Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 7, 2000 / Notices 66781

Based on the above, the NRC staff

concludes that there are no significant

changes in the environmental impact

related to the uranium fuel cycle due to

the proposed extended operation of

Palisades.

Nonradiological Impacts

The NRC relies upon the State of

Michigan, Department of Environmental

Quality (MDEQ), for regulation of

nonradiological matters involving water

quality and aquatic biota. The State of

Michigan has reviewed and considered

the environmental impacts of Palisades’

water discharge in its issuance of the

National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System (NPDES) permit and

renewals. The NPDES permit contains

requirements necessary to comply with

State and Federal water pollution

control laws, and is audited by MDEQ

and the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency. On October 1, 1999, MDEQ

renewed the NPDES permit for

Palisades (NPDES Permit No.

MI0001457) with an effective date of

November 1, 1999, and an expiration

date of October 1, 2003. The licensee

expects the MDEQ to renew and issue

NPDES permits about every 4 years

until expiration of the Operating

License. Because the licensee will

continue to abide by the NPDES

permits, there will be no significant

nonradiological impact on the

environment with regard to liquid

discharges from Palisades as a result of

extending the expiration date of the

Operating License. Also, the proposed

action does not involve any historic

sites. Therefore, the NRC concludes that

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 NRC staff considered denial

of the proposed action (i.e., the ‘‘no

action’’ alternative). Denial of the

application would result in no

significant improvement in

environmental impacts, but could result

in nonradiological environmental effects

due to airborne effluents from

nonnuclear plants that would be

required to operate in order to replace

the power supplied by Palisades. The

environmental impacts of the proposed

action and the alternative action are

otherwise similar.

Alternative Use of Resources

This action does not involve the use

of any resources not previously

considered in the FES, as

supplemented, for Palisades.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

the NRC staff consulted with the

Michigan State official 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 April 27, 2000. 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).

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 31st day

of October 2000.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Darl S. Hood,

Senior Project Manager, Section 1, Project

Directorate III, Division of Licensing Project

Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 00–28494 Filed 11–6–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Nuclear

Regulatory Commission.

DATE: Weeks of November 6, 13, 20, 27,

December 4, and 11, 2000.

PLACE: Commissioners’ Conference

Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,

Maryland.

STATUS: Public and Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

Week of November 6

There are no meetings scheduled for

the Week of November 6.

Week of November 13—Tentative

Wednesday, November 15, 2000

10:00 a.m. Briefing by the Executive

Branch (Closed-Ex. 1)

Friday, November 17

9:25 a.m. Affirmation Session (Public

Meeting) (If needed)

9:30 a.m. Briefing on Risk-Informed

Regulation Implementation Plan

(Public Meeting) (Contact: Tom King,

301–415–5790)

This meeting will be webcast live at

the Web address–www.nrc.gov/live.html

Week of November 20—Tentative

There are no meetings scheduled for

the Week of November 20.

Week of November 27—Tentative

Monday, November 27, 2000

9:00 a.m. (Briefing by DOE on

Plutonium Disposition Program and

MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility

Licensing (Public Meeting) (Contact:

Drew Persinko, 301–415–6522)

This meeting will be webcast live at

the Web address—www.nrc.gov/

live.html

Week of December 4—Tentative

Monday, December 4

1:55 p.m. Affirmation Session (Public

Meeting) (If needed)

2:00 p.m. Briefing on License Renewal

Generic Aging Lessons Learned

(GALL) Report, Standard Review Plan

(SRP), and Regulatory Guide (Public

Meeting) (contact: Chris Grimes, 301–

415–1183)

This meeting will be webcast live at

the Web address—www.nrc.gov/

live.html

Week of December 11—Tentative

There are no meetings scheduled for

the Week of December 11.

The Schedule for Commission

Meetings is subject to change on short

notice. To verify the status of meetings

call (recording)—(301) 415–1292.

Contact person for more information:

Bill Hill (301) 415–1661.

The NRC Commission Meeting

Schedule can be found on the Internet

at: http://www.nrc.gov/SECY/smj/

schedule.htm

This notice is distributed by mail to

several hundred subscribers; if you no

longer wish to receive it, or would like

to be added to it, please contact the

Office of the Secretary, Attn: Operations

Branch, Washington, D.C. 20555 (301–

415–1661). In addition, distribution of

this meeting notice over the Internet

system is available. If you are interested

in receiving this Commission meeting

66782 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 7, 2000 / Notices

schedule electronically, please send an

electronic message to wmh@nrc.gov or

dkw@nrc.gov.

Dated: November 3, 2000.

William M. Hill, Jr.,

SECY Tracking Officer, Office of the

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–28669 Filed 11–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Draft Regulatory Guides; Issuance,

Availability

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of Availability;

Correction.

SUMMARY: This document corrects a

notice relating to the availability of Draft

Regulatory Guides DG–1102 and DG–

1103, appearing in the Federal Register

on October 31, 2000 (65 FR 65024). This

action is necessary to correct the

accession numbers listed in the notice

for viewing the electronic copies of the

draft guides.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

P. Segala, Division of Systems Safety

and Analysis, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001, telephone 301–415–7162 (e-mail:

jps1@nrc.gov).

In the Federal Register dated October

31, 2000, page 65024, second column,

third paragraph, fourth sentence, the

third and fourth lines are corrected to

read as follows: ML003756180 for DG–

1102 and ML003756467 for DG–1103.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day

of November, 2000.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

David L. Meyer,

Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division

of Administrative Services, Office of

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–28497 Filed 11–6–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Plan for Using Risk Information in the

Materials and Waste Arenas: Case

Studies

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) staff is developing

an approach for using risk information

in the nuclear materials regulatory

process. As part of this effort, the NRC

staff has developed a plan for using riskinformed approaches in the nuclear

materials and waste arenas. The plan

employs case studies to examine the use

of risk information in the nuclear

materials and waste arenas.

The purpose of the case studies is: (1)

To illustrate what has been done and

what could be done in the materials and

waste arenas to alter the regulatory

approach in a risk-informed manner;

and (2) to establish a framework for

using a risk-informed approach in the

materials and waste arenas. A draft of

the plan was published in the Federal

Register (65 FR 54323, September 7,

2000). On September 21, 2000, the NRC

staff held a public meeting to

communicate the draft plan to the

public and to receive feedback. The

meeting was open to the public and all

interested parties were welcomed to

attend and provide comments. The

meeting was held from 9 a.m. to 12

noon in the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission Auditorium in Rockville,

Maryland. Based on the comments

received at the public meeting and on

comments from members of the Office

of Nuclear Materials Safety and

Safeguards Risk Steering Group, the

NRC staff has revised and finalized the

plan. The final plan is provided below

in its entirety.

Plan for Using Risk Information in the

Materials and Waste Arenas: Case

Studies

1. Background

In SECY–99–100, ‘‘Framework for

Risk-Informed Regulation in the Office

of Nuclear Material Safety and

Safeguards (NMSS),’’ dated March 31,

1999, the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) staff proposed a

framework for risk-informed regulation

in the materials and waste arenas. On

June 28, 1999, the Commission

approved the staff’s proposal. In the

associated staff requirements

memorandum, the Commission

approved the staff’s recommendation to

implement a five-step process consisting

of:

(1) Identifying candidate regulatory

applications that are amenable to

expanded use of risk assessment

information;

(2) Making a decision on how to modify

a regulation or regulated activity;

(3) Changing current regulatory

approaches;

(4) Implementing risk-informed

approaches; and

(5) developing or adapting existing tools

and techniques of risk analysis to

the regulation of nuclear materials

safety and safeguards.

Step one of the five-step process will

be accomplished by applying screening

criteria to regulatory application areas

as a means to identify the candidate

regulatory applications. To be a

candidate for expanded use of risk

information in the materials and waste

arenas, regulatory application areas

must meet the screening criteria.

As part of the staff’s effort to use an

enhanced public participatory process

in developing the framework, the staff

held a public workshop in Washington,

DC, on April 25 and 26, 2000. The staff

published draft screening criteria in a

Federal Register Notice (65 FR 14323,

March 16, 2000) announcing the

workshop. The purpose of the first part

of the workshop was to solicit public

comment on the draft screening criteria

and their applications. The purpose of

the second part of the workshop was to

solicit public input for the process of

developing safety goals for nuclear

materials and waste applications.

The workshop included participation

by representatives from NRC,

Environmental Protection Agency,

Department of Energy, Occupational

Safety and Health Administration,

Organization of Agreement States,

Health Physics Society, Nuclear Energy

Institute, environmental and citizen

groups, licensees, and private

consultants. A consensus among the

workshop participants was that case

studies and iterative investigations

would be useful for the following

purposes: (1) To test the screening

criteria; (2) to show how the application

of risk information has affected or could

affect a particular area of the regulatory

process; and (3) to develop safety goal

parameters and a first draft of safety

goals for each area.

2. Purpose

The purpose of the case studies is: (1)

To illustrate what has been done and

what could be done in the materials and

waste arenas to alter the regulatory

approach in a risk-informed manner;

and (2) to establish a framework for

using a risk-informed approach in the

materials and waste arenas by testing

the draft screening criteria, and

determining the feasibility of safety

goals. Once the screening criteria have

been tested using a spectrum of case

studies, the criteria can be modified as

appropriate, placed in final form, and

established as part of the framework for

prioritizing the use of risk information

in materials and waste regulatory

applications.

The case studies will be used to begin

the process of developing safety goals