23052 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 88 / Monday, May 7, 2001 / Notices

special circumstances are present since

application of the regulation in the

particular circumstances is not

necessary to achieve the underlying

purpose of the rule. The foregoing

exemption only modifies the

methodology to be used by the licensee

for demonstrating compliance with the

requirements of Appendix G to 10 CFR

Part 50, and does not exempt the

licensee from meeting any other

requirement of Appendix G to 10 CFR

Part 50.

The underlying purpose of 10 CFR

50.61 is to establish requirements which

ensure that a licensee’s RPV will be

protected from failure during a PTS

event by evaluating the fracture

toughness of RPV materials.

The licensee seeks an exemption to 10

CFR 50.61 requirement to use a

methodology for the ‘‘determination of

adjusted/indexing reference

temperatures.’’ The licensee proposes to

use ASME Code Case N–629 and the

methodology outlined in its submittal,

which are based on the use of fracture

toughness data, as an alternative to the

Charpy V-notch and drop weight-based

methodology required by 10 CFR 50.61

for establishing the PTS RTPTS. The NRC

staff has concluded that the exemption

is justified based on the licensee

utilizing the methodology specified in

Appendix A of the NRC staff SE, dated

May 1, 2001. The use of the

methodology specified in Appendix A

of the NRC staff SE will ensure the PTS

evaluation developed for the KNPP RPV

will continue to be based on an

adequately conservative estimate of RPV

material properties and ensure the RPV

will be protected from failure during a

PTS event. Also, when additional

fracture toughness data relevant to the

evaluation of the KNPP RPV

circumferential weld is acquired as part

of the KNPP surveillance program, this

data must be incorporated into the

evaluation of the KNPP RPV using the

methodology of Appendix A of the NRC

staff SE. With these conditions, which

were as agreed to by licensee letter,

dated March 12, 2001, the licensee’s

requested exemption from the use of the

Charpy V-notch and drop weight-based

methodology required by 10 CFR 50.61

may be granted in accordance with 10

CFR 50.12(ii) in that special

circumstances are present since

application of the regulation in the

particular circumstances is not

necessary to achieve the underlying

purpose of the rule. The foregoing

exemption only modifies the

methodology to be used by the licensee

for demonstrating compliance with the

requirements of 10 CFR 50.61, and does

not exempt the licensee from meeting

any other requirement of 10 CFR 50.61.

Appendix H to 10 CFR Part 50

requires that, ‘‘[f]or each capsule

withdrawal, the test procedures and

reporting requirements must meet the

requirements of ASTM E 185–82 [the

1982 edition] to the extent practicable

for the configuration of the specimens in

the capsule.’’ ASTM Standard Practice E

185–82 requires Charpy V-notch impact

testing, but does not address the testing

of surveillance specimens for direct

measurement of fracture toughness,

either as a requirement or as an optional

action. The exemption would permit the

licensee to utilize alternative

surveillance program testing

requirements and permit the acquisition

of fracture toughness data for the

surveillance weld as the basis for the

KNPP RPV surveillance program.

The underlying purpose of Appendix

H to 10 CFR Part 50 is to acquire data

to, ‘‘* * * monitor changes in the

fracture toughness properties of ferritic

materials in the reactor vessel beltline

region of light water nuclear power

reactors which result from exposure of

these materials to neutron irradiation

and the thermal environment.’’ As

discussed in the NRC staff SE, dated

May 1, 2001, the licensee’s alternate

surveillance program requirements and

the acquisition of data will adequately

monitor the change in RPV fracture

toughness and provide input to the

approved fracture toughness-based

methodology for RPV integrity.

Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that

this exemption may be granted because

the special circumstances required by

10 CFR 50.12(a)(ii) are present in that

application of the regulation [i.e., the

Charpy V-Notch-based testing practices

specified by Appendix H to 10 CFR Part

50] in the particular circumstances is

not necessary to achieve the underlying

purpose of the rule.

4.0 Conclusion

Accordingly, the Commission has

determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR

50.12(a), the exemptions are authorized

by law, will not endanger life or

property or common defense and

security, and is, otherwise, in the public

interest. Therefore, the Commission

hereby grants Nuclear Management

Company, LLC, exemptions from

portions of the requirements of

Appendix G to 10 CFR Part 50; 10 CFR

50.61; and, Appendix H to 10 CFR Part

50, to allow an alternative methodology

that is based on using of fracture

toughness test data for evaluating the

integrity of the KNPP RPV

circumferential beltline weld with the

following conditions:

(1) The licensee must utilize the

methodology specified in Appendix A

of the NRC staff SE, dated May 1, 2001;

(2) When additional fracture

toughness data relevant to the

evaluation of the KNPP RPV

circumferential weld is acquired as part

of the KNPP surveillance program, this

data must be incorporated into the

evaluation of the KNPP RPV using the

methodology of Appendix A of the NRC

staff SE; and

(3) The licensee must obtain the

following regarding the next

surveillance capsule: (a) a valid

measurement of the fracture toughnessbased T0 parameter for the KNPP RPV

surveillance weld, (b) an estimate of the

Charpy V-notch 30 ft-lb transition

temperature shift for the surveillance

weld, and (c) an estimate of the upper

shelf energy drop for the surveillance

weld.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, an

environmental assessment and finding

of no significant impact has been

prepared and published in the Federal

Register (66 FR 21787). Accordingly,

based upon the environmental

assessment, the Commission has

determined that the granting of this

exemption will not result in any

significant effect on the quality of the

human environment.

This exemption is effective upon

issuance.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day

of May 2001.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

John A. Zwolinski,

Director, Division of Licensing Project

Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 01–11388 Filed 5–4–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Docket No. 72–5

Nuclear Management Corporation;

Issuance of Environmental

Assessment and Finding of No

Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC or the Commission)

is considering issuance of an exemption,

pursuant to 10 CFR 72.7, from the

provisions of 10 CFR 72.48 to Nuclear

Management Corporation (NMC). The

requested exemption would allow NMC

to implement the amended 10 CFR

72.48 requirements on September 7,

2001, for the Independent Spent Fuel

Storage Installation (ISFSI) at the Point

Beach Nuclear Plant (PBNP) in

Manitowoc County, Wisconsin.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 88 / Monday, May 7, 2001 / Notices 23053

Environmental Assessment (EA)

Identification of Proposed Action: By

letter dated March 20, 2001, as

supplemented April 6, 2001, NMC

requested a scheduler exemption from

the implementation date of April 5,

2001, for the revised 10 CFR 72.48.

NMC plans to implement its revised 10

CFR 50.59 and 10 CFR 72.48 programs

simultaneously. The planned date for

implementing the revised 10 CFR 50.59

requirements is September 7, 2001.

Need for Proposed Action: The

applicant wants the implementation

date of 10 CFR 50.59 and 10 CFR 72.48

to coincide. The applicant stated in the

March 20, 2001, submittal that

administering separate programs to

satisfy the current 10 CFR 72.48

schedule could become burdensome

and create confusion.

Environmental Impacts of the

Proposed Action: There are no

significant environmental impacts

associated with the proposed action.

The new revision of 10 CFR 72.48 is

considered less restrictive than the

current requirements, with the

exception of the additional reporting

requirements. Continued

implementation of the existing 10 CFR

72.48 until September 7, 2001, is

acceptable to the NRC as stated in

Regulatory Issues Summary 2001–03

which states that it is the NRC’s view

that both the old rule and the new rule

provide an acceptable level of safety.

Extending the current requirements

until September 7, 2001, has no

significant impact on the environment.

Alternative to the Proposed Action:

Since there are no environmental

impacts associated with the proposed

action, alternatives are not evaluated

other than the no-action alternative. The

alternative to the proposed action would

be to deny approval of the scheduler

exemption and, therefore, not allow

NMC to implement the revised 10 CFR

72.48 requirements on the desired date,

September 7, 2001. However, the

environmental impacts of the proposed

action and the alternative would be the

same.

Agencies and Persons Consulted: On

April 10, 2001, Wisconsin state official,

Mr. Jeff Kitsembel, Nuclear Engineer,

Public Service Commission of

Wisconsin, was contacted regarding the

environmental assessment for the

proposed action and had no comment.

Finding of No Significant Impact

The environmental impacts of the

proposed action have been reviewed in

accordance with the requirements set

forth in 10 CFR Part 51. Based upon the

foregoing EA, the Commission finds that

the proposed action of granting an

exemption from 10 CFR 72.48, so that

NMC may implement the amended

requirements on September 7, 2001, will

not significantly impact the quality of

human environment. Accordingly, the

Commission has determined that an

environmental impact statement for the

proposed action is not necessary.

The request for exemption was

docketed under 10 CFR Part 72, Docket

72–5. For further details with respect to

this action, see the exemption request

dated March 20, 2001, as supplemented

April 6, 2001, which is available for

public inspection at the Commission’s

Public Document Room, One White

Flint North Building, 11555 Rockville

Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, or

from the publicly available records

component of NRC’s agencywide

documents access and management

system (ADAMS).

ADAMS is accessible from the NRC

web site at http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/

ADAMS/index.html (the Public

Electronic Reading Room).

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day

of April 2001.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

E. William Brach,

Director, Spent Fuel Project Office, Office of

Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.

[FR Doc. 01–11386 Filed 5–4–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

DATES: Weeks of May 7, 14, 21, 28, June

4, 11, 2001.

PLACE: Commissioiners’ Conference

Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,

Maryland.

STATUS: Public and Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

Week of May 7, 2001

Thursday, May 10, 2001

10:25 a.m.

Affirmation Session (Public Meeting)

(Tentative)

a: Northeast Nuclear Energy Company

(Millstone Nuclear Power Station,

Unit No. 3; Facility Operating

License NPF–49) Partial Review of

LBP–00–26 (10/26/00), as directed

by CLI–01–03 (1/17/01) Regarding

Interpretation of GDC 62,

Prevention of Criticality in Fuel

Storage & Handling

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)

Week of June 4, 2001—Tentative

Tuesday, June 5, 2001

9:25 a.m.

Affirmation Session (Public Meeting)

(If needed)

2 p.m.

Discussion of Management Issues

(Closed-Ex. 2)

Wednesday, June 6, 2001

10:30 a.m.

All Employees Meeting (Public

Meeting)

1:30 p.m.

All Employees Meeting (Public

Meeting)

Week of June 11, 2001—Tentative

Thursday, June 14, 2001

9:25 a.m.

Affirmation Session (Public Meeting)

(If needed)

9:30 a.m.

Meeting with Nuclear Waste

Technical Review Board (Public

Meeting)

1:30 p.m.

Briefing on License Renewal Program

(Public Meeting) (Contact: David

Solorio, 301–415–1973)

*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

This notice is distributed by mail to

several hundred subscribers; if you no

longer wish to receive it, or would like

to be added to the distribution, please