11608 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 38 / Monday, February 26, 2001 / Notices

1. By delivery to: Secretary, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, One

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville

Pike, Rockville, MD 20852–2738,

between 7:45 am and 4:15 pm, Federal

workdays; or

2. By mail or facsimile addressed to:

Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001. Attention: Rulemakings and

Adjudications Staff.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.1205(f),

each request for a hearing must also be

served, by delivering it personally, or by

mail, to:

1. The applicant, Molycorp, Inc., 300

Caldwell Avenue, Washington, PA

15301, Attention: George Dawes, and,

2. The NRC staff, by delivery to the

General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, One White

Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room

0–15 D21, Rockville, MD 20852–2738,

between 7:45 am and 4:15 pm, Federal

workdays, or by mail, addressed to the

General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Mailstop 0–15

D21, Washington, DC 20555–0001.

In addition to meeting other

applicable requirements of 10 CFR Part

2 of NRC’s regulations, a request for a

hearing filed by a person other than an

applicant must describe in detail:

1. The interest of the requester in the

proceeding;

2. How that interest may be affected

by the results of the proceeding,

including the reasons why the requester

should be permitted a hearing, with

particular reference to the factors set out

in § 2.1205(h);

3. The requester’s areas of concern

about the licensing activity that is the

subject matter of the proceeding; and,

4. The circumstance establishing that

the request for a hearing is timely in

accordance with § 2.1205(d).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The

application for the license amendment

and supporting documentation are

available for inspection at NRC’s Public

Document Room, 11545 Rockville Pike,

Rockville MD, 20055, and at NRC’s

Public Electronic Reading Room on the

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

NRC/ADAMS/index.html. Any

questions with respect to this action

should be referred to Tom McLaughlin,

Decommissioning Branch, Division of

Waste Management, Office of Nuclear

Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001.

Telephone: (301) 415–5869. Fax: (301)

415–5398.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day

of February 2001.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Tom McLaughlin,

Project Manager, Facilities Decommissioning

Section, Division of Waste Management,

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and

Safeguards.

[FR Doc. 01–4626 Filed 2–23–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–318]

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear power Plant, Inc.;

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit

No. 2, Environmental Assessment and

Finding of No Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) is considering

issuance of a temporary exemption from

the provisions of 10 CFR 50.44, 10 CFR

50.46, and Appendix K to 10 CFR part

50 for Renewed Facility Operating

License No. DPR–69 issued to Calvert

Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Inc.

(CCNPPI or the licensee) for operation of

the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant,

Unit 2 (CCNPP2) located in Calvert

County, Maryland.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

The proposed action would allow the

licensee to use a lead fuel assembly with

a limited number of fuel rods with

advanced cladding material, a

zirconium-based alloy, that does not

meet the definition of Zircaloy or

ZIRLO, which are referred to in Title 10

of the Code of Federal Regulations. The

lead fuel assembly is scheduled to be

loaded into the CCNPP2 reactor core

during the upcoming refueling outage

and would remain in the core for Cycle

14. The proposed action is in

accordance with the licensee’s

application for exemption dated

September 14, 2000, as supplemented

on December 21, 2000.

The Need for the Proposed Action

The proposed temporary exemption

from 10 CFR 50.44, 10 CFR 50.46, and

Appendix K to 10 CFR part 50 is needed

because these regulations specifically

refer to light-water reactors containing

fuel consisting of uranium oxide pellets

enclosed in zircaloy or ZIRLO tubes. A

new zirconium-based alloy cladding has

been developed, which is not the same

chemical composition as zircaloy or

ZIRLO. Therefore, the licensee needs an

exemption to insert an assembly

containing fuel rods with the new

cladding material into the CCNPP2

reactor core and test it during power

operation.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The NRC has completed its evaluation

of the proposed action and concludes

that, with regard to potential

radiological impacts to the general

public, the proposed temporary

exemption involves features located

entirely within the restricted area as

defined in 10 CFR Part 20. The lead fuel

assembly, with the zirconium-based

alloy cladding, meets the same design

basis as the Zircaloy-4 fuel that is

currently in the CCNPP2 reactor core.

No safety limits will be changed or

setpoints altered as a result of using the

lead fuel assembly. The Updated Final

Safety Analysis Report analyses are

bounding for the lead fuel assembly as

well as the remainder of the core. The

mechanical properties and behavior of

the lead fuel assembly during postulated

loss-of-coolant-accidents (LOCAs) and

non-LOCA transients and operational

transients will be essentially the same as

those for the current fuel. In addition,

the lead fuel assembly represents a

small portion of the total core and will

be placed in a non-limiting location.

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 involves features located entirely

within the restricted area as defined in

10 CFR Part 20. It does not affect nonradiological plant effluents and has no

other environmental impact. The

proposed action does not involve any

historic sites. 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 exemption

would result in no change in current

environmental impacts. The

environmental impacts of the proposed

action and the alternative action are

similar.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 38 / Monday, February 26, 2001 / Notices 11609

Alternative Use of Resources

This action does not involve the use

of any resources not previously

considered in the Final Environmental

Statement for CCNPP2.

Agencies and Persons Contacted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on January 18, 2001, the staff consulted

with the Maryland State official, Mr.

Richard McLean of the Department of

Natural Resources, 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 exemption.

For further details with respect to this

action, see the licensee’s letters dated

September 14, 2000, and December 21,

2000, which are 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

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 20th day

of February 2001.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Donna M. Skay,

Project Manager, Section 1, Project

Directorate I, Division of Licensing Project

Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 01–4628 Filed 2–23–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–286]

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.;

Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit

No. 3; Environmental Assessment and

Finding of No Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) is considering

issuance of an amendment to Facility

Operating License No. DPR–64, issued

to Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (the

licensee), for operation of the Indian

Point Nuclear Generating Unit No. 3

(IP3) located in Westchester County,

New York.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

The proposed action would modify

the Technical Specifications (TSs) by

replacing them with Improved Standard

Technical Specifications (ISTS). The

amendment would also change

requirements regarding setpoints or

allowable values associated with power

range flux, pressurizer pressure,

overtemperature delta T, overpower

deltaT, low reactor coolant loop flow,

high pressurizer water level, steam

generator water level, containment

pressure, auto stop oil pressure, high

steam line differential pressure and high

steam flow; it would extend the

allowable time to restore an inoperable

power operated relief valve to service; it

would extend the frequency for the

pressure isolation valve leakage testing

surveillance from 18 to 24 months; it

would change current TS requirements

by focusing on ensuring containment

integrity at individual component level

rather than at a zone level; and it would

add main steam check valve operability

conditions.

The proposed action is in accordance

with the licensee’s application for

amendment dated December 11, 1998,

as supplemented by letters dated

December 15, 1998, May 17, 1999,

August 16, 2000, September 8, 2000,

September 14, 2000, September 27,

2000, November 30, 2000, January 8,

2001, and January 11, 2001.

The Need for the Proposed Action

The proposed action is necessary to

allow the licensee to implement the

ISTS. The ISTS are based on standard

Westinghouse Technical Specifications

and have been implemented by several

utilities. They are widely considered an

improvement over current TSs.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The NRC has completed its evaluation

of the proposed action and concludes

that the proposed amendment will have

no significant environmental impact.

The ISTS are based on the standard

Westinghouse TSs and are widely used

throughout the industry.

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 IP3.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on January 24, 2001, the staff consulted

with the New York State official, Jay

Dunkelberger of the New York

Department of Radiation Health,

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 11, 1998, as

supplemented by letters dated

December 15, 1998, May 17, 1999,

August 16, 2000, September 8, 2000,

September 14, 2000, September 27,

2000, November 30, 2000, January 8,

2001, and January 11, 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 ADAMS Public Library

component on the NRC Web site, http:

//www.nrc.gov (the Electronic Reading

Room).