Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 78 / Friday, April 21, 2000 / Notices 21491

license. This letter is referenced in License

Condition 21 of the NRC license which

requires, in part, that the licensee maintain

the corrective actions for previous

enforcement actions. Corrective actions from

the previous enforcement action issued on

June 14, 1994, regarding security of material,

were documented in a letter dated August 29,

1994, from Caribbean Soil Testing Company,

Inc. which stated, ‘‘we have attached a chain

to the handle of the gauge box and lock it

with the open bed of the pick up truck.’’ The

NRC therefore holds the new owner

responsible for the previous escalated

enforcement actions and associated

corrective action effectiveness. In this case,

as explained in the cover letter forwarding

the Notice, the licensee did not maintain

effective corrective action such as would

have prevented this violation from occurring.

In addition, the licensee stated that the

previous violation of June 14, 1994, was not

associated with a stolen gauge but rather, was

associated with a case padlock. The current

violation need not be a duplicate of the

previous enforcement action, but these two

actions are similar in that both of these

violations involve the licensee’s failure to

control licensed material. The fact that the

prior violation was not identical to this

violation had no bearing upon the amount of

the civil penalty that was assessed.

Regarding the location of the gauge keys,

the inspector observed a gauge in storage

with the gauge key in an envelope inside the

transportation case, and questioned the

licensee about the stolen gauge. The

licensee’s Radiation Safety Officer (RSO)

stated to the inspector that the stolen gauge’s

transportation case also contained its key in

an envelope, and that the practice of

transporting gauges with their keys was not

uncommon. The RSO told the inspector that

the stolen gauge was found with a broken

transport case lock; however, the envelope

which contained the key inside the

transportation case appeared to be

untampered with. This finding was

documented in the October 19, 1999,

inspection report and was neither challenged

nor questioned by Western Soil, Inc. during

the November 9, 1999, predecisional

enforcement conference. In its letters dated

December 20, 1999, and February 16, 2000,

Western Soil, Inc. provided information

contrary to this finding. However, the

reconciliation of this conflicting information

regarding the location of the keys has no

effect on the outcome of the final

enforcement action including the potential

civil penalty. Although the location of the

keys does affect the magnitude of the safety

significance; the severity level of the

violation and associated civil penalty were

based solely on the licensee’s failure to

maintain adequate security over licensed

material which resulted in the gauge being

stolen and in the public domain. Such a

violation is categorized at Severity Level III

in accordance with Supplements IV.C.9 and

VI.C.I of the Enforcement Policy.

NRC Conclusion

For the above reasons, the NRC staff

concludes that the violation occurred as

stated and that mitigation of the civil penalty

is not warranted.

[FR Doc. 00–9967 Filed 4–20–00; 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 amendments to Facility

Operating Licenses Nos. NPF–11 and

NPF–18, issued to Commonwealth

Edison Company (ComEd, the licensee)

for operation of LaSalle County Station,

Units 1 and 2, located in LaSalle

County, Illinois.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

The proposed action would allow

ComEd to increase the maximum reactor

core power level for facility operation

from 3323 megawatts-thermal (MWt) to

3489 MWt, which is a five percent

increase in rated core power.

The proposed action is in accordance

with ComEd’s application for

amendments dated July 14, 1999, as

supplemented by letters dated January

21, February 15, February 23, March 10,

March 24, March 31, and April 7, 2000.

Need for the Proposed Action

The proposed action is needed to

allow ComEd to increase the electrical

output of each LaSalle unit and, thus,

provide additional electrical power to

service domestic and commercial areas

of the licensee’s grid. Power uprate has

been widely recognized by the industry

as a safe and cost-effective method to

increase generating capacity. The

proposed uprate will provide the

licensee with additional operational

flexibility.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

ComEd has submitted an

environmental evaluation supporting

the proposed extended power uprate

action and provided a summary of its

conclusions concerning both the

radiological and non-radiological

environmental impacts of the proposed

action. Based on its independent

analyses and the evaluation performed

by the licensee, the staff concludes that

the proposed increase in power is not

expected to result in a significant

environmental impact.

Radiological Environmental Assessment

Radwaste Systems

ComEd concluded that the operation

of the radwaste systems that process

radioactive effluents at LaSalle would

not be impacted by operation at uprated

power conditions and the slight increase

in effluents discharged would continue

to meet the requirements of 10 CFR part

20, ‘‘Standards for Protection Against

Radiation,’’ and 10 CFR part 50,

appendix I, ‘‘Numerical Guides for

Design Objectives and Limiting

Conditions for Operation to Meet the

Criterion ‘As Low as is Reasonably

Achievable’ for Radioactive Material in

Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power

Reactor Effluents.’’ Therefore, power

uprate does not have an adverse effect

on the processing of radioactive

effluents and there are no significant

environmental effects from radiological

releases.

Dose Consideration

ComEd evaluated the effects of power

uprate on the radiation sources within

the plant and the radiation levels during

normal and post-accident conditions.

For normal operations, the licensee

determined that conservatism in the

analyses and the margins added to

calculated doses and specific shield

thickness are sufficient to accommodate

any increases attributed to the five

percent increase in rated thermal power.

For post-accident conditions, the

resulting radiation levels were

determined to be within current

regulatory limits. In addition, the

licensee determined that there would be

no effect on the plant or habitability or

the control room envelope or the

Technical Support Center. The licensee

evaluated the whole body and thyroid

doses at the exclusion area boundary

that might result from the postulated

design basis loss-of-coolant accident

and determined the doses remain below

established regulatory limits.

Summary

The proposed power uprate will not

significantly increase the probability or

consequences of accidents, will not

involve any new radiological release

pathways, will not result in a significant

increase in occupational or public

radiation exposure, and will not result

in significant additional fuel cycle

environmental impacts. Accordingly,

the Commission concludes that there

are no significant radiological

environmental impacts associated with

the proposed action.

21492 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 78 / Friday, April 21, 2000 / Notices

Non-Radiological Environmental

Assessment

The licensee reviewed the nonradiological environmental impacts of

power uprate based on information

submitted in the Environmental

Report—Operating License Stage to

support original licensing of LaSalle,

Units 1 and 2, the Final Environmental

Protection Statement (NUREG–0486),

the requirements of the Environmental

Protection Plan and the National

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES) Permit. The proposed power

uprate will not affect compliance with

NPDES requirements.

As a result of power uprate to 105

percent of current licensed core power,

normal heat loads to the cooling lake

will increase primarily from an increase

in heat load from the condenser and

from other increased heat loads rejected

by the plant service water system. An

increase in steam and condensate flow

will result in a corresponding increase

in the net heat rejection to the cooling

lake. Based on a condenser backpressure

of 3.5 inches Hga, a 1 degree Fahrenheit

rise in circulating water temperature is

expected relative to the current

temperature rise value of approximately

24 degrees Fahrenheit. This, in turn,

will raise cooling lake temperature,

thus, increasing circulating water inlet

temperature to the condenser. The lake

is expected to experience a 0.4 degree

increase in temperature on a long-term

basis. Based on this minimal

temperature rise, thermal shock to the

fish population of the lake is not

expected. The effect on lake

evaporation, makeup, and blowdown

was evaluated and found to be

acceptable. The effect on cooling lake

total dissolved solids was determined to

remain within the licensee’s

administrative limit of 750 ppm.

The LaSalle cooling lake discharges

into the Illinois River. ComEd evaluated

the effects of power uprate on the

temperature of the water in the river in

the vicinity of the cooling lake

blowdown and concluded that

significant margin exists between the

maximum expected edge of mixing zone

temperature and imposed regulatory

limits.

ComEd also evaluated the noise

effects due to operation at uprated

power and determined that, because the

turbine and reactor building supply and

exhaust fans will continue to operate at

current speeds and noise levels at

uprated conditions, the overall noise

level will not increase.

With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed

action does not change the method of

generating electricity at LaSalle, Units 1

and 2, nor the methods of handling

effluents from the environment or

effluents to the environment. No

changes to land use would result and

the proposed action does not involve

any historic sites. Therefore, no new or

different types of non-radiological

environmental impacts are expected.

Accordingly, the Commission concludes

that there are no significant nonradiological 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 significant change in

current environmental impacts and

would reduce the operational flexibility.

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 March 23, 2000, the staff consulted

with the Illinois State official, Mr. Frank

Nizeolik 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

Based upon the environmental

assessment, the Commission 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 July 14, 1999, as supplemented on

January 21, February 15, February 23,

March 10, March 24, March 31, and

April 7, 2000, which are available for

public inspection at the Commission’s

Public Document Room, The Gelman

Building, 2120 L Street, NW.,

Washington, DC, 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 12th day

of April 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. 00–9961 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Advisory Committee on Reactor

Safeguards; Meeting Notice

In accordance with the purposes of

Sections 29 and 182b. of the Atomic

Energy Act (42 U.S.C. 2039, 2232b), the

Advisory Committee on Reactor

Safeguards will hold a meeting on May

11–13, 2000, in Conference Room T–

2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville,

Maryland. The date of this meeting was

previously published in the Federal

Register on Thursday, October 14, 1999

(64 FR 55787).

Thursday, May 11, 2000

8:30 A.M.–8:35 A.M.: Opening

Remarks by the ACRS Chairman

(Open)—The ACRS Chairman will make

opening remarks regarding the conduct

of the meeting.

8:35 A.M.–10 A.M.: Initiatives Related

to Risk-Informed Technical

Specifications (Open)—The Committee

will hear presentations by and hold

discussions with representatives of the

NRC staff and industry groups regarding

initiatives related to risk-informed

technical specifications, initial industry

submittals on risk-informed technical

specifications, and related matters.

10:15 A.M.–11:45 A.M.: Potential

Revisions to the Pressurized Thermal

Shock (PTS) Acceptance Criterion

(Open)—The Committee will hear

presentations by and hold discussions

with representatives of the NRC staff

regarding a draft Commission Paper that

describes potential revisions to the PTS

acceptance criterion.

12:45 P.M.–2:15 P.M.: Proposed

Revision to Regulatory Guide 1.174, ‘‘An

Approach for Using Probabilistic Risk

Assessment in Risk-Informed Decisions

on Plant-Specific Changes to the

Licensing Basis’’ (Open)—The

Committee will hear presentations by

and hold discussions with

representatives of the NRC staff

regarding proposed revisions to

Regulatory Guide 1.174 and associated

guidance on the use of risk information

in license amendment reviews.

2:30 P.M.–4:00 P.M.: Proposed

Regulatory Guide and Standard Review

Plan (SRP) Section Associated with NRC

Code Reviews (Open)—The Committee