Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 83 / Friday, April 28, 2000 / Notices 25003

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–336]

Northeast Nuclear Energy Company, Et

Al., Millstone Nuclear Power Station,

Unit No. 2; Environmental Assessment

and Finding of No Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of an amendment

to Facility Operating License No. DPR–

65, issued to the Northeast Nuclear

Energy Company, et al., (NNECO or the

licensee), for operation of the Millstone

Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 2,

located in Waterford, Connecticut.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

The proposed amendment would

revise Technical Specification (TS)

Sections: 3.3.2.1, ‘‘Instrumentation—

Engineered Safety Feature Actuation

System Instrumentation’’; 3.3.3.1,

‘‘Instrumentation—Monitoring

Instrumentation—Radiation

Monitoring’’; 3.7.6.1, ‘‘Plant Systems—

Control Room Emergency Ventilation

System’’; 3.9.3.1, ‘‘Refueling

Operations—Decay Time’’; 3.9.4,

‘‘Refueling Operations—Containment

Penetrations’’; 3.9.9, ‘‘Refueling

Operations—Containment Radiation

Monitoring’’; 3.9.10, ‘‘Refueling

Operations—Containment Purge Valve

Isolation System’’; 3.9.13, ‘‘Refueling

Operations—Storage Pool Radiation

Monitoring’’; 3.9.14, ‘‘Refueling

Operations—Storage Pool Area

Ventilation System—Fuel Movement’’;

3.9.15, ‘‘Refueling Operations—Storage

Pool Area Ventilation System—Fuel

Storage’’; 3.9.16.1, ‘‘Refueling

Operations—Shielded Cask’’; 3.9.16.2,

‘‘Refueling Operations—Shielded Cask’;

3.9.17, ‘‘Refueling Operations—

Movement of Fuel in Spent Fuel Pool’’;

and 3.9.19.2, ‘‘Refueling Operations—

Spent Fuel Pool—Storage Pattern,’’ and

add new TS 3.3.4, ‘‘Containment Purge

Valve Isolation Signal.’’ The requested

changes would make the TSs and the

Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR)

consistent with new analyses of the fuel

handling and cask drop accidents. The

Index Pages and the Bases for these TSs

would be modified to reflect these

changes.

The proposed action is in accordance

with the licensee’s amendment request

dated December 14, 1999, as

supplemented on February 11 and

March 30, 2000.

The Need for the Proposed Action

The proposed action is needed for the

licensee to move new and spent fuel

while the containment is open during

refueling operations. As a result of the

recovery effort for Millstone Unit No. 2,

NNECO determined that the current

analysis of a fuel handling accident

inside containment is not valid since

the current analysis is not conservative

with respect to the amount of fuel

damage that will occur. As a result,

Millstone Unit No. 2 will be required to

keep containment isolated during fuel

movement inside containment until a

revised analysis is approved by the

Commission. With the containment

isolated, high temperature and humidity

conditions create an adverse

environment for individuals working

inside containment. This type of

environment is a personnel safety

concern and can increase the potential

for human errors. In addition, the

revised analysis includes a provision to

maintain the personnel air lock doors

open under administrative control. This

will greatly simplify normal entry and

egress. This provision will also decrease

the time necessary to evacuate

containment in the event of a fuel

handling accident, thereby decreasing

personnel exposure.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The Commission has completed its

assessment of the potential

environmental impacts associated with

the TS. These TS changes are supported

by a revised fuel handling analyses and

cask drop accident analyses. The impact

of the above proposed TS changes has

been evaluated by the Commission in

consideration for approval of the

changes and supporting analyses. The

TS change will not significantly

increase the probability 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 the allowable individual or

cumulative occupational radiation

exposure. The consequences of the

postulated accidents, related to fuel

handling and cask drop accidents, will

be greater than previously evaluated.

However, the consequences remain well

within Part 100 doses (25 percent of 10

CFR Section 100.11(a)(1)) for offsite

releases. Therefore, the TS changes will

not significantly increase the

consequences of any fuel handling or

cask drop accidents. In addition, while

the TS change described is a substantial

change, its efficacy has been

demonstrated in other operating

facilities. The TS change will not

significantly increase the probability or

consequences of accidents. Therefore,

the Commission concludes that there

are no significant radiological

environmental impacts associated with

this proposed TS amendment.

With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed

amendment does involve features

located entirely within the restricted

area as defined in 10 CFR part 20. It

does not affect non-radiological plant

effluents and has no other

environmental impact. Therefore, the

Commission concludes that there are no

significant non-radiological

environmental impacts associated with

the proposed amendment.

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 significant change in

current environmental impacts. Such

action would not enhance the protection

of the environment and would result in

unjustified hardship to the licensee. 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 Millstone Nuclear

Power Station, Unit No. 2.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on April 25, 2000, the staff consulted

with the Connecticut State official,

Michael Firsick of the Division of

Radiation, 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 Commission concludes

that the proposed action will not have

a significant effect on the quality of the

human environment. Accordingly, the

Commission 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 14, 1999, as

supplemented by letters dated February

11 and March 30, 2000, which is

available for public inspection at the

25004 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 83 / Friday, April 28, 2000 / Notices

Commission’s Public Document Room,

the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street,

NW., Washington, DC. Publically

available records will be accessible

electronically from the Agencywide

Documents Access and Management

System (ADAMS) Public Library

component of the NRC Web site, <http:/

/www.nrc.gov> (the Electronic Reading

Room).

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day

of April 2000.

For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

Jacob I. Zimmerman,

Project Manager, Section 2, Project

Directorate I, Division of Licensing Project

Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 00–10664 Filed 4–27–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[NUREG–1702, Final Report]

Standard Review Plan for the Review

of a License Application for the Tank

Waste Remediation System

Privatization Project: Notice of

Availability

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) is announcing the

completion and availability of NUREG–

1702, Final Report, entitled ‘‘Standard

Review Plan for the Review of a License

Application for the Tank Waste

Remediation System Privatization

(TWRS–P) Project.’’

ADDRESSES: Copies of NUREG–1702,

Final Report, may be obtained by

writing to the Superintendent of

Documents, U.S. Government Printing

Office, P.O. Box 37082, Washington, DC

20402–9328. Copies are also available

from the National Technical Information

Service, 5285 Port Royal Road,

Springfield, Virginia 22161. A copy of

the document is available for inspection

and/or copying for a fee in the NRC

Public Document Room, 2120 L Street,

NW (lower level), Washington, DC

20555–0001. A copy is also posted on

the NRC’s internet web site at http://

www.nrc.gov/NRC/NUREGS/

indexnum.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael Tokar, Division of Fuel Cycle

Safety and Safeguards, Office of Nuclear

Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001.

Telephone: (301) 415–7251.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March

19, 1999 (64 FR 13613), NRC announced

the availability of draft NUREG–1702,

‘‘Standard Review Plan for the Review

of a License Application for the Tank

Waste Remediation System Privatization

(TWRS–P) Project,’’ and requested

comments on it. This draft NUREG

report was the first specific guidance

developed for the NRC staff to review a

possible future license application for

immobilizing highly radioactive waste

in underground tanks at the Department

of Energy (DOE) reservation in Hanford,

Washington.

If NRC were to receive a license

application for a TWRS–P facility, it is

anticipated that the application would

be reviewed under 10 CFR part 70,

Domestic Licensing of Special Nuclear

Material. The NRC is currently

considering revisions to 10 CFR part 70

and the associated standard review plan

(SRP), draft NUREG–1520, ‘‘Standard

Review Plan for the Review of a License

Application for a Fuel Cycle Facility,’’

(see http://techconf.llnl.gov/cgi_bin/

topics). To provide facility specific

guidance for the review of a license

application for a TWRS–P facility, the

NRC simultaneously developed

NUREG–1702.

At the present time, NRC is assisting

DOE in developing an effective

regulatory program for proposed

licensing of a TWRS–P facility. NRC and

DOE interactions during this initial

phase are governed by a Memorandum

of Understanding (MOU) signed January

1997. This MOU is currently undergoing

revision.

NRC staff considered all public

comments received in the preparation of

the final NUREG report.

The final version of NUREG–1702, is

now available for use by applicants,

NRC license reviewers, and other NRC

staff. This ‘‘standard review plan,’’

(SRP) provides guidance for the

evaluation of health, safety, and

environmental protection in a license

application. Its principal purpose is to

ensure quality and uniformity of staff

reviews of the application and any later

amendments to the license. In addition,

it provides information about review

acceptance criteria to interested

members of the public and the regulated

industry. Each SRP section addresses

the regulations pertinent to specific

technical matters, the acceptance

criteria used by the staff, how the

review is accomplished, and the

conclusions that are appropriate for the

Safety Evaluation Report.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 31st day

of January 2000.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Michael F. Weber,

Director, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and

Safeguards, NMSS.

[FR Doc. 00–10661 Filed 4–27–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND

BUDGET

Information Initiative ‘‘Collecting

Information in the Information Age’’

AGENCY: Office of Management and

Budget, Executive Office of the

President.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Office of Information and

Regulatory Affairs within the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB), with

help from a group of Federal agencies,

is beginning an initiative to examine

how agencies can collect information

more effectively and efficiently. The

initiative will focus on improving the

quality of information agencies collect

while minimizing the collection burden,

particularly through the use of

information technology. Eight Federal

agencies are participating in the

initiative: the Internal Revenue Service

(IRS), the Occupational Health and

Safety Administration (OSHA) of the

Department of Labor, the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA), the

Department of Transportation (DOT),

the Health Care Financing

Administration (HCFA) of the

Department of Health and Human

Services (HHS), the Department of

Agriculture (USDA), the Student

Financial Assistance Agency of the

Department of Education (ED), and the

Small Business Administration (SBA).

The initiative will begin with a public

Forum on April 27, 2000. Through a

series of Roundtables with stakeholders,

each agency will explore ways to

improve the quality of data collected,

disseminate better information to the

public, and reduce burden. The dates,

topic and discussion questions for each

Roundtable are in the Supplementary

Information below. OMB is seeking

written or electronic comments from

members of the public on the topics and

discussion questions. The procedure for

submitting comments is in Dates and

Addresses below. At a second Forum

and in a final report, OIRA will compile

the comments received, present the

results of the roundtable discussions

regarding specific and overall agency

collection efforts, and recommend

opportunities for further progress in