20840 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2001 / Notices

10 CFR 2.1305. The Commission will

consider and, if appropriate, respond to

these comments, but such comments

will not otherwise constitute part of the

decisional record. Comments should be

submitted to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555–0001, Attention: Rulemakings

and Adjudications Staff, and should cite

the publication date and page number of

this Federal Register notice.

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application dated March

6, 2001, and supplement dated April 4,

2001, 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 20th day

of April 2001.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Robert G. Schaaf,

Project Manager, Section 1, Project

Directorate I, Division of Licensing Project

Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 01–10244 Filed 4–24–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–338 and 50–339]

Virginia Electric and Power Company;

North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and

2; 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 Nos. NPF–4 and

NPF–7, issued to Virginia Electric and

Power Company (the licensee), for

operation of the North Anna Power

Station, Units 1 and 2, located in Louisa

County, Virginia.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

The proposed action would increase

the limit on the fuel enrichment from

the current limit of 4.3 weight percent

U235 to a maximum of 4.6 weight

percent U235, establish boron

concentration and fuel storage

restrictions for the Spent Fuel Pool

(SFP), and eliminate the value of

uncertainties in the calculation for Keff

in the SFP criticality calculation. The

proposed action is in accordance with

the licensee’s application for

amendments dated September 27, 2000,

as supplemented November 21 and

December 18, 2000, and February 2, and

March 2, 2001.

The Need for the Proposed Action

The proposed action to increase fuel

enrichment will reduce the need for

extended periods of reduced power

operation at the end of each operating

cycle and permit fuel discharge burnups

more compatible with the current

maximum rod burnup limit of 60,000

MWD/MTU. This action will help

optimize fuel cycle costs while

satisfying the safety limits. Currently,

Technical Specification (TS) 5.3,

‘‘Reactor Core,’’ limits the use of reload

fuel to a maximum enrichment of 4.3

weight percent U235. Thus, the proposed

change to the TS was requested.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The NRC has completed its evaluation

of the proposed action and concludes

that the storage and use of fuel enriched

with U235 up to 4.6 weight percent at

North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and

2, is acceptable. The safety

considerations associated with higher

enrichments have been evaluated by the

staff, and the staff has concluded that

such changes would not adversely affect

plant safety. The proposed changes have

no effect on the probability of any

accident. There will be no change to the

authorized power level. There is no

change to the allowable maximum rod

burnup limit of 60,000 MWD/MTU,

already approved for North Anna Power

Station, Units 1 and 2. As a result, there

is no significant increase in individual

or cumulative radiation exposure.

The environmental impacts of

transportation resulting from the use of

higher enrichment fuel and extended

irradiation are discussed in the staff

assessment entitled, ‘‘NRC Assessment

of the Environmental Effects of

Transportation Resulting from Extended

Fuel Enrichment and Irradiation.’’ This

assessment was published in the

Federal Register on August 11, 1988 (53

FR 30355), as corrected on August 24,

1988 (53 FR 32322), in connection with

the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant,

Unit 1, Environmental Assessment and

Finding of No Significant Impact. As

indicated therein, the environmental

cost contribution of an increase in fuel

enrichment of up to 5.0 weight percent

U235 and irradiation limits up to 60,000

MWD/MTU are either unchanged, or

may in fact be reduced from those

summarized in Table S–4 as set forth in

10 CFR 51.52(c). Therefore, there are no

significant radiological environmental

impacts associated with the proposed

action.

With regard to potential

nonradiological impacts, the proposed

changes involve systems located within

the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR

Part 20. 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—Operating License (FESOL), dated April 1973 for the North

Anna Power Station.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on March 22, 2001 the staff consulted

with the Virginia State official, Mr. Les

Foldesi of the Virginia Department of

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 amendments.

For further details with respect to the

proposed action, see the licensee’s letter

dated September 27, 2000, as

supplemented November 21 and

December 18, 2000, and February 2 and

March 2, 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).

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2001 / Notices 20841

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day

of April 2001.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Stephen R. Monarque,

Project Manager, Section 1, Project

Directorate II, Division of Licensing Project

Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 01–10242 Filed 4–24–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Revision of Operator Licensing

Examination Standards for Power

Reactors: Notice of Availability

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC).

ACTION: Notice of availability.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory

Commission has issued Supplement 1 to

Revision 8 of NUREG–1021, ‘‘Operator

Licensing Examination Standards for

Power Reactors,’’ (formerly ‘‘Operator

Licensing Examiner Standards’’). The

Commission uses NUREG–1021 to

provide policy and guidance for the

development, administration, and

grading of written examinations and

operating tests used to determine the

qualifications of individuals who apply

for operator and senior operator licenses

at nuclear power plants pursuant to part

55 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal

Regulations (10 CFR part 55). NUREG–

1021 provides similar guidance for

verifying the continued qualifications of

licensed operators when the staff

determines that NRC requalification

examinations are necessary.

NUREG–1021 has been revised to

implement a number of clarifications

and enhancements that have been

identified since Revision 8 was

published in April 1999. A draft of

Supplement 1 was issued for comment

on March 20, 2000 (65 FR 15020), and

an addendum, which extended the

comment period until October 31, 2000,

was issued on July 17, 2000 (65 FR

44080). A summary of the comments

regarding draft Supplement 1 and the

NRC staff’s response to those comments

is available in the NRC Public Electronic

Reading Room (http://www.nrc.gov/

NRC/ADAMS/index.html/Accession

Number ML010580481).

The notable changes in Supplement 1

include: (1) Clarified guidance to ensure

that the topics and questions for the

written examination are selected in a

systematic and random manner making

it possible to relax the limits on

question repetition from recent

examinations and to increase the upper

limit on the number of questions that

may be taken directly from a bank of

previously-used questions; (2) updated

guidelines related to the training and

qualification of operator license

applicants in order to conform with

Revision 3 of Regulatory Guide 1.8,

‘‘Qualification and Training of

Personnel for Nuclear Power Plants,’’

which was published in May 2000; and

(3) clarified guidance for documenting

NRC staff concerns related to draft

examination quality.

Supplement 1 to Revision 8 will

become effective for operator licensing

examinations that are confirmed 60 or

more days after the date of this notice

by issuance of an official corporate

notification letter or at an earlier date

agreed upon by the facility licensee and

its NRC Regional Office. After the

effective date, facility licensees that

elect to prepare their examinations will

be expected do so based on the guidance

in Supplement 1 to Revision 8 of

NUREG–1021, unless the NRC has

reviewed and approved the facility

licensee’s alternative examination

procedures.

Copies of Supplement 1 to Revision 8

of NUREG–1021 are being mailed to the

plant or site manager at each nuclear

power facility regulated by the NRC. A

copy is available for inspection and/or

copying for a fee in the NRC’s Public

Document Room, Washington, DC.

NUREG–1021 is also electronically

available for downloading from the

NRC’s operator licensing web site (http:/

/www.nrc.gov/NRC/REACTOR/OL/

OLguidance.html). If you do not have

electronic access to NRC documents,

you may request a single copy of

Supplement 1 by writing to the Office

of the Chief Information Officer,

Reproduction and Distribution Services

Section, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001 (facsimile: 301–512–2289).

Telephone requests cannot be

accommodated. NUREG documents are

not copyrighted, and Commission

approval is not required to reproduce

them.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day

of April 2001.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Glenn M. Tracy,

Chief, Operator Licensing, Human

Performance and Plant Support Branch,

Division of Inspection Program Management,

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 01–10243 Filed 4–24–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT

CORPORATION

Submission for OMB Review;

Comment Request

AGENCY: Overseas Private Investment

Corporation.

ACTION: Request for Comments.

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

Chapter 35), agencies are required to

publish a Notice in the Federal Register

notifying the public that the Agency is

preparing an information collection

request for OMB review and approval

and to request public review and

comment on the submission. Comments

are being solicited on the need for the

information, its practical utility, the

accuracy of the Agency’s burden

estimate, and on ways to minimize the

reporting burden, including automated

collection techniques and uses of other

forms of technology. The proposed form

under review is summarized below.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before June 25, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the subject form

and the request for review prepared for

submission to OMB may be obtained

from the Agency Submitting Officer.

Comments on the form should be

submitted to the Agency Submitting

Officer.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

OPIC Agency Submitting Officer: Carol

Brock, Records Manager, Overseas

Private Investment Corporation, 1100

New York Avenue, NW., Washington,

DC 20527; 202/336–8563.

Summary of Form Under Review

Type of Request: Form Renewal.

Title: Project Information Report.

Form Number: OPIC–71.

Frequency of Use: No more than once

per contract.

Type of Respondents: Business or

other institutions (except farms).

Standard Industrial Classification

Codes: All.

Description of Affected Public: U.S.

companies investing overseas.

Reporting Hours: 7 hours per project.

Number of Responses: 25 per year.

Federal Cost: $1,600 per year.

Authority for Information Collection:

Title 22 U.S.C. 2191(k)(2) and 2199(h) of

the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as

amended.

Abstract (Needs and Uses): The

project information report is necessary

to elicit and record the information on

the developmental, environmental, and

U.S. economic effects of OPIC-assisted

projects. The information will be used

by OPIC’s staff and management solely