Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 2, 2001 / Notices 22019

create an unnecessary burden to plant

operations, and challenge control of

plant evolutions required with OPPS

enabled. Continued operation of North

Anna Units 1 and 2 with P–T curves

developed to satisfy ASME Code,

Section XI, Appendix G, requirements

without the relief provided by ASME

Code Case N–641 would unnecessarily

restrict the P–T operating window,

especially at low temperature

conditions.

Use of the KIc curve in determining

the lower bound fracture toughness of

RPV steels is more technically correct

than use of the KIa curve since the rate

of loading during a heatup or cooldown

is slow and is more representative of a

static condition than a dynamic

condition. The KIc curve appropriately

implements the use of static initiation

fracture toughness behavior to evaluate

the controlled heatup and cooldown

process of a reactor vessel. The staff has

required use of the conservatism of the

KIa curve since 1974, when the curve

was adopted by the ASME Code. This

conservatism was initially necessary

due to the limited knowledge of the

fracture toughness of RPV materials at

that time. Since 1974, additional

knowledge has been gained about RPV

materials, which demonstrates that the

lower bound on fracture toughness

provided by the KIa curve greatly

exceeds the margin of safety required,

and that the KIC curve is sufficiently

conservative, to protect the public

health and safety from potential RPV

failure. Application of ASME Code Case

N–641 will provide results that are

sufficiently conservative to ensure the

integrity of the reactor coolant pressure

boundary while providing P–T curves

that are not overly restrictive.

Implementation of the proposed P–T

curves, as allowed by ASME Code Case

N–641, does not significantly reduce the

margin of safety.

In the associated exemption, the NRC

staff has determined that, pursuant to 10

CFR part 50, section 50.12(a)(2)(ii), the

underlying purpose of the regulation

will continue to be served by the

implementation of ASME Code Case N–

641.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The NRC has completed its evaluation

of the proposed action and concludes

that the proposed action provides

adequate margin of safety against brittle

failure of the reactor coolant pressure

boundary. 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 nonradiological

plant effluents and has no other

environmental impact. Therefore, there

are no significant nonradiological

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 North Anna Power

Station, Units 1 and 2, dated April 1973.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on April 2, 2001, the staff consulted

with the Virginia State official, Mr. J.

Dekrafft of the Radiological Health

Program of the Virginia Department of

Health, regarding the environmental

impact of the proposed action. The State

official had no comments.

Finding of No Signficant 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 June 22, 2000, as supplemented

by letters dated January 4, February 14,

March 13, and March 22, 2001.

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 26th day

of April 2001.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Gordon E. Edison,

Senior Project Manager, Section 1, Project

Directorate II, Division of Licensing Project

Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 01–10965 Filed 5–1–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–482]

Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating

Corporation, Wolf Creek Generating

Station; Notice of Consideration of

Approval of Application Regarding

Proposed Corporate Restructuring of

Kansas City Power & Light Company

and Opportunity for a Hearing

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of an order under

10 CFR 50.80 approving the indirect

transfer of Facility Operating License

No. NPF–42 for Wolf Creek Generating

Station (WCGS) as held by Kansas City

Power & Light Company (KCPL), one of

three joint owners of WCGS, and Wolf

Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation,

the operator of the facility, to a new

holding company for KCPL, to the

extent such indirect transfer would

occur in connection with a proposed

restructuring of KCPL. The facility is

located in Coffey County, Kansas.

According to the February 20, 2001,

application filed by KCPL, which was

supplemented by letters dated February

27, March 5, and March 8, 2001, from

counsel for KCPL, the proposed

restructuring of KCPL encompasses the

formation of a newly formed holding

company as yet unnamed

(‘‘HoldingCo’’). Upon the proposed

restructuring, KCPL will cease to be

publicly-traded and become a whollyowned subsidiary of HoldingCo, but it

will retain ownership of its regulated

electric power generation, transmission,

and distribution assets, including its

interests in WCGS and Wolf Creek

Nuclear Operating Corporation

(WCNOC). No direct transfer of the

license as now held by KCPL and

WCNOC to HoldingCo is being

proposed.

WCNOC would remain as the

managing agent for the joint owner

licensees (KCPL, Kansas Gas and

Electric Company, and Kansas Electric

22020 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 2, 2001 / Notices

Power Cooperative, Inc.) of the facility

and would continue to have exclusive

responsibility for the management,

operation, and maintenance of WCGS as

the non-owner operator licensee. The

application does not propose a change

in the rights, obligations, or interests of

the licensees of WCGS. In addition, no

physical changes to WCGS or

operational changes are being proposed.

Pursuant to 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. The

Commission will approve an

application for the indirect transfer of a

license, if the Commission determines

that the underlying transaction that will

effectuate the indirect transfer will not

affect the qualifications of the holder of

the license, and that the transfer is

otherwise consistent with applicable

provisions of law, regulations, and

orders issued by the Commission

pursuant thereto.

The filing of requests for hearing and

petitions for leave to intervene, and

written comments with regard to the

license transfer application, are

discussed below.

By May 22, 2001, any person whose

interest may be affected by the

Commission’s action on the application

may request a hearing, and, if not the

applicant, may petition for leave to

intervene in a hearing proceeding on the

Commission’s action. Requests for a

hearing and petitions for leave to

intervene should be filed in accordance

with the Commission’s rules of practice

set forth in subpart M, ‘‘Public

Notification, Availability of Documents

and Records, Hearing Requests and

Procedures for Hearings on License

Transfer Applications,’’ of 10 CFR part

2. In particular, such requests and

petitions must comply with the

requirements set forth in 10 CFR 2.1306,

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 KCPL, Robert W.

Warnement, Skadden, Arps, Slate,

Meagher & Flom LLP, 1440 New York

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20005–

2111; the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555 (e-mail address for filings

regarding license transfer cases only:

ogclt@NRC.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

June 1, 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 filed by KCPL dated

February 20, 2001, and the

supplemental letters dated February 27,

March 5, and March 8, 2001, from

counsel for KCPL, 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 26th day

of April 2001.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Jack N. Donohew,

Senior Project Manager, Section 2, Project

Directorate IV and Decommissioning,

Division of Licensing Project Management,

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 01–10966 Filed 5–1–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste

Notice of Meeting

The Advisory Committee on Nuclear

Waste (ACNW) will hold its 126th

meeting on May 15–17, 2001, at 11545

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland,

Room T–2B3.

The entire meeting will be open to

public attendance.

The schedule for this meeting is as

follows:

Tuesday, May 15, 2001

A. 8:30–10:15 a.m.: Opening Statement/

Planning and Procedures (Open)—

The Chairman will open the meeting

with brief opening remarks. The

Committee will then review items

under consideration at this meeting

and consider topics proposed for

future ACNW meetings.

B. 10:30–11:30 a.m. and 1:30–2:30 p.m.:

Key Technical Issues (KTIs)—Vertical

Slice Report (Open)—The Committee

members will present a progress

report on their assigned KTIs.

C. 2:30–3:30 p.m.: Break and

Preparation of Draft ACNW Reports

(Open)—Cognizant ACNW members

will prepare draft reports, as needed,

for consideration by the full

Committee.

D. 3:30–5:30 p.m.: Discussion of

Proposed ACNW Reports (Open)—

The Committee will discuss proposed

ACNW reports on Entombment,

Proposed Revisions to 10 CFR Part 71,

High Level Waste Chemistry and the

Staff Requirements Memorandum

(SRM) on the March 22, 2001, ACNW

Commission briefing.

Wednesday, May 16, 2001

E. 8:30–8:40 a.m.: Opening Remarks by

the ACNW Chairman (Open)—The

ACNW Chairman will make opening

remarks regarding the conduct of the

meeting.

F. 8:40–10:15 a.m.: Overview of

Sequoyah Fuels (Open)—The

Committee will receive an

information briefing from the NRC

staff on the current status of activities

at the Sequoyah Fuels Corporation

Facility.

G. 10:30–12 Noon.: Yucca Mountain

Draft Environmental Impact

Statement (DEIS) (tentative) (Open)—

The Committee will receive an update

from a DOE representative on the

DEIS for the proposed high level

waste repository at Yucca Mountain,

Nevada.

H. 1:00–2 p.m.: Supplemental Draft

Environmental Impact Statement