Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 32 / Thursday, February 15, 2001 / Notices 10535

unnecessary NRC and licensee burden

with no change in safety when titles are

changed.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The NRC has completed its evaluation

of the proposed action and concludes

that the changes to the TSs are

administrative in nature.

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 Kewaunee.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on January 29, 2001, the staff consulted

with the Wisconsin State official, Ms. S.

Jenkins, 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

application dated November 10, 2000,

which is available for public inspection

at the Commission’s Public Document

Room, One White Flint Building, 11555

Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD. 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 9th day

of February 2001.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

John G. Lamb,

Project Manager, Section 1, Project

Directorate III, Division of Licensing Project

Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 01–3824 Filed 2–14–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–263]

Nuclear Management Company, LLC;

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of

Amendment to Facility Operating

License, Proposed No Significant

Hazards Consideration Determination,

and Opportunity for a Hearing

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of an amendment

to Facility Operating License No. DPR–

22, issued to Nuclear Management

Company, LLC (NMC, or the licensee),

for operation of the Monticello Nuclear

Generating Plant located in Wright

County, Minnesota.

The proposed amendment would

remove the inservice inspection (ISI)

requirements of Section XI of the

American Society of Mechanical

Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure

Vessel Code (the Code) from the

Monticello Technical Specifications

(TSs) and relocate them to a licenseecontrolled program.

NMC is requesting that this license

amendment request be processed in an

exigent manner in accordance with 10

CFR 50.91(a)(6) because the plant is

currently operating under a Notice of

Enforcement Discretion (NOED) with

respect to TS 3.15.A.1. In accordance

with NRC procedures described in NRC

Inspection Manual, Part 9900,

Operations—Notices of Enforcement

Discretion, dated December 12, 2000,

NMC applied for this license

amendment within 2 working days after

the NRC staff issued the NOED on

January 30, 2001. The NRC staff will

process this amendment in an exigent

manner, in order to minimize the time

the plant is operated under the NOED.

In its application, NMC explained

why it could not have foreseen the need

for this amendment. Compliance with

the current wording of TS 3.15.A

requires full compliance with the Code

as a condition for considering Section

XI-required equipment operable.

Application of TS 3.15.A requires

declaring equipment inoperable and

following the specified limiting

conditions for operation when a Code

non-compliance is discovered. This may

require an unnecessary plant shutdown

when the equipment is fully operable in

all other respects. This exigent situation

occurred because the potential for TS

3.15.A.1 to cause unnecessary

operational evolutions was not

previously recognized. Code

nonconformances were recently

identified during the course of

inspections conducted by NRC staff. TS

3.15.A.1 directs that affected

components be declared inoperable

without regard for actual impact on

operability. The need for a license

amendment that would allow such

nonconformances to be evaluated for

their affect on equipment operability,

thus preventing unnecessary operational

evolutions, was subsequently identified.

As a result, the need for a license

amendment was determined to be

unavoidable and not created by a failure

to make a timely application for a

license amendment.

The staff has determined that the

licensee used its best efforts to make a

timely application for the proposed

changes and that exigent circumstances

do exist and were not the result of any

intentional delay on the part of the

licensee.

Before issuance of the proposed

license amendment, the Commission

will have made findings required by the

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended

(the Act) and the Commission’s

regulations.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6) for

amendments to be granted under

exigent circumstances, the NRC staff

must determine that the amendment

request involves no significant hazards

consideration. Under the Commission’s

regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means

that operation of the facility in

accordance with the proposed

amendment would not (1) involve a

significant increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of

a new or different kind of accident from

any accident previously evaluated; or

(3) involve a significant reduction in a

margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR

10536 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 32 / Thursday, February 15, 2001 / Notices

50.91(a), the licensee has provided its

analysis of the issue of no significant

hazards consideration, which is

presented below:

1. The proposed amendment will not

involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of an accident

previously evaluated.

The requested changes are administrative

in nature in that they relocate ISI

requirements from the TS to the Monticello

ISI program. The requested changes will not

revise previous commitments to 10 CFR

50.55a or ASME Code Section XI ISI

requirements.

The proposed changes do not involve a

change to the configuration or method of

operation of any plant equipment that is used

to mitigate the consequences of an accident,

nor do they affect any assumptions or

conditions in any of the accident analyses.

Since the accident analyses remain

bounding, their radiological consequences

are not adversely affected.

Therefore, the probability or consequences

of an accident previously evaluated are not

affected.

2. The proposed amendment will not

create the possibility of a new or different

kind of accident from any accident

previously analyzed.

The requested changes are administrative

in nature in that they relocate ISI

requirements from the TS to the Monticello

ISI program. The requested changes will not

revise previous commitments to 10 CFR

50.55a or ASME Code Section XI ISI

requirements.

The proposed changes do not involve a

change to the configuration or method of

operation of any plant equipment that is used

to mitigate the consequences of an accident,

nor do they affect any assumptions or

conditions in any of the accident analyses.

Accordingly, no new failure modes have

been defined for any plant system or

component important to safety nor has any

new limiting single failure been identified as

a result of the proposed changes.

Therefore the possibility of a new or

different kind of accident from any accident

previously evaluated is not created.

3. The proposed amendment will not

involve a significant reduction in the margin

of safety.

The requested changes are administrative

in nature in that they relocate ISI

requirements from the TS to the Monticello

ISI program. The requested changes will not

revise previous commitments to 10 CFR

50.55a or ASME Code Section XI ISI

requirements. Program requirements will

ensure that Code requirements are met.

Therefore, a significant reduction in the

margin of safety is not involved.

The NRC staff has reviewed the

licensee’s analysis and, based on this

review, it appears that the three

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff

proposes to determine that the

amendment request involves no

significant hazards consideration.

The Commission is seeking public

comments on this proposed

determination. Any comments received

within 14 days after the date of

publication of this notice will be

considered in making any final

determination.

Normally, the Commission will not

issue the amendment until the

expiration of the 14-day notice period.

However, should circumstances change

during the notice period, such that

failure to act in a timely way would

result, for example, in derating or

shutdown of the facility, the

Commission may issue the license

amendment before the expiration of the

14-day notice period, provided that its

final determination is that the

amendment involves no significant

hazards consideration. The final

determination will consider all public

and State comments received. Should

the Commission take this action, it will

publish in the Federal Register a notice

of issuance. The Commission expects

that the need to take this action will

occur very infrequently.

Written comments may be submitted

by mail to the Chief, Rules and

Directives Branch, Division of

Administrative Services, Office of

Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001, and should cite the publication

date and page number of this Federal

Register notice. Written comments may

also be delivered to Room 6D59, Two

White Flint North, 11545 Rockville

Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30

a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays.

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.

The filing of requests for hearing and

petitions for leave to intervene is

discussed below.

By March 19, 2001, the licensee may

file a request for a hearing with respect

to issuance of the amendment to the

subject facility operating license and

any person whose interest may be

affected by this proceeding and who

wishes to participate as a party in the

proceeding must file a written request

for a hearing and a petition for leave to

intervene. Requests for a hearing and a

petition for leave to intervene shall be

filed in accordance with the

Commission’s ‘‘Rules of Practice for

Domestic Licensing Proceedings’’ in 10

CFR part 2. Interested persons should

consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.714

which is available 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). If a request for a hearing

or petition for leave to intervene is filed

by the above date, the Commission or an

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board,

designated by the Commission or by the

Chairman of the Atomic Safety and

Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the

request and/or petition; and the

Secretary or the designated Atomic

Safety and Licensing Board will issue a

notice of hearing or an appropriate

order.

As required by 10 CFR 2.714, a

petition for leave to intervene shall set

forth with particularity the interest of

the petitioner in the proceeding, and

how that interest may be affected by the

results of the proceeding. The petition

should specifically explain the reasons

why intervention should be permitted

with particular reference to the

following factors: (1) The nature of the

petitioner’s right under the Act to be

made a party to the proceeding; (2) the

nature and extent of the petitioner’s

property, financial, or other interest in

the proceeding; and (3) the possible

effect of any order which may be

entered in the proceeding on the

petitioner’s interest. The petition should

also identify the specific aspect(s) of the

subject matter of the proceeding as to

which petitioner wishes to intervene.

Any person who has filed a petition for

leave to intervene or who has been

admitted as a party may amend the

petition without requesting leave of the

Board up to 15 days prior to the first

prehearing conference scheduled in the

proceeding, but such an amended

petition must satisfy the specificity

requirements described above.

Not later than 15 days prior to the first

prehearing conference scheduled in the

proceeding, a petitioner shall file a

supplement to the petition to intervene

which must include a list of the

contentions which are sought to be

litigated in the matter. Each contention

must consist of a specific statement of

the issue of law or fact to be raised or

controverted. In addition, the petitioner

shall provide a brief explanation of the

bases of the contention and a concise

statement of the alleged facts or expert

opinion which support the contention

and on which the petitioner intends to

rely in proving the contention at the

hearing. The petitioner must also

provide references to those specific

sources and documents of which the

petitioner is aware and on which the

petitioner intends to rely to establish

those facts or expert opinion. Petitioner

must provide sufficient information to

show that a genuine dispute exists with

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 32 / Thursday, February 15, 2001 / Notices 10537

the applicant on a material issue of law

or fact. Contentions shall be limited to

matters within the scope of the

amendment under consideration. The

contention must be one which, if

proven, would entitle the petitioner to

relief. A petitioner who fails to file such

a supplement which satisfies these

requirements with respect to at least one

contention will not be permitted to

participate as a party.

Those permitted to intervene become

parties to the proceeding, subject to any

limitations in the order granting leave to

intervene, and have the opportunity to

participate fully in the conduct of the

hearing, including the opportunity to

present evidence and cross-examine

witnesses.

If the amendment is issued before the

expiration of the 30-day hearing period,

the Commission will make a final

determination on the issue of no

significant hazards consideration. If a

hearing is requested, the final

determination will serve to decide when

the hearing is held.

If the final determination is that the

amendment request involves no

significant hazards consideration, the

Commission may issue the amendment

and make it immediately effective,

notwithstanding the request for a

hearing. Any hearing held would take

place after issuance of the amendment.

If the final determination is that the

amendment request involves a

significant hazards consideration, any

hearing held would take place before

the issuance of any amendment.

A request for a hearing or a petition

for leave to intervene must be filed with

the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention:

Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, or

may be delivered to the Commission’s

Public Document Room, located at One

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike

(first floor), Rockville, Maryland, by the

above date. A copy of the petition

should also be sent to the Office of the

General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555–0001, and to Jay Silberg, Esq.,

at Shaw, Pittman, Potts, and

Trowbridge, 2300 N Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20037, attorney for the

licensee.

Nontimely filings of petitions for

leave to intervene, amended petitions,

supplemental petitions and/or requests

for hearing will not be entertained

absent a determination by the

Commission, the presiding officer or the

presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing

Board that the petition and/or request

should be granted based upon a

balancing of the factors specified in 10

CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i)–(v) and 2.714(d).

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application for

amendment dated February 1, 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, 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 8th day

of February 2001.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Carl F. Lyon,

Project Manager, Section 1, Project

Directorate III, Division of Licensing Project

Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 01–3608 Filed 2–14–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Notice of a Public Meeting on

Assessing Future Regulatory Research

Needs

AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) will hold a fourth

and final meeting of nuclear experts

from the government, the nuclear

industry, academia, and the public on

February 21, 2001. As a result of the

first two meetings, the nuclear experts

issued a draft report composed of the

individual views of the experts on the

role and direction of regulatory

research. The draft report contains a

number of recommendations. The third

meeting focused on strategies for

implementing recommendations and

briefings by the NRC licensing offices

and the regions. The purpose of this

meeting is to review, discuss, and

propose individual recommendations

on the role and future direction of

regulatory research for Commission

consideration. The Expert Panel will

also discuss their perspectives and

responses to questions posed to the

panel by NRC Chairman Richard A.

Meserve. The meeting is open to the

public and all interested parties may

attend.

DATES: The meeting will be held from

9:15 a.m. to 5 p.m. on February 21,

2001, at the Center for Strategic and

International Studies (CSIS) located at

1800 K Street, NW., in Washington, DC

(corner of 18th and K Streets). The

telephone number for CSIS is 202–775–

3115 (Lisa Hyland).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Questions with respect to this meeting

should be referred to James W. Johnson,

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at

(301) 415–6293; fax (301) 415–5153; Email jwj@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Parking is

available in the vicinity of the CSIS

location for a modest cost. CSIS can also

be reached by Metro. CSIS is located

one block west of the Farragut North

Metro stop on the Red Line and one

block north of the Farragut West Metro

stop on the orange and blue lines.

Seating for the public is limited and

therefore will be on a first-come, firstserve basis.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 9th day

of February 2001.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Ashok C. Thadani,

Director, Office of Nuclear Regulatory

Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

[FR Doc. 01–3829 Filed 2–14–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

National Materials Program Working

Group

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of formation of working

group and public meeting.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) has formed a

working group to provide the

Commission with regulatory program

options for a proposed National

Materials Program. The working group

is composed of the Organization of

Agreement States (OAS), Conference of

Radiation Control Program Directors,

Inc., (CRCPD) and NRC representatives.

The working group held its first

meeting in March 2000 and will

produce a paper for the Commission

that examines the impact of an

increased number of Agreement States

(AS) on the NRC’s regulatory program

and provides options for the

Commission’s consideration. The

completion date for the working group’s

product is May 2001. To assure that the

broadest possible alternatives are

considered, the working group intends

to hold a stakeholder’s meeting to garner

additional ideas for the working group’s

consideration as it finalizes the options

it is considering.