66000 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2001 / Notices

from the steam generator is exhausted

through the stack.

Alaron estimates that the wet waste

processing system will process liquid,

sludge and/or resin waste whose

isotopic distribution is typical of waste

currently being disposed from nuclear

power facilities. Based on the estimated

waste throughput, approximately 214

curies of radioactive material will be

processed per year. Assuming that all of

the H–3 activity will become airborne,

that the polished water feed to the steam

generator contains other isotopes at 10

CFR Part 20 effluent limits, and that all

of the radioactivity in the feed is

released, the total activity emitted per

year would be about 740 millicuries.

The licensee performed dose

calculations using the computer code

COMPLY (an EPA computer code for

calculating the dose to individuals due

to airborne releases) which projects an

effective dose equivalent of 0.03

millirem/year to an individual at the

nearest site boundary as a result of the

estimated release. NRC has performed a

dose assessment of the proposal and

agrees with the basic assumptions and

results of the licensee’s analysis.

With regard to direct radiation

exposure, the licensee plans to conduct

cleaning and back flush evolutions that

will assure that accumulation of

radioactive material on filter media will

not result in high radiation levels

around the unit. In addition, there will

be shielding in place to avoid creation

of high radiation levels. The maximum

radiation levels is expected to be 50

millirem per hour one foot from the

Concentration Dyer, i.e. within the

restricted area. Radiation levels at the

closest unrestricted area, including the

contribution from existing operations,

will be about 10 microrem per hour.

4. Conclusion

In view of the fact that the additional

dose of 0.03 millirem/year to an

individual at the nearest site boundary

as a result of the proposed amendment

is a small fraction of the dose attributed

to fugitive emissions to an individual at

the nearest residence as a result of

existing operations, the staff concludes

that the proposed action will have a

negligible impact on the environment.

[FR Doc. 01–31471 Filed 12–20–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–361 and 50–362]

Southern California Edison Company;

San Onofre Nuclear Generating

Station, Units 2 and 3 Environmental

Assessment and Finding of No

Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission, or NRC)

is considering issuance of an exemption

from Title 10 of the Code of Federal

Regulations (10 CFR) part 50, Appendix

E, sections IV.F.2.b and c to Facility

Operating License Nos. NPF–10 and

NPF–15, issued to Southern California

Edison Company (the licensee), for

operation of the San Onofre Nuclear

Generating Station, Units 2 and 3,

(SONGS), located in San Diego County,

California. Therefore, as required by 10

CFR 51.21, the NRC is issuing this

environmental assessment and finding

of no significant impact.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

The proposed action is a one time

exemption from the requirements of

Appendix E, sections IV.F.2.b and c

regarding conduct of a full participation

exercise of the onsite and offsite

emergency plans every 2 years. Under

the proposed exemption, as modified by

the staff (which is discussed below), the

licensee would reschedule the exercise

originally scheduled for September 12,

2001, and complete the exercise

requirements by December 31, 2002.

The proposed action is in accordance

with the licensee’s application for an

exemption dated September 18, 2001.

The licensee requested a one-time

exemption, in accordance with 10 CFR

50.12, ‘‘Specific exemptions,’’ from the

requirements in 10 CFR part 50,

Appendix E, sections IV.F.2.b and c to

perform a biennial exercise of the onsite

and offsite emergency plans (EPs) with

full participation of each offsite

authority having a role under the offsite

plan (i.e., a full participation exercise),

for SONGS. A full participation exercise

had been scheduled for SONGS for

September 12, 2001; however, as a

result of the national security events

occurring in the United States on

September 11, 2001, this exercise was

canceled. The licensee requested that

the biennial exercise for 2001 not be

conducted as required by Appendix E,

and the next full participation exercise

be conducted in 2003 and every two

years thereafter.

Because the NRC’s staff has

concluded that it cannot grant the

licensee’s request to cancel the full

participation exercise for 2001, and

because the scheduled 2001 full

participation exercise to meet the

regulations was canceled for good cause,

there is insufficient time before January

1, 2002, when the licensee would be in

violation of the regulations, to prepare

and conduct the exercise and the

licensee has provided sufficient

information to provide a basis for a oneyear schedular extension to the

requirements in the regulations, the

NRC has concluded that such a one-year

schedular exemption to the biennial

exercise requirements in Appendix E to

10 CFR part 50 can be granted SONGS.

The full participation exercise for

SONGS scheduled for 2001 would be

conducted by December 31, 2002.

Future exercises, however, will be

performed as previously scheduled (i.e.,

granting of a schedular exemption for

the current exercise does not reset the

2-year clock and the licensee will be

expected to complete the next

scheduled exercise in 2003).

The Need for the Proposed Action

Sections IV.F.2.b and c, of Appendix

E to 10 CFR part 50, require each

licensee at each site to conduct an

exercise of its onsite and offsite EPs

every 2 years. Federal agencies (the NRC

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, 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 EPs on September 12, 2001,

within the required 2-year interval.

However, as a result of the national

security events occurring in the United

States on September 11, 2001, this

exercise was canceled.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The NRC has completed its evaluation

of the revised proposed action to grant

a one-year schedular extension

exemption to SONGS for the biennial

exercise requirements in Appendix E to

10 CFR part 50 and concludes that it

involves an administrative activity (a

schedular change in conducting an

exercise) unrelated to plant operations.

The revised proposed action will not

significantly 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

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2001 / Notices 66001

significant radiological environmental

impacts ass ociated with the revised

proposed action.

With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the revised

proposed action does not have a

potential to affect 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 revised proposed action.

Accordingly, the NRC concludes that

there are no significant environmental

impacts associated with the revised

proposed action.

Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

to the Proposed Action

As an alternative to the revised

proposed action, the NRC staff

considered denial of the action (i.e., the

‘‘no-action’’ alternative). Denial of the

revised proposed action 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 different resources than those

previously considered in the Final

Environmental Statement for SONGS

dated April 1981.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

On November 29 and December 17,

2001, the NRC staff consulted with the

California State official, Ben Tong of the

Governor’s Office of Emergency

Services, regarding the environmental

impact of the proposed action. The State

official had no comments on the

environmental impact; however, the

State official did not agree with

rescheduling the exercise. The State

official’s comments will be addressed in

the safety evaluation supporting the

exemption. In addition, by phone on

December 3, 2001, the Federal

Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA) indicated that it had no

disagreement with rescheduling the

exercise.

Finding of No Significant Impact

On the basis of the environmental

assessment, the NRC concludes that the

revised 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

revised proposed action.

For further details with respect to the

proposed action, see the licensee’s letter

dated September 18, 2001. 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 e-mail at pdr@nrc.gov.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day

of December, 2001.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Jack Donohew,

Senior Project Manager, Section 2, Project

Directorate IV, Division of Licensing Project

Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 01–31472 Filed 12–20–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

POSTAL SERVICE

Sunshine Act Meeting

Board Votes To Close December 13,

2001, Meeting

By paper and telephone vote on

December 11–13, 2001 the Board of

Governors of the United States Postal

Service voted unanimously to close to

public observation its meeting held in

Washington, DC via teleconference. The

Board determined that prior public

notice was not possible.

ITEM CONSIDERED: Rate Case

R2001–1.

GENERAL COUNSEL

CERTIFICATION; The General Counsel

of the United States Postal Service has

certified that the meeting was properly

closed under the Government in the

Sunshine Act.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Request for information about the

meeting should be addressed to the

Secretary of the Board, David G. Hunter,

at (202) 268–4800.

David G. Hunter,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–31636 Filed 12–19–01; 2:05 pm]

BILLING CODE 7710–12–M

RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD

Proposed Collection; Comment

Request

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

which provides opportunity for public

comment on new or revised data

collections, the Railroad Retirement

Board (RRB) will publish periodic

summaries of proposed data collections.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether

the proposed information collection is

necessary for the proper performance of

the functions of the agency, including

whether the information has practical

utility; (b) the accuracy of the RRB’s

estimate of the burden of the collection

of the information; (c) ways to enhance

the quality, utility, and clarity of the

information to be collected; and (d)

ways to minimize the burden related to

the collection of information on

respondents, including the use of

automated collection techniques or

other forms of information technology.

Title and Purpose of Information

Collection

Statement Regarding Contributions

and Support of Children, RRB Form G–

139 Section 2(d)(4) of the Railroad

Retirement Act (RRA), provides, in part,

that a child is deemed dependent if the

conditions set forth in Section 202(d)(3),

(4) and (9) of the Social Security Act are

met. In accordance with amendments to

the Social Security Act (section 104 of

Public Law 104–21) the RRB amended

its regulations to eliminate to ‘‘livingwith’’ requirement (as an alternative to

actual dependency) as a basis for

eligibility for an annuity as the

stepchild of a railroad employee, and

also to provide for the termination of the

inclusion of a stepchild in the

computation of the social security

overall minimum guarantee provision

when the stepparent’s marriage to the

natural parent is terminated.

The regulations outlining child

support and dependency requirements

are prescribed in 20 CFR 222.50.

Prior to the amendments to the Social

Security Act, almost all child

dependency determinations were

‘‘deemed’’ based on a child living with

the railroad employee. To determine

entitlement based on actual

dependency, the RRB must solicit

financial information regarding a child’s

means of support. A comparison is then

made between the amount of support

received from the railroad employee and

the amount received from other sources.

The RRB uses Form G–139, Statement

Regarding Contributions and Support of

Children, to collect information needed

to adequately determine if the child

meets the dependency requirement.

Completion will be required to obtain a

benefit. One response is required of

each respondent. The RRB estimates

that 500 Form G–139’s will be