10758 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2001 / Notices

how that interest may be affected by the

results of the proceeding. The petition

should 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 which may be

entered in the proceeding on the

petitioner’s interest. The petition should

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

which must include a list of the

contentions which are sought to be

litigated in the matter. 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 the contention and a concise

statement of the alleged facts or expert

opinion which 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. 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 which, if

proven, would entitle the petitioner to

relief. A petitioner who fails to file such

a supplement which 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 or a 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 petition

should also be sent to the Office of the

General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555–0001, and to Mr. Edward J.

Cullen, Vice President, General Council,

300 Exelon Way, Kennett Square,

Pennsylvania 19348, attorney for the

licensee.

Nontimely filings of petitions for

leave to intervene, amended petitions,

supplemental petitions and/or requests

for hearing will not be entertained

absent a determination by the

Commission, the presiding officer or the

presiding 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 Parts 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 Parts 50.91 and

50.92.

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application for

amendment dated March 3, 2000, as

supplemented by letters dated March

24, June 5, July 18, July 31, September

1, September 22, October 5, October 9,

November 20, November 30, and

December 18, 2000, 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, and accessible electronically

through the ADAMS Public Electronic

Reading Room link at the NRC Web site

(http://www.nrc.gov).

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 13th day

of February, 2001.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Lawrence W. Rossbach,

Project Manager, Section 2, Project

Directorate III, Division of Licensing Project

Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 01–3951 Filed 2–15–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 72–35]

Energy Northwest Issuance of

Environmental Assessment and

Finding of No Significant Impact

Regarding the Proposed Exemption

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC or the Commission)

is considering issuance of an exemption,

pursuant to 10 CFR 72.7, from the

provisions of 10 CFR 72.72(d) to Energy

Northwest (applicant). The requested

exemption would allow Energy

Northwest to maintain a single set of

spent fuel records at a records storage

facility, qualified in accordance with

ANSI N45.2.9–1974, for the

Independent Spent Fuel Storage

Installation (ISFSI) at the Columbia

Generating Station (formerly known as

Washington Nuclear Plant 2) (Docket

No. 72–35) in Benton County, WA.

Environmental Assessment (EA)

Identification of Proposed Action: By

letter dated December 12, 2000, Energy

Northwest requested an exemption from

the requirement in 10 CFR 72.72(d)

which states in part that, ‘‘Records of

spent fuel and high level radioactive

waste in storage must be kept in

duplicate. The duplicate set of records

must be kept at a separate location

sufficiently remote from the original

records that a single event would not

destroy both sets of records.’’ The

applicant proposes to store a single set

of spent fuel records at a records storage

facility that satisfies the requirements

set forth in ANSI N45.2.9–1974.

The proposed action before the

Commission is whether to grant this

exemption pursuant to 10 CFR 72.7.

Need for the Proposed Action: The

applicant stated that, pursuant to 10

CFR 72.140(d), the Energy Northwest

Operational Quality Assurance (QA)

Program Description will be used to

satisfy the QA requirements for the

ISFSI. The QA Program states that QA

records are maintained in accordance

with commitments to ANSI N45.2.9–

1974. ANSI 45.2.9–1974 allows for the

storage of a single set of QA records in

a records storage facility subject to

certain provisions designed to protect

the records from fire and other adverse

conditions. The applicant seeks to

provide uniform and consistent

recordkeeping procedures and processes

for the Columbia Generating Station and

ISFSI spent fuel records. The applicant

states that requiring a separate method

of record storage for ISFSI records

diverts resources unnecessarily.

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