Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 83 / Friday, April 28, 2000 / Notices 24999

Information pertaining to the

requirement to be submitted:

1. Type of submission, new, revision,

or extension: Extension.

2. The title of the information

collection: 10 CFR Part 60—‘‘Disposal of

High-Level Radioactive Wastes in

Geologic Repositories.’’

3. The form number, if applicable: N/

A.

4. How often the collection is

required: The information need only be

submitted one time.

5. Who is required or asked to report:

State or Indian Tribes, or their

representatives, requesting consultation

with the NRC staff regarding review of

a potential high-level waste geologic

repository site, or wishing to participate

in a license application review for a

potential geologic repository.

6. An estimate of the number of

responses: Six.

7. The number of annual respondents:

Two.

8. The number of hours needed

annually to complete the requirement or

request: An average of 40 hours per

response for consultation requests, 80

hours per response for license

application review participation

proposals, and 1 hour per response for

statements of representative authority.

The total burden for all responses is

estimated to be 242 hours.

9. An indication of whether Section

3507(d), Pub. L. 104–13 applies: Not

applicable.

10. Abstract: Part 60 requires States

and Indian Tribes to submit certain

information to the NRC if they request

consultation with the NRC staff

concerning the review of a potential

repository site, or wish to participate in

a license application review for a

potential repository. Representatives of

States or Indian Tribes must submit a

statement of their authority to act in

such a representative capacity. The

information submitted by the States and

Indian Tribes is used by the Director of

the Office of Nuclear Material Safety

and Safeguards as a basis for decisions

about the commitment of NRC staff

resources to the consultation and

participation efforts. On February 22,

1999, the Commission proposed to

modify its generic criteria for disposal of

spent nuclear fuel and high-level

radioactive wastes in geologic

repositories at 10 CFR part 60 to make

clear that they will not apply, nor be the

subject of litigation, in any NRC

licensing proceeding for a repository at

Yucca Mountain (64 FR 8639).

Information collection requirements

applicable to the licensing of a geologic

repository at Yucca Mountain were

proposed at that time, in 10 CFR part 63,

and will be issued later this year.

A copy of the final supporting

statement may be viewed free of charge

at the NRC Public Document Room,

2120 L Street, NW (lower level),

Washington, DC. OMB clearance

requests are available at the NRC

worldwide web site (http://

www.nrc.gov/NRC/PUBLIC/OMB/

index.html). The document will be

available on the NRC home page site for

60 days after the signature date of this

notice.

Comments and questions should be

directed to the OMB reviewer by May

30, 2000: Erik Godwin, Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs

(3150–0143), NEOB–10202, Office of

Management and Budget, Washington,

DC 20503.

Comments can also be submitted by

telephone at (202) 395–3087.

The NRC Clearance Officer is Brenda

Jo. Shelton, 301–415–7233.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day

of April, 2000.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Brenda Jo. Shelton,

NRC Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief

Information Officer.

[FR Doc. 00–10663 Filed 4–27–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–282 and 50–306]

Northern States Power Company;

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of

Amendments to Facility Operating

Licenses DPR–42 and DPR–60,

Proposed No Significant Hazards

Consideration Determination, and

Opportunity for a Hearing

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of amendments to

Facility Operating Licenses DPR–42 and

DPR–60 issued to Northern States Power

Company (the licensee) for operation of

the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating

Plant, Units 1 and 2, located in Goodhue

County, Minnesota.

The proposed amendments would

relocate the shutdown margin

requirements from the Technical

Specifications to the Core Operating

Limits Report (COLR).

Before issuance of the proposed

license amendments, 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

amendments 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. The proposed amendment[s] will not

involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of an accident

previously evaluated.

The proposed changes do not affect any

systems that is a contributor to initiating

events for previously evaluated design basis

accidents. The proposed changes do not

involve any system changes or modifications.

No systems or equipment will be operated in

a new manner as a result of the proposed

changes. Therefore, the proposed changes do

not involve a significant increase in the

probability of an accident previously

evaluated.

Relocation of the shutdown margin

requirements to the COLR is an

administrative change. The shutdown margin

requirements being incorporated into the

COLR will be developed using NRC approved

methodology. That methodology will

establish the minimum required shutdown

margin for a dilution accident during Modes

3, 4, 5, and 6 and will ensure that a complete

loss of shutdown margin will not occur for

at least twenty-four minutes from initiation

of the dilution as specified in the Prairie

Island USAR [Updated Safety Analysis

Report]. Therefore, the relocation of the

shutdown margin requirements to the COLR

will not result in any increase in the

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated.

The proposed changes to Table TS.1–1

invoke an additional third criteria for

shutdown margin during MODE 6. This

proposed change involves an additional

restriction designed to ensure that shutdown

margin is maintained during MODE 6

operation, and as such will not result in any

increase in the consequences of an accident

previously evaluated.

Therefore, based on the conclusions of the

above analysis, the proposed changes do not

involve a significant increase in the

probability of consequences of an accident

previously evaluated.

2. The proposed amendment[s] will not

create the possibility of a new or different

kind of accident from any accident

previously analyzed.

The proposed changes do not alter the

design or function of any plant component

and do not install any new or different

equipment. The proposed changes do not

alter the operation of any plant component in

a manner which could lead to a new or

25000 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 83 / Friday, April 28, 2000 / Notices

different kind of accident. Therefore, the

possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from those previously analyzed has

not been created.

3. The proposed amendment[s] will not

involve a significant reduction in the margin

of safety.

Relocation of the shutdown margin

requirements to the COLR is an

administrative change. The shutdown margin

requirements being incorporated into the

COLR will be developed using NRC approved

methodology. That methodology will

establish the minimum required shutdown

margin for a dilution accident during Modes

3, 4, 5 and 6 will ensure that a complete loss

of shutdown margin will not occur for at

least twenty-four minutes from initiation of

the dilution as specified in the Prairie Island

USAR. Therefore, the relocation of the

shutdown margin requirements to the COLR

will not reduce the margin of safety because

it has no effect on any safety analyses

assumptions.

The proposed changes to Table TS.1–1

invoke an additional third criteria for

shutdown margin during MODE 6. This

proposed change involves an additional

restriction designed to enhance plant safety

by ensuring that shutdown margin is

maintained during MODE 6 operation. The

imposition of more restrictive requirements

either has no effect on or increase the margin

of plant safety. The change maintains

requirements within the safety analyses and

licensing basis. Therefore, the proposed

changes to Table TS.1–1 do not involve a

significant reduction in the margin of safety.

Therefore, based on the conclusions of the

above analysis, the proposed changes do not

involve a significant reduction in the 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

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.

Copies of written comments received

may be examined at the NRC Public

Document Room, the Gelman Building,

2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC.

The filing of requests for hearing and

petitions for leave to intervene is

discussed below.

By May 30, 2000, 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, the Gelman

Building, 2120 L Street, NW.,

Washington, DC, and accessible

electronically through the ADAMS

Public Electronic Reading Room link at

the NRC Web site (http://www.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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 83 / Friday, April 28, 2000 / Notices 25001

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, the Gelman

Building, 2120 L Street, NW.,

Washington, DC, by close of business on

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 Jay Silberg, Esq.,

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 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

balancing of the factors specified in 10

CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i)–(v) and 2.714(d).

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application for

amendment dated April 12, 1999, which

is available for public inspection at the

Commission’s Public Document Room,

the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street,

NW., Washington, DC, and accessible

electronically through the ADAMS

Public Electronic Reading Room link at

the NRC Web site (http://www.nrc.gov).

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day

of April 2000.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Tae Kim,

Senior Project Manager, Section 1, Project

Directorate III, Division of Licensing Project

Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 00–10665 Filed 4–27–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–282 and 50–306]

Northern States Power Company;

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of

Amendments to Facility Operating

Licenses DPR–42 AND DPR–60,

Proposed No Significant Hazards

Consideration Determination, and

Opportunity for a Hearing

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of amendments to

Facility Operating Licenses DPR–42 and

DPR–60 issued to Northern States Power

Company (the licensee) for operation of

the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating

Plant (PINGP), Units 1 and 2, located in

Goodhue County, Minnesota.

The proposed amendments would

revise License Condition 2.C.4, ‘‘Fire

Protection,’’ to correct cited references.

More specifically, the amendments

would remove the reference to NRC

safety evaluations dated September 12,

1984, and June 25, 1985, from the

current License Condition 2.C.4, and

would also correct the date of a safety

evaluation cited.

Before issuance of the proposed

license amendments, 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

amendments 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. The proposed amendment[s] will not

involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of [any] accident

previously evaluated.

The proposed changes are administrative

in nature. The proposed changes clarify

section 2.C.4 of the PINGP [Prairie Island

Nuclear Generating Plant] Unit 1 and Unit 2

Operating Licenses as to which SER’s [safety

evaluation report’s] approved the PINGP fire

protection program. The proposed changes

do not involve any change to the

configuration or method of operation of any

plant equipment that is used to mitigate the

consequences of an accident, nor do they

affect any assumptions or conditions in any

of the accident analyses. Since the accident

analyses remain bounding, their radiological

consequences are not adversely affected.

Therefore, the proposed changes will not

involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of an accident

previously evaluated.

2. The proposed amendment[s] will not

create the possibility of a new or different

kind of accident from any accident

previously evaluated?

The proposed changes are administrative

in nature. The proposed changes clarify

section 2.C.4 of the PINGP Unit 1 and Unit

2 Operating Licenses as to which SER’s

approved the PINGP fire protection program.

The proposed changes do not involve any

change to the configuration or method of

operation of any plant equipment.

Therefore, the proposed changes will not

create the possibility of a new or different

kind of accident.

3. The proposed amendment[s] will not

involve a significant reduction in a margin of

safety?

The proposed changes are administrative

in nature. The proposed changes clarify

section 2.C.4 of the PINGP Unit 1 and Unit

2 Operating Licenses as to which SER’s

approved the PINGP fire protection program.

Therefore, the proposed changes will not

involve a significant reduction in the 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

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