65520 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 19, 2001 / Notices

Documents may be examined, and/or

copied for a fee, at the NRC’s Public

Document Room (PDR), 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 Public Electronic Reading Room).

Persons who do not have access to

ADAMS or who encounter problems in

accessing the documents located in

ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR

Reference staff by telephone at 1–800–

397–4209, or 301–415–4737, or by email at pdr@nrc.gov.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day

of December, 2001.

Darl S. Hood,

Senior Project Manager, Section 1, Project

Directorate III, Division of Licensing Project

Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 01–31218 Filed 12–18–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–219]

AmerGen Energy Company, LLC;

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 AmerGen Energy

Company, LLC (AmerGen or the

licensee), for operation of the Oyster

Creek Nuclear Generating Station,

located in Ocean County, New Jersey.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

The proposed action is a one-time

exemption from the requirements of

Title 10 of the Code of Federal

Regulations (10 CFR) part 50, Appendix

E, Items IV.F.2.b and c regarding

conduct of a full participation exercise

of the onsite and offsite emergency

plans every 2 years. The proposed

action is in accordance with the

licensee’s application for an exemption

dated October 8, 2001. Under the

proposed exemption, AmerGen would

reschedule the exercise originally

scheduled for October 16, 2001, and

complete the exercise requirements in

calendar year 2002. However, the next

full participation exercise will continue

to be scheduled biennially from 2001.

The licensee requested relief from

section IV.F.2.c of Appendix E to 10

CFR part 50. Although the intent of the

request is clear, i.e., the need to

postpone the biennial exercise, the

citation of regulations to accomplish

that intent may not be complete. Section

IV.F.2.b of Appendix E to 10 CFR part

50 may also be cited for completeness.

The analysis in the Commission’s Safety

Evaluation encompassed the technical

issues necessary to grant a schedular

exemption from sections IV.F.2.b and c

for the conduct of the biennial exercise.

The Need for the Proposed Action

10 CFR part 50, Appendix E, Items

IV.F.2.b and c require each licensee at

each site to conduct an exercise of its

onsite and offsite emergency plan every

2 years. Federal agencies (the Nuclear

Regulatory Commission for the onsite

exercise portion and the Federal

Emergency Management Agency for the

offsite exercise portion) observe these

exercises and evaluate the performance

of the licensee and State and local

authorities having a role under the

emergency plan.

The licensee had initially planned to

conduct an exercise of its onsite and

offsite emergency plan on October 16,

2001, within the required 2-year

interval. However, AmerGen has

decided to postpone the exercise as a

result of the ongoing national security

threat in the United States, and the

response, recovery, and other

continuing offsite agency activities

associated with the September 11, 2001,

attacks on the World Trade Center.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The Commission has completed its

evaluation of the proposed action and

concludes that the proposed action

involves an administrative activity (a

scheduler change in conducting an

exercise) unrelated to plant operations.

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 occupational or

public radiation exposure. Therefore,

there are no significant radiological

environmental impacts associated with

the proposed action.

With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed

action does not involve any historic

sites. It does not affect non-radiological

plant effluents and has no other

environmental impact. Therefore, there

are no significant non-radiological

environmental impacts associated with

the proposed action.

Accordingly, the Commission

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 dated December 1974 for the

Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating

Station.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on November 8, 2001, the staff

consulted with the New Jersey State

official, Rich Pinney of the New Jersey

Department of Environment and Natural

Resources, regarding the environmental

impact of the proposed action. The State

official had no comments. In addition,

by letter dated September 27, 2001, the

Federal Emergency Management Agency

indicated support for rescheduling the

exercise.

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 October 8, 2001, which is

available for public inspection at the

Commission’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 13th day

of December, 2001.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Helen N. Pastis,

Senior Project Manager, Section 1, Project

Directorate 1, Division of Licensing Project

Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 01–31215 Filed 12–18–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P