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

60988 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 199 / Friday, October 13, 2000 / Notices

each licensee to conduct a fullparticipation exercise every 2 years.

This issue was accepted for review

under 10 CFR 2.206, as stated in a letter

dated August 31, 2000.

The Director of the Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation has addressed the

technical concerns provided by the

Petitioner. The licensee prepared and

submitted to the NRC for staff review an

extensive operational assessment.

However, since the licensee voluntarily

made the decision to replace the IP2

steam generators prior to plant restart,

there was no need to complete a review

of the ConEd report for the purpose of

determining whether the plant could

restart and operate with the existing

steam generators. Therefore, the intent

of this part of the Petition was, in effect,

granted. The NRC and Federal

Emergency Management Agency have

concluded that the onsite and offsite

emergency plans for IP2, including the

provisions for potassium iodide,

provide reasonable assurance that

appropriate protective measures can be

taken to protect the health and safety of

the public in the event of a radiological

emergency at the site. Therefore, there is

no basis to order the licensee to take

additional measures to distribute or

stockpile potassium iodide tablets in the

vicinity of IP2. Finally, the NRC staff

has determined that the fullparticipation exercise conducted by IP2

on June 24, 1998, met the biennial

requirement for both onsite and offsite

participation. Therefore, these two

requests are not granted. The complete

explanation of the staff’s conclusions is

contained in the ‘‘Director’s Decision

Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206’’ (DD–00–04).

The complete text of the Director’s

Decision 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 will be

accessible electronically from the

agencywide documents access and

management system (ADAMS) public

library component on the NRC web site,

http://www.nrc.gov (the electronic

reading room).

A copy of the Decision will be filed

with the Secretary of the Commission

for the Commission’s review in

accordance with 10 CFR 2.206(c) of the

Commission’s regulations. As provided

for by this regulation, the Decision will

constitute the final action of the

Commission 25 days after the date of

issuance of the Decision unless the

Commission, on its own motion,

institutes a review of the Decision

within that time.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day

of October 2000.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Samuel J. Collins,

Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 00–26338 Filed 10–12–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY

CORPORATION

Interest Assumption for Determining

Variable-Rate Premium; Interest on

Late Premium Payments; Interest on

Underpayments and Overpayments of

Single-Employer Plan Termination

Liability and Multiemployer Withdrawal

Liability; Interest Assumptions for

Multiemployer Plan Valuations

Following Mass Withdrawal

AGENCY: Pension Benefit Guaranty

Corporation.

ACTION: Notice of interest rates and

assumptions.

SUMMARY: This notice informs the public

of the interest rates and assumptions to

be used under certain Pension Benefit

Guaranty Corporation regulations. These

rates and assumptions are published

elsewhere (or are derivable from rates

published elsewhere), but are collected

and published in this notice for the

convenience of the public. Interest rates

are also published on the PBGC’s web

site (www.pbgc.gov).

DATES: The interest rate for determining

the variable-rate premium under part

4006 applies to premium payment years

beginning in October 2000. The interest

assumptions for performing

multiemployer plan valuations

following mass withdrawal under part

4281 apply to valuation dates occurring

in November 2000. The interest rates for

late premium payments under part 4007

and for underpayments and

overpayments of single-employer plan

termination liability under part 4062

and multiemployer withdrawal liability

under part 4219 apply to interest

accruing during the fourth quarter

(October through December) of 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Harold J. Ashner, Assistant General

Counsel, Office of the General Counsel,

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation,

1200 K Street, NW., Washington, DC

20005, 202–326–4024. (For TTY/TDD

users, call the Federal relay service tollfree at 1–800–877–8339 and ask to be

connected to 202–326–4024.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Variable-Rate Premiums

Section 4006(a)(3)(E)(iii)(II) of the

Employee Retirement Income Security

Act of 1974 (ERISA) and § 4006.4(b)(1)

of the PBGC’s regulation on Premium

Rates (29 CFR part 4006) prescribe use

of an assumed interest rate in

determining a single-employer plan’s

variable-rate premium. The rate is the

‘‘applicable percentage’’ (currently 85

percent) of the annual yield on 30-year

Treasury securities for the month

preceding the beginning of the plan year

for which premiums are being paid (the

‘‘premium payment year’’). The yield

figure is reported in Federal Reserve

Statistical Releases G.13 and H.15.

The assumed interest rate to be used

in determining variable-rate premiums

for premium payment years beginning

in October 2000 is 4.96 percent (i.e., 85

percent of the 5.83 percent yield figure

for September 2000).

The following table lists the assumed

interest rates to be used in determining

variable-rate premiums for premium

payment years beginning between

November 1999 and October 2000.

For premium payment years

beginning in:

The assumed interest rate is:

November 1999 ........................ 5.32

December 1999 ........................ 5.23

January 2000 ............................ 5.40

February 2000 .......................... 5.64

March 2000 ............................... 5.30

April 2000 ................................. 5.14

May 2000 .................................. 4.97

June 2000 ................................. 5.23

July 2000 .................................. 5.04

August 2000 ............................. 4.97

September 2000 ....................... 4.86

October 2000 ............................ 4.96

Late Premium Payments;

Underpayments and Overpayments of

Single-Employer Plan Termination

Liability

Section 4007(b) of ERISA and

§ 4007.7(a) of the PBGC’s regulation on

Payment of Premiums (29 CFR part

4007) require the payment of interest on

late premium payments at the rate

established under section 6601 of the

Internal Revenue Code. Similarly,

§ 4062.7 of the PBGC’s regulation on

Liability for Termination of SingleEmployer Plans (29 CFR part 4062)

requires that interest be charged or

credited at the section 6601 rate on

underpayments and overpayments of

employer liability under section 4062 of

ERISA. The section 6601 rate is

established periodically (currently

quarterly) by the Internal Revenue

Service. The rate applicable to the

fourth quarter (October through