Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 245 / Thursday, December 20, 2001 / Notices 65749

service responsibilities as well as the

research role.

Data will be collected using Webbased surveys and conducting

institutional site visits for six selected

case studies. Titles of the survey

instruments and interview protocol for

the PFF Evaluation are as follows:

• PFF Partner Faculty Survey.

• PFF Graduate Faculty Survey.

• PFF Participant Survey (Graduate

Students)

• PFF Site Visit Protocol (for case

studies).

NSF will use this collection to

evaluate the impact and effectiveness of

the Preparing Future Faculty Program

on graduate education and the

development of future professors.

Expected Respondents: The expected

respondents are project directors, deans,

and graduate student participants at PFF

grantee institutions as well as faculty

associated directly with the PFF

program at both graduate institutions

and partner institutions.

Burden on the Public: The remaining

elements for this collection represent

734 burden hours for a maximum of

3840 participants over two years,

assuming an 80–100% response rate.

The burden on the public is neligible;

the study is limited to project

participants that have directly received

funding from or otherwise have

benefited from participation in the PFF

program.

Dated: December 14, 2001.

Suzanne H. Plimpton,

NSF Reports Clearance Officer.

[FR Doc. 01–31284 Filed 12–19–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555–01–M

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–219]

Amergen Energy Company, LLC;

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of

Amendment 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 No. DPR–

16 issued to AmerGen Energy Company,

LLC (the licensee) for operation of the

Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station

located in Ocean County, New Jersey.

The proposed license amendment

request is to revise Technical

Specification (TS) 3.5.A.5.b to change

the number of allowed inoperable

suppression chamber to drywell

vacuum breakers from two to five. This

change decreases the required number

of operable vacuum breakers for

opening from twelve to nine.

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 10 CFR

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 the facility in accordance

with the proposed amendment would not

involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of an accident

previously evaluated.

The proposed change reduces the number

of vacuum breakers required to be operable

from twelve to nine, allows continued

operation for 72 hours with one required

vacuum breaker inoperable, and allows a

vacuum breaker to remain operable with one

position alarm circuit inoperable. The

proposed change does not increase the

probability of an accident. The number of

vacuum breakers required to be operable is

not assumed to be an accident initator of any

analyzed event.

[...] The change does not allow continuous

operation with only eight vacuum breakers

operable. Therefore, the consequences of an

accident are not increased. This change does

not alter assumptions relative to the

mitigation of an accident or transient event.

The position alarm circuits only provide

indication of valve position prior to an event

and do not perform any accident mitigation

functions. Additional surveillance of an

operable vacuum breaker with an inoperable

position alarm circuit will provide adequate

assurance of vacuum breaker status and

operability of the remaining redundant

position alarm circuit.

Therefore, this change does not involve a

significant increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated.

2. Operation of the facility in accordance

with the proposed amendment would not

create the possibility of a new or different

kind of accident from any accident

previously evaluated.

The proposed change reduces the number

of vacuum breakers required to be operable

from twelve to nine, allows continued

operation for 72 hours with one required

vacuum breaker inoperable, and allows a

vacuum breaker to remain operable with one

position alarm circuit inoperable. This

change will not physically alter the plant

since [because] no new or different type of

equipment will be installed. The change in

analytical methods used to establish the

proposed Technical Specification limits for

normal plant operation preserves the current

safety analysis assumptions and acceptable

criteria. The proposed 72 hour allowed

outage time for a required operable vacuum

breaker is consistent with NRC Standard

Technical Specifications, NUREG–1433, and

is considered acceptable due to the low

probability of an event in which the

remaining vacuum breaker capability would

not be adequate assuming a single failure to

open. Additional surveillance of an operable

vacuum breaker with an inoperable position

alarm circuit will provide adequate assurance

of vacuum breaker status and operability of

the remaining redundant position alarm

circuit.

Therefore, this change does not create the

possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from any accident previously

evaluated.

3. Operation of the facility in accordance

with the proposed amendment would not

involve a significant reduction in a margin of

safety.

This proposed change reduces the number

of vacuum breakers required to be operable

from twelve to nine, allows continued

operation for 72 hours with one required

vacuum breaker inoperable, and allows a

vacuum breaker to remain operable with one

position alarm circuit inoperable. Reducing

the number of required vacuum breakers

from twelve to nine is consistent with the

analysis that shows eight vacuum breakers

are sufficient to maintain containment

differential pressures and downcomer water

column height below acceptable limits.

Therefore, the margin of safety is not

affected. The safety analysis assumptions and

acceptance criteria are maintained. In

addition, with one required vacuum breaker

inoperable for 72 hours, the margin of safety

is not significantly reduced considering the

remaining vacuum breakers are still available

and sufficient to mitigate an event, and the

low probability of an accident occurring

during this time period requiring vacuum

breaker operation. Additional surveillance of

an operable vacuum breaker with an

inoperable position alarm circuit will

provide adequate assurance of vacuum

breaker status and operability of the

remaining redundant position alarm circuit.

Therefore, the proposed change does not

involve a significant reduction in a margin of

safety.

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

65750 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 245 / Thursday, December 20, 2001 / Notices

determination. Any comments received

within 30 days after the date of

publication of this notice will be

considered in making any final

determination.

Normally, the Commission will not

issue the amendment until the

expiration of the 30-day notice period.

However, should circumstances change

during the notice period such that

failure to act in a timely way would

result, for example, in derating or

shutdown of the facility, the

Commission may issue the license

amendment before the expiration of the

30-day notice period, provided that its

final determination is that the

amendment involves no significant

hazards consideration. The final

determination will consider all public

and State comments received. Should

the Commission take this action, it will

publish in the Federal Register a notice

of issuance and provide for opportunity

for a hearing 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, 11555 Rockville Pike (first

floor), Rockville, Maryland.

The filing of requests for hearing and

petitions for leave to intervene is

discussed below.

By January 22, 2002, 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, or

electronically on the Internet at the NRC

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

index.html. If there are problems in

accessing the document, contact the

Public Document Room Reference staff

at 1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or

by e-mail to pdr@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

should 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 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 which may be

entered in the proceeding on the

petitioner’s interest. The petition should

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

which must include a list of the

contentions which are sought to be

litigated in the matter. 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 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 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. 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 which, if

proven, would entitle the petitioner to

relief. A petitioner who fails to file such

a supplement which 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.

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.

A request for a hearing or a 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 petition

should also be sent to the Office of the

General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555–0001, and to Kevin P. Gallen,

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, 1800 M

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036–

5869, attorney for the licensee.

Nontimely filings of petitions for

leave to intervene, amended petitions,

supplemental petitions and/or requests

for hearing will not be entertained

absent a determination by the

Commission, the presiding officer or the

presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing

Board that the petition and/or request

should be granted based upon a

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 245 / Thursday, December 20, 2001 / Notices 65751

balancing of the factors specified in 10

CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i)–(v) and 2.714(d).

Further details with respect to this

action, see the application for

amendment dated September 19, 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 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.

Persons who do not have access to

ADAMS or who encounter problems in

accessing the documents located in

ADAMS, should contact the NRC Public

Document Room 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 13th day

of December 2001.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Helen N. Pastis,

Senior Project Manager, Section 1, Project

Directorate I, Division of Licensing Project

Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 01–31333 Filed 12–19–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 03000001]

Mallinckrodt, Inc.; Notice of

Consideration of Request for

Temporary Exemption

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of consideration of

request for temporary exemption.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (Commission) is

considering the issuance of a temporary

exemption from the requirement to

perform an emergency preparedness

(EP) exercise every 2 years for

Mallinckrodt, Inc. The request for

temporary exemption is necessary

because the licensee had to postpone

the required scheduled EP exercise due

to the terrorist attacks on the United

States, lack of availability of State and

local agencies, and the current

heightened alert status of the plant.

Mallinckrodt expects to conduct the EP

exercise by July 30, 2002. The NRC has

prepared an environmental assessment

with a finding of no significant impact

on the request.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kevin G. Null, Senior Health Physicist,

Nuclear Materials Licensing Branch,

Division of Nuclear Materials Safety,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Region III, Lisle, Illinois. Telephone:

(630) 829–9854, e-mail kgn@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Commission is considering the issuance

of a temporary exemption from the

requirement to perform an emergency

preparedness exercise every 2 years,

pursuant to 10 CFR part 30, for

Mallinckrodt, Inc., located in Maryland

Heights, Missouri. The facility is

authorized to use byproduct material for

research and development,

manufacturing, processing, and

packaging of radiopharmaceuticals and/

or radiochemicals.

Mallinckrodt was scheduled to

conduct an EP exercise on September

11, 2001. This exercise was postponed

because of the terrorist attacks on the

United States that occurred on

September 11. Because of the ongoing

high alert status of the plant and the

need to coordinate with several offsite

agencies and groups, the exercise will

not be performed this calendar year.

Mallinckrodt expects to conduct the

exercise no later than July 30, 2002.

The last EP exercise conducted at the

Mallinckrodt facility was held on

September 9, 1999. Mallinckrodt’s

Emergency Plan, in accordance with 10

CFR 30.32(i)(3)(xii), requires that plant

personnel plan and conduct biennial EP

exercises. Because the next exercise will

not be conducted during calendar year

2001, the licensee has requested a

temporary exemption from the

requirement to conduct biennial EP

exercises. The NRC staff has prepared

an environmental assessment of the

proposed action and reached a finding

of no significant impact.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

The proposed action would grant

temporary relief from the requirement

pursuant to 10 CFR 30.32(i)(3)(xii) to

perform a biennial EP exercise during

calendar year 2001. The proposed action

would allow Mallinckrodt to conduct

their 2001 biennial exercise as late as

July 30, 2002. The proposed action is in

accordance with Mallinckrodt’s request

for exemption dated November 26,

2001.

Need for the Proposed Action

Due to the heightened state of security

alert that the plant is under and the

unavailability of State and local

agencies to participate, Mallinckrodt has

determined that it would not be prudent

to hold the 2001 biennial EP exercise

during calendar year 2001. Allowing the

delay would avoid overlap with the

current state of high alert and allow

fuller participation by other agencies

and groups.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The proposed action would not

materially affect the emergency

response capabilities of the

Mallinckrodt facility. The last exercise

was conducted on September 9, 1999.

Direct observation of the exercise by

NRC inspectors noted deficiencies that

did not require immediate corrective

action. On November 17, 1999,

Mallinckrodt identified an inadvertent

release of xenon-133, declared an alert

and implemented their Emergency Plan

(EP). NRC conducted a special

inspection to review the circumstances

of the event and the effectiveness of

Malinckrodt’s implementation of their

EP. With the exception of 1 violation

that was identified, NRC review of real

time activation of the EP indicated that

Mallinckrodt has addressed the issues

identified during the September 9, 1999

exercise. In addition, NRC license

reviews and inspections conducted

since November 17, 1999, have not

identified a decline in the effectiveness

of Mallinckrodt’s emergency response

capability. The postponement should

have no impact on the effectiveness of

Mallinckrodt’s emergency response

capability. The proposed action will not

increase the probability or consequences

of accidents; no changes are being made

in the amounts or types of any effluents

that could be released offsite, and there

is no increase in individual or

cumulative radiation exposure.

Accordingly, the Commission concludes

that there are no significant radiological

impacts associated with the proposed

action.

With regard to potential

nonradiological impacts, the proposed

action does not affect nonradiological

plant effluents and has no other

environmental impact. Accordingly, the

Commission concludes that there are no

significant nonradiological impacts

associated with the proposed action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

Since the Commission has concluded

that there is no discernible

environmental impact associated with

the proposed action, any alternatives

with equal or lesser impact need not be

evaluated. As an alternative to the

proposed action, the staff considered

denial of the proposed action. Denial of

the proposed action would result in no

change in environmental impacts but

would result in hardship to

Mallinckrodt, and perhaps other