5702 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2000 / Notices

13. The DOE Run Company

[Docket No. M–1999–025–M]

The DOE Run Company, One Oxford

Centre, 301 Grant Street, 20th Floor,

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219–1410

has filed a petition to modify the

application of 30 CFR 57.11052 (refuge

areas) to its Sweetwater Mine/Mill (I.D.

No. 23–00458) located in Reynolds

County, Missouri. The petitioner

requests a modification of the

mandatory safety standard to permit an

alternative method of compliance with

the requirements for refuge chambers.

The petitioner asserts that the proposed

alternative method would provide at

least the same measure of protection as

the mandatory standard and that

application of the existing standard will

result in a diminution of safety.

14. The DOE Run Company

[Docket No. M–1999–026–M]

The DOE Run Company, One Oxford

Centre, 301 Grant Street, 20th Floor,

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219–1410

has filed a petition to modify the

application of 30 CFR 57.11052 (refuge

areas) to its No. 35 Mine (Casteel) (I.D.

No. 23–01800) located in Iron County,

Missouri. The petitioner requests a

modification of the mandatory safety

standard to permit an alternative

method of compliance with the

requirements for refuge chambers. The

petitioner asserts that the proposed

alternative method would provide at

least the same measure of protection as

the mandatory standard and that

application of the existing standard will

result in a diminution of safety.

15. The DOE Run Company

[Docket No. M–1999–027–M]

The DOE Run Company, One Oxford

Centre, 301 Grant Street, 20th Floor,

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219–1410

has filed a petition to modify the

application of 30 CFR 57.11052 (refuge

areas) to its No. 28 Mine/Mill (I.D. No.

23–00494) located in Iron County,

Missouri. The petitioner requests a

modification of the mandatory safety

standard to permit an alternative

method of compliance with the

requirements for refuge chambers. The

petitioner asserts that the proposed

alternative method would provide at

least the same measure of protection as

the mandatory standard and that

application of the existing standard will

result in a diminution of safety.

16. The DOE Run Company

[Docket No. M–1999–028–M]

The DOE Run Company, One Oxford

Centre, 301 Grant Street, 20th Floor,

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219–1410

has filed a petition to modify the

application of 30 CFR 57.11052 (refuge

areas) to its No. 29 Mine (I.D. No. 23–

00495) located in Iron County, Missouri.

The petitioner requests a modification

of the mandatory safety standard to

permit an alternative method of

compliance with the requirements for

refuge chambers. The petitioner asserts

that the proposed alternative method

would provide at least the same

measure of protection as the mandatory

standard and that application of the

existing standard will result in a

diminution of safety.

Request for Comments

Persons interested in these petitions

are encouraged to submit comments via

e-mail to ‘‘comments@msha.gov,’’ or on

a computer disk along with an original

hard copy to the Office of Standards,

Regulations, and Variances, Mine Safety

and Health Administration, 4015

Wilson Boulevard, Room 627,

Arlington, Virginia 22203. All

comments must be postmarked or

received in that office on or before

March 6, 2000. Copies of these petitions

are available for inspection at that

address.

Dated: January 27, 2000.

Carol J. Jones,

Acting Director, Office of Standards,

Regulations, and Variances.

[FR Doc. 00–2516 Filed 2–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–43–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–254 and 50–265]

Commonwealth Edison Company and

Midamerican Energy Company Quad

Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1

and 2 Environmental Assessment and

Finding of No Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) is considering

issuance of an exemption from certain

requirements of Title 10 of the Code of

Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50,

Section 50.60(a) for Facility Operating

Licenses Nos. DPR–29 and DPR–30,

issued to Commonwealth Edison

Company (ComEd, or the licensee) for

operation of the Quad Cities Nuclear

Power Station, Units 1 and 2 (Quad

Cities), located in Cordova, Illinois.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

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, ‘‘The appropriate

requirements on both the pressuretemperature limits and the minimum

permissible temperature must be met for

all conditions.’’ Appendix G of 10 CFR

Part 50 specifies that the requirements

for these limits are the American

Society of Mechanical Engineers

(ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code

(Code), Section XI, Appendix G Limits.

To address provisions of amendments

to the technical specifications (TS) P–T

limits, the licensee requested in its

submittal dated November 12, 1999, that

the staff exempt Quad Cities from

application of specific requirements of

10 CFR Part 50, Section 50.60(a) and

Appendix G, and substitute use of

ASME Code Cases N–588 and N–640.

Code Case N–588 permits the

postulation of a circumferentiallyoriented flaw (in lieu of an axiallyoriented flaw) for the evaluation of the

circumferential welds in RPV P–T limit

curves. Code Case N–640 permits the

use of an alternate reference fracture

toughness (KIC fracture toughness curve

instead of KIa fracture toughness curve)

for reactor vessel materials in

determining the P–T limits. Since the

pressure stresses on a circumferentiallyoriented flaw are lower than the

pressure stresses on an axially-oriented

flaw by a factor of 2, using Code Case

N–588 for establishing the P–T limits

would be less conservative than the

methodology currently endorsed by 10

CFR Part 50, Appendix G and, therefore,

an exemption to apply the Code Case

would be required by 10 CFR 50.60.

Likewise, since the KIC fracture

toughness curve shown in ASME

Section XI, Appendix A, Figure A–

2200–1 (the KIC fracture toughness

curve) provides greater allowable

fracture toughness than the

corresponding KIa fracture toughness

curve of ASME Section XI, Appendix G,

Figure G–2210–1 (the KIa fracture

toughness curve), using Code Case N–

640 for establishing the P–T limits

would be less conservative than the

methodology currently endorsed by 10

CFR Part 50, Appendix G and, therefore,

an exemption to apply the Code Case

would also be required by 10 CFR 50.60.

It should be noted that, although Code

Case N–640 was incorporated into the

ASME Code recently, an exemption is

still needed because the proposed P–T

limits (excluding Code Cases N–588 and

N–640) are based on the 1989 edition of

the ASME Code.

The proposed action is in accordance

with the licensee’s application for

exemption dated November 12, 1999.

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.