33716 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 122 / Monday, June 25, 2001 / Notices

June 19, 2001.

Beth M. McCormick,

Advisory Committee Management Officer,

National Aeronautics and Space

Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–15867 Filed 6–22–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7510–01–P

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND

SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[Notice (01–081)]

NASA Advisory Council (NAC), Space

Science Advisory Committee (SScAC,

Sun-Earth Connection Advisory

Subcommittee

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and

Space Administration.

ACTION: Notice of Meeting.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub.

L. 92–463, as amended, the National

Aeronautics and Space Administration

announces a forthcoming meeting of the

NASA Advisory Council, Space Science

Advisory Committee, Sun-Earth

Connection Advisory Subcommittee.

DATES: Monday, July 23, 2001, 8:30 a.m.

to 6 p.m.; Tuesday, July 24, 2001, 8:30

a.m. to 5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: National Aeronautics and

Space Administration, Conference

Room 6H46, 300 E Street, SW,

Washington, DC, 20546.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

George L. Withbroe, Code S, National

Aeronautics and Space Administration,

Washington, DC 20546, 202/358–2150.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

meeting will be open to the public up

to the capacity of the room. The agenda

for the meeting includes the following

topics:

—State of the Sun-Earth Connection

Theme

—Geospace Management Operations

Working Group

—Living With a Star Science

Architecture Committee

—Solar/Heliospheric Management

Operation Working Group

—Report of Discipline Scientists

It is imperative that the meeting be

held on these dates to accommodate the

scheduling priorities of the key

participants. Visitors will be requested

to sign a visitor’s register.

Dated: June 19, 2001.

Beth M. McCormick,

Advisory Committee Management Officer,

National Aeronautics and Space

Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–15868 Filed 6–22–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7510–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–387 and 50–388]

PPL Susquehanna, LLC; Susquehanna

Steam Electric Station Environmental

Assessment and Finding of No

Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) is considering

issuance of amendments to Facility

Operating License (FOL) Nos. NPF–14,

and NPF–22, issued to PPL

Susquehanna, LLC (the licensee), for

operation of the Susquehanna Steam

Electric Station (SSES), Units 1 and 2,

located in Luzerne County,

Pennsylvania.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

The proposed license amendment

would revise the FOLs and Technical

Specifications (TS) of SSES, Units 1 and

2, to allow the licensee to increase the

licensed core power level from 3441

MWt to 3489 MWt, which represents a

1.4 percent increase in the allowable

thermal power. SSES Unit 1 was granted

conditional authorization for power

production by its FOL issued on July 17,

1982. Full power operation of Unit 1 at

3,293 MWt core power was authorized

by Amendment No. 5 to the FOL, issued

on November 12, 1982. Amendment No.

143 to the FOL, issued on March 22,

1995, authorized a power uprate for

Unit 1 to 3,441 MWt. SSES Unit 2 was

granted conditional authorization for

power production by its FOL issued on

March 23, 1984. Full power operation of

Unit 2 at 3,293 MWt core power was

authorized by Amendment No. 1 to the

FOL, issued on June 27, 1984.

Amendment No. 103 to the FOL, issued

on April 11, 1994, authorized a power

uprate for Unit 2 to 3,441 MWt.

The proposed action is in accordance

with the licensee’s application for

license amendment dated October 30,

2000, as supplemented by letters dated

February 5, May 22, and May 31, 2001.

The Need for the Proposed Action

The proposed action would allow an

increase in power generation at SSES,

Units 1 and 2, to provide additional

electrical power for distribution to the

grid. Power uprate has been widely

recognized by the industry as a safe and

cost-effective method to increase

generating capacity.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The environmental impact associated

with operation of SSES, Units 1 and 2,

has been previously evaluated by the

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission in the

‘‘Final Environmental Statement Related

to Operation of Susquehanna Steam

Electric Station, Units 1 and 2,’’ dated

June 1981. In this evaluation, the staff

considered the potential doses due to

postulated accidents for the site, at the

site boundary, and to the population

within 50 miles of the site. With regard

to consequences of postulated accidents,

the licensee has reevaluated the current

design basis accidents (DBAs) in its

application for license amendments and

determined that accident source terms

are based on core power levels that

bound the proposed core power level of

3489 MWt. Therefore, the current

analyses bound the potential doses due

to DBAs based on the proposed 1.4

percent increased core power level. No

increase in the probability of these

accidents is expected to occur.

With regard to normal releases, the

licensee has calculated the potential

impact on the radiological effluents

from the proposed 1.4 percent increase

in power level. The licensee concluded

that the offsite doses from normal

effluent releases remain significantly

below the bounding limits of Title 10 of

the Code of Federal Regulations (10

CFR), Part 50, Appendix I. Normal

annual average gaseous releases remain

limited to a small fraction of 10 CFR

Part 20, Appendix B, Table 2 limits. The

licensee evaluated the effects of power

uprate on the radiation sources within

the plant and the radiation levels during

normal operating conditions. Postoperation radiation levels are expected

to increase slightly due to the power

uprate; but are expected to have no

significant effect on the plant.

Occupational doses for normal

operations will be maintained within

acceptable limits by the site ALARA (aslow-as-reasonably-acheivable) program.

Solid and liquid waste production may

increase slightly as a result of the

proposed 1.4 percent uprate; however,

waste processing systems are expected

to operate within their design

requirements.

The NRC has completed its evaluation

of the proposed action and concludes

that the proposed action will not

increase the probability or consequences

of accidents, no changes are being made

in the types of 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 impacts, the proposed

action does not involve any historic

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 122 / Monday, June 25, 2001 / Notices 33717

sites. With regard to thermal discharges

to the Susquehanna River, the staff has

previously evaluated temperature effects

during normal operations at full power

and determined the temperature impact

on the river to be insignificant. The

licensee indicated that an increase in

the cooling tower air flow rate will

compensate for the slight increase in

condenser outlet circulating water

temperature, such that no perceptible

change in the temperature of the cooling

tower basin blowdown to the

Susquehanna River is expected.

Therefore, the temperature effects on the

river will be insignificant. Existing

administrative controls ensure the

conduct of adequate monitoring such

that appropriate actions can be taken to

preclude exceeding the limits imposed

by the National Pollution Discharge

Elimination System permit. No

additional requirements or other

changes are required as a result of the

power uprate. No other non-radiological

impacts are associated with the

proposed action.

Based upon the above, the NRC

concludes that the proposed action does

not affect non-radiological plant

effluents and has no other

environmental impact. Therefore, there

are no significant non-radiological

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 SSES, Units 1 and 2.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on June 19, 2001, the staff consulted

with the Pennsylvania State official, Mr.

Michael Murphy of the Pennsylvania

Department of Environmental

Protection, 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 30, 2000, as

supplemented by letters dated February

5, May 22, and May 31, 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 Agencywide

Documents Access and Management

Systems (ADAMS) Public Electronic

Reading Room on the Internet at the

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

ADAMS/index.html. If you do not have

access to ADAMS or if there are

problems in accessing the documents

located in ADAMS, contact the NRC

Public Document Room (PDR) Reference

staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737

or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day

of June 2001.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Richard P. Correia,

Acting Chief, Section 1, Project Directorate

I, Division of Licensing Project Management,

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 01–15815 Filed 6–22–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–354]

PSEG Nuclear LLC; Hope Creek

Generating Station Environmental

Assesment and Finding of No

Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) is considering

issuance of an exemption from certain

requirements of Title 10 of the Code of

Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50,

Appendix G, for Facility Operating

License No. NPF–57, issued to PSEG

Nuclear LLC, (the licensee) for operation

of the Hope Creek Generating Station

(HCGS), located in Salem County, New

Jersey.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

Title 10 of the Code of Federal

Regulations, 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 pressuretemperature limits and the minimum

permissible temperature must be met for

all conditions.’’ The purpose of 10 CFR

Part 50, Appendix G, is to protect the

integrity of the reactor coolant pressure

boundary in nuclear power plants. This

is accomplished through these

regulations that, in part, specify fracture

toughness requirements for ferritic

materials of the reactor coolant pressure

boundary. 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.

The proposed action would exempt

HCGS from application of specific

requirements of 10 CFR Part 50,

Appendix G, and would substitute use

of ASME Code Cases N–588 and N–640

as alternatives pursuant to 10 CFR

50.60(b).

The proposed action is in accordance

with the licensee’s application for

exemption dated December 1, 2000, as

supplemented by letters dated February

12, May 7, and May 14, 2001.

The Need for the Proposed Action

The proposed action is needed to

allow the licensee to implement ASME

Code Cases N–588 and N–640 in order

to revise the method used to determine

the P–T limits.

Code Case N–588, ‘‘Alternative to

Reference Flaw Orientation of Appendix

G for Circumferential Welds in Reactor

Vessels, Section XI, Division 1,’’ amends

the provisions of the 1989 Edition of

ASME Section XI, Appendix G, by

permitting the postulation of a

circumferentially oriented reference

flaw as the limiting flaw in a RPV

circumferential weld for the purpose of

establishing RPV P–T limits. The 1989

Edition of ASME Section XI, Appendix

G, would require that such a reference

flaw be postulated as an axially oriented

flaw in the circumferential weld. The

licensee addressed the technical

justification for this exemption by citing

industry experience and aspects of RPV

fabrication which support the

postulation of circumferentially

oriented flaws for these welds. The

reference flaw is a postulated flaw that

accounts for the possibility of a prior

existing defect that may have gone

undetected during the fabrication

process. Postulating the Appendix G

reference flaw in a circumferential weld