Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 245 / Thursday, December 20, 2001 / Notices 65751

balancing of the factors specified in 10

CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i)–(v) and 2.714(d).

Further details with respect to this

action, see the application for

amendment dated September 19, 2001,

which is available for public inspection

at the Commission’s Public Document

Room, located at One White Flint North,

11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),

Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available

records will be accessible 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.

Persons who do not have access to

ADAMS or who encounter problems in

accessing the documents located in

ADAMS, should contact the NRC Public

Document Room Reference staff by

telephone at 1–800–397–4209, 301–

415–4737 or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 13th day

of December 2001.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Helen N. Pastis,

Senior Project Manager, Section 1, Project

Directorate I, Division of Licensing Project

Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 01–31333 Filed 12–19–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 03000001]

Mallinckrodt, Inc.; Notice of

Consideration of Request for

Temporary Exemption

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of consideration of

request for temporary exemption.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (Commission) is

considering the issuance of a temporary

exemption from the requirement to

perform an emergency preparedness

(EP) exercise every 2 years for

Mallinckrodt, Inc. The request for

temporary exemption is necessary

because the licensee had to postpone

the required scheduled EP exercise due

to the terrorist attacks on the United

States, lack of availability of State and

local agencies, and the current

heightened alert status of the plant.

Mallinckrodt expects to conduct the EP

exercise by July 30, 2002. The NRC has

prepared an environmental assessment

with a finding of no significant impact

on the request.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kevin G. Null, Senior Health Physicist,

Nuclear Materials Licensing Branch,

Division of Nuclear Materials Safety,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Region III, Lisle, Illinois. Telephone:

(630) 829–9854, e-mail kgn@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Commission is considering the issuance

of a temporary exemption from the

requirement to perform an emergency

preparedness exercise every 2 years,

pursuant to 10 CFR part 30, for

Mallinckrodt, Inc., located in Maryland

Heights, Missouri. The facility is

authorized to use byproduct material for

research and development,

manufacturing, processing, and

packaging of radiopharmaceuticals and/

or radiochemicals.

Mallinckrodt was scheduled to

conduct an EP exercise on September

11, 2001. This exercise was postponed

because of the terrorist attacks on the

United States that occurred on

September 11. Because of the ongoing

high alert status of the plant and the

need to coordinate with several offsite

agencies and groups, the exercise will

not be performed this calendar year.

Mallinckrodt expects to conduct the

exercise no later than July 30, 2002.

The last EP exercise conducted at the

Mallinckrodt facility was held on

September 9, 1999. Mallinckrodt’s

Emergency Plan, in accordance with 10

CFR 30.32(i)(3)(xii), requires that plant

personnel plan and conduct biennial EP

exercises. Because the next exercise will

not be conducted during calendar year

2001, the licensee has requested a

temporary exemption from the

requirement to conduct biennial EP

exercises. The NRC staff has prepared

an environmental assessment of the

proposed action and reached a finding

of no significant impact.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

The proposed action would grant

temporary relief from the requirement

pursuant to 10 CFR 30.32(i)(3)(xii) to

perform a biennial EP exercise during

calendar year 2001. The proposed action

would allow Mallinckrodt to conduct

their 2001 biennial exercise as late as

July 30, 2002. The proposed action is in

accordance with Mallinckrodt’s request

for exemption dated November 26,

2001.

Need for the Proposed Action

Due to the heightened state of security

alert that the plant is under and the

unavailability of State and local

agencies to participate, Mallinckrodt has

determined that it would not be prudent

to hold the 2001 biennial EP exercise

during calendar year 2001. Allowing the

delay would avoid overlap with the

current state of high alert and allow

fuller participation by other agencies

and groups.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The proposed action would not

materially affect the emergency

response capabilities of the

Mallinckrodt facility. The last exercise

was conducted on September 9, 1999.

Direct observation of the exercise by

NRC inspectors noted deficiencies that

did not require immediate corrective

action. On November 17, 1999,

Mallinckrodt identified an inadvertent

release of xenon-133, declared an alert

and implemented their Emergency Plan

(EP). NRC conducted a special

inspection to review the circumstances

of the event and the effectiveness of

Malinckrodt’s implementation of their

EP. With the exception of 1 violation

that was identified, NRC review of real

time activation of the EP indicated that

Mallinckrodt has addressed the issues

identified during the September 9, 1999

exercise. In addition, NRC license

reviews and inspections conducted

since November 17, 1999, have not

identified a decline in the effectiveness

of Mallinckrodt’s emergency response

capability. The postponement should

have no impact on the effectiveness of

Mallinckrodt’s emergency response

capability. The proposed action will not

increase the probability or consequences

of accidents; no changes are being made

in the amounts or types of any effluents

that could be released offsite, and there

is no increase in individual or

cumulative radiation exposure.

Accordingly, the Commission concludes

that there are no significant radiological

impacts associated with the proposed

action.

With regard to potential

nonradiological impacts, the proposed

action does not affect nonradiological

plant effluents and has no other

environmental impact. Accordingly, the

Commission concludes that there are no

significant nonradiological impacts

associated with the proposed action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

Since the Commission has concluded

that there is no discernible

environmental impact associated with

the proposed action, any alternatives

with equal or lesser impact need not be

evaluated. As an alternative to the

proposed action, the staff considered

denial of the proposed action. Denial of

the proposed action would result in no

change in environmental impacts but

would result in hardship to

Mallinckrodt, and perhaps other

65752 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 245 / Thursday, December 20, 2001 / Notices

participants. The environmental

impacts of the proposed action and the

alternative action are similar.

Alternative Use of Resources

The proposed action does not involve

the use of any resources beyond those

already necessary to conduct the EP

exercise during 2001, and would merely

delay the exercise.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

the NRC staff consulted with the

following officials regarding the

environmental impact of the proposed

action: William Brandes, Chair, Local

Emergency Planning Committee, St.

Louis, Missouri; Nick Granani, Deputy

Director, Office of Emergency

Management, Chesterfield, Missouri;

Keith Henke, State Emergency

Management Agency, Jefferson City,

Missouri; Charles Hooper, Missouri

Department of Health, Jefferson City,

Missouri; and Tom Lange, Sr. Planner,

Office of the Director, Missouri

Department of Natural Resources. No

objections were received.

Finding of No Significant Impact

Based on the environmental

assessment, the Commission concludes

that the proposed action will not have

a significant affect on the quality of the

human environment. Accordingly, the

Commission has determined not to

prepare an environmental impact

statement for the proposed action.

List of Preparers

This document was prepared by

Kevin G. Null, Senior Health Physicist,

Nuclear Materials Licensing Branch,

Division of Nuclear Materials Safety,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Region III, Lisle, Illinois. Mr. Null is the

Licensing Project Manager for the

Nuclear Materials License issued to

Mallinckrodt, Inc.

For further details with respect to the

proposed action, see the Mallinckrodt

letter dated November 26, 2001,

available for public inspection at the

Commission’s Public Document Room

at One White Flint North, 11555

Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD, 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 13th day

of December, 2001.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

John W. Hickey,

Chief, Materials Safety and Inspection

Branch, Division of Industrial and Medical

Nuclear Safety, Office of Nuclear Material

Safety and Safeguards.

[FR Doc. 01–31332 Filed 12–19;–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–237 and 50–249]

Exelon Generation Company, LLC,

Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units

2 and 3; Environmental Assessment

and Finding of No Significant Impact

Related to a Proposed License

Amendment to Increase the Maximum

Thermal Power Level

The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) is considering

issuance of an amendment to Facility

Operating Licenses Nos. DPR–19 and

DPR–25, issued to Exelon for the

operation of the Dresden Nuclear Power

Station, Units 2 and 3 (DNPS), located

on the Illinois River in Grundy County,

Illinois. Therefore, as required by 10

CFR 51.21, the NRC is issuing this

environmental assessment and finding

of no significant impact.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

The proposed action would allow

Exelon, the operator of DNPS, to

increase its electrical generating

capacity at DNPS by raising the

maximum reactor core power level from

2527 MWt to 2957 MWt. This change is

approximately 17 percent above the

current licensed maximum power level

for DNPS. The change is considered an

extended power uprate (EPU) because it

would raise the reactor core power level

more than 7 percent above the original

licensed maximum power level. DNPS

has not submitted a previous power

uprate application. A power uprate

increases the heat output of the reactor

to support increased turbine inlet steam

flow requirements and increases the

heat dissipated by the condenser to

support increased turbine exhaust steam

flow requirements.

The proposed action is in accordance

with the licensee’s application for

amendments dated December 27, 2000,

and supplemental information dated

February 12, April 6 and 13, May 3, 18,

and 29, June 5, 7, and 15, July 6 and 23,

August 7, 8, 9, 13 (two letters), 14 (two

letters), 29, and 31 (two letters),

September 5 (two letters), 14, 19, 25, 26,

and 27 (two letters), November 2, 16,

and 30, and December 10, 2001. The

original amendment request was

submitted by Commonwealth Edison

Company (ComEd), the former licensee.

ComEd subsequently transferred the

licenses to Exelon Generation Company,

LLC (Exelon, the licensee). By letter

dated February 7, 2001, Exelon

informed the NRC that it assumed

responsibility for all pending NRC

actions that were requested by ComEd.

The Need for the Proposed Action

Exelon evaluated its resource needs

for the period 2000–2014 and forecast a

28-percent increase in electrical demand

by 2014 within its Illinois service area.

The proposed EPU would provide

approximately 0.66 percent additional

generating capacity per unit at DNPS.

Exelon stated that in order to stay

competitive, it must be able to fulfill not

only customer power demands, but it

also must sell power to other providers.

In Illinois, approximately 40 gas turbine

plants of various sizes are proposed to

be built. The proposed additional

generating capacity at DNPS would

eliminate the need to build

approximately two 100-MWe gas

turbines.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

At the time of the issuance of the

operating licenses for DNPS, the NRC

staff noted that any activity authorized

by the licenses would be encompassed

by the overall action evaluated in the

Final Environmental Statement (FES)

for the operation of DNPS, which was

issued in November 1973. The original

operating licenses for DNPS allowed a

maximum reactor power level of 2527

MWt. On December 27, 2000, Exelon

submitted a supplement to its

Environmental Report supporting the

proposed EPU and provided a summary

of its conclusions concerning the

environmental impacts of the EPU at

DNPS. Based on the staff’s independent

analyses and the evaluation performed

by the licensee, the staff concludes that

the environmental impacts of the EPU

are bounded by the environmental

impacts previously evaluated in the

FES, because the EPU would involve no

extensive changes to plant systems that

directly or indirectly interface with the

environment. Additionally, no changes

to any State permit limits would be

necessary. This environmental

assessment first discusses the nonradiological and then the radiological

environmental impacts of the proposed

EPU at DNPS.