Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 63 / Wednesday, April 2, 1997 / Notices 15737

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:

Docketing and Services Branch, or may

be delivered to the Commission’s Public

Document Room, the Gelman Building,

2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, by

the above date. Where petitions are filed

during the last 10 days of the notice

period, it is requested that the petitioner

promptly so inform the Commission by

a toll-free telephone call to Western

Union at 1–(800) 248–5100 (in Missouri

1–(800) 342–6700). The Western Union

operator should be given Datagram

Identification Number N1023 and the

following message addressed to Mr.

Frederick J. Hebdon: petitioner’s name

and telephone number, date petition

was mailed, plant name, and

publication date and page number of

this Federal Register notice. A copy of

the petition should also be sent to the

Office of the General Counsel, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC, and to General

Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority,

ET 10H, 400 West Summit Hill Drive,

Knoxville, Tennessee 37902, 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).

The Commission hereby provides

notice that this is a proceeding on an

application for a license amendment

falling within the scope of section 134

of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982

(NWPA), 42 U.S.C. 10154. Under

section 134 of the NWPA, the

Commission, at the request of any party

to the proceeding, must use hybrid

hearing procedures with respect to ‘‘any

matter which the Commission

determines to be in controversy among

the parties.’’ The hybrid procedures in

section 134 provide for oral argument

on matters in controversy, preceded by

discovery under the Commission’s

rules, and the designation, following

argument, of only those factual issues

that involve a genuine and substantial

dispute, together with any remaining

questions of law, to be resolved in an

adjudicatory hearing. Actual

adjudicatory hearings are to be held on

only those issues found to meet the

criteria of section 134 and set for

hearing after oral argument.

The Commission’s rules

implementing section 134 of the NWPA

are found in 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart K,

‘‘Hybrid Hearing Procedures for

Expansion of Spent Nuclear Fuel

Storage Capacity at Civilian Nuclear

Power Reactors’’ (published at 50 FR

41670, October 15, 1985) to 10 CFR

2.1101 et seq. Under those rules, any

party to the proceeding may invoke the

hybrid hearing procedures by filing with

the presiding officer a written request

for oral argument under 10 CFR 2.1109.

To be timely, the request must be filed

within 10 days of an order granting a

request for hearing or petition to

intervene. (As outlined above, the

Commission’s rules in 10 CFR Part 2,

Subpart G, and 2.714 in particular,

continue to govern the filing of requests

for a hearing or petitions to intervene,

as well as the admission of contentions.)

The presiding officer shall grant a

timely request for oral argument. The

presiding officer may grant an untimely

request for oral argument only upon

showing of good cause by the requesting

party for the failure to file on time and

after providing the other parties an

opportunity to respond to the untimely

request. If the presiding officer grants a

request for oral argument, any hearing

held on the application shall be

conducted in accordance with the

hybrid hearing procedures. In essence,

those procedures limit the time

available for discovery and require that

an oral argument be held to determine

whether any contentions must be

resolved in adjudicatory hearing. If no

party to the proceedings requests oral

argument, or if all untimely requests for

oral argument are denied, then the usual

procedures in 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart G,

apply.

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application for

amendment dated, October 23, 1996, as

supplemented on December 11, 1996,

January 31, February 10 and 24 and

March 11, 1997 which is 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

Chattanooga-Hamilton County Library,

1001 Broad Street, Chattanooga,

Tennessee.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day

of March 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Robert E. Martin,

Sr. Project Manager, Project Directorate II–

3, Division of Reactor Projects—I/II, Office

of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–8401 Filed 4–1–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

[Docket No. 72–9]

Department of Energy Issuance of

Environmental Assessment and

Finding of No Significant Impact

Regarding The Transfer of The

Materials License SNM–2504 and

Subsequent License Amendment For

The Fort St. Vrain Independent Spent

Fuel Storage Installation From The

Public Service Company of Colorado

to The U.S. Department of Energy

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission

is considering the issuance of an order

approving an application from the U.S.

Department of Energy, Idaho Operations

Office (the applicant or DOE–ID) dated

December 17, 1996, as supplemented

February 4, 5, and 18, and March 12 and

13, 1997, for the transfer of Materials

License SNM–2504 and subsequent

license amendment, under the

provisions of 10 CFR Part 72. In its

application, DOE–ID included the

‘‘Environmental Report for the Fort St.

Vrain Independent Spent Fuel Storage

Installation’’ (December 1996).

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

The applicant is seeking NRC

approval to take possession of spent

nuclear fuel and other radioactive

materials associated with spent nuclear

fuel storage presently in the possession

of the Public Service Company of

Colorado (PSCo) at its Fort St. Vrain

(FSV) independent spent fuel storage

installation (ISFSI) located in Weld

County, Colorado, and to own and

operate the FSV ISFSI. The transfer of

an ISFSI license is subject to NRC

approval under 10 CFR 72.50, ‘‘Transfer

of License.’’ Pursuant to the provisions

of 10 CFR Part 72, the term of the

license for the ISFSI would remain as is

currently licensed, and the license

would expire on November 30, 2011. If

the application for transfer is approved,

the Commission will issue an order

consenting to the transfer. The NRC is

also considering an amendment to the

materials license to reflect DOE–ID as

the new licensee for the FSV ISFSI and

the addition of revised Appendices A,

B, and C to the license.
15738 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 63 / Wednesday, April 2, 1997 / Notices

After the transfer of the license and

subsequent license amendment, DOE

will be responsible for all activities at

the FSV ISFSI, including, but not

limited to, operations, maintenance,

surveillance, emergency response,

environmental and radiological

monitoring, training, and security.

Need for the Proposed Action

DOE–ID applied for a transfer of

Materials License SNM–2504 from PSCo

to DOE. Materials License SNM–2504

authorizes PSCo to receive, handle,

possess, and store spent nuclear fuel

elements from the FSV HighTemperature Gas-Cooled Reactor

(HTGR) in the FSV ISFSI. The

authorized place of use is the FSV ISFSI

located on a tract of land adjacent to the

former FSV Nuclear Generating Station,

located in Weld County, Colorado, near

the town of Platteville, Colorado.

The FSV HTGR was built and

operated as an advanced reactor concept

with cooperation between U.S. Atomic

Energy Commission (AEC), Gulf General

Atomic, and PSCo. In 1980, DOE agreed

to take title to eight fuel segments from

the FSV HTGR. DOE also agreed that, in

the sole discretion of DOE and under

certain conditions, DOE would accept

additional spent fuel elements without

further adjustment to the contract. Fuel

segments 1 through 3 were received by

Idaho National Engineering Laboratory

(INEL): segment 1 in 1980; segment 2 in

1982; and segment 3 in 1984 and 1986.

(Note: Recently, the laboratory’s name

was changed to Idaho National

Engineering and Environmental

Laboratory or INEEL. For the purposes

of this assessment, the term INEL will

be used rather than INEEL.)

Due to operational difficulties, the

reactor was permanently shut down in

August 1989. PSCo decided to

decontaminate and decommission the

reactor facility and terminate the 10 CFR

Part 50 license. PSCo successfully

negotiated with DOE for INEL to receive

the remaining FSV fuel. However, after

three shipments of the FSV spent fuel to

INEL, the Governor of the State of Idaho

prohibited DOE from receiving any

subsequent shipments of the FSV fuel.

As interim storage for the spent nuclear

fuel, PSCo selected a modular vault dry

storage system (MVDSS) designed by

GEC Alsthom Engineering Systems,

LTD., and licensed by Foster Wheeler

Energy Corporation, Energy

Applications Division (formerly Foster

Wheeler Energy Applications, Inc.). On

November 4, 1991, NRC issued to PSCo

a 20-year license to receive, possess,

store, and transfer FSV spent nuclear

fuel to the ISFSI. PSCo began loading

the ISFSI with fuel on December 26,

1991, and completed loading on June

10, 1992.

In December 1995, DOE notified the

NRC of its intent to purchase the FSV

ISFSI from PSCo, take title to the spent

fuel, and transfer Materials License

SNM–2504 from PSCo to DOE. On

February 9, 1996, DOE and PSCo signed

an Agreement in Principle stating that

DOE took immediate title to the spent

nuclear fuel stored in the FSV ISFSI and

that PSCo would manage the ISFSI in

accordance with SNM–2504, at DOE

expense, until the license could be

transferred from PSCo to DOE.

Therefore, DOE currently has title to

the FSV spent fuel stored in the ISFSI.

DOE has agreed to purchase the ISFSI

from PSCo and assume responsibility

for the operation (including in-situ

receipt of the spent nuclear fuel and

high-level waste contents, storage,

handling, retrieval, and transfer,

thereof), maintenance, and

decommissioning of the FSV ISFSI.

Transferring Materials License SNM–

2504 from PSCo to DOE is needed so

that the responsibility for the continued,

safe operation of the FSV ISFSI lies with

DOE as owner of the fuel and ISFSI.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The environmental impacts to the

FSV site have been analyzed in previous

evaluations. In August 1972, the AEC

issued the ‘‘Final Environmental

Statement Related to the Operation of

Fort St. Vrain Nuclear Generating

Station.’’ In February 1991, the NRC

issued the Environmental Assessment

Related to the Construction and

Operation of the Fort St. Vrain

Independent Spent Fuel Storage

Installation,’’ which specifically

evaluated the environmental impacts

related to the construction and

operation of the FSV ISFSI. This

environmental assessment concluded

that the FSV ISFSI would not

significantly affect the quality of the

human environment. Moreover, in

November 1992, the ‘‘Environmental

Assessment Regarding Order

Authorizing Decommissioning of Fort

St. Vrain Nuclear Generating Station,’’

was issued which covered

decommissioning activities at the

facility, and this assessment was issued

after the Materials License SNM–2504

was granted (November 4, 1991).

The proposed action is administrative

and procedural in nature, and as such,

there are no associated environmental

impacts beyond those previously

considered. To ensure that the

environmental monitoring program is

acceptable, DOE–ID’s proposed

environmental monitoring program and

implementation of that program will be

assessed and documented in the NRC

staff’s safety evaluation report in

accordance with 10 CFR 72.44(d)(2).

DOE will need to demonstrate that its

program is comparable to the PSCo

program.

The proposed action will not increase

the probability or consequences of

accidents, will not increase the

possibility of a different type of

accident, and will not decrease the

margin of safety. There are no changes

being made in the types of any effluents

that may be released offsite, and there

is no significant increase in the

allowable or cumulative occupational

radiation exposure. Accordingly, the

Commission concludes that there are no

significant environmental impacts

associated with the proposed action.

Moreover, 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.

With the alternative of no action or

denial of the application, PSCo would

retain ownership of Materials License

SNM–2504 and be responsible for the

continued operation and maintenance of

the ISFSI while DOE has title to the fuel.

This alternative gives one organization

responsibility under the license for the

radioactive material owned by another

organization. Therefore, the proposed

action is preferable because the

organization that owns the spent

nuclear fuel would have responsibility

under license for its possession.

Alternative Use of Resources

This action does not involve the use

of any resources not previously

considered in the ‘‘Final Environmental

Impact Statement Related to the

Operation of Fort St. Vrain Nuclear

Generating Station’’ (August 1972), and

the ‘‘Environmental Assessment Related

to the Construction and Operation of the

Fort St. Vrain Independent Spent Fuel

Storage Installation’’ (February 1991).
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 63 / Wednesday, April 2, 1997 / Notices 15739

List of Agencies and Persons Consulted

The Director of the Laboratory and

Radiation Services Division of the

Colorado Department of Public Health

and Environment was consulted about

the EA for the proposed action. This

organization had no comments on the

proposed action.

During a public meeting held on

February 20, 1997, the DOE and PSCo

staffs were consulted regarding the

environmental monitoring program.

References used in preparation of the

EA:

1. DOE–ID License Transfer

Application, including the

Decommissioning Plan, Emergency

Plan, Environmental Report, Quality

Assurance Requirements and

Description, and Technical

Specifications, dated December 17,

1996, as supplemented February 4, 5,

and 18, and March 12 and 13, 1997.

2. NRC, ‘‘Environmental Assessment

Regarding Order Authorizing

Decommissioning of Fort St. Vrain

Nuclear Generating Station,’’ dated

November 1992.

3. NRC, ‘‘Environmental Assessment

Related to the Construction and

Operation of the Fort St. Vrain

Independent Spent Fuel Storage

Installation,’’ dated February 1991.

4. AEC, ‘‘Final Environmental

Statement Related to the Operation of

Fort St. Vrain Nuclear Generating

Station,’’ dated August 1972.

5. NRC, 10 CFR Part 20, ‘‘Standards

for Protection Against Radiation.’

6. NRC, 10 CFR Part 51,

‘‘Environmental Protection Regulations

for Domestic Licensing and Related

Regulatory Functions.’’

Finding of No Significant Impact

The environmental impacts of the

proposed action have been reviewed in

accordance with the requirements set

forth in 10 CFR Part 51. The staff has

determined that the proposed action of

transferring Materials License SNM–

2504 from PSCo to DOE and the

subsequent license amendment will not

significantly impact the quality of the

environment. Therefore, an

environmental impact statement is not

warranted, and pursuant to 10 CFR

51.31, a Finding of No Significant

Impact is appropriate.

Based upon the EA, 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 EIS for the

proposed action.

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application dated

December 17, 1996, as supplemented

February 4, 5, and 18, and March 12 and

13, 1997, which is available for public

inspection at the Commission’s Public

Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW,

Washington, DC 20555, and at the Local

Public Document Room at the Weld

Library District, Lincoln Park Branch,

919 7th Street, Greeley, Colorado 80631.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day

of March 1997.

For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

William F. Kane,

Director, Spent Fuel Project Office, Office of

Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.

[FR Doc. 97–8402 Filed 4–1–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

Advisory Committee on Nuclear

Waste; Notice of Meeting

The Advisory Committee on Nuclear

Waste (ACNW) will hold its 91st

meeting on April 22–24, 1997, in Room

T–2B3, at 11545 Rockville Pike,

Rockville, Maryland.

The entire meeting will be open to

public attendance.

The schedule for this meeting is as

follows:

Tuesday, April 22, 1997—8:30 A.M.

until 6:00 P.M.

Wednesday, April 23, 1997—8:30 A.M.

until 6:00 P.M.

Thursday, April 24, 1997—8:30 A.M.

until 4:00 P.M.

During this meeting, the Committee

plans to consider the following:

A. Igneous Activity—The Committee

will review the NRC staff and DOE

investigations of this potentially adverse

condition to the acceptability of the

proposed high-level waste repository at

Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The review

will focus on the status of results and

paths toward resolution from these

studies of potential volcanism.

B. Planning for Commission

Meeting—The Committee will prepare

for its next meeting with the

Commission currently scheduled for

May 20, 1997 at 2:00 p.m.

C. Convention on the Safety of

Radioactive Waste Management—The

Committee will hear a report from the

NRC’s Division of Waste Management

on this international treaty which is

under consideration.

D. Screening Methodology for

Assessing Prior Land Burials—The

Committee will review the staff’s final

branch technical position on this

screening methodology including its

disposition of public comments

received.

E. State of Nevada—The Committee

will hear from a represent-ative of the

State of Nevada who will discuss the

Nevada perspective as to the difference

between DOE’s viability assessment and

the site suitability determinations for

the proposed Yucca Mountain

repository. Comments will also be

offered on the proposed amendments to

DOE’s 10 CFR Part 960. The

amendments would focus Part 960 as to

its use in evaluating the suitability of

the Yucca Mountain site for

development as a repository.

F. Meeting with the Director, the

Division of Waste Management-The

Committee will hold a current events

discussion with the Director.

G. Defense-in-Depth—The Committee

will hear presentations from

representatives of industry that will

address the topic of subsystem

requirements in 10 CFR 60 as a means

on implementing the defense-in-depth

concept.

H. Preparation of ACNW Reports—

The Committee will discuss potential

reports, including Igneous Activity

related to the proposed Yucca Mountain

Repository, a Branch Technical Position

on a Screening Methodology for

Assessing Prior Land Burials, and other

topics discussed during the meeting as

the need arises.

I. Committee Activities/Future

Agenda—The Committee will consider

topics proposed for future consideration

by the full Committee and Working

Groups. The Committee will discuss

ACNW-related activities of individual

members.

J. Miscellaneous—The Committee will

discuss miscellaneous matters related to

the conduct of Committee activities and

organizational activities and complete

discussion of matters and specific issues

that were not completed during

previous meetings, as time and

availability of information permit.

Procedures for the conduct of and

participation in ACNW meetings were

published in the Federal Register on

October 8, 1996 (61 FR 52814). In

accordance with these procedures, oral

or written statements may be presented

by members of the public, 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 Committee, its

consultants, and staff. Persons desiring

to make oral statements should notify

the Chief, Nuclear Waste Branch, Mr.

Richard K. Major, as far in advance as

practicable so that appropriate

arrangements can be made to schedule

the necessary time during the meeting

for such statements. Use of still, motion

picture, and television cameras during

this meeting will be limited to selected