Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2000 / Notices 5703

The Need for the Proposed Action

ASME Code Case N–588 and Code

Case N–640 are needed to revise the

method used to determine the RCS P–

T limits, since continued use of the

present curves unnecessarily restricts

the P–T operating window. Since the

RCS P–T operating window is defined

by the P–T operating and test limit

curves developed in accordance with

the ASME Section XI, Appendix G

procedure, continued operation of Quad

Cities with these P–T curves without the

relief provided by ASME Code Case N–

640 would unnecessarily require the

RPV to maintain a temperature

exceeding 212 degrees Fahrenheit in a

limited operating window during the

pressure test. Consequently, steam

vapor hazards would continue to be one

of the safety concerns for personnel

conducting inspections in primary

containment. Implementation of the

proposed P–T curves, as allowed by

ASME Code Case N–640, does not

significantly reduce the margin of safety

and would eliminate steam vapor

hazards by allowing inspections in

primary containment to be conducted at

lower coolant temperature.

In the associated exemption, the staff

has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR

50.12(a)(2)(ii), the underlying purpose

of the regulation will continue to be

served by the implementation of these

Code Cases.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The Commission has completed its

evaluation of the proposed action and

concludes that the exemption described

above would provide an adequate

margin of safety against brittle failure of

the Quad Cities reactor vessels.

The proposed action will not 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

significant increase in occupational or

public radiation exposure. Therefore,

there are no significant radiological

environmental impacts associated with

the proposed action.

With regard to potential

nonradiological environmental impacts,

the proposed action does not involve

any historic sites. It does not affect

nonradiological plant effluents and has

no other environmental impacts.

Therefore, there are no significant

nonradiological impacts associated with

the proposed action.

Accordingly, the Commission

concludes that there are no significant

environmental impacts associated with

the proposed action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

As an alternative to the proposed

action, the staff considered denial of the

proposed action (i.e., the ‘‘no-action’’

alternative). 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 Quad Cities Nuclear

Power Station, Units 1 and 2, dated

September 1972.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on January 28, 2000, the staff consulted

with the Illinois State official, Frank

Niziolek of the Illinois Department of

Nuclear Safety, regarding the

environmental impact of the proposed

action. The State official had no

comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

On the basis of 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 November 12, 1999, which is

available for public inspection at the

Commission’s Public Document Room,

The Gelman Building, 2120 L Street,

NW., Washington, DC. Publicly

available records will be accessible

electronically from the ADAMS Public

Library component on the NRC Web

site, http:www.nrc.gov (the Electronic

Reading Room).

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 31st day

of January 2000.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Anthony J. Mendiola,

Chief, Section 2, Project Directorate III,

Division of Licensing Project Management,

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 00–2522 Filed 2–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–331]

IES Utilities Inc.; Duane Arnold Energy

Center; Notice of Consideration of

Approval of Transfer of Operating

Authority Under Facility Operating

License and Conforming Amendment,

and Opportunity for a Hearing

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering the issuance of an order

under 10 CFR 50.80 approving the

transfer of operating authority under

Facility Operating License No. DPR–49

for the Duane Arnold Energy Center

(DAEC), currently held by IES Utilities

Inc. The transfer would be to a new

operating company called Nuclear

Management Company, LLC (NMC). The

Commission is also considering

amending the license for administrative

purposes to reflect the proposed

transfer.

By application dated November 24,

1999, seeking approval of the transfer,

the Commission was informed that IES

Utilities Inc., has entered into a Nuclear

Power Plant Operating Services

Agreement with NMC. Under this

Agreement, NMC would assume

exclusive responsibility for the

operation and maintenance of DAEC.

Ownership of DAEC will not be affected

by the proposed transfer of operating

authority; IES Utilities Inc., the Central

Iowa Power Cooperative, and the Corn

Belt Power Cooperative will retain their

respective current ownership interests,

according to the application. Likewise,

the three owners’ entitlement to

capacity and energy from DAEC will not

be affected by the proposed transfer of

operating authority. No physical

changes to the facility or operational

changes are being proposed in the

application.

The proposed amendment would

reflect the transfer of authority under

the license to operate DAEC from IES

Utilities Inc., to NMC.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.80, no license,

or any right thereunder, shall be

transferred, directly or indirectly,

through transfer of control of the

license, unless the Commission shall

give its consent in writing. The

Commission will approve an

application for the transfer of a license,

if the Commission determines that the

proposed transferee is qualified to hold

the license, and that the transfer is

otherwise consistent with applicable

provisions of law, regulations, and

orders issued by the Commission

pursuant thereto.

5704 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2000 / Notices

Before issuance of the proposed

conforming 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.

As provided in 10 CFR 2.1315, unless

otherwise determined by the

Commission with regard to a specific

application, the Commission has

determined that any amendment to the

license of a utilization facility which

does no more than conform the license

to reflect the transfer action involves no

significant hazards consideration. No

contrary determination has been made

with respect to this specific license

amendment application. In light of the

generic determination reflected in 10

CFR 2.1315, no public comments with

respect to significant hazards

considerations are being solicited,

notwithstanding the general comment

procedures contained in 10 CFR 50.91.

The filing of requests for hearing and

petitions for leave to intervene, and

written comments with regard to the

license transfer application, are

discussed below.

By February 24, 2000, any person

whose interest may be affected by the

Commission’s action on the application

may request a hearing, and, if not the

applicants, may petition for leave to

intervene in a hearing proceeding on the

Commission’s action. Requests for a

hearing and petitions for leave to

intervene should be filed in accordance

with the Commission’s rules of practice

set forth in Subpart M, ‘‘Public

Notification, Availability of Documents

and Records, Hearing Requests and

Procedures for Hearings on License

Transfer Applications,’’ of 10 CFR Part

2. In particular, such requests and

petitions must comply with the

requirements set forth in 10 CFR 2.1306,

and should address the considerations

contained in 10 CFR 2.1308(a).

Untimely requests and petitions may be

denied, as provided in 10 CFR

2.1308(b), unless good cause for failure

to file on time is established. In

addition, an untimely request or

petition should address the factors that

the Commission will also consider, in

reviewing untimely requests or

petitions, set forth in 10 CFR

2.1308(b)(1)–(2).

Requests for a hearing and petitions

for leave to intervene should be served

upon Alvin H. Gutterman, counsel for

IES Utilities Inc., at Morgan, Lewis &

Bockius LLP, 1800 M Street, NW,

Washington, DC 20036–5869 (tel: 202–

467–7468; fax: 202–467–7176; e-mail:

ahgutterman@mlb.com); and the

General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555 (e-mail address for filings

regarding license transfer cases only:

OGCLT@NRC.gov); and the Secretary of

the Commission, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555–0001, Attention: Rulemakings

and Adjudications Staff, in accordance

with 10 CFR 2.1313.

The Commission will issue a notice or

order granting or denying a hearing

request or intervention petition,

designating the issues for any hearing

that will be held and designating the

Presiding Officer. A notice granting a

hearing will be published in the Federal

Register and served on the parties to the

hearing.

As an alternative to requests for

hearing and petitions to intervene, by

March 6, 2000, persons may submit

written comments regarding the license

transfer application, as provided for in

10 CFR 2.1305. The Commission will

consider and, if appropriate, respond to

these comments, but such comments

will not otherwise constitute part of the

decisional record. Comments should be

submitted to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555–0001, Attention: Rulemakings

and Adjudications Staff, and should cite

the publication date and page number of

this Federal Register notice.

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application dated

November 24, 1999, 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 31st day

of January 2000.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Claudia M. Craig,

Chief, Section 1, Project Directorate III,

Division of Licensing Project Management,

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 00–2520 Filed 2–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Docket No. 40–8084

Rio Algom Mining Corporation;

Request to Revise a Site-Reclamation

Milestone

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of receipt of a request

from Rio Algom Mining Corporation to

revise a site-reclamation milestone in

License No. SUA–1119 for the Lisbon,

Utah, facility and notice of opportunity

for a hearing.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that

the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) has received, by

letter dated October 23, 1998 and

subsequent telephone conversation, a

request from Rio Algom Mining

Corporation (Rio Algom) to amend

License Condition (LC) 55 A.(3) of

Source Material License SUA–1119 for

the Lisbon, Utah, facility. The license

amendment request proposes to modify

LC 55 A.(3) to change the completion

date for placement of the final radon

barrier on the pile to December 31, 2000

for the area not covered by the

evaporation pond. Due to continuing

use of the evaporation pond, the final

radon barrier at the pond location will

be completed by 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jill

Caverly, Office of Nuclear Material

Safety and Safeguards, Washington, DC

20555. Telephone (301) 415–6699.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

portion of LC 55 A.(3) with the

proposed change would read as follows:

A. To ensure timely compliance with

target completion dates established in

the Memorandum of Understanding

with the Environmental Protection

Agency (56 FR 55432, October 25,

1991), the licensee shall complete

reclamation to control radon emissions

as expeditiously as practicable,

considering technological feasibility, in

accordance with the following schedule:

(3) Placement of final radon barrier

designed and constructed to limit radon

emissions to an average flux of no more

than 20 pCi/m2 sec above background—

December 31, 2000 for areas not covered

by the evaporation ponds and by

December 31, 2014 for the area under

the evaporation ponds.

Rio Algom’s request to amend LC 55

A.(3) of Source Material License SUA–

1119, which describes the proposed

changes to the license condition and the

reason for the request, is being made

available for public inspection at the

NRC’s Public Document Room at 2120

L Street, NW (Lower Level),

Washington, DC 20555.

The NRC hereby provides notice of an

opportunity for a hearing on the license

amendment under the provisions of 10

CFR Part 2, Subpart L, ‘‘Informal

Hearing Procedures for Adjudications in

Materials and Operator Licensing

Proceedings.’’ Pursuant to § 2.1205(a),

any person whose interest may be

affected by this proceeding may file a

request for a hearing. In accordance

with § 2.1205(c), a request for hearing

must be filed within 30 days of the

publication of this notice in the Federal