Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 27 / Wednesday, February 9, 2000 / Notices 6399

collection techniques or other forms of

information technology?

A copy of the draft 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 about the

information collection requirements

may be directed to the NRC Clearance

Officer, Brenda Jo. Shelton, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, T–6 E6,

Washington, DC 20555–0001, by

telephone at 301–415–7233, or by

Internet electronic mail at

BJS1@NRC.GOV.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day

of February 2000.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Brenda Jo. Shelton,

NRC Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief

Information Officer.

[FR Doc. 00–2928 Filed 2–8–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Agency Information Collection

Activities: Proposed Collection;

Comment Request

AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC).

ACTION: Notice of pending NRC action

to submit an information collection

request to OMB and solicitation of

public comment.

SUMMARY: The NRC is preparing a

submittal to OMB for review of

continued approval of information

collections under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. Chapter 35).

Information pertaining to the

requirement to be submitted:

1. The title of the information

collection: 10 CFR part 60—‘‘Disposal of

High-Level Radioactive Wastes in

Geologic Repositories’’.

2. Current OMB approval number:

3150–0127.

3. How often the collection is

required: The information need only be

submitted one time.

4. 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.

5. The number of annual respondents:

Two.

6. 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.

7. 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.

Submit, by April 10, 2000, comments

that address the following questions:

1. Is the proposed collection of

information necessary for the NRC to

properly perform its functions? Does the

information have practical utility?

2. Is the burden estimate accurate?

3. Is there a way to enhance the

quality, utility, and clarity of the

information to be collected?

4. How can the burden of the

information collection be minimized,

including the use of automated

collection techniques or other forms of

information technology?

A copy of the draft 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 about the

information collection requirements

may be directed to the NRC Clearance

Officer, Brenda Jo. Shelton, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, T–6 E 6,

Washington, DC 20555–0001, by

telephone at (301) 415–7233, or by

Internet electronic mail at

BJS1@NRC.GOV.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day

of February , 2000.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Brenda Jo. Shelton,

NRC Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief

Information Officer.

[FR Doc. 00–2931 Filed 2–8–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Public Comment on the Allegations

Program Under the New Regulatory

Oversight Program

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Request for public comment.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) has proposed

significant revisions to its process for

overseeing the safety performance of

commercial nuclear power plants that

include the inspection, assessment, and

enforcement program. As part of its

proposal, the NRC staff established a

new regulatory oversight framework

with a set of performance indicators and

associated thresholds, developed a new

baseline inspection program that

supplements and verifies the

performance indicators, and created a

continuous assessment process that

includes a method for consistently

determining the appropriate regulatory

actions in response to varying levels of

safety performance. The NRC also has a

long established allegation program to

provide a mechanism for individuals to

identify safety and regulatory issues

directly to the NRC. The NRC is

soliciting comments from interested

public interest groups, the regulated

industry, States, and concerned citizens

as to the functioning of the allegation

process under the new reactor

regulatory oversight program. The NRC

staff will consider comments it receives

in determining how the agency will

pursue structuring the allegation

program under the new reactor

oversight process. At the conclusion of

6400 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 27 / Wednesday, February 9, 2000 / Notices

the public comment period, the NRC

will schedule a public meeting to be

held at the NRC Headquarters at 11545

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, to

discuss the comments and options for

revising the allegation program.

DATES: The comment period expires

April 10, 2000. Comments received after

this date will be considered if it is

practical to do so, but the Commission

is able to ensure consideration only for

comments received on or before this

date.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be

submitted either electronically or via

U.S. mail. Submit written comments to:

Chief, Rules and Directives Branch,

Division of Administrative Services,

Office of Administration, Mail Stop: T–

6 D59, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001. Hand deliver comments to: 11545

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland,

between 7:45 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on

Federal workdays. Copies of comments

received may be examined at the NRC’s

Public Document Room, 2120 L Street,

N.W. (Lower Level), Washington, DC.

20555. Electronic comments may be

submitted via email to:

NRCREP@NRC.gov

Copies of the Commission Paper

dated November 23, 1999, entitled,

‘‘Impact of Changes to the Inspection

Program for Reactors on Implementing

the Allegation Program’’ (SECY–99–273)

may be obtained at the following web

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

COMMISSION/SECYS/index.html. The

Commission’s direction to the staff may

be obtained at: http://www.nrc.gov/

NRC/COMMISSION/SRM/index.html.

Information on the revised reactor

oversight process may be obtained at:

http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/

index.html.

Additional information on the

inspection pilot program may be

obtained from the NRC’s Public

Document Room at 2120 L St., NW,

Washington, DC 20003–1527, telephone

202–634–3272.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Edward Baker, Agency Allegation

Advisor, or Carl Mohrwinkel, Assistant

Agency Allegation Advisor, Mail Stop:

O–5 E7, Office of the Director, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001, telephone

Mr. Baker at 301–415–8529, or

Mr.Mohrwinkel at 301–415–1293.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

To encourage individuals to identify

safety concerns, the allegation program

includes provisions to protect the

identity of the individual, to provide

timely resolution of the issue(s), and to

communicate the staff’s understanding

of the issue(s), status of the staff’s

review, and ultimate resolution of the

issue(s) in a timely manner. For

individuals who do not want the

licensee or employer to know they

raised an issue to the NRC, the agency’s

policy is to take all reasonable measures

to protect the identity of the individual.

Under the current program, an

allegation is defined as ‘‘A declaration,

statement, or assertion of impropriety or

inadequacy associated with NRCregulated activities, the validity of

which has not been established.’’

Historically, the staff has interpreted

this definition very broadly and not set

a threshold for placing issues in the

allegation program, as long as the issues

involve an area regulated by the NRC,

were not already known by the staff to

be true or valid, and were not covered

by another process, e.g., petitions

processed under Section 2.206 of Title

10 of the Code of Federal Regulations

(2.206 petitions).

In developing the revised reactor

oversight process, the staff integrated

the use of performance indicators and

inspections. Using a risk-informed

approach, the staff was able to focus the

baseline inspection program on

inspecting risk-significant areas that are

not adequately covered by performance

indicators. The overall objective of the

program is to assure licensee

performance meets the objectives for

each of the associated cornerstones of

safety. Within the baseline inspection

program there are three basic types of

inspection. Inspections are (1) used to

verify performance in areas that are not

measured by a performance indicator,

(2) augment the information provided

by performance indicators that do not

sufficiently measure performance in a

cornerstone area, and (3) verify the

accuracy and completeness of the data

used as the basis for performance

indicators used to fully measure

performance of a cornerstone area. The

end result is that the scope of activities

being inspected is more clearly defined

and risk informed. There is also less

flexibility within the baseline

inspection program to inspect issues

that emerge from allegations if they do

not relate to a stated inspectable area

objective.

Conducting an inspection or an

evaluation to quickly resolve a safety

significant allegation is consistent with

the risk informed approach of the

revised reactor oversight process.

However, the allegation program’s

emphasis on timely resolution places a

similar, and only slightly lesser, burden

on the staff for timely resolution of

issues with less safety or risk

significance. For these issues, staff

resolution is driven by the timeliness

goal, which was established to be

responsive to the alleger, rather than

being risk-informed. For those

allegations requiring inspection, this

often results in revising inspection

schedules or scheduling additional

inspections to meet the timeliness goal,

when the safety or risk significance

associated with the issue doesn’t

warrant that kind of response, even if

the issue is assumed to be valid. For

those allegations that are referred to

other agencies or to licensees for

evaluation and response back to the

NRC, this may result in redirecting

resources from work activities involving

higher safety or risk significance in

order to meet NRC’s requested response

date.

Another consequence of

implementing the baseline inspection

program is that there is a greater

potential the reactor licensees will know

when an inspection is allegation-related.

For allegations that involve issues

outside the inspectable areas or are

reviewed during inspections that were

not on the inspection schedule, it is

likely that the licensee or employer will

question why the staff is conducting the

inspection, unless there has been an

event that warrants a reactive

inspection. While the staff intends to

continue its policy of not informing the

licensee when inspections are

allegation-related, it is likely the

licensee or employer will be able to

determine when that is the case. This

may increase the potential that a

licensee or employer will be able to

identify who submitted an allegation to

the NRC, based on the area being

inspected and its similarity to issues

previously raised within the licensee’s

organization. As a result, individuals

may be less inclined to provide safety or

regulatory issues to the NRC or they

may provide issues to the NRC without

first raising the issue internally. Neither

of these outcomes is desirable.

Scope of the Public Comment Period

and Questions

This public comment period will

focus on obtaining industry and public

views on the allegation program as it

may exist under the new oversight

process. To assist respondents the

following questions are included as a

guide. Comments should be as specific

as possible and the use of examples is

encouraged.

• Which of the four Options

contained in the Commission paper will

strike the best balance between the

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 27 / Wednesday, February 9, 2000 / Notices 6401

efficient use of agency resources and the

need for allegers to feel the NRC will

address their issue(s) and protect their

identity, if they so desire?

• Does one of the Options for

implementing the allegation program

provide more adequate assurance that

the NRC can be more certain that

through information provided by

allegers, plants are being operated

safely?

• Does one of the Options for

implementing the allegation program

under the new oversight process

enhance public confidence by

increasing the predictability,

consistency, clarity and objectivity of

the NRC’s allegation process?

• Does one of the Options for

implementing the allegations program

under the new oversight process

improve the efficiency and effectiveness

of the regulatory process focusing

agency resources on those issues with

the most safety significance?

• Does one of the Options for

implementing the allegation program

under the new oversight process reduce

unnecessary regulatory burden on

licensees?

• What Options, beyond those stated

in the Commission paper, should be

considered?

• Should the Commission implement

any changes in the allegation program

for all reactor licensees or should any

changes be implemented in a pilot

program before being implemented at all

reactor facilities?

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day

of February 2000.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Edward T. Baker III,

Agency Allegations Advisor, Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 00–2929 Filed 2–8–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 72–22]

Private Fuel Storage, L.L.C.,

Independent Spent Fuel Storage

Installation, Skull Valley Indian

Reservation, Tooele County, UT;

Notice of Intent To Cooperate in the

Preparation of an Environmental

Impact Statement

Private Fuel Storage, L.L.C. (PFS or

the applicant) proposes to construct and

operate an independent spent fuel

storage installation (ISFSI) at the

reservation of the Skull Valley Band of

Goshute Indians, which is bordered on

all sides by Tooele County, Utah. The

proposed Private Fuel Storage Facility

(PFSF) would be constructed on an 820-

acre site that would store spent nuclear

fuel (SNF) received from commercial

U.S. nuclear power plants. The

applicant proposes to transport SNF

from the reactor sites to the PFSF via

rail. Currently the rail line stops

approximately 25 miles north of the

proposed site. The applicant has

proposed the following two methods to

transport the SNF the last 25 miles:

(1) Construct an intermodal transfer

facility on land managed by the U.S.

Department of Interior’s Bureau of Land

Management (BLM). At the intermodal

transfer facility, SNF would be

transferred from rail to heavy/haul

vehicles for transport to the site via

Skull Valley Road, or

(2) Construct a rail line on the western

side of Skull Valley, along the base of

the Cedar Mountains. The rail line

would be constructed on land managed

by BLM.

Of the two methods identified above,

construction of the rail line is the

applicant’s preferred approach.

The project as proposed, requires

approval from four Federal agencies, the

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC), the U.S. Department of Interior’s

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and BLM,

and the Surface Transportation Board

(STB). The applicant must obtain a

license from NRC, a right-of-way (ROW)

from BLM for either the proposed rail

line or the proposed intermodal transfer

facility, approval from BIA for a

proposed lease agreement between the

Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians

and PFS, and approval from the STB to

construct the proposed rail line.

On June 20, 1997, pursuant to 10 CFR

part 72, PFS submitted an application to

NRC for a license to receive, possess,

store, and transfer SNF at an ISFSI to be

constructed and operated on the

Reservation of the Skull Valley Band of

Goshute Indians. A notice of

consideration of issuance of an NRC

materials license for the proposed PFSF

and notice of opportunity for hearing

were published in the Federal Register

on July 31, 1997 (62 FR 41099). By letter

dated August 28, 1998, PFS submitted a

revision to its application for an NRC

license to reflect its proposal to

construct and utilize a rail line over

public lands managed by BLM for the

transportation of SNF to its site.

The applicant executed a lease

agreement with the Skull Valley Band of

Goshute Indians to permit construction

and operation of its proposed facility on

the Skull Valley Band Reservation. On

May 23, 1997, BIA conditionally

approved the lease agreement,

contingent upon the completion of an

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS),

the inclusion of mitigation measures

identified in the Record of Decision, and

the issuance of an NRC license to

construct, maintain, and operate the

PFSF. The lease includes 820 acres of

land where the PFSF is proposed to be

located, a 202-acre utility and road

ROW from the Skull Valley Road to the

PFSF, and a buffer zone adjacent to the

PFSF to the south and east, including

five sections of land (one section of land

consists of one square mile or 640

acres).

By letter dated August 28, 1998, PFS

applied to BLM for a ROW to construct

a rail line and related facilities for a

distance of approximately 32 miles on

the western side of Skull Valley, along

the base of the Cedar Mountains from

Skunk Ridge, Utah, to the PFSF. PFS

also applied for a separate ROW to

construct and operate an intermodal

transfer facility 1.8 miles west of the

intersection of Interstate 80 and Skull

Valley Road. The rail line would

traverse land that is included within the

BLM Pony Express Resource

Management Plan (RMP). The current

Pony Express RMP does not allow for

major ROWs such as a rail line in this

area, and the PFS proposal would,

therefore, require an amendment to the

RMP prior to granting the requested

ROW. BLM published a notice of intent

to prepare a RMP amendment in the

Federal Register on April 15, 1999 (64

FR 18633).

On January 5, 2000, PFS filed an

application with STB to construct and

operate the proposed rail line from

Skunk Ridge, Utah, to the proposed

storage facility. The application was

filed in STB Finance Docket No. 33824,

Great Salt Lake & Southern Railroad,

L.L.C.—Construction and Operations in

Tooele County, Utah.

The National Environmental Policy

Act of 1969 requires all Federal agencies

to consider the environmental impacts

of their actions. Because the NRC, BIA,

BLM, and STB required actions for the

construction and operation of the PFSF

are related, the agencies have agreed to

cooperate in the preparation of an EIS.

In preparing the EIS, NRC will serve as

the lead agency, and BLM, BIA, and

STB will serve as cooperating agencies.

NRC published a notice of intent to

prepare an EIS and conduct a scoping

process in the Federal Register on May

1, 1998 (63 FR 24197). As a part of the

scoping process, a public scoping

meeting was conducted on June 2, 1998,

in Salt Lake City, Utah. The scoping

process also provided interested parties

with an opportunity to provide written

comments. At the conclusion of that