20692 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 79 / Tuesday, April 24, 2001 / Notices

As required by 10 CFR 2.714, a

petition for leave to intervene shall set

forth with particularity the interest of

the petitioner in the proceeding, and

how that interest may be affected by the

results of the proceeding. The petition

should specifically explain the reasons

why intervention should be permitted

with particular reference to the

following factors: (1) the nature of the

petitioner’s right under the Act to be

made a party to the proceeding; (2) the

nature and extent of the petitioner’s

property, financial, or other interest in

the proceeding; and (3) the possible

effect of any order which may be

entered in the proceeding on the

petitioner’s interest. The petition should

also identify the specific aspect(s) of the

subject matter of the proceeding as to

which petitioner wishes to intervene.

Any person who has filed a petition for

leave to intervene or who has been

admitted as a party may amend the

petition without requesting leave of the

Board up to 15 days prior to the first

prehearing conference scheduled in the

proceeding, but such an amended

petition must satisfy the specificity

requirements described above.

Not later than 15 days prior to the first

prehearing conference scheduled in the

proceeding, a petitioner shall file a

supplement to the petition to intervene

which must include a list of the

contentions which are sought to be

litigated in the matter. Each contention

must consist of a specific statement of

the issue of law or fact to be raised or

controverted. In addition, the petitioner

shall provide a brief explanation of the

bases of the contention and a concise

statement of the alleged facts or expert

opinion which support the contention

and on which the petitioner intends to

rely in proving the contention at the

hearing. The petitioner must also

provide references to those specific

sources and documents of which the

petitioner is aware and on which the

petitioner intends to rely to establish

those facts or expert opinion. Petitioner

must provide sufficient information to

show that a genuine dispute exists with

the applicant on a material issue of law

or fact. Contentions shall be limited to

matters within the scope of the

amendments under consideration. The

contention must be one which, if

proven, would entitle the petitioner to

relief. A petitioner who fails to file such

a supplement which satisfies these

requirements with respect to at least one

contention will not be permitted to

participate as a party.

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.

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 Bryan A. Snapp,

Esquire, Assoc. General Counsel, PPL

Services Corporation, Inc., 2 North

Ninth St., GENTW3, Allentown, PA

18101–1179, 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).

If a request for a hearing is received,

the Commission’s staff may issue the

amendments after it completes its

technical review and prior to the

completion of any required hearing if it

publishes a further notice for public

comment of its proposed finding of no

significant hazards consideration in

accordance with 10 CFR 50.91 and

50.92.

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application for

amendments dated October 30, 2000,

and supplement dated February 5, 2001,

which are 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 17th day

of April 2001.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Robert G. Schaaf,

Project Manager, Project Manager Section 1,

Project Directorate I, Division of Licensing

Project Management, Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 01–10094 Filed 4–23–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–331]

Nuclear Management Company, LLC;

Duane Arnold Energy Center;

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 part 50,

appendix G, for Facility Operating

License No. DPR–49, issued to Nuclear

Management Company, LLC (NMC, or

the licensee) for operation of the Duane

Arnold Energy Center (DAEC), located

in Linn County, Iowa.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

Title 10 of the Code of Federal

Regulations (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

pressure-temperature 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 October 16, 2000, that

the staff exempt NMC from application

of specific requirements of 10 CFR part

50, appendix G, and substitute use of

ASME Code Case N–640. The license

amendment request is being addressed

as a separate action. 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 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,

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 79 / Tuesday, April 24, 2001 / Notices 20693

an exemption to apply the Code Case

would be required by 10 CFR 50.60(b).

The Need for the Proposed Action

The proposed exemption is needed to

allow the licensee to implement ASME

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

DAEC 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 Case 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

served by the implementation of this

Code Case.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The NRC 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 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 Relating to the Operation of

the Duane Arnold Energy Center,’’ dated

March 1973.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on March 26, 2001, the staff consulted

with the Iowa State official, Mr. D.

McGhee of the Department of Public

Health, 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 letter

dated October 16, 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 17th day

of April 2001.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Carl F. Lyon,

Project Manager, Section 1, Project

Directorate III, Division of Licensing Project

Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 01–10095 Filed 4–23–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting; Notice

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Nuclear

Regulatory Commission.

DATE: Weeks of April 23, 30, May 7, 14,

21, 28, 2001.

PLACE: Commissioners’ Conference

Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,

Maryland.

STATUS: Public and Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

Week of April 23, 2001

Tuesday, April 24, 2001

10:25 a.m. Affirmation Session (Public

Meeting) (If needed)

10:30 a.m. Discussion of

Intragovernmental Issues (ClosedEx. 9)

Week of April 30, 2001—Tentative

There are no meetings scheduled for

the Week of April 30, 2001.

Week of May 7, 2001—Tentative

Thursday, May 10, 2001

10:25 a.m. Affirmation Session (Public

Meeting) (If needed)

10:30 a.m. Briefing on Office of

Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES)

Programs and Performance (Public

Meeting) (Contact: James Johnson,

301–415–6802)

Friday, May 11, 2001

10:30 a.m. Meeting with Advisory

Committee on Reactor Safeguards

(ACRS) (Public Meeting) (Contact:

John Larkins, 301–415–7360)

Week of May 14, 2001—Tentative

There are no meetings scheduled for

the Week of May 14, 2001.

Week of May 21, 2001—Tentative

There are no meetings scheduled for

the Week of May 21, 2001.

Week of May 28, 2001—Tentative

Wednesday, May 30, 2001

10:25 a.m. Affirmation Session (Public

Meeting) (If needed)

* The schedule for Commission meetings is

subject to change on short notice. To verify

the status of meetings call (recording)—301–

415–1292. Contact person for more

information: David Louis Gamberoni (301)

415–1651.

* * * * *

The NRC Commission Meeting

Schedule can be found on the Internet

at: http://www.nrc.gov/SECY/smj/

schedule.htm

* * * * *