30028 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 107 / Monday, June 4, 2001 / Notices

55.59(a)(1), each licensed operator is

required to successfully complete a

requalification program developed by

the licensee that has been approved by

the Commission. This program is to be

conducted for a continuous period not

to exceed 24 months in duration and

upon its conclusion must be promptly

followed by a successive requalification

program. In addition, pursuant to 10

CFR 55.59(a)(2), each licensed operator

must pass a comprehensive

requalification written examination and

an annual operating test.

The Code of Federal Regulations at 10

CFR 55.11 states that ‘‘The Commission

may, upon application by an interested

person, or upon its own initiative, grant

such exemptions from the requirements

of the regulations in this part as it

determines are authorized by law and

will not endanger life or property and

are otherwise in the public interest.’’

3.0 Discussion

By letter dated January 12, 2001,

SCE&G requested a change to the cycle

dates for the 2-year requalification

training program required by 10 CFR

55.59. This request constitutes a request

for exemption under 10 CFR 55.11 from

the requirements of 10 CFR 55.59(a)(1)

and (a)(2). The schedular exemption

requested would extend the period for

the current cycle of the V. C. Summer

Nuclear Station requalification program

from May 31, 2001, to August 31, 2001.

The next requalification period would

begin on September 1, 2001, and end on

August 31, 2003, with subsequent

requalification periods remaining on a

September to August schedule. On

October 13, 2000, during routine

shutdown inspections, SCE&G

discovered a leak in a weld in the

reactor coolant system. Activities to

determine the root cause and extent of

this condition and to repair the leak

extended through the end of February

2001, months beyond the original

scheduled plant restart. To provide the

necessary level of licensed operator

support to ensure safety throughout the

extended plant outage, SCE&G

postponed the training and other

requalification program activities

originally planned during that time. The

affected licensed operators will

continue to demonstrate and possess the

required levels of knowledge, skills, and

abilities needed to safely operate the

plant throughout the transitional period

via continuation of the current licensed

operator requalification program, and

the limited 3-month delay in

completion of requalification for the

current perod will have a negligible

effect on operator qualification.

4.0 Conclusion

Accordingly, the Commission has

determined that pursuant to 10 CFR

55.11, granting an exemption to SCE&G

from the requirements in 10 CFR

55.59(a)(1) and (a)(2) is authorized by

law and will not endanger life or

property and is otherwise in the public

interest.

Therefore, the Commission hereby

grants SCE&G an exemption from the

schedular requirements of 10 CFR

55.59(a)(1) and (2) to allow the period

for current cycle of the V. C. Summer

Nuclear Station requalification program

to be extended beyond 24 months but

not exceeding 27 months, expiring on

August 31, 2001. The successive 2-year

requalification cycles will continue with

September 1 as the start date and

August 31 as the end date.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the

Commission has determined that the

granting of this exemption will not have

a significant effect on the quality of the

human environment (66 FR 29187).

This exemption is effective upon

issuance, and expires on August 31,

2001.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day

of May 2001.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Bruce A. Boger,

Director, Division of Inspection Program

Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 01–13901 Filed 6–1–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–247]

License No. DPR–26; Consolidated

Edison Company of New York, Inc.;

Receipt of Petition for Director’s

Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206

Notice is hereby given that by Petition

dated April 24, 2001, as supplemented

by letter dated May 3, 2001, Mr. David

A. Lochbaum, on behalf of Union of

Concerned Scientists, requested that the

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

issue a Demand for Information (DFI) to

licensees that use security personnel

supplied by Wackenhut Corporation

(Wackenhut), requiring them to provide

a docketed response explaining how

they comply with the requirement of

Title 10 of the Code of Federal

Regulations (10 CFR) section 26.10 that

licensees ‘‘provide reasonable measures

for the early detection of persons who

are not fit to perform activities within

the scope of this part’’ and the

requirement of 10 CFR 26.20 that

‘‘licensee policy should also address

other factors that could affect fitness for

duty such as mental stress, fatigue and

illness.’’

The petitioner also requested that the

DFI should require each licensee to

generally describe its policy for the

aforementioned factors and to explicitly

describe its policy for these factors as

applied to the security personnel

supplied by Wackenhut.

As a basis for this request, the

petitioner stated that:

‘‘An individual employed by Wackenhut

Corporation and assigned duties as a security

officer at Indian Point 2 was fired on June 26,

2000 * * *. The individual had worked five

straight 12-hour shifts [(12 hours on shift

followed by 12 hours off for 5 straight days)]

and declined to report for a sixth straight 12-

hour shift because he reported to his

management—in writing—that it would be

‘‘physically and mentally exhausting.’’ The

individual reported to his management—in

writing—that he was fully aware of his

condition and ‘‘would not want to be

negligent in performing [his] duties as a

security officer.’’

The security officer had unescorted access

to Indian Point 2 and thus was covered by

10 CFR part 26 as specified in Section 26.2

* * *.’’

The petitioner also indicated that

Wackenhut employees are required by

terms of their employment application,

Collective Bargaining Agreement, and

the Security Officer’s Handbook to

report to work when required.

Thus, the petitioner contends that a

worker employed by Wackenhut at an

NRC-licensed facility reported to his

management that he felt unfit for duty,

declined to report for mandated

overtime, and was terminated.

The petitioner also stated that ‘‘10

CFR 26.20 requires all licensees to have

formal policy and written procedures

for factors that could render plant

workers unfit for duty. Fatigue is

specifically mentioned in 10 CFR

26.20.’’ The petitioner contends that the

Wackenhut’s contractual right conflicts

with the Federal regulations in 10 CFR

26.10 (a) and (b) and that in the subject

case, the individual essentially provided

‘‘reasonable measures for early

detection’’ of a condition rendering him

unfit to perform activities within the

scope of part 26. The petitioner further

stated that rather than respecting the

individual’s judgment or seeking

another opinion by a Medical Review

Officer or other health care professional,

Wackenhut fired that individual.

This Petition has been accepted for

review pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 of the

NRC’s regulations, and has been referred

to the Director of the Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation for action. In

accordance with Section 2.206,

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 107 / Monday, June 4, 2001 / Notices 30029

appropriate action will be taken on this

Petition. The Petition and the NRC’s

acknowledgment letter are available in

ADAMS for inspection at the

Commission’s Public Document Room

(PDR), located at One White Flint North,

11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),

Rockville, Maryland, and from the

ADAMS Public Library component on

the NRC’s Web site, http://www.nrc.gov

(the Public Electronic Reading Room) at

Accession Nos. ML011150296 and

ML011410223, respectively. If you do

not have access to ADAMS or if there

are problems in accessing the

documents located in ADAMS, contact

the NRC Public Document Room

Reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301–

415–4737 or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day

of May 2001.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Jon R. Johnson,

Deputy Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 01–13896 Filed 6–1–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR WASTE TECHNICAL

REVIEW BOARD

Joint Panel Meeting: June 20–21,

2001—Las Vegas, Nevada

Discussions of the Department of

Energy’s Supplemental Science and

Performance Analyses (SSPA) report,

which is expected to be released around

the time of the meeting. Presentations

on how the SSPA addresses four

priority areas previously identified by

the Nuclear Waste Technical Review

Board as essential elements of any

recommendation of the possible

repository site at Yucca Mountain,

Nevada.

Pursuant to its authority under

section 5051 of Public Law 100–203,

Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act

of 1987, on Wednesday, June 20, and

Thursday, June 21, 2001, members of

the Nuclear Waste Technical Review

Board’s (Board) Panel on Performance

Assessment and its Panel on the

Repository will hold a joint meeting in

Las Vegas, Nevada, to discuss the U.S.

Department of Energy’s (DOE)

Supplemental Science and Performance

Analyses (SSPA). The SSPA, which is

expected to be released around the time

of the meeting, will cover recent

scientific and engineering studies and

analyses not reported in previous DOE

publications related to the possible

repository site at Yucca Mountain,

Nevada. The meeting will be open to the

public, and opportunities for public

comment will be provided. The Board is

charged by Congress with reviewing the

technical and scientific validity of DOE

activities related to civilian radioactive

waste management.

The joint panel meeting will be held

at the Crowne Plaza Hotel, 4255 South

Paradise Road, Las Vegas, Nevada

89109. The telephone number is (702)

369–4400; the fax number is (702) 369–

3770. Meeting times are 1:00 p.m. to

5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, June 20, and

8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, June

21.

On June 20, the DOE will present the

purpose, content, and overall results of

the SSPA.

On June 21, the DOE will describe in

detail how the SSPA addresses four

priority areas identified by the Board at

its January 2001 meeting in Amargosa

Valley, Nevada, as essential elements of

any potential site recommendation:

• Meaningful quantification of

conservatisms and uncertainties in the

DOE’s performance assessments

• Progress in understanding the

underlying fundamental processes

involved in predicting the rate of waste

package corrosion

• An evaluation and a comparison of

the base-case repository design with a

low-temperature design

• Development of multiple lines of

evidence to support the safety case of

the proposed repository. The lines of

evidence should be derived

independently of performance

assessment and thus not be subject to

the limitations of performance

assessment.

Time will be set aside at the end of

each day for public comments. Those

wanting to speak are encouraged to sign

the ‘‘Public Comment Register’’ at the

check-in table. A time limit may have to

be set on individual remarks, but

written comments of any length may be

submitted for the record. Interested

parties also will have the opportunity to

submit questions in writing.

A detailed agenda will be available

approximately one week before the

meeting. Copies of the agenda can be

requested by telephone or obtained from

the Board’s Web site at www.nwtrb.gov.

Transcripts of the meeting will be

available on the Board’s Web site, via email, on computer disk, and on a

library-loan basis in paper format from

Davonya Barnes of the Board staff,

beginning on July 30, 2001.

A block of rooms has been reserved at

the Crowne Plaza. Reservations must be

made by May 25 to receive the meeting

rate. When making a reservation, please

state that you are attending the Nuclear

Waste Technical Review Board meeting.

For more information, contact the

NWTRB: Karyn Severson, External

Affairs; 2300 Clarendon Boulevard,

Suite 1300; Arlington, Virginia 22201–

3367; (tel) 703–235–4473; (fax) 703–

235–4495; (e-mail) info@nwtrb.gov.

The Nuclear Waste Technical Review

Board was created by Congress in the

Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act

of 1987. The Board’s purpose is to

evaluate the technical and scientific

validity of activities undertaken by the

Secretary of Energy related to managing

the disposal of the nation’s spent

nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive

waste. In the same legislation, Congress

directed the DOE to characterize a site

at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, to

determine its suitability as the location

of a potential repository for the

permanent disposal of spent nuclear

fuel and high-level radioactive waste.

Dated: May 17, 2001.

William D. Barnard,

Executive Director, Nuclear Waste Technical

Review Board.

[FR Doc. 01–13868 Filed 6–1–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6820–A–M

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL

MANAGEMENT

Proposed Collection; Comment

Request for Reclearance of Previously

Approved Collections; SF 85, SF 85P,

SF 85P–S, SF 86, SF 86A

AGENCY: U.S. Office of Personnel

Management.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(Public Law 104–13, May 2, 1995) and

5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv), this notice

announces that OPM intends to submit

to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) a request for reclearance of five

(5) information collections described

below and solicits comments on them.

Executive Order 12968 dated August 2,

1995, establishes a uniform Federal

personnel security program. In addition,

Executive Order 10450 requires an

investigation appropriate to position

sensitivity level.

The Standard Form 85, Questionnaire

for Non-Sensitive Positions, is

completed by appointees to nonsensitive duties with the Federal

government. Information collected on

this form is used by the Office of

Personnel Management and by other

Federal agencies to initiate the

background investigations required to

determine basic suitability for Federal

employment in accordance with 5 U.S.C

3301, 3302 and 3304 and E.O. 10577 (5

CFR Rule V) as amended by E.O. 12107.