75736 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 233 / Monday, December 4, 2000 / Notices

and should address the considerations

contained in 10 CFR 2.1308(a).

Untimely requests and petitions may be

denied, as provided in 10 CFR

2.1308(b), unless good cause for failure

to file on time is established. In

addition, an untimely request or

petition should address the factors that

the Commission will also consider, in

reviewing untimely requests or

petitions, set forth in 10 CFR

2.1308(b)(1)–(2).

Requests for a hearing and petitions

for leave to intervene should be served

upon counsel for FE, Roy P. Lessey,

Esq., Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer, &

Feld, L.L.P., 1333 New Hampshire Ave.,

NW., Suite 400, Washington, DC 20036,

(202) 887–4500, (202) 887–4288 (fax), email: rlessy@akingump.com; and Mary

O’Reilly, Esq., FirstEnergy Corp., 76

South Main Street, Akron, OH 44308,

(330) 384–5224, (330) 384–3875 (fax), email: meoreilly@firstenergycorp.com;

counsel for GPUN, David R. Lewis, Esq.,

Shaw Pittman, 2300 N Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20037–1128, (202) 663–

8474, (202) 663–8007 (fax), e-mail:

david.lewis@shawpittman.com; and

Michael J. Connolly, Esq., Vice

President—Law, GPU Service, Inc., 300

Madison Avenue, Morristown, NJ

07962, (973) 455–8245, (973) 993–4801

(fax), e-mail: mconnolly@gpu.com; the

General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555 (e-mail address for filings

regarding license transfer cases only:

ogclt@nyc.gov; and the Secretary of the

Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001, Attention: Rulemakings and

Adjudications Staff, in accordance with

10 CFR 2.1313.

The Commission will issue a notice or

order granting or denying a hearing

request or intervention petition,

designating the issues for any hearing

that will be held and designating the

Presiding Officer. A notice granting a

hearing will be published in the Federal

Register and served on the parties to the

hearing.

As an alternative to requests for

hearing and petitions to intervene, by

January 3, 2001, persons may submit

written comments regarding the license

transfer application, as provided for in

10 CFR 2.1305. The Commission will

consider and, if appropriate, respond to

these comments, but such comments

will not otherwise constitute part of the

decisional record. Comments should be

submitted to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555–0001, Attention: Rulemakings

and Adjudications Staff, and should cite

the publication date and page number of

this Federal Register notice.

For further details with respect to this

action, see the license transfer

application dated September 26, 2000,

and supplements dated September 27,

November 9, and November 14, 2000,

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 22nd day

of November 2000.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

John L. Minns,

Project Manager, Decommissioning Section,

Project Directorate IV & Decommissioning,

Division of Licensing Project Management,

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 00–30786 Filed 12–1–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–423]

Northeast Nuclear Energy Company, et

al.; Notice of Issuance of Amendment

to Facility Operating License and Final

Determination of No Significant

Hazards Consideration

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (Commission) has issued

Amendment No. 189 to Facility

Operating License No. NPF–49, issued

to Northeast Nuclear Energy Company

(NNECO), which revised the Technical

Specifications (TSs) for operation of the

Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit

No. 3 located in New London,

Connecticut. The amendment was

effective as of the date of its issuance.

The amendment modifies License No.

NPF–49 for the Millstone Nuclear Power

Station, Unit No. 3 (MNPS3) by revising

TSs 1.40, ‘‘Spent Fuel Pool Storage

Pattern’’; 1.41, ‘‘3-OUT-OF-4 AND 4-

OUT-OF-4’’; 3/4.9.1.2, ‘‘Boron

Concentration’’; 3/4.9.7, ‘‘Crane TravelSpent Fuel Storage Areas’’; 3/4.9.13,

‘‘Spent Fuel Pool-Reactivity’’; 3.9.14,

‘‘Spent Fuel Pool-Storage Pattern’’;

5.6.1.1, ‘‘Design Features—Criticality’’;

and 5.6.3, ‘‘Design Features—Capacity.’’

In addition, the amendment revises

INDEX pages xii and xv for new figures

and page numbers and replaces Figures

3.9–1 and 3.9–2 with four new figures

and makes changes to the TS Bases

consistent with changes to their

respective TS sections. These changes

are being made to support the increase

in the capacity of the spent fuel pool at

MNPS3 from 756 assemblies to 1,860

assemblies.

The application for the amendment

complies with the standards and

requirements of the Atomic Energy Act

of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the

Commission’s rules and regulations.

The Commission has made appropriate

findings as required by the Act and the

Commission’s rules and regulations in

10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in

the license amendment.

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of

Amendment and Proposed No

Significant Hazards Consideration

Determination and Opportunity for

Hearing in connection with this action

was published in the Federal Register

on September 7, 1999 (64 FR 48672). A

request for a hearing was filed on

October 6, 1999, by the Connecticut

Coalition Against Millstone (CCAM) and

the Long Island Coalition Against

Millstone (CAM). As a result of the

request, the Atomic Safety and

Licensing Board (ASLB) held hearings

on July 19, 2000. The ASLB, reaching a

conclusion on the contentions brought

before it, issued its Memorandum and

Order on October 26, 2000. Having

reached a conclusion, the ASLB ordered

the hearing terminated. However, the

proceeding continues, since, on

November 13, 2000, CCAM/CAM

petitioned the Commission for review of

the Memorandum and Order.

Under its regulations, the Commission

may issue and make an amendment

immediately effective, notwithstanding

the pendency before it of a request for

a hearing from any person, in advance

of the holding and completion of any

required hearing, where it has

determined that no significant hazards

consideration is involved.

The Commission has applied the

standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has made

a final determination that the

amendment involves no significant

hazards consideration. The basis for this

determination is contained in the Safety

Evaluation related to this amendment.

Accordingly, as described above, the

amendment has been issued and made

immediately effective.

The Commission has determined that

this amendment satisfies the criteria for

categorical exclusion in accordance

with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant

to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental

impact statement or environmental

assessment need be prepared for this

amendment.

For further details with respect to this

action see: (1) The application for an

amendment filed by NNECO dated

March 19, 1999, as supplemented April

17, May 5, June 16, July 26, and

November 21, 2000, (2) Amendment No.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 233 / Monday, December 4, 2000 / Notices 75737

189 to Facility Operating License No.

NPF–49, and (3) the Commission’s

related Safety Evaluation. All of these

items are available for public inspection

at the Commission’s Public Document

Room, One White Flint North, 11555

Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,

MD, 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 28th day

of November 2000.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

James W. Clifford,

Chief, Section 2, Project Directorate I, Division

of Licensing Project Management, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 00–30784 Filed 12–1–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–336 and 50–423]

Northeast Nuclear Energy Company, et

al.; Notice of Issuance of Amendments

to Facility Operating Licenses and

Final Determination of No Significant

Hazards Consideration

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (Commission) has issued

Amendment Nos. 250 and 188 to

Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–65

and NPF–49, issued to Northeast

Nuclear Energy Company (NNECO),

which revised the Technical

Specifications (TSs) for operation of the

Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit

Nos. 2 and 3 located in New London,

Connecticut. The amendment was

effective as of the date of its issuance.

The amendments revise the TSs to

relocate selected procedural details

contained in the radiological effluent

technical specifications (RETS) to the

Radiological Effluent Monitoring and

Offsite Dose Calculation Manual which

is a licensee-controlled document. The

relocation will be done in accordance

with NRC guidance provided in: (1)

Generic Letter 89–01, ‘‘Implementation

of Programmatic Controls for

Radiological Effluent Technical

Specifications in the Administrative

Controls Section of the Technical

Specifications and the Relocation of

Procedural Details of RETS to the Offsite

Dose Calculation Manual or to the

Process Control Program;’’ (2) NUREG–

1431, ‘‘Standard Technical

Specifications Westinghouse Plants;’’

and (3) NUREG–1432, ‘‘Standard

Technical Specifications Combustion

Engineering Plants.’’ In addition, several

administrative changes to the TSs for

Unit 2 are included.

The application for the amendments

complies with the standards and

requirements of the Atomic Energy Act

of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the

Commission’s rules and regulations.

The Commission has made appropriate

findings as required by the Act and the

Commission’s rules and regulations in

10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in

the license amendments.

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of

Amendment and Proposed No

Significant Hazards Consideration

Determination and Opportunity for

Hearing in connection with this action

was published in the Federal Register

on August 9, 2000, (65 FR 48754). A

request for a hearing was filed on

September 8, 2000, by the Connecticut

Coalition Against Millstone and the

STAR (Standing for Truth About

Radiation) Foundation.

Under its regulations, the Commission

may issue and make an amendment

immediately effective, notwithstanding

the pendency before it of a request for

a hearing from any person, in advance

of the holding and completion of any

required hearing, where it has

determined that no significant hazards

consideration is involved.

The Commission has applied the

standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has made

a final determination that the

amendments involve no significant

hazards consideration. The basis for this

determination is contained in the Safety

Evaluation related to this action.

Accordingly, as described above, the

amendments have been issued and

made immediately effective and any

hearing will be held after issuance.

The Commission has determined that

the amendments satisfy the criteria for

categorical exclusion in accordance

with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant

to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental

impact statement or environmental

assessment need be prepared for these

amendments.

For further details with respect to this

action see (1) the application for

amendments dated February 22, 2000,

as supplemented August 28, 2000, (2)

Amendment Nos. 250 and 188 to

Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–65

and NPF–49, and (3) the Commission’s

related Safety Evaluation. All of these

items are available for public inspection

at the Commission’s Public Document

Room, One White Flint North, 11555

Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,

MD, 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 28th day

of November 2000.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

James W. Clifford,

Chief, Section 2, Project Directorate I, Division

of Licensing Project Management, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 00–30788 Filed 12–1–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–445 and 50–446]

TXU Utilities Electric Company, et al.;

Comanche Peak Steam Electric

Station, Units 1 and 2; notice of

Consideration of Issuance of

Amendments to Facility Operating

Licenses, Proposed no Significant

Hazards Consideration Determination,

and Opportunity for a Hearing

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission or NRC)

is considering issuance of amendments

to Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–

87 and NPF–89 issued to TXU Electric

Company, et al. (the licensee), for

operation of the Comanche Peak Steam

Electric Station (CPSES), Units 1 and 2,

respectively. The CPSES facility is

located at the licensee’s site in

Somervell County, Texas.

The proposed amendments would

revise the technical specifications to

reconfigure spent fuel storage in the

spent fuel pool and increase the spent

fuel pool storage capacity from 2,026 to

3,373 fuel assemblies.

Before issuance of the proposed

license amendments, the Commission

will have made findings required by the

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended

(the Act) and the Commission’s

regulations.

The Commission has made a

proposed determination 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

amendments would not (1) involve a

significant increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated, or (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. Do the proposed changes involve a

significant increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated?

Response: No.