63900 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 25, 2000 / Notices

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, 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

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 David W.

Jenkins, Esq., 500 Circle Drive,

Buchanan, MI 49107, 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 October 18, 2000,

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, 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 19th day

of October 2000.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

John F. Stang,

Senior Project Manager, Section 1, Project

Directorate III, Division of Licensing Project

Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 00–27383 Filed 10–24–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–275]

Pacific Gas and Electric Co.; Diablo

Canyon Power Plant, Unit 1;

Environmental Assessment and

Finding of No Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of an amendment

to Facility Operating License No. DPR–

80, issued to Pacific Gas and Electric

Company (PG&E, or the licensee), for

operation of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear

Power Plant, Unit 1 (DCNPP), located in

San Luis Obispo County, California.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of Proposed Action

The proposed action would allow

PG&E to increase the maximum reactor

core power level from 3338 megawatts

thermal (MWt) to 3411 MWt, which is

an increase of 2.2 percent of rated core

thermal power for DCNPP Unit 1.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 25, 2000 / Notices 63901

The proposed action is in accordance

with PG&E’s application for amendment

dated December 31, 1999, as

supplemented by letters dated January

18, July 7, September 22, and September

29, 2000.

The Need for the Proposed Action

The proposed action would permit an

increase in the licensed core thermal

power from 3338 MWt to 3411 MWt and

would provide the flexibility to increase

the potential electrical output of DCNPP

Unit 1.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

PG&E has submitted an

environmental evaluation supporting

the proposed power uprate and

provided a summary of its conclusions

concerning both the radiological and

non-radiological environmental impacts

of the proposed action. Based on the

NRC’s independent analyses and the

evaluation performed by the licensee,

the staff concludes that the proposed

increase in power is not expected to

result in a significant environmental

impact.

Radiological Environmental Assessment

Radwaste Systems

The reactor coolant contains activated

corrosion products, which are the result

of metallic materials entering the water

and being activated in the reactor

region. Under power uprate conditions,

the feedwater flow increases with power

and the activation rate in the reactor

region increases with power. The net

result may be an increase in the

activated corrosion product production.

However, the total volume of processed

waste is not expected to increase

appreciably.

Non-condensible radioactive gas from

the main condenser, along with air inleakage, normally contains activation

gases (principally N–16, O–19 and N–

13) and fission product radioactive

noble gases. This is the major source of

radioactive gas (greater than all other

sources combined). These noncondensible gases, along with nonradioactive air, are continuously

removed from the main condensers

which discharge into the offgas system.

The gaseous effluents will remain

within the original limits following

implementation of the power uprate.

PG&E has concluded that the

operation of the radwaste systems at

DCNPP will not be impacted by

operation at uprated power conditions

and the slight increase in effluents

discharged would continue to meet the

requirements of Part 20 of Title 10 of the

Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR)

and 10 CFR part 50, appendix I.

Therefore, the power uprate will not

appreciably affect the licensee’s ability

to process liquid or gaseous radioactive

effluents and there are no significant

environmental effects from radiological

releases.

Dose Consideration

PG&E evaluated the effects of power

uprate on the radiation sources within

the plant and radiation levels during

normal and post-accident conditions.

Post-operation radiation levels in most

areas of the plant are expected to

increase by no more than the percentage

increase in power level. In a few areas

near the spent fuel pool cooling system

piping and the reactor water piping,

where accumulation of corrosion

product crud is expected, as well as

near some liquid radwaste equipment,

the increase could be slightly higher. In

this regard, procedural controls are

expected to compensate for increased

radiation levels. Occupational doses for

normal operations will be maintained

within acceptable limits by the site’s aslow-as-reasonably-achievable program,

which is required by 10 CFR 20.1101(b).

The power uprate would not involve

significant increases in offsite doses to

the public from noble gases, airborne

particulates, iodine, tritium, or liquid

effluents. A review of the normal

radiological effluent doses shows that,

at the current power level, doses are less

than one percent of the doses allowed

by the plant’s technical specifications

(TS). Present offsite radiation levels are

a negligible portion of background

radiation. Therefore, the normal offsite

doses would not be significantly

affected by operation at the uprated

power level and would remain below

the limits of 10 CFR part 20 and 10 CFR

part 50, appendix I.

The change in core inventory that

would result from the power uprate is

expected to increase post-accident

radiation levels by no more than the

percentage increase in power level. The

licensee reanalyzed the large break lossof-coolant accident (LOCA), the small

break LOCA, the overtemperature and

overpressure ∆T (OT∆T/OP∆T) setpoint

calculation, and the accidental reactor

coolant system (RCS) depressurization

event. The residual heat removal (RHR)

cooldown calculation and main steam

line break at full power were also

reanalyzed as part of the uprate project.

The slight increase expected in the postaccident radiation levels would have no

significant effect on the plant nor on the

habitability of the control room

envelope, the Emergency Operations

Facility, or the Technical Support

Center. Thus, the licensee has

determined that access to areas

requiring post-accident occupancy

would not be significantly affected by

the power uprate. The licensee

evaluated the whole body and thyroid

doses at the exclusion area boundary

that might result from the postulated

design basis LOCA and determined that

expected doses remain below

established regulatory limits. Therefore,

the results of the radiological analyses

remain below the 10 CFR Part 100

guidelines and all radiological safety

margins would be maintained if the

amendment were granted.

Summary

The proposed power uprate would

not significantly increase the probability

or consequences of accidents, would not

involve any new radiological release

pathways or would not result in a

significant increase in occupational or

public radiation exposure, and would

not result in significant additional fuel

cycle environmental impacts.

Accordingly, the NRC staff concludes

that there are no significant radiological

environmental impacts associated with

the proposed action.

Non-Radiological Environmental

Assessment

The licensee reviewed the nonradiological environmental impacts of

the requested power uprate based on

information submitted in the

Environmental Report, Operating

License Stage, the NRC Final

Environmental Statement (FES), and the

requirements of the Environmental

Protection Plan. Based on this review,

the licensee concluded that the

proposed power uprate would have no

significant effect on the non-radiological

elements of concern and the plant will

be operated in an environmentally

acceptable manner as established by the

FES. In addition, the licensee states that

existing Federal, State, and local

regulatory permits presently in effect

accommodate the power uprate without

modification.

The cooling water systems at DCNPP

(e.g., circulating water and auxiliary

saltwater systems) are drawn from the

ultimate heatsink, Diablo Cove, part of

the Pacific Ocean. DCNPP has

determined that the power uprate would

not cause any change to the DCNPP

Environmental Protection Plan,

however, it would reduce the margin

between DCNPP performance and the

allowable heat rejection to the Pacific

Ocean. The licensee is allowed a

maximum of 22 °F between the cooling

water intake and outflow between the

two units. The outflows of both units

63902 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 25, 2000 / Notices

mix together, therefore a 2.2 percent

uprate of DCNPP Unit 1 will tend to

increase the temperature change by 1.1

percent, or approximately 0.2 °F.

DCNPP operates in compliance with a

National Pollution Discharge

Elimination System (NPDES) Permit,

which requires all effluents to be closely

monitored to assure compliance with

the permit levels. DCNPP does not

expect any effluent increases due to the

power uprate of DCNPP Unit 1. With

regards to potential non-radiological

impacts, the proposed action would not

change the method of operation at

DCNPP or the methods of handling

effluents. No changes to land use would

result and the proposed action does not

involve any historic sites. Therefore, no

new or different types of nonradiological environmental impacts are

expected. Accordingly, the NRC

concludes that there are no significant

non-radiological environmental impacts

associated with the proposed action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

As an alternative to the proposed

action, the staff considered denial of the

proposed action (i.e., the ‘‘no-action’’

alternative). Denial of the application

would result in no change in current

environmental impacts, but would

reduce the operational flexibility that

would be afforded by the proposed

change. The environmental impacts of

the proposed action and the alternative

action are not significantly different.

Alternative Use of Resources

This action does not involve the use

of any resources not previously

considered in the FES for DCNPP.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on October 3, 2000, the staff consulted

with the California State official, Mr.

Steve Hsu, of the Radiologic Health

Branch of the State Department of

Health Services, regarding the

environmental impact of the proposed

action. The State official had no

comments.

Finding of no Significant Impact

Based upon the environmental

assessment, the NRC concludes that the

proposed action will not have a

significant effect on the quality of the

human environment. Accordingly, the

NRC has determined not to prepare an

environmental impact statement for the

proposed action.

For further details with respect to the

proposed action, see the licensee’s letter

dated December 31, 1999, as

supplemented by letters dated January

18, July 7, September 22, and September

29, 2000, which 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. Publicly

available records will be accessible

electronically from the ADAMS Public

Library component on the NRC Web site

(the Electronic Reading Room).

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 19th day

of October 2000.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Stephen Dembek,

Chief, Section 2, Project Directorate IV &

Decommissioning, Division of Licensing

Project Management, Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 00–27384 Filed 10–24–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Advisory Committee on Reactor

Safeguards; Meeting of the ACRS

Subcommittee on Materials and

Metallurgy

Notice of Meeting

The ACRS Subcommittee on Materials

and Metallurgy will hold a meeting on

November 16, 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:

Thursday, November 16, 2000–8:30 a.m.

until 12 Noon

The Subcommittee will discuss the

proposed draft regulatory guide DG–

1053, ‘‘Calculational and Dosimetry

Methods for Determining Pressure

Vessel Neutron Fluence.’’ 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

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.

Noel F. Dudley (telephone 301/415–

6888) 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: October 19, 2000.

James E. Lyons,

Associate Director for Technical Support,

ACRS/ACNW.

[FR Doc. 00–27444 Filed 10–24–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL

MANAGEMENT

Submission for OMB Review;

Comment Request for Review Of a

Revised Information Collection:

Instructions and Model CFC

Application

AGENCY: Office of Personnel

Management.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub.

L. 104–13, May 22, 1995), this notice

announces that the Office of Personnel

Management has submitted to the Office

of Management and Budget a request for

clearance of a revised information

collection. The model Combined

Federal Campaign application and

instructions is used to collect

information from charitable

organizations applying for eligibility.

We estimate 1400 Applications are

completed annually. Each form takes

approximately 3 hours to complete. The

annual estimated burden is 4200 hours.

Comments are particularly invited on:

• Whether this collection of

information is necessary for the proper

performance of functions of the Office of