Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 1997 / Notices 66399

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001, and to

Jeffrie J. Keenan, Esquire, Nuclear

Business Unit—N21, P.O. Box 236,

Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038, 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 December 11, 1997,

which is available for public inspection

at the Commission’s Public Document

Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L

Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the

local public document room located at

the Salem Free Public Library, 112 West

Broadway, Salem, New Jersey 08079.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day

of December 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

John F. Stolz,

Director, Project Directorate I–2, Division of

Reactor Projects—I/II, Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–33054 Filed 12–17–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–219]

GPU Nuclear Corporation and Jersey

Central Power & Light Company;

Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating

Station; 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–

16, issued to GPU Nuclear Corporation,

et al. (the licensee), for operation of the

Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station

(OCNGS) located in Ocean County, New

Jersey.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

The proposed action would revise the

OCNGS operating license and technical

specifications (TSs) to reflect the

registered trade name of ‘‘GPU Nuclear’’

under which the owner of OCNGS now

does business and to reflect the change

of the legal name of the operator of

OCNGS from GPU Nuclear Corporation

to GPU Nuclear, Inc. In addition, the

proposed action includes two minor

editorial corrections associated with the

name changes.

Specifically, license conditions 1.A,

1.E, 1.F, and 2 have been revised to

indicate Jersey Central Power & Light

Company doing business as (d/b/a) GPU

Energy and GPU Nuclear, Inc. as the

licensed operator of the facility and TSs

6.2.1, 6.5.1, 6.5.2, 6.5.3, 6.18, and 6.19

have been modified to change GPU

Nuclear Corp. to GPU Nuclear or GPU

Nuclear, Inc. as applicable.

The proposed action is in accordance

with the licensee’s application for

amendment dated October 10, 1997.

The Need for the Proposed Action

The proposed action is needed to

conform the license to reflect the

registered trade name under which the

owner of OCNGS now does business

and reflect the change in the legal name

of the operator of OCNGS.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The Commission has completed its

evaluation of the proposed action and

concludes that the proposed

amendment to the OCNGS operating

license to reflect the trade name of the

owner and to reflect the change in the

legal name of the operator will have no

impact on the continued safe operation

of the facility. The corporate existence

of the owner and operator of OCNGS

will continue uninterrupted, and all

legal characteristics other than the legal

name of the operator will remain the

same. The State of incorporation,

registered agent, registered office,

directors, officers, rights or liabilities of

either the owner or the operator of

OCNGS have not and will not change as

a result of the amendment. Similarly,

there will be no change in the function

of either the owner or the operator of

OCNGS or the way they do business.

The owner’s financial responsibility for

OCNGS and the source of funds to

support the facility will remain the

same. There will be no alteration in any

of the existing licensing conditions

applicable to OCNGS, and no change to

GPU Nuclear Corporation’s ability to

comply with any licensing conditions or

any other obligation or responsibility

under the license. Specifically, the

owner of OCNGS will remain an electric

utility as defined in 10 CFR 50.2. The

funds accrued by the owner will

continue to be available to fulfill all

obligations related to OCNGS. The two

minor editorial changes relate to a name

change in the title of the President of

GPU Nuclear Corporation that will

similarly have no effect on the safe

operation or licensing conditions of the

facility.

Therefore, the proposed action will

not 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

the allowable individual or cumulative

occupational radiation exposure.

Accordingly, the Commission concludes

that there are no significant radiological

environmental 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

environmental impacts associated with

the proposed action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

Since the Commission has concluded

there is no measurable environmental

impact associated with the proposed

action, any alternatives with equal or

greater environmental impact need not

be evaluated. As an alternative to the

proposed action, the staff considered

denial of the proposed action. 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 OCNGS.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on December 12, 1997, the staff

consulted with the New Jersey State

official regarding the environmental

impact of the proposed action. The State

official had no comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

Based upon 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 October 10, 1997, which is

available for public inspection at the

Commission’s Public Document Room,

The Gelman Building, 2120 L Street,

NW., Washington, DC, and at the local
66400 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 1997 / Notices

public document room located at the

Ocean County Library, Reference

Department, 101 Washington Street,

Toms River, NJ 08753.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day

of December 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Ronald B. Eaton,

Acting Director, Project Directorate I–3,

Division of Reactor Projects—I/II, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–33056 Filed 12–17–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–410]

Long Island Lighting Company Nine

Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2;

Environmental Assessment And

Finding Of No Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering the issuance of an Order

approving, under 10 CFR 50.80, an

application regarding a proposed

indirect transfer of control of ownership

and possessory rights held by Long

Island Lighting Company (LILCO) under

the operating license for Nine Mile

Point Nuclear Station, Unit No. 2

(NMP2). The indirect transfer would be

to the Long Island Power Authority

(LIPA), a corporate municipal

instrumentality of New York State.

LILCO is licensed by the Commission to

own and possess an 18 percent interest

in NMP2, located in the town of Scriba,

Oswego County, New York.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

The proposed action would consent to

the indirect transfer of control of the

license to the extent affected by LILCO

becoming a subsidiary of LIPA. This

restructuring of LILCO as a subsidiary of

LIPA would result from LIPA’s

proposed purchase of LILCO stock

through a cash merger at a time when

LILCO consists of its electric

transmission and distribution system,

its retail electric business, substantially

all of its electric regulatory assets, and

its 18 percent share of NMP2. LILCO

would continue to exist as an ‘‘electric

utility’’ as defined in 10 CFR 50.2

providing the same electric utility

services it did immediately prior to the

restructuring. No direct transfer of the

operating license or interests in the

station would result from the proposed

restructuring. The transaction would not

involve any change to either the

management organization or technical

personnel of Niagara Mohawk Power

Corporation (NMPC), which is

responsible for operating and

maintaining NMP2 and is not involved

in the LIPA acquisition of LILCO. The

proposed action is in accordance with

LILCO’s application dated September 8,

1997, as modified and supplemented

October 8, 1997, and November 7, 1997.

The Need for the Proposed Action

The proposed action is required to

enable LIPA to acquire LILCO as

described above.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The Commission has completed its

evaluation of the proposed corporate

restructuring and concludes that there

will be no physical or operational

changes to NMP2. The corporate

restructuring will not affect the

qualifications or organizational

affiliation of the personnel who operate

and maintain the facility, as NMPC will

continue to be responsible for the

maintenance and operation of NMP2

and is not involved in the acquisition of

LILCO by LIPA.

The change will not 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 the allowable

individual or cumulative occupational

radiation exposure. Accordingly, the

Commission concludes that there are no

significant radiological environmental

impacts associated with the proposed

action.

With regard to potential

nonradiological impacts, the

restructuring would not affect

nonradiological plant effluents and

would have no other environmental

impact. Accordingly, the Commission

concludes that there are no significant

nonradiological environmental impacts

associated with the proposed action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

Since the Commission has concluded

there are no significant environmental

effects that would result from the

proposed action, any alternatives with

equal or greater environmental impact

need not be evaluated.

As an alternative to the proposed

action, the staff considered denial of the

proposed action. 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

Statements Related to the Operation of

Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit

No. 2, (NUREG–1085) dated May 1985.

Agencies and Persons Contacted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on December 10, 1997, the staff

consulted with the New York State

official, Mr. Jack Spath, regarding the

environmental impact of the proposed

action. The State official had no

comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

Based upon 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 LILCO’s

application dated September 8, as

modified and supplemented by letters

dated October 8 and November 7, 1997,

which are available for public

inspection at the Commission’s Public

Document Room, the Gelman Building,

2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC,

and at the local public document room

located at the Reference and Documents

Department, Penfield Library, State

University of New York, Oswego, New

York 13126.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day

of December 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Darl S. Hood,

Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate

I–1, Division of Reactor Projects—I/II, Office

of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–33057 Filed 12–17–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

PANAMA CANAL COMMISSION

Revision of a Currently Approved

Collection of Information

AGENCY: Panama Canal Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

requirements of the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13,

109 Stat. 163), this notice announces the

Panama Canal Commission (PCC) is

planning to submit to the Office of

Management and Budget a Paperwork

Reduction Act Submission (83-I) for a

revision of a currently approved

collection of information entitled