60986 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 199 / Friday, October 13, 2000 / Notices

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

amendments request involves no

significant hazards consideration, the

Commission may issue the amendments

and make them immediately effective,

notwithstanding the request for a

hearing. Any hearing held would take

place after issuance of the amendments.

If the final determination is that the

amendments request involves a

significant hazards consideration, any

hearing held would take place before

the issuance of any amendments.

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 Douglas K.

Porter, Esquire, Southern California

Edison Company, 2244 Walnut Grove

Avenue, Rosemead, California 91770,

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

amendments dated September 22, 2000

(ADAMS Accession No. ML003753695),

which is 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 6th day

of October 2000.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

L. Raghavan,

Senior Project Manager, Section 2, Project

Directorate IV and Decommissioning,

Division of Licensing Project Management,

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 00–26340 Filed 10–12–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–373 and 50–374]

Commonwealth Edison Company;

LaSalle County 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 10 CFR 50.60(a) for

Facility Operating Licenses Nos. NPF–

11 and NPF–18, issued to

Commonwealth Edison Company

(ComEd, or the licensee) for operation of

LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2,

located in LaSalle County, 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 February 29, 2000, that

the staff exempt ComEd 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 two, 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(b).

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(b).

The proposed action is in accordance

with the licensee’s application for

exemption dated February 29, 2000.

The Need for the Proposed Action

The proposed exemption is needed to

allow the licensee to implement ASME

Code Case N–588 and Code Case N–640

in order to revise the method used to

determine the reactor coolant system

(RCS) P–T limits, because 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

LaSalle 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 Cases N–588 and 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 a 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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 199 / Friday, October 13, 2000 / Notices 60987

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 there are no significant

adverse environmental impacts

associated with the proposed action.

The proposed action will not

significantly 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 impact.

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 LaSalle County Station,

Units 1 and 2.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on July 19, 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 NRC 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 February 29, 2000, which is

available for public inspection at the

NRC’s Public Document Room, located

at One White Flint North, 11555

Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,

Maryland. 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 5th day

of October 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. 00–26339 Filed 10–12–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–247]

Consolidated Edison Company of New

York, Inc.; Indian Point Nuclear

Generating Unit No. 2; Issuance of

Director’s Decision Under 10 CFR

2.206

By letter dated March 14, 2000, Mr.

David A. Lochbaum, on behalf of the

Union of Concerned Scientists, the

Nuclear Information & Resource Service,

the PACE Law School Energy Project,

and Public Citizen’s Critical Mass

Energy Project (Petitioners), pursuant to

Section 2.206 of Title 10 of the Code of

Federal Regulations (10 CFR 2.206),

requested that the U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission (Commission or

NRC) take action with regard to the

Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit

No. 2, (IP2), owned and operated by the

Consolidated Edison Company of New

York, Inc. (Con Ed). The Petitioners

requested that the NRC issue an order to

the licensee preventing the restart of

IP2, or modifying the license for IP2 to

limit it to zero power, until (1) all four

steam generators are replaced, (2) the

steam generator tube integrity concerns

identified in Dr. Joram Hopenfeld’s

differing professional opinion (DPO)

and in Generic Safety Issue 163 (GSI–

163) are resolved, and (3) potassium

iodide tablets are distributed to

residents and businesses within the 10-

mile emergency planning zone (EPZ) or

stockpiled in the vicinity of IP2. (The

DPO process provides for the review of

concerns raised by individual NRC

employees who disagree with a position

adopted by the NRC staff.)

In a letter dated April 5, 2000, the

Acting Director of the Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation acknowledged

receipt of the Petition of March 14,

2000. In the April 5, 2000, letter, the

Petitioners were informed that the

request concerning replacement of the

IP2 steam generators met the criteria for

review under 10 CFR 2.206, but the staff

had determined that the request relating

to the resolution of the concerns raised

in Dr. Hopenfeld’s DPO and GSI–163

and distribution or stockpiling of

potassium iodide tablets did not meet

the criteria for review under 10 CFR

2.206. The basis for this determination

was that they raise generic issues for

which the Petitioners had not provided

sufficient facts specific to IP2 restart to

support their request. However, as a

result of information provided at an

April 7, 2000, meeting, and a

supplement to their Petition dated April

12, 2000, the staff determined that the

request that the NRC issue an order to

prevent Con Ed from restarting IP2, or

modify the license for IP2 to limit it to

zero power, until potassium iodide

tablets are distributed to people and

businesses within the 10-mile EPZ or

stockpiled in the vicinity of IP2 met the

criteria of 10 CFR 2.206. However, the

additional information provided in a

supplement dated April 14, 2000, still

did not provide plant-specific

information necessary to consider Dr.

Hopenfeld’s DPO under the 2.206

process. The Petitioners were informed

of these determinations in a letter dated

June 26, 2000. In letters dated June 12,

June 29, and July 13, 2000, the

Petitioners further supplemented the

Petition. In the June 12, 2000,

supplement, it was requested that IP2

not be allowed to restart until concerns

identified in an internal Federal

Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA) memorandum dated May 12,

2000, were addressed. In the July 13,

2000, supplement, the Petitioners

requested reinstatement of their request

that Dr. Hopenfeld’s DPO be resolved

prior to allowing IP2 to restart. In a

letter dated August 31, 2000, the

Petitioners were informed that neither

of these issues met the criteria for

review under 10 CFR 2.206, and

indicated the basis for that

determination.

In the June 29, 2000, letter, the

Petitioners stated that 10 CFR Part 50,

Appendix E requires each licensee at

each site to conduct a full participation

biennial exercise. Since the two nuclear

units at the Indian Point site are owned

by different licensees, the Petitioners

stated that the regulations would require