33718 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 122 / Monday, June 25, 2001 / Notices

is physically unrealistic and overly

conservative, because the length of the

flaw is 1.5 times the vessel wall, which

is much longer than the width of the

circumferential weld. Industry

experience with the repair of weld

indications found during preservice

inspection, inservice nondestructive

examinations, and data taken from

destructive examination of actual vessel

welds confirms that any remaining

defects are small, laminar in nature, and

do not cross transverse to the weld bead.

Therefore, any postulated defects

introduced during the fabrication

process, and not detected during

subsequent nondestructive

examinations, would only be expected

to be oriented in the direction of weld

fabrication. ASME Code Case N–588

also provides appropriate procedures for

determining the stress intensity factors

for use in developing RPV P–T limits

per ASME Code, Section XI, Appendix

G, procedures. The procedures allowed

by ASME Code Case N–588 are

conservative and provide a margin of

safety in the development of RPV P–T

operating and pressure test limits that

will prevent nonductile fracture of the

vessel.

Code Case N–640, ‘‘Alternative

Reference Fracture Toughness for

Development of P–T Limit Curves for

ASME Section XI, Division 1,’’ amends

the provisions of ASME Section XI,

Appendix G, by permitting the use of

the Klc equation as found in Appendix

A in ASME Section XI, in lieu of the Kla

equation as found in Appendix G in

ASME Section XI. Use of the Klc

equation in determining the lower

bound fracture toughness in the

development of the P–T operating limits

curve is more technically correct than

the use of the Kla equation since the rate

of loading during a heatup or cooldown

is slow and is more representative of a

static condition than a dynamic

condition. Use of Kla was justified by the

initial conservatism of the Kla equation

since 1974 when the equation was

codified. This initial conservatism was

necessary due to the limited knowledge

of RPV materials. Since 1974, additional

knowledge has been gained about RPV

materials, which demonstrates that the

lower bound on fracture toughness

provided by the Kla equation is well

beyond the margin of safety required to

protect the public health and safety

from potential RPV failure. The lower

bound Klc fracture toughness provides

an adequate margin of safety to protect

the public health and safety from

potential RPV failure.

The staff has determined that,

pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), the

underlying purpose of the regulation to

protect the integrity of the reactor

coolant pressure boundary will continue

to be served with the implementation of

Code Cases N–588 and N–640.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The NRC has completed its evaluation

of the proposed action and concludes

that the exemption and implementation

of the proposed alternatives as

described above are consistent with the

intent of the applicable regulations and

would provide an acceptable margin of

safety against brittle failure of the HCGS

RPV. Therefore, the proposed action

will not have a significant impact on the

environment.

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 impacts.

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 for the HCGS.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on June 7, 2001, the staff consulted with

the New Jersey State official, Mr. Dennis

Zannoni, of the New Jersey 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 December 1, 2000, as

supplemented by letters dated February

12, May 7, and May 14, 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 B. Ennis,

Project Manager, Section 2, Project

Directorate I, Division of Licensing Project

Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 01–15816 Filed 6–22–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Public Comment on Inspections, Tests,

Analyses and Acceptance Criteria

(ITAAC)

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) staff is seeking

public comment on ITAAC that are

required for issuance of combined

licenses (COLs) for nuclear power

facilities under Title 10 of the Code of

Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 52,

Subpart C. Subpart C of 10 CFR Part 52

sets forth a process for issuing combined

licenses (COLs) for nuclear power

facilities. A COL authorizes

construction and conditional operation

of a nuclear power facility. 10 CFR

Section 52.79(c) requires that the COL

application include ITAAC that are

necessary and sufficient to demonstrate

that the facility has been constructed

and will operate in conformity with the

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 122 / Monday, June 25, 2001 / Notices 33719

COL, the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,

and the Commission’s regulations. 10

CFR 52.103(g) requires that the

Commission find that the acceptance

criteria in the ITAAC have been met

before a facility can be authorized to

operate. The staff is seeking public

comment on whether or not COL

applications should contain ITAAC on

operational programs such as security,

training, and emergency planning

(programmatic ITAAC).

In SECY–00–0092, ‘‘Combined

License Review Process’’ dated April 20,

2000, the staff provided a basis for its

stated position that ‘‘programmatic’’

ITAAC are necessary to meet the

requirements of 10 CFR Part 52 and the

Atomic Energy Act of 1954. In the staff

requirements memorandum (SRM) on

SECY–00–0092 dated September 6,

2000, the Commission provided

guidance to the staff in this area and

stated that ‘‘in connection with the Part

52 rulemaking, the staff should

specifically seek comment on and

continue to work with stakeholders on

the need for and scope of the ITAAC for

programmatic areas.’’ In accordance

with the Commission direction, the NRC

staff is seeking comments on the need

for and scope of ITAAC for

programmatic areas. Comments received

will be evaluated by the staff.

In a letter dated May 14, 2001, to

Chairman Meserve the Nuclear Energy

Institute (NEI) provided its position that

COL applications should not contain

ITAAC on operational programs. NEI’s

letter contains a paper that summarizes

its position. NEI requests an ‘‘early

resolution of this issue to allow

licensees, the NRC, and other

stakeholders to be clear on how key Part

52 requirements on the scope of COL

ITAAC are to be met.’’

The documents discussed above (i.e.,

SECY–00–0092, the SRM on SECY–00–

0092, and the May 14, 2001, letter from

NEI) are available in NRC’s Public

Document Room. 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. These documents are also

accessible electronically from the

ADAMS Public Library component on

the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov

(the Electronic Reading Room).

Questions and comments should be

directed to Joseph M. Sebrosky, Mail

Stop O–11 F1, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555–

001, E-mail:jms3@nrc.gov or by

telephone at 301–415–1132. Comments

should be submitted within 45 days of

the publication of this notice.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 19th day

of June 2001.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Richard J. Barrett,

Acting Director, Future Licensing

Organization, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 01–15817 Filed 6–22–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL

MANAGEMENT

Proposed Collection; Comment

Request for Review of an Existing

Information Collection: Court Orders

Affecting Retirement Benefits

AGENCY: Office of Personnel

Management.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(Public Law 104–13, May 22, 1995), this

notice announces that the Office of

Personnel Management (OPM) intends

to submit to the Office of Management

and Budget a request for review of an

existing information collection. The

regulations describe how former

spouses give us written notice of a court

order requiring us to pay benefits to the

former spouse. Specific information is

needed before OPM can make courtordered benefit payments.

Approximately 19,000 former spouses

apply for benefits based on court orders

annually. We estimate it takes

approximately 30 minutes to collect the

information. The annual burden is 9,500

hours.

Comments are particularly invited on:

—Whether this collection of information

is necessary for the proper

performance of functions of OPM, and

whether it will have practical utility;

—Whether our estimate of the public

burden of this collection is accurate,

and based on valid assumptions and

methodology; and

—Ways in which we can minimize the

burden of the collection of

information on those who are to

respond, through use of the

appropriate technological collection

techniques or other forms of

information technology.

For copies of this proposal, contact

Mary Beth Smith-Toomey on (202) 606–

8358, or E-mail to mbtoomey@opm.gov.

DATES: Comments on this proposal

should be received within 60 calendar

days from the date of this publication.

ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments

to—Ronald W. Melton, Chief,

Operations Support Division,

Retirement and Insurance Service, U.S.

Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E

Street, NW., Room 3349A, Washington,

DC 20415–3450.

FOR INFORMATION REGARDING

ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATION—CONTACT:

Donna G. Lease, Team Leader, Forms

Analysis and Design, Budget and

Administrative Services Division, (202)

606–0623.

U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Steven R. Cohen,

Acting Director.

[FR Doc. 01–15828 Filed 6–22–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6325–50–P

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL

MANAGEMENT

Proposed Collection; Comment

Request for Review of a Revised

Information Collection: Information

and Instructions on Your

Reconsideration Rights, RI 38–47

AGENCY: Office of Personnel

Management.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(Public Law 104–13, May 22, 1995), this

notice announces that the Office of

Personnel Management (OPM) intends

to submit to the Office of Management

and Budget a request for review of a

revised information collection.

Information and Instructions on Your

Reconsideration Rights, RI 38–47,

outlines the procedures required to

request reconsideration of an initial

OPM decision about Civil Service or

Federal Employees retirement, Retired

Federal or Federal Employee Health

Benefits requests to enroll or change

enrollment, or Federal Employees’

Group Life Insurance coverage. The

form lists the procedures and time

periods required for requesting

reconsideration.

Comments are particularly invited on:

—Whether this collection of information

is necessary for the proper

performance of functions of OPM, and

whether it will have practical utility;

—Whether our estimate of the public

burden of this collection is accurate,

and based on valid assumptions and

methodology; and

—Ways in which we can minimize the

burden of the collection of

information on those who are to

respond, through the use of the

appropriate technological collection

techniques or other forms of

information technology.