Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2000 / Notices 2993

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, the Gelman

Building, 2120 L Street, NW.,

Washington, DC, 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

Douglas K. Porter, Esquire, Southern

California Edison Company, 2244

Walnut Grove Avenue, Rosemead,

California 91770, 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

amendments dated January 2, 1998, as

supplemented December 13, 1999,

which are 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 12th day

of January 2000.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

L. Raghavan,

Senior Project Manager, Section 2, Project

Directorate IV & Decommissioning, Division

of Licensing Project Management, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation

[FR Doc. 00–1174 Filed 1–18–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–361 and 50–362]

Southern California Edison Company

San Onofre Nuclear Generating

Station, Units 2 and 3; Notice of

Consideration of Issuance of

Amendments to Facility Operating

Licenses, 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 Nos. NPF–

10 and NPF–15 issued to Southern

California Edison Company (SCE, the

licensee) for operation of the San Onofre

Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS),

Units 2 and 3, located in San Diego

County, California.

The proposed amendments would

revise the SONGS, Units 2 and 3,

Technical Specification (TS) related to

the containment isolation valves.

Specifically, the licensee proposed a

revision to TS 3.6.3 to extend the

completion times for Section D.1 and

D.2 valves from 4 hours to the

applicable limiting condition for

operation time pertaining to the

engineered safety feature system in

which the valve is installed.

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

2994 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2000 / Notices

hazards consideration, which is

presented below:

1. Will operation of the facility in

accordance with this proposed change

involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of an accident

previously evaluated?

Response: No.

The proposed note in Conditions E and F

of Technical Specification (TS) 3.6.3 allows

additional time during on-line maintenance

and/or surveillance testing (e.g., motoroperated valve actuator testing) for D.1 and

D.2 containment isolation valves. This

proposed Completion Time (CT) extension of

up to the CT of the Engineered Safety Feature

(ESF) systems in which these valves are

installed is consistent with the CT for these

valves prior to the issuance of San Onofre

Unit 2 Amendment No. 119 and Unit 3

Amendment No. 108, which were issued in

response to Proposed Change Number (PCN)

430, of the existing TSs.

PCN–430 was a request to revise TS 3.6.3

to add the requirements of Actions E.2 and

F.2 based on the results of a Probabilistic

Risk Assessment (PRA) which established

specific limits on the length of time D1.1 and

D.2 valves may be placed in their ESFAS

actuated positions. The results of the PRA

concluded that these time limits would not

result in a significant increase in the risk of

either core damage frequency or significant

radioactive release frequency. The results of

the PRA also concluded that the existing CT

(the CT for the ESF system in which these

valves are installed) for Actions E.1 and F.1

should be maintained in TS 3.6.3.

The probability of an accident and the

consequences of an accident are not affected

since no physical change is made and the

Safety Analysis remains unaffected.

Therefore, operation of the facility in

accordance with this change will not involve

a significant increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated.

2. Will operation of the facility in

accordance with this proposed change create

the possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from any accident previously

evaluated?

Response: No.

The proposed change does not influence

the possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from any previously evaluated

because no physical change is made and the

Safety Analysis is not affected. Therefore,

operation of the facility in accordance with

this proposed change will not create the

possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from any accident previously

evaluated.

3. Will operation of the facility in

accordance with this proposed change

involve a significant reduction in a margin of

safety?

Response: No.

The margin of safety is unaffected since

this proposed change is consistent with the

CTs in the TSs governing the system in

which these valves are installed. Therefore,

this proposed change will 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

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 February 17, 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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2000 / Notices 2995

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, the Gelman

Building, 2120 L Street, NW.,

Washington, DC, 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

Douglas K. Porter, Esquire, Southern

California Edison Company, 2244

Walnut Grove Avenue, Rosemead,

California 91770, 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

amendments dated April 11, 1996, as

supplemented April 6, 1998, March 22,

and July 29, 1999, which are 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 12th day

of January 2000.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

L. Raghavan,

Senior Project Manager, Section 2, Project

Directorate IV & Decommissioning, Division

of Licensing Project Management, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 00–1175 Filed 1–18–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket 72–1014]

Holtec International; Issuance of

Environmental Assessment and

Finding of No Significant Impact

Regarding the Request for Exemption

From Requirements of 10 CFR Part 72

By letter dated November 15, 1999,

Holtec International (Holtec or

applicant) requested an exemption,

pursuant to 10 CFR 72.7, from the

requirements of 10 CFR 72.234(c).

Holtec, located in Marlton, New Jersey,

is seeking Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC or the Commission)

approval to fabricate four HI–STORM

100 overpacks, and one HI–TRAC 100

transfer cask prior to receipt of the

Certificate of Compliance (CoC) for the

HI–STORM 100 cask system. The HI–

STORM 100 overpack and the HI–TRAC

100 transfer cask are basic components

of the HI–STORM 100 system, a cask

system designed for the dry storage and

transportation of spent nuclear fuel. The

HI–STORM 100 cask system is intended

for use under the general license

provisions of Subpart K of 10 CFR Part

72 by Commonwealth Edison Company

(ComEd) at the Dresden Nuclear Power

Station, Units 2 and 3 (Dresden), located

in Morris, Illinois.

Environmental Assessment (EA)

Identification of Proposed Action

By letter dated October 26, 1995, as

supplemented, and pursuant to 10 CFR

Part 72, Holtec submitted an application

to the NRC for a CoC for the HI–STORM

100 cask system. This application is

currently under consideration by the

NRC staff. The applicant is seeking

Commission approval to fabricate four

HI–STORM 100 overpacks and one HI–

STORM 100 transfer cask prior to the

Commission’s issuance of a CoC for the

HI–STORM 100 cask system. The HI–

STORM 100 cask system is intended for

use under the general license provisions

of Subpart K of 10 CFR Part 72 by

ComEd at Dresden in Morris, Illinois.

The applicant requests an exemption

from the requirements of 10 CFR

72.234(c), which state that ‘‘Fabrication

of casks under the Certificate of

Compliance must not start prior to

receipt of the Certificate of Compliance

for the cask model.’’ The proposed

action before the Commission is

whether to approve fabrication,

including material procurement, and

whether to grant this exemption

pursuant to 10 CFR 72.7.

Need for the Proposed Action

Holtec requested the exemption to 10

CFR 72.234(c) to ensure the availability

of overpacks so that ComEd can

maintain full core off-load capability at

Dresden. Dresden will lose full core offload capability in the fall of 2001.

Dresden requests the delivery of the four

HI–STORM 100 overpacks and one HI–

TRAC 100 transfer cask by November

20, 2001. Holtec states that to meet this

schedule, fabrication must begin by

February 15, 2000.

The HI–STORM 100 cask system

application, dated October 26, 1995, is

under consideration by the Commission.

It is anticipated that, if approved, the

HISTORM–100 cask system CoC may be

issued by July 2000. The proposed

fabrication exemption will not authorize

use of any Holtec overpack to store

spent fuel. That will occur only when,

and if, a CoC is issued. An NRC

approval of the fabrication exemption

request should not be construed as an

NRC commitment to favorably consider

any Holtec application for a CoC. Holtec

will bear the risk of all activities

conducted under the exemption,

including the risk that the four HI–

STORM 100 overpacks and one HI–

TRAC 100 transfer cask that Holtec

plans to construct may not be usable

because they may not meet

specifications or conditions placed in a

CoC that the NRC may ultimately

approve.