Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2001 / Notices 10759

ANSI N45.2.9–1974 provides

requirements for the protection of

nuclear power plant QA records against

degradation. It specifies design

requirements for use in the construction

of record storage facilities when use of

a single storage facility is desired. It

includes specific requirements for

protection against degradation

mechanisms such as fire, humidity, and

condensation. The requirements in

ANSI N45.2.9–1974 have been endorsed

by the NRC in Regulatory Guide 1.88,

‘‘Collection, Storage and Maintenance of

Nuclear Power Plant Quality Assurance

Records,’’ as adequate for satisfying the

recordkeeping requirements of 10 CFR

Part 50, Appendix B. ANSI N45.2.9–

1974 also satisfies the requirements of

10 CFR 72.72 by providing for adequate

maintenance of records regarding the

identity and history of the spent fuel in

storage. Such records would be subject

to and need to be protected from the

same types of degradation mechanisms

as nuclear power plant QA records.

Environmental Impacts of the

Proposed Action: Elimination of the

requirement to store ISFSI records at a

duplicate facility has no impact on the

environment. Storage of records does

not change the methods by which spent

fuel will be handled and stored at the

Columbia Generating Station and ISFSI

and does not change the amount of any

effluents, radiological or nonradiological, associated with the ISFSI.

Alternative to the Proposed Action:

Since there are no environmental

impacts associated with the proposed

action, alternatives are not evaluated

other than the no-action alternative. The

alternative to the proposed action would

be to deny approval of the exemption

and, therefore, not allow storage of

ISFSI spent fuel records at a single

qualified record storage facility.

However, the environmental impacts of

the proposed action and the alternative

would be the same.

Agencies and Persons Consulted: On

January 16, 2001, Mr. Richard Crowley

of the Washington State Division of

Radiation Protection, was contacted

regarding the environmental assessment

for the proposed action and had no

comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

The environmental impacts of the

proposed action have been reviewed in

accordance with the requirements set

forth in 10 CFR Part 51. Based upon the

foregoing EA, the Commission finds that

the proposed action of granting an

exemption from 10 CFR 72.72(d), so that

Energy Northwest may store spent fuel

records at the ISFSI in a single record

storage facility which meets the

requirements of ANSI N45.2.9–1974,

will not significantly impact the quality

of the human environment.

Accordingly, the Commission has

determined that an environmental

impact statement for the proposed

exemption is not necessary.

The request for exemption was

docketed under 10 CFR Part 72, Docket

72–35. For further details with respect

to this action, see the exemption request

dated December 12, 2000, which is

available for public inspection at the

Commission’s Public Document Room,

One White Flint North Building, 11555

Rockville Pike, Rockville Maryland

20852, or from the publicly available

records component of NRC’s

agencywide documents access and

management system (ADAMS). ADAMS

is accessible from the NRC web site at

http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/

index.html (the Public Electronic

Reading Room).

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 8th day

of February 2001.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

E. William Brach,

Director, Spent Fuel Project Office, Office of

Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.

[FR Doc. 01–3953 Filed 2–15–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–389]

Florida Power & Light Company, et al.;

St. Lucie Unit 2; Environmental

Assessment and Finding of No

Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) is considering

issuance of an exemption from Title 10,

Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR),

Part 54, Section 54.17(c), for Facility

Operating License No. NPF–16, issued

to Florida Power & Light Company, et

al. (the licensee), for operation of the St.

Lucie Unit 2, located in St. Lucie

County, Florida.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

The proposed action would exempt

the licensee from the requirement of 10

CFR 54.17(c), which specifies that an

applicant (for the purposes of license

renewal the licensee is the applicant)

may apply for a renewed operating

license no earlier than 20 years before

the expiration of the operating license

currently in effect.

The proposed action is in accordance

with the licensee’s application for an

exemption dated October 30, 2000.

The Need for the Proposed Action

In accordance with 10 CFR 54.17(c),

the earliest date that the applicant could

apply for a renewed operating license

for St. Lucie Unit 2 would be April 6,

2003. The proposed action would allow

the applicant to file a license renewal

application for St. Lucie Unit 2 earlier,

and concurrent with the renewal

application for St. Lucie Unit 1 which

has less than 20 years before expiration

of its current operating license on March

1, 2016. The request seeks only

schedular relaxation without any other

substantive reliefs.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The NRC has completed its evaluation

of the proposed action. The exemption,

if granted, will permit the applicant to

apply for renewal of the St. Lucie Unit

2 license sooner than the schedule

specified by 10 CFR 54.17(c). When the

applicant does apply for license

renewal, the environmental impacts of

operating the St. Lucie units under the

renewed licenses will then be submitted

by the applicant and evaluated by the

staff. In short, granting of the exemption

will not necessitate, or lead to, changes

to the as-built plant design, or to

existing procedures at the two St. Lucie

units.

The staff evaluated potential

radiological environmental impacts

associated with granting the requested

exemption. Since no plant design or

procedure changes will be made, no

new accident causal mechanisms would

be introduced.

The 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 off site,

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 the potential

nonradiological impacts, the proposed

action does not affect any historic sites.

The proposed action involves no plant

design or procedure changes, it does not

increase or decrease nonradiological

plant effluents, and has no other

environmental impact from those

previously evaluated by the staff in the

Final Environmental Statement (FES)

for the St. Lucie Plant (NUREG–0842).

Therefore, there are no significant

nonradiological environmental impacts

associated with the proposed action.

Accordingly, the NRC concludes that

there are no significant environmental

10760 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2001 / Notices

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 FES.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on January 31, 2001, the staff consulted

with Florida State official, William

Passetti, Bureau of Radiation Control,

regarding the environmental impact of

the proposed action. The State official

had no comments or objections.

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 action.

For further details with respect to the

proposed action, see the licensee’s

request for exemption dated October 30,

2000. 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).

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day

of February 2001.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Kahtan N. Jabbour,

Senior Project Manager, Section 2, Project

Directorate II, Division of Licensing Project

Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 01–3952 Filed 2–15–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Reactor Oversight Process Initial

Implementation Evaluation Panel;

Meeting Notice

Pursuant to the Federal Advisory

Committee Act of October 6, 1972 (Pub.

L. 94–463, Stat. 770–776) the U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC),

on October 2, 2000, announced the

establishment of the Reactor Oversight

Process Initial Implementation

Evaluation Panel (IIEP). The IIEP

functions as a cross-disciplinary

oversight group to independently

monitor and evaluate the results of the

first year of implementation of the

Reactor Oversight Process (ROP). A

Charter governing the IIEP functions as

a Federal Advisory Committee was filed

with Congress on October 17, 2000, after

consultation with the Committee

Management Secretariat, General

Services Administration. The IIEP will

hold its fourth meeting on February 26–

27, 2001, in the ACRS Conference Room

T–2B3, located at the U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, 11545

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.

The IIEP meeting participants are

listed below along with their affiliation:

A. Randolph Blough—U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission

R. William Borchardt—U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission

Kenneth Brockman—U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission

Mary Ferdig—Ph. D. Candidate,

Organization Development Program,

Benedictine University; Ferdig Inc.

Organizational Research and

Development

Steve Floyd—Nuclear Energy Institute

David Garchow—PSEG Nuclear LLC

Richard Hill—Southern Nuclear

Operating Company

Rod Krich—Commonwealth Edison

Company

Robert Laurie—California Energy

Commission

James Moorman, III—U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission

Loren Plisco—U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission

Steven Reynolds—U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission

A. Edward Scherer—Southern

California Edison Company

James Setser—Georgia Department of

Natural Resources

Raymond Shadis—New England

Coalition on Nuclear Pollution

James Trapp—U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission

A tentative agenda of the meeting is

outlined as follows:

February 26, 2001

8 a.m.—Introduction/Meeting

Objectives and Goals/Review of

Meeting Minutes from January 22–

23, 2001 Meeting

8:30 a.m.—Initial Prioritization of Issues

Identified Through the Panel

12 p.m.—Lunch

1 p.m.—Presentations by Invited

Stakeholders:

—Steve Floyd of the Nuclear Energy

Institute

—Rich Janati of the Pennsylvania

Department of Environmental

Protection

—David Lochbaum of the Union of

Concerned Scientists

5 p.m.—Adjourn

February 27, 2001 Meeting

8 a.m.—Recap of Previous Day’s

Meeting/Meeting Objectives and

Goals

8:30 a.m.—Presentations by Invited

Stakeholders:

—Victor Dricks of the NRC Office of

Public Affairs

—Scott Peterson of the Nuclear

Energy Institute

—Jenny Weil of McGraw Hill’s Inside

NRC

12 p.m.—Lunch

1 p.m.—Initial Prioritization of Issues

Identified Through the Panel

(continued)

3 p.m.—Agenda Planning Session

4 p.m.—Public Comments/General

Discussion

5 p.m.—Adjourn

Meetings of the IIEP are open to the

members of the public. Oral or written

views may be presented by the members

of the public, including members of the

nuclear industry. Persons desiring to

make oral statements should notify Mr.

Loren R. Plisco (Telephone 404/562–

4501, e-mail LRP@nrc.gov) or Mr. John

D. Monninger (Telephone 301/415–

3495, e-mail JDM@nrc.gov) five days

prior to the meeting date, if possible, so

that appropriate arrangements can be

made to allow necessary time during the

meeting for such statements. Use of still,

motion picture, and television cameras

will be permitted during this meeting.

Further information regarding topics

of discussion; whether the meeting has

been canceled, rescheduled, or

relocated; and the Panel Chairman’s

ruling regarding requests to present oral

statements and time allotted, may be

obtained by contacting Mr. Loren R.

Plisco or Mr. John D. Monninger

between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. EST.

IIEP meeting transcripts and meeting

reports will be available from the

Commission’s Public Document Room.

Transcripts will be placed on the

agency’s web page.