29844 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 2001 / Notices

proposed rule would also require

persons organizing a non-governmental

expedition to provide expedition

members with information on their

environmental protection obligations

under the Antarctic Conservation Act.

The notice of proposed rule stated that

the rule was not subject to the

Paperwork Reduction Act because of the

small number of U.S. operators subject

to the rule. Based upon comments

received on the proposed rule and the

slight increase in applicable tour

operators, NSF has determined that it

will issue this information collection

notice to satisfy the requirements of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, prior

to issuing the final rule.

Expected Respondents. Respondents

may include non-profit organizations

and small and large businesses. The

majority of respondents are anticipated

to be U.S. tour operators, currently

estimated to number twelve.

Burden on the Public. The Foundation

estimates that a one-time paperwork and

recordkeeping burden of 40 hours or

less, at a cost of $500 to $1400 per

respondent, will result from the

emergency response plan requirement

contained in the proposed rule.

Presently, all respondents have been

providing expedition members with a

copy of the Guidance for Visitors to the

Antarctic (prepared and adopted at the

Eighteenth Antarctic Treaty

Consultative Meeting as

Recommendation XVIII–1). Because this

Antarctic Treaty System document

satisfies the environmental protection

information requirements of the

proposed rule, no additional burden

shall result from the environmental

information requirements in the

proposed rule.

Dated: April 18, 2001.

Lawrence Rudolph,

General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 01–13768 Filed 5–31–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555–01–M

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Agency Information Collection

Activities: Submission for the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB)

Review; Comment Request

AGENCY: U. S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC).

ACTION: Notice of the OMB review of

information collection and solicitation

of public comment.

SUMMARY: The NRC has recently

submitted to OMB for review the

following proposal for the collection of

information under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. Chapter 35). The NRC hereby

informs potential respondents that an

agency may not conduct or sponsor, and

that a person is not required to respond

to, a collection of information unless it

displays a currently valid OMB control

number.

1. Type of submission, new, revision,

or extension: Extension.

2. The title of the information

collection: 10 CFR Part 19, ‘‘Notices,

Instructions, and Reports to Workers:

Inspection and Investigations’’.

3. The form number if applicable: N/

A.

4. How often the collection is

required: As necessary in order that

adequate and timely reports of radiation

exposure be made to individuals

involved in NRC-licensed activities.

5. Who is required or asked to report:

Licensees authorized to receive, possess,

use, or transfer material licensed by the

NRC.

6. The estimated number of annual

responses: 395,221.

7. The number of annual respondents:

6000.

8. The number of hours needed

annually to complete the requirement or

request: 43,037 reporting hours.

9. An indication of whether section

3507(d), Pub. L. 104–13 applies: Not

applicable.

10. Abstract: Title 10 of the Code of

Federal Regulations, Part 19, requires

licensees to advise workers on an

annual basis of any radiation exposure

they may have received as a result of

NRC-licensed activities or when certain

conditions are met. These conditions

apply during termination of the

worker’s employment, at the request of

a worker, former worker, or when the

worker’s employer (the NRC licensee)

must report radiation exposure

information on the worker to the NRC.

Part 19 also establishes requirements for

instructions by licensees to individuals

participating in licensed activities and

options available to these individuals in

connection with Commission

inspections of licensees to ascertain

compliance with the provisions of the

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended,

Title II of the Energy Reorganization Act

of 1974, and regulations, orders and

licenses thereunder regarding

radiological working conditions.

The worker should be informed of the

radiation dose he or she receives

because: (a) that information is needed

by both a new employer and the

individual when the employee changes

jobs in the nuclear industry; (b) the

individual needs to know the radiation

dose received as a result of an accident

or incident (if this dose is in excess of

the 10 CFR Part 20 limits) so that he or

she can seek counseling about future

work involving radiation, medical

attention, or both, as desired; and (c)

since long-term exposure to radiation

may be an adverse health factor, the

individual needs to know whether the

accumulated dose is being controlled

within NRC limits. The worker also

needs to know about health risks from

occupational exposure to radioactive

materials or radiation, precautions or

procedures to minimize exposure,

worker responsibilities and options to

report any licensee conditions which

may lead to or cause a violation of

Commission regulations, and individual

radiation exposure reports which are

available to him.

A copy of the final supporting

statement may be viewed free of charge

at the NRC Public Document Room, One

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville

Pike, Room O–1 F23, Rockville, MD

20852. 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 should be

directed to the OMB reviewer listed

below by July 2, 2001. Comments

received after this date will be

considered if it is practical to do so, but

assurance of consideration cannot be

given to comments received after this

date.

Amy Farrell, Office of Information and

Regulatory Affairs (3150–0044),

NEOB–10202, Office of Management

and Budget, Washington, DC 20503.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day

of May , 2001.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Brenda Jo. Shelton,

NRC Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief

Information Officer.

[FR Doc. 01–13742 Filed 5–31–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–255]

Nuclear Management Company, LLC;

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of

Amendment to Facility Operating

License and Opportunity for a Hearing

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of an amendment

to Facility Operating License No. DPR–

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 2001 / Notices 29845

20, held by Nuclear Management

Company, LLC (the licensee), for

operation of the Palisades Plant located

in Van Buren County, Michigan.

The proposed amendment would

change the limiting conditions for

operation (LCOs), surveillance

requirements (SRs), and design features

in the Technical Specifications (TSs) to

provide more flexible fuel loading

constraints for the Palisades fuel storage

racks and accommodate future core

designs. The changes affect TS Sections

3.7.15, ‘‘Spent Fuel Pool (SFP) Boron

Concentration,’’ 3.7.16, ‘‘Spent Fuel

Assembly Storage,’’ and 4.3, ‘‘Design

Features—Fuel Storage.’’ Allowed

uranium enrichments for storage would

be increased. Enrichment limits for new

fuel storage racks (currently limited to

fuel assemblies having a maximum

average planar uranium-235 (U-235)

enrichment of 4.20 weight percent)

would be increased to allow storage of

24 unirradiated fuel assemblies having a

maximum planar average U-235

enrichment of 4.95 weight percent,

subject to proposed loading pattern

constraints (e.g., the center row being

empty if stored fuel exceeds 4.05

percent U-235 enrichments). Similarly,

the new fuel storage racks could contain

36 unirradiated fuel assemblies having a

maximum planar average U-235

enrichment of 4.05 weight percent,

subject to similar proposed loading

pattern constraints not necessarily

requiring the center row to be empty.

Region I fuel storage racks (currently

limited to a maximum enrichment of

4.40 weight percent) would be changed

to allow storage of unirradiated or

irradiated fuel up to 4.95 weight percent

enrichment on the basis of revised

criticality analyses that assume no

credit for soluble boron in the pool

under normal conditions, but which

take credit for 1350 ppm of soluble

boron under accident conditions.

Enrichment requirements for Region II

fuel storage racks (currently limited to

3.27 weight percent) would be changed

to allow storage of unirradiated fuel up

to 1.14 weight percent and irradiated

fuel of equivalent reactivity up to 4.6

weight percent initial enrichment on the

basis of criticality analyses that take

credit for 850 ppm of soluble boron in

the pool under normal conditions and

1350 ppm of soluble boron under

accident conditions. The TSs (e.g.,

proposed Table 3.7.16–1) for allowable

enrichments for fuel storage in Region II

of the spent fuel pool or the north tilt

pit would continue to be based upon a

combination of initial enrichment and

burnup, but the proposed change would

also add decay time to this combination.

The existing limitations that Region I

spent fuel racks may contain only ‘‘new

or partially spent’’ fuel assemblies, and

that Region II spent fuel racks may

contain only ‘‘partially spent’’ fuel

assemblies, would be changed to ‘‘new

or irradiated fuel assemblies which meet

the initial enrichment, burnup, and

decay time requirements of [the

proposed revision to] Table 3.7.16–1.’’

The existing requirements that fuel

assemblies in new or Region I fuel

storage racks must contain ‘‘216 rods

which are either UO2, Gd2O3UO2, or

solid metal’’ would be deleted. TS

3.7.15 would continue to require that

the spent fuel pool boron concentration

be equal to or greater than 1720 ppm

whenever fuel is stored in the spent fuel

pool, and be verified weekly; however,

the optional Action statement A.2.2 to

immediately initiate action to perform a

spent fuel pool verification when the

concentration is not within limits would

be deleted (as would a related portion

of the applicability statement regarding

verification). The licensee also included

changes to the associated TS Bases.

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.

By July 2, 2001, 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, located at One

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike

(first floor), Rockville, Maryland 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 a 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

29846 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 2001 / Notices

participate fully in the conduct of the

hearing, including the opportunity to

present evidence and cross-examine

witnesses.

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, located at One

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike

(first floor), Rockville, Maryland, 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 Arunas T.

Udrys, Esquire, Consumers Energy

Company, 212 West Michigan Avenue,

Jackson, MI 49201, 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).

If a request for a hearing is received,

the Commission’s staff may issue the

amendment after it completes its

technical review and prior to the

completion of any required hearing if it

publishes a further notice for public

comment of its proposed finding of no

significant hazards consideration in

accordance with 10 CFR 50.91 and

50.92.

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application for

amendment dated March 2, 2001, as

supplemented by letter dated March 29,

2001, which are available for public

inspection at the Commission’s Public

Document Room, located at One White

Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first

floor), Rockville, Maryland, 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 24th day

of May 2001.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Darl S. Hood,

Senior Project Manager, Section I, Project

Directorate III, Division of Licensing Project

Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 01–13740 Filed 5–31–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–272 and 50–311]

PSEG Nuclear LLC; Salem Nuclear

Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2;

Exemption

1.0 Background

PSEG Nuclear LLC (PSEG or the

licensee) is the holder of Facility

Operating License Nos. DPR–70 and

DPR–75 that authorize operation of the

Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit

Nos. 1 and 2. The licenses provide,

among other things, that the facility is

subject to all rules, regulations, and

orders of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC, the Commission)

now or hereafter in effect.

The facility consists of two

pressurized water reactors located at the

licensee’s site on the southern end of

Artificial Island in Lower Alloways

Creek Township, Salem County, New

Jersey. Salem, New Jersey, is located

approximately 7.5 miles northeast of the

site.

2.0 Purpose

Title 10 of the Code of Federal

Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50, Appendix

G requires that pressure-temperature (P–

T) limits be established for reactor

pressure vessels (RPVs) during normal

operating and hydrostatic or leak rate

testing conditions. Specifically, 10 CFR

Part 50, Appendix G states that ‘‘[t]he

appropriate requirements on * * * the

pressure-temperature limits and

minimum permissible temperature must

be met for all conditions.’’ Appendix G

to 10 CFR Part 50 also specifies that the

requirements for these limits are the

American Society of Mechanical

Engineers (ASME) Code, Section XI,

Appendix G Limits. In Generic Letter

88–11, the NRC staff advised licensees

that the staff would use Regulatory

Guide (RG) 1.99, Revision 2, to review

P–T limit curves. RG 1.99, Revision 2,

provides guidance for implementing 10

CFR Part 50, Appendix G, and contains

conservative methodologies for

determining the increase in transition

temperature and the decrease in uppershelf energy (USE) resulting from

neutron radiation.

In order to address provisions of

amendments to the Technical

Specifications (TS) P–T limit curves, the

licensee requested in its application

dated November 10, 2000, that the staff

exempt, as permitted by 10 CFR

50.60(b), Salem, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, from

application of specific requirements of

10 CFR 50.60(a) and 10 CFR Part 50,

Appendix G, and substitute use of

ASME Code Case N–640. Code Case N–

640 provides an alternate reference

fracture toughness methodology for

reactor vessel materials for use in

determining the P–T limits. The

proposed action is in accordance with

PSEG’s application for exemption

contained in its November 10, 2000,

letter, as supplemented by letters dated

March 28 and April 2, 2001. The

proposed action is needed to support

PSEG’s license amendment request to

increase thermal power levels by 1.4%

submitted under the same application

(the final revision of the proposed P–T

limit curves was submitted by the

licensee by letter dated March 28, 2001).

The proposed license amendment will,

in part, revise the P–T limits for heatup,

cooldown, core criticality, and

hydrostatic/leak test limitations for the

reactor coolant system (RCS) to 32

effective full power years (EFPYs).

Code Case N–640

The licensee has proposed an

exemption to allow the use of Code Case

N–640, in conjunction with ASME

Section XI, Appendix G, 10 CFR

50.60(a), and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix

G, to determine the P–T limits, and

stated that this proposed alternative

meets the underlying intent of the

NRC’s regulations.

Standard Review Plan (NUREG–0800)

Section 5.3.2 provides an acceptable

method for determining the P–T limit

curves for ferritic materials in the

beltline of the RPV based on the linear

elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM)

methodology of Appendix G to Section

XI of the Code. The basic parameter of

this methodology is the stress intensity

factor KI, which is a function of the

stress state and flaw configuration.

Appendix G requires a safety factor of

2.0 on stress intensities resulting from

reactor pressure during normal and

transient operating conditions, and a

safety factor of 1.5 on the same stresses

for hydrostatic testing curves. The

methods of Appendix G postulate the

existence of a sharp surface flaw in the

RPV that is normal to the direction of

the maximum stress. This flaw is

postulated to have a depth that is equal

to 1/4 of the RPV beltline thickness and

a length equal to 1.5 times the RPV

beltline thickness. The critical locations

in the RPV beltline region for

calculating heatup and cooldown P–T

curves are the 1/4 thickness (1/4T) and

3/4 thickness (3/4T) locations, which

correspond to the maximum depth of

the postulated inside surface and

outside surface defects, respectively.

The methodology provided in

Appendix G to Section XI of the ASME

Code requires that licensees determine