above 

date, the Commission or a presiding 

officer designated by the Commission or 

by the Chief Administrative Judge of the 

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 

Panel, will rule on the request and/or 

petition; and the Secretary or the Chief 

Administrative Judge of the Atomic 

Safety and Licensing Board will issue a 

notice of a hearing or an appropriate 

order. 

As required by 10 CFR 2.309, 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 

should specifically explain the reasons 

why intervention should be permitted 

with particular reference to the 

following general requirements: (1) The 

name, address and telephone number of 

the requestor or petitioner; (2) the 

nature of the requestor’s/petitioner’s 

right under the Act to be made a party 

to the proceeding; (3) the nature and 

extent of the requestor’s/petitioner’s 

property, financial, or other interest in 

the proceeding; and (4) the possible 

effect of any decision or order which 

may be entered in the proceeding on the 

requestors/petitioner’s interest. 

The petition must also identify the 

specific contentions which the 

petitioner/requestor seeks to have 

litigated at the proceeding. 

Each contention must consist of a 

specific statement of the issue of law or 

fact to be raised or controverted. In 

addition, the petitioner/requestor shall 

provide a brief explanation of the bases 

for the contention and a concise 

statement of the alleged facts or expert 

opinion which support the contention 

and on which the petitioner intends to 

rely in proving the contention at the 

hearing. The petitioner/requestor 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 

petition must include 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 which, if proven, would 

entitle the petitioner to relief. A 

petitioner/requestor who fails to satisfy 

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. 

If a hearing is requested, the 

Commission will make a final 

determination on the issue of no 

significant hazards consideration. The 

final determination will serve to decide 

when the hearing is held. If the final 

determination is that the amendment 

request involves no significant hazards 

consideration, the Commission may 

issue the amendment and make it 

immediately effective, notwithstanding 

the request for a hearing. Any hearing 

held would take place after issuance of 

the amendment. If the final 

determination is that the amendment 

request involves a significant hazards 

consideration, any hearing held would 

take place before the issuance of any 

amendment. 

Nontimely requests and/or petitions 

and contentions will not be entertained 

absent a determination by the 

Commission or the presiding officer of 

the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 

that the petition, request and/or the 

contentions should be granted based on 

a balancing of the factors specified in 10 

CFR 2.309(a)(1)(I)–(viii). 

A request for a hearing or a petition 

for leave to intervene must be filed by: 

(1) First class mail addressed to the 

Office of the Secretary of the 

Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001, Attention: Rulemaking and 

Adjudications Staff; (2) courier, express 

mail, and expedited delivery services: 

Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, 

One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 

Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, 

Attention: Rulemaking and 

Adjudications Staff; (3) E-mail 

addressed to the Office of the Secretary, 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

HEARINGDOCKET@NRC.GOV; or (4) 

facsimile transmission addressed to the 

Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC, Attention: Rulemakings and 

Adjudications Staff at (301) 415–1101, 

verification number is (301) 415–1966. 

A copy of the request for hearing and 

petition for leave to intervene should 

also be sent to the Office of the General 

Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001, and it is requested that copies be 

6468 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 24 / Monday, February 7, 2005 / Notices 

transmitted either by means of facsimile 

transmission to 301–415–3725 or by 

email to OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. A 

copy of the request for hearing and 

petition for leave to intervene should 

also be sent to Jonathan Rogoff, Esquire, 

Vice President, Counsel & Secretary, 

Nuclear Management Company, LLC, 

700 First Street, Hudson, WI 54016, 

attorney for the licensee. 

For further details with respect to this 

action, see the application for 

amendment dated November 5, 2003, 

which is available for public inspection 

at the Commission’s PDR, located at 

One White Flint North, File Public Area 

O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first 

floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly 

available records will be accessible from 

the Agencywide Documents Access and 

Management System’s (ADAMS) Public 

Electronic Reading Room on the Internet 

at the NRC Web site, http://

www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.

Persons who do not have access to 

ADAMS or who encounter problems in 

accessing the documents located in 

ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR 

Reference staff by telephone at 1–800–

397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by e-mail 

to pdr@nrc.gov.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 31st day 

of January 2005.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Deirdre W. Spaulding, 

Project Manager, Section 1, Project 

Directorate III, Division of Licensing Project 

Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 05–2242 Filed 2–4–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–U

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. 070–07001, Certificate No. 

GDP–1, EA–04–123] 

United States Enrichment Corporation, 

Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, 

Paducah, KY; Confirmatory Order 

Modifying License (Effective 

Immediately) 

The United States Enrichment 

Corporation (USEC or Corporation) is 

the holder of NRC Certificate of 

Compliance No. GDP–1 issued by the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC 

or Commission) pursuant to 10 CFR Part 

76. The certificate authorizes USEC to 

receive, and licensees shall be 

authorized to transfer to the 

Corporation, byproduct material, source 

material, or special nuclear material to 

the extent permitted under the 

Certificate of Compliance. The 

certificate was issued November 26, 

1996, was most recently amended on 

June 30, 2004, and is due to expire on 

December 31, 2008. 

On December 16, 2002, the NRC’s 

Office of Investigations (OI) started an 

investigation to determine whether a 

Quality Control (QC) Manager at USEC’s 

Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant 

(PGDP) was discriminated against by 

being suspended and later terminated 

for raising safety concerns. On May 12, 

2003, OI expanded its investigation to 

determine whether the same QC 

Manager was discriminated against, in 

retaliation for the previously raised 

safety concerns, by not being considered 

for a position with a contractor 

performing work for USEC at PGDP. OI, 

in OI report No. 3–2002–040, did not 

substantiate that the QC Manager was 

suspended or terminated because of 

raising safety concerns. However, based 

on the facts and circumstances 

described in OI Report Number 3–2002–

040, the NRC was concerned that the 

former QC Manager may have been 

discriminated against by not being 

considered for a contract position. By 

letter dated September 29, 2004, the 

NRC identified to USEC the NRC’s 

concern. The September 29th letter 

offered USEC the opportunity either to 

attend a predecisional enforcement 

conference (PEC) or to request 

alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in 

which a neutral mediator with no 

decision-making authority would 

facilitate discussions between the NRC 

and USEC and, if possible, assist the 

NRC and USEC in reaching an 

agreement on resolving the concern. 

USEC chose to participate in ADR. On 

November 22, 2004, the NRC and USEC 

met at USEC headquarters in Bethesda, 

Maryland in an ADR session mediated 

by a professional mediator, arranged 

through Cornell University’s Institute on 

Conflict Resolution. 

By letter dated December 6, 2004, 

USEC enumerated the actions it has 

already taken and additional actions it 

agreed to take in order to enhance its 

Safety Conscious Work Environment at 

the PGDP. The agreed-upon additional 

actions noted in Section IV of this 

Confirmatory Order focus on Safety 

Conscious Work Environment training 

for managers of USEC contractors at the 

PGDP and USEC managers who are 

principal points of contact for USEC 

contractors at the PGDP. 

On January 24, 2005, USEC consented 

to the NRC issuing this Confirmatory 

Order with the commitments, as 

described in Section IV below. USEC 

further agreed in its January 24, 2005, 

letter that this Confirmatory Order is to 

be effective upon issuance and that it 

has waived its right to a hearing. The 

NRC has concluded that its concerns 

can be resolved through effective 

implementation of USEC’s 

commitments. 

I find that USEC’s commitments as set 

forth in Section IV are acceptable and 

necessary and conclude that with these 

commitments the public health and 

safety are reasonably assured. In view of 

the foregoing, I have determined that the 

public health and safety require that 

USEC’s commitments be confirmed by 

this Order. Based on the above and 

USEC’s consent, this Order is 

immediately effective upon issuance. 

USEC is required to provide the NRC 

with a letter summarizing its actions 

when all of the Section IV requirements 

have been completed. 

Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 81, 

161b, 161i, 161o, 182, 186 and 1710 of 

the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 

amended, and the Commission’s 

regulations in 10 CFR 2.202 and 10 CFR 

Part 76, it is hereby ordered, effective 

immediately, that Certificate of 

Compliance No. GDP–1 is modified as 

follows: 

1. By no later than March 31, 2005, 

USEC shall develop and conduct initial 

Safety Conscious Work Environment 

training for: (a) Managers of USEC 

contractors at the PGDP; and (b) USEC 

personnel who are principal points of 

contact for USEC contractors at the 

PGDP. 

2. By no later than June 30, 2005, 

USEC shall develop Safety Conscious 

Work Environment refresher training for 

the managers of USEC contractors at the 

PGDP and revise its training program 

requirements to conduct on-going 

refresher training at a frequency 

consistent with USEC’s General 

Employee Training at the PGDP. 

3. By no later than June 30, 2005, 

USEC shall revise its training program 

requirements to conduct initial Safety 

Conscious Work Environment training 

for: (a) New managers of USEC 

contractors at the PGDP; and (b) USEC 

personnel who become principal points 

of contact for USEC contractors at the 

PGDP, within ninety day of their 

assumption of these duties. 

The Director, Office of Enforcement, 

may relax or rescind, in writing, any of 

the above conditions upon a showing by 

USEC of good cause. 

Any person adversely affected by this 

Confirmatory Order, other than the 

Certificate holder, may request a hearing 

within 20 days of its issuance. Where 

good cause is shown, consideration will 

be given to extending the time to request 

a hearing. A request for extension of 

time must be made in writing to the 

Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555, and include a