21032 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 19, 2000 / Notices

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–275 and 50–323]

Pacific Gas and Electric Company;

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of

Amendment to Facility Operating

Licenses, Proposed No Significant

Hazards Consideration Determination,

and Opportunity for a Hearing

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of an amendment

to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–

80 and DPR–82 issued to Pacific Gas

and Electric Company (the licensee) for

operation of the Diablo Canyon Power

Plant, Units 1 and 2, located in San Luis

Obispo County, California.

The proposed amendment would

revise several sections of the improved

Technical Specification (ITS) to correct

20 editorial errors made in either (1)

The application dated June 2, 1997 (and

supplemental letters), for the ITS, or (2)

the certified copy of the ITS that was

submitted in the licensee’s letters of

May 19 and 27, 1999. The proposed

amendment would also revise 11

instances of incorrect incorporation of

the current Technical Specifications

(CTS) into the ITS. The ITS were issued

as License Amendments 135 and 135

dated May 28, 1999, and will be

implemented by the licensee to replace

the CTS by May 31, 2000.

Before issuance of the proposed

license amendment, the Commission

will have made findings required by the

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended

(the Act) and the Commission’s

regulations.

The Commission has made a

proposed determination that the

amendment request involves 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. As required by 10 CFR

50.91(a), the licensee has provided its

analysis of the issue of no significant

hazards consideration, which is

presented below:

1. The proposed change does not involve

a significant increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated.

The proposed elimination of the channel

calibration for the turbine stop valve position

switches will not change the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated since they are not subject to drift.

Since the limit switches do not drift and

therefore do not have a setpoint that can

potentially change, the remaining verification

of the trip actuation device operational test

(TADOT) will provide all necessary

assurances of Operability.

The proposed elimination of the TADOT

for the auto stop oil pressure will not change

the probability or consequences of an

accident previously evaluated since the

TADOT verifies the same requirements as the

required channel calibration.

The proposed elimination of the

requirement to calibrate the neutron wide

range detectors will not change the

probability or consequences of an accident

previously evaluated since they are only used

to monitor power following an accident.

They provide no automatic control or

actuation functions. Since an accident must

first occur before these channels are used,

this change can not increase the probability

or consequences of an accident. Further, the

necessary elements of the calibration for the

channel and the detector will be

accomplished through cross correlation

similar to the power range detectors.

The remaining proposed changes are

administrative in nature. They correct errors

made while incorporating the current

Technical Specifications (CTS) into the

improved Technical Specifications (ITS), or

errors made while creating the final copy of

the ITS from the NRC reviewed mark-up of

NUREG–1431. The proposed change of the

Shift Supervisor title to Shift Manager is

administrative since it does not decrease the

responsibilities of the individual.

There are no hardware changes nor are

there any changes in the method by which

any safety-related plant system performs its

safety function. The proposed changes are

administrative.

Therefore, the proposed changes do not

involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of an accident

previously evaluated.

2. The proposed change does not create the

possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from any accident previously

evaluated.

The proposed elimination of the

calibration for the turbine stop valve position

switches will not create the possibility of a

new or different kind of accident since they

are not subject to drift. The remaining

verification of the TADOT will provide all

necessary assurances of operability.

The proposed elimination of the TADOT

for the auto stop oil pressure will not create

the possibility of a new or different kind of

accident since this test will not evaluate

anything not already verified by the required

channel calibration.

The proposed elimination of the

requirement to calibrate the neutron wide

range detectors will not create the possibility

of a new or different kind of accident since

they are only used to monitor power

following an accident. They provide no

automatic control or actuation functions.

Since an accident must first occur before

these channels are used, this change can not

cause a new or different type of an accident.

Further, the necessary elements of the

calibration for the channel and the detector

will be accomplished through cross

correlation similar to the power range

detectors.

The remaining proposed changes are

administrative in nature. They correct errors

made while incorporating the CTS into the

ITS, or errors made while creating the final

copy of the ITS from the NRC reviewed markup of NUREG–1431. The proposed change of

the Shift Supervisor title to Shift Manager is

administrative since it does not decrease the

responsibilities of the individual.

There are no hardware changes nor are

there any changes in the method by which

any safety-related plant system performs its

safety function. The changes are

administrative in nature so there are no new

accident scenarios, transient precursors,

failure mechanisms, or limiting single

failures are introduced.

Therefore, the proposed change does not

create the possibility of a new or different

kind of accident from any previously

evaluated.

3. The proposed change does not involve

a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

The proposed elimination of the

calibration for the turbine stop valve position

switches will not reduce the margin of safety

since they are not subject to drift. The

remaining verification of the TADOT will

provide all necessary assurances of

operability.

The proposed elimination of the TADOT

for the auto stop oil pressure will not reduce

the margin of safety since this test will not

evaluate anything not already verified by the

channel calibration.

The proposed elimination of the

requirement to calibrate the neutron wide

range detectors will not reduce the margin of

safety since they are only used to monitor

power following an accident. They provide

no automatic control or actuation functions.

Since an accident must first occur before

these channels are used, this change can not

decrease the margin of safety. Further the

necessary elements of the calibration for the

channel and the detectors will be

accomplished through cross correlation

similar to the power range detectors.

The remaining proposed changes are

administrative in nature. They correct errors

made while incorporating the CTS into the

ITS, or errors made while creating the final

copy of the ITS from the NRC reviewed markup of NUREG–1431. The proposed change of

the Shift Supervisor title to Shift Manager is

administrative since it does not decrease the

responsibilities of the individual.

The proposed changes do not affect the

acceptance criteria for any analyzed event.

There will be no effect on the manner in

which safety limits or limiting safety system

settings are determined nor will there be any

effect on those plant systems necessary to

assure the accomplishment of protection

functions.

Therefore, the proposed changes do not

involve a significant reduction in the margin

of safety.

The NRC staff has reviewed the

licensee’s analysis and, based on this

review, it appears that the three

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 19, 2000 / Notices 21033

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff

proposes to determine that the

amendment request involves no

significant hazards consideration.

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. 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 and

Directives Branch, Division of

Administrative 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 6D59, 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 hearing and

petitions for leave to intervene is

discussed below.

By May 19, 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 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, the Gelman

Building, 2120 L Street, NW.,

Washington, DC, 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

Christopher J. Warner, Esq., Pacific Gas

and Electric Company, P. O. Box 7442,

San Francisco, California 94210,

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

21034 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 19, 2000 / Notices

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 March 16, 2000, as

supplemented by letter dated April 11,

2000, which are available for public

inspection at the Commission’s Public

Document Room, the Gelman Building,

2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC,

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 13th day

of April 2000.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Steven D. Bloom,

Project Manager, Section #2, Project

Directorate IV and Decommissioning,

Division of Licensing Project Management,

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 00–9752 Filed 4–18–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Sunshine Meeting Notice

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Nuclear

Regulatory Commission

DATES: Weeks of April 17, 24, May 1, 8,

15, and 22, 2000

PLACE: Commissioners’ Conference

Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,

Maryland

STATUS: Public and Closed

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

Week of April 17

There are no meetings scheduled for the

Week of April 17.

Week of April 24—Tentative

There are no meetings scheduled for the

Week of April 24.

Week of May 1—Tentative

Tuesday, May 2

9:30 a.m. Briefing on Oconee License

Removal (Public Meeting) (Contact: Dave

Lange, 301–415–1730)

Wednesday, May 3

9:25 a.m. Affirmation Session (Public

Meeting) (If needed)

9:30 a.m. Briefing on Efforts Regarding

Release of Solid Material (Public

Meeting) (Contact: Frank Cardile, 301–

415–6185)

Week of May 8—Tentative

Monday, May 8

10:00 a.m. Briefing on Lessons Learned from

the Nuclear Criticality Accident at

Tokaimura and the Implications on the

NRC’s Program (Public Meeting)

(Contact: Bill Troskoski, 301–415–8076)

Tuesday, May 9

8:55 Affirmation Session (Public Meeting) (If

needed)

9:00 a.m. Meeting with Stakeholders on

Efforts Regarding Release of Solid

Material (Public Meeting) (Contact:

Frank Cardile, 301–415–6185)

Week of May 15—Tentative

Tuesday, May 16

9:25 a.m. Affirmation Session (Public

Meeting) (If needed)

Week of May 22—Tentative

Thursday, May 25

8:30 a.m. Briefing on Operating Reactors and

Fuel Facilities (Public Meeting)

10:15 a.m. Briefing on Status of Regional

Programs, Performance and Plans (Public

Meeting)

1:30 p.m. Briefing on Improvements to 2.206

Process (Public Meeting)

*THE SCHEDULE FOR COMMISSION

MEETINGS IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE ON

SHORT NOTICE. TO VERIFY THE STATUS

OF MEETINGS CALL (RECORDING)—(301)

415–1292. CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE

INFORMATION: Bill Hill (301) 415–1661.

The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule

can be found on the Internet at:

http://www.nrc.gov.SECY/smj/schedule.htm

This notice is distributed by mail to several

hundred subscribers; if you no longer wish

to receive it, or would like to be added to it,

please contact the Office of the Secretary,

Attn: Operations Branch, Washington, D.C.

20555 (301–415–1661). In addition,

distribution of this meeting notice over the

Internet system is available. If you are

interested in receiving this Commission

meeting schedule electronically, please send

an electronic message to wmh@nrc.gov or

dkw@nrc.gov.

Dated: April 16, 2000.

William M. Hill, Jr.,

SECY Tracking Officer, Office of the

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–9907 Filed 4–17–00; 12:48 pm]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

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 March 25,

2000, through April 7, 2000. The last

biweekly notice was published on April

5, 2000 (65 FR 17908).

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.