Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 55 / Friday, March 21, 1997 / Notices 13725

(1) By delivery to the Docketing and

Service Branch of the Office of the

Secretary at One White Flint North,

11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD

20852; or

(2) By mail or telegram addressed to

the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555,

Attention: Docketing and Service

Branch.

Each request for a hearing must also

be served, by delivering it personally or

by mail to:

(1) The applicant, Rio Algom Mining

Corp., P.O. Box 1390, Glenrock,

Wyoming 82637;

(2) The NRC staff, by delivery to the

Executive Director of Operations, One

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville

Pike, Rockville, MD 20852, or by mail

addressed to the Executive Director for

Operations, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555.

In addition to meeting other

applicable requirements of 10 CFR Part

2 of the Commission’s regulations, a

request for a hearing filed by a person

other than an applicant must describe in

detail:

(1) The interest of the requestor in the

proceeding;

(2) How that interest may be affected

by the results of the proceeding,

including the reasons why the requestor

should be permitted a hearing, with

particular reference to the factors set out

in § 2.1205(g);

(3) the requestor’s areas of concern

about the licensing activity that is the

subject matter of the proceeding; and

(4) The circumstances establishing

that the request for a hearing is timely

in accordance with § 2.1205(c).

Any hearing that is requested and

granted will be held in accordance with

the Commission’s Informal Hearing

Procedures for Adjudications in

Materials Licensing Proceedings in 10

CFR Part 2, Subpart L.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day

of March, 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Joseph J. Holonich,

Chief, Uranium Recovery Branch, Division

of Waste Management, Office of Nuclear

Material Safety and Safeguards.

[FR Doc. 97–7181 Filed 3–20–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

[Docket No. 40–8968]

Hydro Resources, Inc.; Notice of

Availability

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC), in cooperation with

the U.S. Bureau of Land Management

(BLM) and U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs

(BIA), has published a Final

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)

regarding the proposed construction and

operation of an in-situ leach (ISL)

project in McKinley County, New

Mexico. This FEIS describes and

evaluates the potential environmental

impacts of granting Hydro Resources,

Inc. (HRI) a combined source and 11(e)2

byproduct material license and minerals

operating leases for Federal and Indian

lands for the ISL project. The FEIS

concludes, after reviewing the technical

and environmental aspects of the

proposed project, and evaluating other

associated costs and benefits of the

project, that the appropriate action is to

issue the requested license and leases

authorizing the applicant to proceed

with the project as discussed in this

FEIS.

ADDRESSES: Copies of this FEIS

(NUREG–1508) may be requested by

members of the public by writing to the

NRC Publications Section, ATTN:

Superintendent of Documents, U.S.

Government Printing Office, P.O. Box

37082, Washington, DC 20013–7082. A

copy is also available for inspection

and/or copying in the NRC Public

Document Room, 2120 L St. NW,

Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Robert D. Carlson, Project Manager,

Uranium Recovery Branch, Mail Stop

TWFN 7–J9, Division of Waste

Management, Office of Nuclear Material

Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555. Telephone (301) 415–8165.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NRC,

in cooperation with BLM and BIA, has

prepared an FEIS regarding the

administrative action of authorizing HRI

to conduct ISL uranium mining, also

known as solution mining, in

conjunction with a combined source

and 11(e)2 byproduct material license

issued by the NRC, and minerals

operating leases issued for Federal and

Indian lands by BLM and BIA. The

license and leases would provide

programmatic and regulatory oversight

in administrative matters; impose

operating restrictions; and specify

monitoring, record-keeping, and

reporting requirements.

A Draft Environmental Impact

Statement (DEIS) for the proposed

action was prepared by an interagency

review group comprising staff from the

NRC, BLM, and BIA, which was

published for comment in October 1994.

After evaluating the environmental

impacts of the proposed action in the

DEIS, the reviewing agencies concluded

that the appropriate action was to issue

the requested license and proposed

leases authorizing HRI to proceed with

the project. The FEIS reevaluates the

proposed licensing action on the basis

of written and oral comments received

by NRC on the DEIS, and on additional

information obtained in 1995 and 1996

from the applicant. The FEIS describes

the evaluation conducted by the

interagency review group concerning (1)

the purpose of and need for the

proposed action, evaluated under the

National Environmental Policy Act of

1969 as amended, and the cooperating

agencies’ implementing regulations; (2)

alternatives to the proposed action; (3)

the environmental resources that could

be affected by the proposed action and

alternatives; (4) the potential

environmental consequences of the

proposed action and alternatives; and

(5) the economic costs and benefits

associated with the proposed action.

The FEIS evaluates four alternatives.

Under Alternative 1 (the proposed

action), the NRC would issue HRI a

license for the construction and

operation of facilities for ISL uranium

mining and processing at the Church

Rock, Unit 1, and Crownpoint sites as

proposed by HRI in its license

application and related submittals.

Under Alternative 2 (modified action),

the NRC would issue HRI a license for

the construction and operation of

facilities for ISL uranium mining and

processing as proposed by HRI, but at

alternative sites and/or using alternative

liquid waste disposal methods. Under

Alternative 3 (the NRC staffrecommended action), the NRC would

issue HRI a license for the construction

and operation of facilities for ISL

uranium mining and processing as

proposed by HRI, but with additional

measures required and recommended by

NRC staff to protect public health and

safety, and the environment. Under

Alternative 4 (no action), the NRC

would not issue HRI a license for the

construction and operation of facilities

for ISL uranium mining and processing

at Church Rock, Unit 1, or Crownpoint

sites.

On the basis of its independent

review, the NRC staff concludes that the

potential impacts of the proposed

project can be mitigated, and that HRI

should be issued a combined source and

11e(2) byproduct material license from

NRC, and minerals operating leases

from BLM and BIA. However, the

license and leases should be

conditioned on the commitments made

by HRI in its license application and

related submittals, and the various NRC

staff mitigation requirements and

recommendations discussed in the FEIS.
13726 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 55 / Friday, March 21, 1997 / Notices

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 13th day

of March 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Joseph J. Holonich,

Chief, Uranium Recovery Branch, Division

of Waste Management, Office of Nuclear

Material Safety and Safeguards.

[FR Doc. 97–7182 Filed 3–20–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

[50–282 AND 50–306]

Northern States Power Company;

Prairie Island Nuclear Generating

Plant, Units 1 and 2 Environmental

Assessment and Finding of No

Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of an amendment

to the Facility Operating License Nos.

DPR–42 and DPR–60, issued to

Northern States Power Company, (the

licensee), for operation of the Prairie

Island Nuclear Generating Plants, Unit 1

and 2, respectively, located in Goodhue

County, Minnesota.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

The proposed action would allow

license amendments for Prairie Island

Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2,

that resolve unreviewed safety questions

associated with post-seismic cooling

water source operations.

The proposed action is in accordance

with the licensee’s application for

amendments dated January 29, 1997, as

supplemented February 11, 12, March 7,

10, and 11, 1997.

The Need for the Proposed Action

The proposed action would revise the

cooling water system emergency intake

design bases. The proposed

amendments contain license conditions

that provide interim measures to resolve

unreviewed safety questions relating to

the cooling water system emergency

intake line. The interim measures

include the use of a dedicated operator

to identify a seismic event so that

nonessential cooling water loads can be

stripped and the cooling water load

demand can be reduced to within the

capacity of the seismically qualified

emergency intake pipe following a

design-basis earthquake. The use of the

dedicated operator will be eliminated

when the licensee is able to provide a

seismically qualified cooling water

source either through analyses or

modifications.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The Commission has completed its

evaluation of the proposed action and

concludes that pursuant to 10 CFR

50.90, the proposed amendments would

not significantly increase the probability

or consequences of accidents previously

analyzed and the proposed amendments

would not affect facility radiation levels

or facility radiological effluents.

The changes will not significantly

increase the probability or consequences

of accidents, no changes are being made

in the types of any effluents that may be

released offsite, and there is no increase

in the allowable individual or

cumulative occupational radiation

exposure. Accordingly, the Commission

concludes that there are no significant

radiological environmental impacts

associated with the proposed action.

With regard to potential

nonradiological impacts, the proposed

action does involve features located

entirely within the restricted area as

defined in 10 CFR Part 20. It does not

affect nonradiological plant effluents

and has no other environmental impact.

Accordingly, the Commission concludes

that there are no significant

nonradiological environmental impacts

associated with the proposed action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

Since the Commission has concluded

there is no measurable environmental

impact associated with the proposed

action, any alternatives with equal or

greater environmental impact need not

be evaluated. As an alternative to the

proposed action, the staff considered

denial of the proposed action. Denial of

the application would result in no

change in current environmental

impacts. The environmental impacts of

the proposed action and the alternative

action are similar.

Alternative Use of Resources

This action does not involve the use

of any resources not previously

considered in the Final Environmental

Statement for the Prairie Island Nuclear

Generating Plants, Units 1 and 2.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on March 18, 1997, the staff consulted

with the Minnesota State official, Mr.

Michael McCarthy of the Department of

Public 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 Commission concludes

that the proposed action will not have

a significant effect on the quality of the

human environment. Accordingly, the

Commission 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 January 29, 1997, as

supplemented by letters dated February

11, 12, March 7, 10, and 11, 1997, which

are available for public inspection at the

Commission’s Public Document Room,

The Gelman Building, 2120 L Street,

NW., Washington, DC, and at the local

public document room located at the

Minneapolis Public Library, Technology

and Science Department, 300 Nicollet

Mall, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day

of March 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Beth Wetzel,

Project Manager, Project Directorate III–1,

Division of Reactor Projects—III/IV, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–7318 Filed 3–20–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

Nuclear Safety Research Review

Committee

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

The Nuclear Safety Research Review

Committee (NSRRC) will hold its next

meeting on April 3–4, 1997 in Room T–

10A1, Two White Flint North (TWFN)

Building, 11545 Rockville Pike,

Rockville, MD, from 9:00 a.m.—5:00

p.m. both days.

The meeting will be held in

accordance with the requirements of the

Federal Advisory Committee Act

(FACA) and will be open to public

attendance. The NSRRC provides advice

to the Director of the Office of Nuclear

Regulatory Research (RES) on matters of

overall management importance in the

direction of the NRC’s program of

nuclear safety research. The main

purpose of this meeting will be: (1) to

review the reports of the PRA/I&C and

Human Factors joint Subcommittee

meeting, the Accident Analysis

Subcommittee meeting, and the

Materials and Engineering

Subcommittee meeting; (2) discuss

research core competencies; and (3)

review Advisory Committee

effectiveness.

Participants in parts of the discussion

will include senior NRC staff and other

RES technical staff as necessary.

Members of the public may file

written statements regarding any matter