26642 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 89 / Monday, May 8, 2000 / Notices

joint owners of Millstone, Unit 3. In

addition, no physical changes to the

Millstone, Unit 3 facility or operational

changes are being proposed in the

application. No direct transfer of the

license will result from the proposed

corporate restructuring of UI.

The application also seeks approval of

a proposed indirect license transfer in

connection with UI’s partial ownership

of Seabrook Station, which will be the

subject of a separate notice.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.80, no license,

or any right thereunder, shall be

transferred, directly or indirectly,

through transfer of control of the

license, unless the Commission shall

give its consent in writing. The

Commission will approve an

application for the indirect transfer of a

license, if the Commission determines

that the underlying transaction that will

effectuate the indirect transfer will not

affect the qualifications of the holder of

the license, and that the transfer is

otherwise consistent with applicable

provisions of law, regulations, and

orders issued by the Commission

pursuant thereto.

The filing of requests for hearing and

petitions for leave to intervene, and

written comments regarding the license

transfer application, are discussed

below.

By May 29, 2000, any person whose

interest may be affected by the

Commission’s action on the application

may request a hearing, and, if not the

applicants, may petition for leave to

intervene in a hearing proceeding on the

Commission’s action. Requests for a

hearing and petitions for leave to

intervene should be filed in accordance

with the Commission’s rules of practice

set forth in Subpart M, ‘‘Public

Notification, Availability of Documents

and Records, Hearing Requests and

Procedures for Hearings on License

Transfer Applications,’’ of 10 CFR Part

2. In particular, such requests and

petitions must comply with the

requirements set forth in 10 CFR 2.1306,

and should address the considerations

contained in 10 CFR 2.1308(a).

Untimely requests and petitions may be

denied, as provided in 10 CFR

2.1308(b), unless good cause for failure

to file on time is established. In

addition, an untimely request or

petition should address the factors that

the Commission will also consider, in

reviewing untimely requests or

petitions, set forth in 10 CFR

2.1308(b)(1)–(2).

Requests for a hearing and petitions

for leave to intervene should be served

upon Barton Z. Cowan, Esq., Eckert

Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC, 600

Grant Street, 44th floor, Pittsburgh, PA

15219 (telephone number 412–566–

6000 and e-mail address

bzc@escm.com,) attorney for United

Illuminating Company; the General

Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555 (email address for filings regarding license

transfer cases only: OGCLT@NRC.gov);

and the Secretary of the Commission,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention:

Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, in

accordance with 10 CFR 2.1313.

The Commission will issue a notice or

order granting or denying a hearing

request or intervention petition,

designating the issues for any hearing

that will be held and designating the

Presiding Officer. A notice granting a

hearing will be published in the Federal

Register and served on the parties to the

hearing.

As an alternative to requests for

hearing and petitions to intervene, by

June 7, 2000, persons may submit

written comments regarding the license

transfer application, as provided for in

10 CFR 2.1305. The Commission will

consider and, if appropriate, respond to

these comments, but such comments

will not otherwise constitute part of the

decisional record. Comments should be

submitted to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555–001, Attention: Rulemakings

and Adjudications Staff, and should cite

the publication date and page number of

the Federal Register notice.

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application dated

February 17, 2000, and supplement

dated March 1, 2000, 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 3rd day

of May 2000.

Victor Nerses,

Senior Project Manager, Section 2, Project

Directorate I, Division of Licensing Project

Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 00–11396 Filed 5–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–461]

Amergen Energy Company, LLC;

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of

Amendment to Facility Operating

License, Proposed No Significant

Hazards 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. NPF–

62 issued to AmerGen Energy Company,

LLC (the licensee) for operation of the

Clinton Power Station (CPS) located in

DeWitt County, Illinois.

The proposed amendment would

allow a one-time extension of some CPS

Technical Specification (TS)

surveillance intervals related to logic

system functional testing of the Primary

Containment and Drywell Isolation

Instrumentation, and the Suppression

Pool Makeup System Instrumentation.

The extension would be to November

30, 2000, which is the scheduled end

date of the upcoming refueling outage.

The extension is requested to support

elimination of a planned mid-cycle

outage. Previously, by license

Amendment No. 125 dated March 17,

2000, the NRC staff approved

surveillance interval extensions for

various TS to support elimination of the

mid-cycle outage.

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. The proposed changes do not involve a

significant increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated.

The proposed Technical Specification (TS)

changes involve a one-time only change in

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 89 / Monday, May 8, 2000 / Notices 26643

the surveillance test intervals of selected

Surveillance Requirements (SRs). As such,

the Operability requirements for systems,

structures, and components required by the

Technical Specifications remain unchanged.

Further, the proposed TS changes do not

impact the TS surveillance performance

requirements themselves nor the way in

which the surveillances are performed, since

only the test intervals are affected for the

identified SRs. The proposed TS changes do

not physically involve any changes to the

plant, nor do they impact any design or

functional requirements of the associated

systems. Thus, the proposed TS changes do

not increase the challenges of any safety

systems assumed to function in the accident

analysis.

In addition, the proposed TS changes do

not significantly affect the availability of

equipment or systems required to mitigate

the consequences of an accident because (1)

extension of the test intervals to the extent

requested is not expected to have a

significant impact on availability (i.e., no

extended test interval would exceed 30

months), and (2) other or more frequent

testing performed for the affected systems or

components, as well as for redundant

systems or components, supports continued

availability of the affected functions. The

equipment subject to testing per the affected

SRs is still required to be operable and

capable of performing any accident

mitigation functions assumed in the accident

analysis. Furthermore, a historical review of

surveillance test results identified no failures

that would invalidate these conclusions.

Based on the above, the proposed TS

changes do not significantly increase the

probability or consequences of an accident

previously evaluated.

2. The proposed changes do not create the

possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from any accident previously

evaluated.

The proposed TS changes involve a onetime only change in the surveillance testing

intervals of selected SRs. Such changes do

not introduce any failure mechanisms of a

different type than those previously

evaluated since there are no physical changes

being made to the facility. In addition, the

surveillance test requirements themselves,

and the way surveillance tests are performed,

will remain unchanged. Therefore, the

proposed TS changes do not create the

possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from any previously evaluated.

3. The proposed changes do not involve a

significant reduction in a margin of safety.

The one-time extended surveillance

frequencies do not result in a significant

reduction in the margin of safety. Although

the proposed TS changes will result in an

increase in the interval between surveillance

tests, the impact, if any, on system

availability is small. This is because, as noted

previously, extension of the test intervals to

the limited extent proposed would not be

expected to have a significant impact on

availability. Other or more frequent testing

performed for the affected systems or

components, as well as the testing performed

for redundant systems or components,

supports continued availability of the

affected functions.

In addition, the proposed changes do not

involve any physical changes to the affected

systems or components, nor do they involve

any changes to setpoints, operating limits, or

safety limits.

Based on the above, the assumptions in the

licensing basis are not impacted, and the

proposed TS changes do not significantly

reduce 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 June 7, 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

26644 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 89 / Monday, May 8, 2000 / Notices

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

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

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 24, 2000, 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 2nd day

of May, 2000.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Jon B. Hopkins,

Senior Project Manager, Section 2, Project

Directorate III, Division of Licensing Project

Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 00–11395 Filed 5–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Advisory Committee on Reactor

Safeguards, Meeting of the ACRS

Subcommittee on Reliability and

Probabilistic Risk Assessment; Notice

of Meeting

The ACRS Subcommittee on

Reliability and Probabilistic Risk

Assessment will hold a meeting on May

19, 2000, Room T–2B3, 11545 Rockville

Pike, Rockville, Maryland.

The entire meeting will be open to

public attendance.

The agenda for the subject meeting

shall be as follows:

Friday, May 19, 2000—8:30 a.m. Until

the Conclusion of Business

The Subcommittee will discuss the

status of risk-informed revisions to 10

CFR Part 50 (Option 3), including

proposed revision to 10 CFR 50.44

concerning combustible gas control

systems and issues in the Nuclear

Energy Institute letter dated January 19,

2000. The Subcommittee will also

discuss the public comments related to

the Option 2 Advance Notice of Public

Rulemaking. The purpose of this

meeting is to gather information,

analyze relevant issues and facts, and to

formulate proposed positions and

actions, as appropriate, for deliberation

by the full Committee.

Oral statements may be presented by

members of the public with the

concurrence of the Subcommittee

Chairman; written statements will be

accepted and made available to the

Committee. Electronic recordings will

be permitted only during those portions

of the meeting that are open to the

public, and questions may be asked only

by members of the Subcommittee, its

consultants, and staff. Persons desiring

to make oral statements should notify

the cognizant ACRS staff engineer

named below five days prior to the

meeting, if possible, so that appropriate

arrangements can be made.

During the initial portion of the

meeting, the Subcommittee, along with

any of its consultants who may be

present, may exchange preliminary

views regarding matters to be

considered during the balance of the

meeting.

The Subcommittee will then hear

presentations by and hold discussions

with representatives of the NRC staff, its

consultants, and other interested

persons regarding this review.

Further information regarding topics

to be discussed, whether the meeting

has been canceled or rescheduled, and

the Chairman’s ruling on requests for

the opportunity to present oral

statements and the time allotted therefor

can be obtained by contacting the

cognizant ACRS staff engineer, Mr.

Michael T. Markley (telephone 301/

415–6885) between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15

p.m. (EDT). Persons planning to attend

this meeting are urged to contact the

above named individual one or two

working days prior to the meeting to be

advised of any potential changes to the

agenda, etc., that may have occurred.

Dated: May 5, 2000.

Howard J. Larson,

Acting Associate Director for Technical

Support, ACRS/ACNW.

[FR Doc. 00–11387 Filed 5–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Advisory Committee on Reactor

Safeguards, Subcommittee Meeting on

Severe Accident Management; Notice

of Meeting

The ACRS Subcommittee on Severe

Accident Management will hold a

meeting on May 18, 2000, in Room T–