61204 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 200 / Monday, October 16, 2000 / Notices

(http://www.nrc.gov).

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day

of October 2000.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Samuel J. Collins,

Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 00–26483 Filed 10–13–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–272, 50–311]

In the Matter of PECO Energy

Company (Salem Nuclear Generating

Station, Units 1 and 2) Order

Approving Application Regarding

Proposed Corporate Restructuring

I

PECO Energy Company (PECO) owns

42.59 percent of Salem Nuclear

Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 (the

facility) and in connection therewith is

a co-holder of Facility Operating

Licenses Nos. DPR–70 and DPR–75,

which authorize possession, use, and

operation of the facility. PSEG Nuclear

LLC, another co-owner of the facility, is

the licensed operator. The facility is

located in Salem County, New Jersey.

II

By application dated July 7, 2000,

PECO requested approval of the

proposed indirect transfer of the facility

operating licenses to the extent now

held by PECO to Exelon Corporation, to

be formed in connection with the

proposed merger of Unicom Corporation

(Unicom), the parent of Commonwealth

Edison Company and PECO.

Supplemental information was provided

by submittals dated July 13 and

September 1, 2000. Hereinafter, the July

7, 2000, application and supplemental

information will be referred to

collectively as the ‘‘application.’’

Under the proposed merger, PECO

will become a direct or indirect

subsidiary of Exelon Corporation. The

merger was previously the subject of an

order dated August 3, 2000, by which

the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission approved the transfer of

the Salem licenses, to the extent held by

PECO, to Exelon Generation Company,

LLC (EGC). EGC will be formed in

connection with the merger as an

indirect subsidiary of Exelon

Corporation to acquire the generating

assets of PECO and Commonwealth

Edison Company. The August 3, 2000,

order effectively allows PECO’s Salem

assets to be transferred to EGC.

According to the application here, the

transfer of these assets may be delayed

beyond the closing of the merger.

During this interim period, Exelon

Corporation would be the direct parent

of PECO as PECO continues to hold the

Salem and other generating assets

pending the receipt of necessary

approvals to allow the generating assets

to be transferred to EGC. Specifically,

PECO would continue to hold a partial

ownership interest in Salem, Units 1

and 2. PSEG Nuclear LLC would

continue to be the sole operator of

Salem, Units 1 and 2. The application

does not involve any change with

respect to the remaining ownership

interests in the facility held by PSEG

Nuclear LLC, Delmarva Power and Light

Company, and Atlantic City Electric

Company.

By a separate application dated July 7,

2000, Commonwealth Edison Company

requested approval of the indirect

transfer of the facility operating licenses

that it holds to Exelon Corporation,

which would occur under

circumstances similar to the above for

PECO. That application is being

addressed separately.

Approval of the indirect transfer of

the facility operating licenses was

requested by PECO pursuant to 10 CFR

50.80. Notice of the request for approval

and an opportunity for a hearing was

published in the Federal Register on

August 31, 2000 (65 FR 53046). The

Commission received no comments or

requests for hearing pursuant to such

notice.

Under 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. Upon review

of the information in the application by

PECO, and other information before the

Commission, the NRC staff has

determined that the proposed corporate

restructuring under which Exelon

Corporation will become the parent of

PECO will not affect the qualifications

of PECO as a co-holder of the licenses

described above, and that the indirect

transfer of the licenses, to the extent

effected by the proposed corporate

restructuring, is otherwise consistent

with applicable provisions of law,

regulations, and orders issued by the

Commission, subject to the conditions

set forth below.

The findings set forth above are

supported by a safety evaluation dated

October 5, 2000.

III

Accordingly, pursuant to Sections

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

Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42

U.S.C. §§ 2201(b), 2201(i), 2201(o), and

2234; and 10 CFR 50.80, It is hereby

ordered that the application regarding

the indirect license transfers related to

the proposed corporate restructuring is

approved, subject to the following

conditions:

(1) PECO 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 PECO 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 PECO’s consolidated net utility

plant, as recorded on PECO’s books of

account, provided, however, this condition

shall apply only for so long as PECO holds

a license issued pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50.

(2) Should the proposed merger and

restructuring not be completed by October 5,

2001, this Order shall become null and void,

provided, however, upon written application

and for good cause shown, such date may in

writing be extended.

This Order is effective upon issuance.

For further details with respect to this

Order, see the initial application dated

July 7, 2000, and supplemental

submittals dated July 13 and September

1, 2000, and the safety evaluation dated

October 5, 2000, which are available for

public inspection at the Commission’s

Public Document Room, 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 5th day

of October 2000.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Samuel J. Collins,

Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

[FR Doc. 00–26484 Filed 10–13–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[50–461]

AmerGen Energy Company, LLC;

Clinton Power Station Environmental

Assessment and Finding of No

Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the NRC) is considering

issuance of a license amendment to and

exemptions from certain requirements

of Title 10 of the Code of Federal

Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50, Section

50.60(a) for Facility Operating License

No. NPF–62, issued to AmerGen Energy

Company, LLC (the licensee), for

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 200 / Monday, October 16, 2000 / Notices 61205

operation of the Clinton Power Station

(CPS), located in DeWitt 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.

The licensee requested in its

submittal that the staff exempt CPS 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 new P/T limits calculated by the

methodologies that are subject to the

exemptions, are requested to be

incorporated into the CPS Technical

Specifications by the associated

proposed license amendment.

The proposed action is in accordance

with the licensee’s application for

exemption and amendment dated

August 25, 2000, as supplemented

September 21, 2000.

The Need for the Proposed Action

The revised P/T limits are desired to

allow required reactor vessel hydrostatic

and leak tests to be performed at a

significantly lower temperature. These

tests are to be performed during the

upcoming refueling outage scheduled to

commence in October, 2000. The lower

temperature for the tests can reduce

refueling outage critical path time by

reducing or eliminating the heatup time

to achieve required test conditions.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The Commission has evaluated the

proposed action and concludes that the

exemptions and associated license

amendment described above would

provide an adequate margin of safety

against brittle failure of the CPS reactor

vessel. The lower temperature, is also

safer for test inspectors due to lower

ambient drywell temperature and could

result in lower radiological dose due to

increased inspection effectiveness at the

lower temperature.

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 off site,

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 impacts, the proposed

action does not involve any historic

sites. It does not affect non-radiological

plant effluents and has no other

environmental impact. Therefore, there

are no significant non-radiological

environmental impacts associated with

the proposed action.

Accordingly, the NRC 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 Clinton Power Station.

Agencies and Persons Consulted:

In accordance with its stated policy,

on September 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 NRC concludes that the

proposed action will not have a

significant effect on the quality of the

human environment. Accordingly, the

NRC 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

letters dated August 25 and September

21, 2000. 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.

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 10th day

of October 2000.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Jon B. Hopkins,

Senior Project Manager, Section 2 Project

Directorate III, Division of Licensing Project

Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 00–26473 Filed 10–13–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P