Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 10, 2000 / Notices 60223

can be conducted without endangering

the health and safety of the public and

that such activities will be conducted in

compliance with the Commission’s

regulations; the issuance of the

proposed license amendments will not

be inimical to the common defense and

security or to the health and safety of

the public; and the issuance of the

proposed amendments will be in

accordance with 10 CFR Part 51 of the

Commission’s regulations and all

applicable requirements have been

satisfied. These findings are supported

by a Safety Evaluation dated September

29, 2000.

III

Accordingly, pursuant to Sections

161b, 161i, 161o, and 184 of the Atomic

Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42

USC 2201(b), 2201(i), 2201(o) and 2234;

and 10 CFR 50.80, it is hereby ordered

That the application regarding the

proposed restructuring of PNM and

indirect license transfers is approved,

subject to the following conditions:

1. Manzano Energy shall provide the

Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation a copy of any application, at

the time it is filed, to transfer (excluding

grants of security interests or liens) from

Manzano Energy to its proposed parent,

or to any other affiliated company,

facilities for the production,

transmission, or distribution of electric

energy having a depreciated book value

exceeding ten percent (10%) of

Manzano Energy’s consolidated net

utility plant, as recorded on Manzano

Energy’s books of account.

2. Manzano Energy shall continue to

provide decommissioning funding

assurance, to be held in its

decommissioning trusts for Palo Verde

Units 1, 2, and 3, from the date of the

indirect license transfers, as represented

in the respective March 3, 2000,

application, as supplemented. In

addition, Manzano Energy shall ensure

that contractual arrangements with its

transmission and distribution affiliate to

obtain necessary decommissioning

funds for Palo Verde through nonbypassable charges will be established

and maintained until the

decommissioning trusts are fully

funded.

3. Manzano Energy shall enter into an

agreement with its transmission and

distribution affiliate that shall require

the deposit of funds collected for

decommissioning funding from wires

charges into Manzano Energy’s

decommissioning trust accounts. A copy

of the agreement shall be forwarded to

the NRC prior to the completion of the

proposed restructuring of PNM.

4. Manzano Energy shall take all

necessary steps to ensure that its

decommissioning trusts are maintained

in accordance with the March 3, 2000,

application, as supplemented, and the

requirements of this Order approving

the respective indirect transfers, and

consistent with the safety evaluation

supporting this Order.

5. Manzano Energy shall inform the

Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation within 30 days of approval

by the New Mexico Public Regulation

Commission of the stranded cost

mechanism of recovering

decommissioning costs. Within such 30-

day period, Manzano Energy shall state

the total decommissioning costs subject

to stranded cost recovery and the

schedule for funding decommissioning

costs.

6. Manzano Energy’s

decommissioning trust agreements for

each of the three units shall provide

that:

a. The use of assets in both the

qualified and non-qualified funds shall

be limited to expenses related to

decommissioning of the unit as defined

by the NRC in its regulations and

issuances, and as provided in the unit’s

license and any amendments thereto.

However, upon completion of

decommissioning, as defined above, the

assets may be used for any purpose

authorized by law.

b. Investments in the securities or

other obligations of Manzano Energy or

affiliates thereof, or their successors or

assigns, shall be prohibited. In addition,

except for investments tied to market

indexes or other non-nuclear sector

mutual funds, investments in any entity

owning one or more nuclear power

plants shall be prohibited.

c. No disbursements or payments

from the trust, other than for ordinary

administrative expenses, shall be made

by the trustee unless the trustee has first

given the NRC 30 days prior written

notice of the payment. In addition, no

such disbursements or payments from

the trust shall be made if the trustee

receives prior written notice of objection

from the Director of the Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

d. The trust agreement shall not be

modified in any material respect

without 30 days prior written

notification to the Director of the Office

of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

e. The trustee, investment advisor, or

anyone else directing the investments

made in the trust shall adhere to a

‘‘prudent investor’’ standard, as

specified in 18 CFR 35.32(3) of the

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission’s regulations.

It is further ordered That, consistent

with 10 CFR 2.1315(b), license

amendments as indicated in Enclosure 2

to the cover letter forwarding this Order

to reflect the subject restructuring action

and conditions of this Order are

approved. The amendments shall be

issued and made effective at the time

the proposed restructuring action is

completed.

This Order is effective upon issuance.

For further details with respect to this

action, see the initial application dated

March 3, 2000, supplemental

application and submittals dated April

26, August 14, August 17, and

September 7, 2000, and the Safety

Evaluation dated September 29, 2000,

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 29th day

of September 2000.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Samuel J. Collins,

Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 00–25916 Filed 10–6–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–U

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–364]

Southern Nuclear Operating Company;

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of

Amendment to Facility Operating

License, 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 No. NPF–

8, issued to Southern Nuclear Operating

Company (the licensee), for operation of

the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Unit

2, located in Houston County, Alabama.

The proposed amendment would

eliminate the requirement to cycle the

Unit 2 pressurizer power-operated relief

valve (PORV) block valves during the

remainder of operating cycle 14 and

provides additional compensatory

action. Cycle 14 is presently scheduled

to end on February 24, 2001. This

change is needed because excessive

packing leakage from at least one of the

Unit 2 PORV block valves occurs during

valve surveillance testing (stroking).

60224 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 10, 2000 / Notices

Cycling the valves with this packing

leakage could result in additional valve

packing degradation potentially

resulting in a forced unit shutdown.

Repairing the valve packing would

require shutting down and cooling

down the unit to establish conditions

for the repair. 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.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6) for

amendments to be granted under

exigent circumstances, the NRC staff

must determine 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; (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 changes do not involve a

significant increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated.

The proposed change to Surveillance

Requirement (SR) 3.4.11.1 suspends the

requirement to cycle test the Unit Two

pressurizer power operated relief valve

(PORV) block valves for the remainder of

operating cycle 14. This change will

eliminate two scheduled cycle tests for the

PORV block valves during the remainder of

operating cycle 14. SR 3.4.11.4 is added to

provide compensatory measures for verifying

power available to the block valves at least

every 24 hours. At the end of cycle 14, the

proposed changes will no longer be in effect.

Suspension of the cycle tests for the PORV

block valves may result in a small decrease

in assurance that the block valves would

cycle if required to isolate a stuck open

PORV. However, experience with these

valves has shown them to be very reliable

and suspension of the remaining tests will

not appreciably reduce reliability of the

valves. The proposed compensatory measure

of verifying block valve power available on

a 24 hour basis adds additional assurance

that the block valves will close if demanded.

* * * * *

The proposed changes do not affect the

consequences of a previously analyzed

accident since the magnitude and duration of

analyzed events are not impacted by this

change. The dose consequences of the

proposed change are bounded by LOCA

analyses. Therefore, the consequences of a

previously evaluated accident are

unchanged.

Therefore, the proposed TS changes do not

involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of an accident

previously evaluated.

2. The proposed changes do not create the

possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from any accident previously

evaluated.

The proposed changes involve no change

to the physical plant. They allow for

suspension of the PORV block valve cycle

tests for a limited time and provide for

compensatory action to verify power to the

PORV block valves. These valves provide an

isolation function for a postulated stuck open

or leaking pressurizer PORV. This condition

is an analyzed event since it is bounded by

the FNP LOCA analyses. In addition to the

isolation function, the block valves are

required to remain open to allow the PORVs

to function automatically to control reactor

coolant system (RCS) pressure. These

changes do not impact the open function of

the block valves since the normal position is

open.

Therefore, the proposed changes do not

create the possibility of a new or different

kind of accident from any accident

previously evaluated.

3. The proposed changes do not involve a

significant reduction in a margin of safety.

The physical plant is unaffected by these

changes. The proposed changes do not

impact accident offsite dose, containment

pressure or temperature, emergency core

cooling system (ECCS) or reactor protection

system (RPS) settings or any other parameter

that could affect a margin of safety. The

elimination of cycle testing of the PORV

block valves for the remainder of the Unit

Two operating cycle and the addition of the

proposed compensatory action that enhances

assurance of valve operation are somewhat

offsetting.

Therefore, the proposed changes do not

involve a significant reduction in a margin of

safety.

The NRC staff has reviewed the

licensee’s analysis and, based on this

review, it appears that the three

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 14 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 14-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

14-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. 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.

Documents may be examined, and/or

copied for a fee, at the NRC’s Public

Document Room, located at One White

Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first

floor), Rockville, Maryland.

The filing of requests for hearing and

petitions for leave to intervene is

discussed below.

By November 9, 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, 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.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 10, 2000 / Notices 60225

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

participate fully in the conduct of the

hearing, including the opportunity to

present evidence and cross-examine

witnesses.

If the amendment is issued before the

expiration of the 30-day hearing period,

the Commission will make a final

determination on the issue of no

significant hazards consideration. If a

hearing is requested, 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, 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 M. Stanford

Blanton, Balch and Bingham, Post

Office Box 306, 1710 Sixth Avenue

North, Birmingham, Alabama, 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).

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application for

amendment dated September 8, 2000, as

supplemented by letter dated October 2,

2000, 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 4th day

of October, 2000.

L. Mark Padovan,

Project Manager, Project Directorate II–1,

Division of Licensing Project Management,

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 00–25917 Filed 10–6–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–U

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–391]

Tennessee Valley Authority; Watts Bar

Nuclear Plant, Unit 2, Environmental

Assessment and Finding of No

Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) is considering

issuance of an extension of the latest

construction completion dates specified

in Construction Permit No. CPPR–92

issued to Tennessee Valley Authority

(permittee, TVA) for the Watts Bar

Nuclear Plant (WBN), Unit 2. The

facility is located at the permittee’s site

on the west branch of the Tennessee

River approximately 50 miles northeast

of Chattanooga, Tennessee.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of Proposed Action

The proposed action would extend

the latest construction completion date

of Construction Permit No. CPPR–92 to

December 31, 2010. The proposed

action is in response to the permittee’s

request dated October 13, 1999, as

supplemented by letter dated July 14,

2000.

The Need for the Proposed Action

The proposed action is needed to

grant the licensee the option of

completing construction on WBN Unit 2

in the future. The construction permit

expired in December 1999. The

permittee requested the extension for

Unit 2 due to the delay in the

completion of Unit 1 and TVA’s

decision to maintain Unit 2 in a

construction layup status pending

TVA’s determination of further options

to meet future electric power demands.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The environmental impacts associated

with the construction of the facility

have been previously discussed and

evaluated in TVA’s Final Environmental

Statement for construction (FES–CP) of

WBN, Units 1 and 2, issued on

November 9, 1972. NRC staff evaluated

the environmental impacts of

construction and operation of this plant,

issuing comments on TVA’s FES–CP as