66946 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 248 / Thursday, December 27, 2001 / Notices

Commission or by the Chairman of the

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

Panel will rule on the request and/or

petition; and the Secretary or the

designated Atomic Safety and Licensing

Board will issue a notice of hearing or

an appropriate order.

As required by 10 CFR 2.714, a

petition for leave to intervene shall set

forth with particularity the interest of

the petitioner in the proceeding, and

how that interest may be affected by the

results of the proceeding. The petition

must specifically explain the reasons

why intervention should be permitted

with particular reference to the

following factors: (1) the nature of the

petitioner’s right under the Act to be

made a party to the proceeding; (2) the

nature and extent of the petitioner’s

property, financial, or other interest in

the proceeding; and (3) the possible

effect of any order that may be entered

in the proceeding on the petitioner’s

interest. The petition must also identify

the specific aspect(s) of the subject

matter of the proceeding as to which

petitioner wishes to intervene. Any

person who has filed a petition for leave

to intervene or who has been admitted

as a party may amend the petition

without requesting leave of the Board

up to 15 days prior to the first

prehearing conference scheduled in the

proceeding, but such an amended

petition must satisfy the specificity

requirements described above.

Not later than 15 days prior to the first

prehearing conference scheduled in the

proceeding, a petitioner shall file a

supplement to the petition to intervene

that must include a list of the

contentions that the petitioner seeks to

have litigated in the hearing. Each

contention must consist of a specific

statement of the issue of law or fact to

be raised or controverted. In addition,

the petitioner shall provide a brief

explanation of the bases of each

contention and a concise statement of

the alleged facts or expert opinion that

support the contention and on which

the petitioner intends to rely in proving

the contention at the hearing. The

petitioner must also provide references

to those specific sources and documents

of which the petitioner is aware and on

which the petitioner intends to rely to

establish those facts or expert opinion.

The petitioner must provide sufficient

information to show that a genuine

dispute exists with the applicant on a

material issue of law or fact.

Contentions shall be limited to matters

within the scope of the amendment

under consideration. The contention

must be one that, if proven, would

entitle the petitioner to relief. A

petitioner who fails to file such a

supplement that satisfies these

requirements with respect to at least one

contention will not be permitted to

participate as a party.

Those permitted to intervene become

parties to the proceeding, subject to any

limitations in the order granting leave to

intervene, and have the opportunity to

participate fully in the conduct of the

hearing, including the opportunity to

present evidence and cross-examine

witnesses.

A request for a hearing and petition

for leave to intervene must be filed with

the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention:

Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, or

may be delivered to the Commission’s

Public Document Room, located at One

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike

(first floor), Rockville, Maryland, by the

above date. A copy of the request for a

hearing and the petition should also be

sent to the Office of the General

Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001, and to Nicholas S. Reynolds,

Esquire, Winston and Strawn, 1400 L

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005–

3502, attorney for the licensee.

Nontimely filings of petitions for

leave to intervene, amended petitions,

supplemental petitions and/or requests

for a hearing will not be entertained

absent a determination by the

Commission, the presiding officer, or

the 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).

If a request for a hearing is received,

the Commission’s staff may issue the

amendment after it completes its

technical review and prior to the

completion of any required hearing if it

publishes a further notice for public

comment of its proposed finding of no

significant hazards consideration in

accordance with 10 CFR 50.91 and

50.92.

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application for

amendment dated December 19, 2000,

as supplemented by letters dated May

30, June 20, 26 (two letters), and 28, July

3 and 24 (two letters), August 7, 13, 21,

23, and 30, September 14, October 1, 12

(two letters), 17, 30 (two letters), and 31,

November 9, 16 (three letters), and 17,

and December 5, 6 (two letters), and 10,

2001, which are 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 Agencywide

Documents Access and Management

Systems (ADAMS) Public Electronic

Reading Room on the Internet at the

NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/

reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who

do not have access to ADAMS or who

encounter problems in accessing the

documents located in ADAMS, should

contact the NRC Public Document Room

Reference staff by telephone at 1–800–

397–4209, 301–415–4737 or by e-mail to

pdr@nrc.gov.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day

of December, 2001.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Thomas W. Alexion,

Project Manager, Section 1, Project

Directorate IV, Division of Licensing Project

Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 01–31806 Filed 12–26–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–335 and 50–389]

Florida Power and Light Company, St.

Lucie Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2;

Notice of Receipt of Application for

Renewal of Facility Operating License

Nos. DPR–67 and NPF–16 for an

Additional 20-Year Period

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission has received the

application from Florida Power and

Light Company, dated November 29,

2001, filed pursuant to Section 104b and

103 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,

as amended, and 10 CFR part 54 for

renewal of Operating License Nos. DPR–

67 and NPF–16, which authorize the

applicant to operate St. Lucie Nuclear

Plant, Units 1 and 2. The St. Lucie

nuclear facility is located about 7 miles

southeast of the city of Fort Pierce,

Florida, in St. Lucie County. The

current operating licenses for St. Lucie

Units 1 and 2, expire on March 1, 2016,

and April 6, 2023, respectively. For St.

Lucie Unit 2, Florida Power and Light

requested an exemption to the schedular

requirements of 10 CFR 54.17(c) by

letter dated October 30, 2000. By letter

dated February 27, 2001, the NRC

approved the requested schedular

exemption. The St. Lucie Units 1 and 2

reactors are Combustion Engineering

designed pressurized-water reactors.

The acceptability of the tendered

application for docketing and other

matters, including an opportunity to

request a hearing will be the subject of

a subsequent Federal Register notice.

A copy of the application is available

for public inspection at the

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 248 / Thursday, December 27, 2001 / Notices 66947

Commission’s Public Document Room,

located at One White Flint North, 11555

Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,

Maryland, or on the NRC Web site from

the NRC’s Agencywide Documents

Access and Management System

(ADAMS). The ADAMS Public

Electronic Reading Room is accessible

from the NRC Web site at http://

www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. 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 (PDR)

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

415–4737 or by email to pdr@nrc.gov.

The staff has verified that a copy of

the license renewal application for the

St. Lucie Nuclear Plant has been

provided to the Indian River

Community College library.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, the 19th day

of December, 2001.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Stephen T. Hoffman,

Acting Chief, License Renewal and

Standardization Branch, Division of

Regulatory Improvement Programs, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 01–31807 Filed 12–26–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket 72–20]

U.S. Department of Energy Three Mile

Island 2 Independent Spent Fuel

Storage Installation, Materials License

No. SNM–2508; Issuance of

Environmental Assessment and

Finding of No Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC or Commission) is

considering issuance of an exemption,

pursuant to 10 CFR 72.7, from a specific

provision of 10 CFR 72.32(a)(12) to the

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) for the

Three Mile Island 2 (TMI–2)

Independent Spent Fuel Storage

Installation (ISFSI) located in Idaho.

The requested exemption would allow

DOE to deviate from the requirement of

10 CFR 72.32(a)(12) for a biennial onsite

emergency preparedness (EP) exercise.

The requested exemption would allow

the onsite exercise to be performed prior

to June 30, 2002, instead of prior to

December 31, 2001, which is the

expiration of the biennial period for the

conduct of an EP exercise at the TMI–

2 ISFSI.

Environmental Assessment (EA)

Identification of Proposed Action: By

letter dated November 21, 2001, DOE

requested an extension of time in which

to perform the next onsite biennial EP

exercise required by 10 CFR

72.32(a)(12)(i). Staff has considered an

exemption from this provision of 10

CFR 72.32(a)(12). DOE holds Materials

License No. SNM–2508, issued March

19, 1999, for operation of the TMI–2

ISFSI located within the Idaho National

Engineering and Environmental

Laboratory (INEEL).

On March 16, 1999, DOE performed

the first onsite EP exercise for the TMI–

2 ISFSI. The requirement of 10 CFR

72.32(a)(12) is that onsite EP exercises

be conducted biennially, that is every

other calendar year. With the last

performance of the TMI–2 ISFSI EP

exercise on March 16, 1999, the next

required performance of the exercise

would be prior to December 31, 2001.

DOE had scheduled its next biennial

exercise for September 12, 2001.

However, due to the tragic events of

September 11, 2001, the exercise was

postponed.

By exempting DOE from the provision

of 10 CFR 72.32(a)(12) requiring a

biennial exercise, DOE will be

authorized to delay performance of the

biennial onsite EP exercise at the TMI–

2 ISFSI until June 30, 2002. The

proposed action before the Commission

is whether to grant this exemption

under 10 CFR 72.7.

Need for the Proposed Action:

Conduct of an exercise of an ISFSI’s

onsite emergency plan every 2 years is

required by 10 CFR 72.32(a)(12). The

licensee had initially planned to

conduct an exercise of its onsite

emergency plan on September 12, 2001,

within the required 2-year interval.

However, due to heavy demands on

INEEL security and emergency

preparedness resources pursuant to the

tragic events of September 11, 2001, and

the prospect of continued terrorist

threats against the United States, and

the need for those resources to remain

focused on assessing the security and

emergency preparedness/response

posture at INEEL, the licensee decided

to postpone the exercise.

Environmental Impacts of the

Proposed Action: The proposed action

involves an administrative activity (a

scheduler change in conducting an

exercise) unrelated to ISFSI operations.

The last EP exercise was conducted

on March 16, 1999. NRC reviews and

inspections since the 1999 exercise have

not identified a decline in the

effectiveness of DOE’s emergency

response capability. The postponement

should have no impact on the

effectiveness of DOE’s emergency

response capability. Moreover, as DOE

points out, the re-scheduled exercise

may be of more value after any

additional security and/or emergency

response measures are put into effect in

light of the tragic events of September

11, 2001.

The proposed action will not increase

the probability or consequences of

accidents, no changes are being made in

the amounts or types of any effluents

that may be released offsite, and there

is no 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 affect non-radiological

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.

Alternative 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 the

same.

Agencies and Persons Consulted: On

December 19, 2001, Mr. Doug Walker

and Ms. Kathleen Trever of the State of

Idaho, INEEL Oversight Program, were

contacted about the Environmental

Assessment for the proposed action. The

state officials had no comments related

to the appropriateness of issuance of the

exemption, or the Staff’s basis for

issuance of the exemption. The state

officials discussed several comments

related to additional information in

DOE’s letter request dated November 21,

2001, that were unrelated to the Staff’s

basis for issuance of the exemption. The

state officials mentioned they will

follow up on those concerns with a

letter to DOE, and will provide a copy

of that letter to the NRC. However, the

state officials agreed that issuance of the

exemption need not be delayed due to

the unrelated concerns.

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.