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

6402 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 27 / Wednesday, February 9, 2000 / Notices

initial scoping process, NRC issued a

scoping report in September 1998.

NRC’s initial scoping process was

based on the description of the PFSF

contained in the applicant’s submittal of

June 20, 1997, which did not include

the proposed rail line on public land

administered by BLM. This rail line

proposal was submitted to NRC on

August 28, 1998, as an amendment to

the PFS application. Similarly, BIA’s

conditional approval of the proposed

lease agreement was issued prior to the

applicant’s proposal of the rail line.

As a result of the applicant’s August

28, 1998, revision of its transportation

proposal, NRC, BIA, and BLM

determined that additional scoping

meetings should be conducted.

Additional scoping meetings were held

on April 29, 1999, in Salt Lake City, and

Tooele City, Utah. The meetings were

noticed in the Federal Register on April

14, 1999 (64 FR 18451). Primarily, the

scoping meetings focused on

environmental issues associated with

the rail line proposed in the applicant’s

August 28, 1998, license application

amendment, the request for issuance of

a ROW over public lands managed by

BLM, and environmental concerns

associated with the proposed lease

agreement that may not have been

addressed in the NRC’s initial scoping

process. In addition, interested parties

were also provided the opportunity to

submit written comments. Following

the additional scoping meetings and

comment period, a supplemental

scoping report was issued in November

1999.

Although STB was not identified as a

cooperating agency during the scoping

process, the environmental issues

related to its federal action (i.e.,

approving the construction and

operation of the proposed rail line) were

discussed during the scoping process.

STB has determined that these scoping

activities provided sufficient

opportunity for the public to comment

on the proposed action and the scope of

the EIS. Interested parties will have an

opportunity to provide comments on the

draft EIS.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day

of January 2000.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

E. William Brach,

Director, Spent Fuel Project Office, Office of

Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.

[FR Doc. 00–2930 Filed 2–8–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Biweekly Notice; Applications and

Amendments to Facility Operating

Licenses Involving No Significant

Hazards Considerations

I. Background

Pursuant to Public Law 97–415, the

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(the Commission or NRC staff) is

publishing this regular biweekly notice.

Public Law 97–415 revised section 189

of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as

amended (the Act), to require the

Commission to publish notice of any

amendments issued, or proposed to be

issued, under a new provision of section

189 of the Act. This provision grants the

Commission the authority to issue and

make immediately effective any

amendment to an operating license

upon a determination by the

Commission that such amendment

involves no significant hazards

consideration, notwithstanding the

pendency before the Commission of a

request for a hearing from any person.

This biweekly notice includes all

notices of amendments issued, or

proposed to be issued from January 14,

2000, through January 28, 2000. The last

biweekly notice was published on

January 26, 2000 (65 FR 4268).

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of

Amendments to Facility Operating

Licenses, Proposed No Significant

Hazards Consideration Determination,

and Opportunity for a Hearing

The Commission has made a

proposed determination that the

following amendment requests involve

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. The basis for this

proposed determination for each

amendment request is shown below.

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 before

action is taken. 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 Review and

Directives Branch, Division of Freedom

of Information and Publications

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 6D22, 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 a hearing and petitions

for leave to intervene is discussed

below.

By March 10, 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 electronically

from the ADAMS Public Library

component on the NRC Web site, http:/

/www.nrc.gov (the Electronic Reading

Room). 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