7588 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 8, 1995 / Notices

appearance of Washington, DC

including buildings, memorials parks,

etc.; also matters of design referred by

other agencies of the government.

Inquiries regarding the agenda and

requests to submit written or oral

statements should be addressed to

Charles H. Atherton, Secretary,

Commission of Fine Arts, at the above

address or call the above number.

Dated in Washington, DC, 30 January 1995.

Charles H. Atherton,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–3042 Filed 2–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6330–01–M

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Environmental Assessment and

Request for Comments; Notice

AGENCY: National Science Foundation.

ACTION: Notice of environmental

assessment and request for comments.

SUMMARY: The National Science

Foundation (NSF) has prepared an

Environmental Assessment for the

construction and operation of a Laser

Interferometer Gravitational-Wave

Observatory (LIGO) facility at a

Louisiana State University site in

Livingston Parish, Louisiana. LIGO is a

scientific research program for the

detection and study of cosmic

gravitational waves. The program shall

enhance our understanding of the

nature of gravity and expand our

knowledge of astrophysics. Possible

effects of the project on wetlands have

been mitigated by the acquisition and

restoration of 39 acres of wetlands at the

Cypress Island Nature Preserve. NSF is

inviting public comment on the

Environmental Assessment.

DATES: The NSF welcomes any

comments on the environmental

assessment. In order to be assured

consideration comments must be

received no later than March 10, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be

addressed to Dr. David Berley, Program

Manager for LIGO, National Science

Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard,

Room 1015, Arlington, Virginia, 22230.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

David Berley, 703–306–1892.

Dated: February 3, 1995.

Lawrence Rudolph,

Acting General Counsel, National Science

Foundation.

[FR Doc. 95–3093 Filed 2–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–213]

Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power

Company; Haddam Neck Plant;

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–

61, issued to Connecticut Yankee

Atomic Power Company (CYAPCO, the

licensee), for operation of the Haddam

Neck Plant, located in Middlesex

County, Connecticut.

Environmental Assessment

Identificatjon of the Proposed Action

CYAPCO has proposed to revise

Technical Specification (TS) 3/4.4.9,

‘‘Pressure Temperature Limits, Reactor

Coolant System,’’ Figures 3.4–3, 4, and

5, and the associated Bases section. The

proposed action is in accordance with

the licensee’s amendment request dated

April 7, 1994, as supplemented

November 4, 1994.

The Need for the Proposed Action

NRC Information Notice 93–58,

‘‘Nonconservatism in Low-Temperature

Overpressure Protection for PressurizedWater Reactors,’’ alerted licensees of

potential nonconservatisms associated

with the Low Temperature

Overpressurization Protection (LTOP)

system resulting from pressure drop

across the core. Upon review of this

information, the Haddam Neck Plant

adopted a conservative set of curves

until new curves could be developed for

the plant. These TS changes reflect the

analysis performed to evaluate the

brittle fracture requirements of 10 CFR

Part 50, Appendix G and the ASME XI

Code.

These changes will ensure that the

desired margins of safety against

nonductile failure of the reactor vessel

are maintained through all modes of

operation, especially when the reactor

coolant system (RCS) is at low

temperatures.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The Commission has completed its

evaluation of the proposed revision to

the TS. The staff has concluded that the

proposed TS changes involving the

changes in TS 3/4.4.9, ‘‘Pressure/

Temperature Limits, Reactor Coolant

System,’’ Figures 3.4–3, 4, and 5, and

the associated Bases Section adequately

address the non-conservatisms

identified in NRC Information Notice

93–58 and will ensure compliance with

the 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G

requirements during normal modes of

operation. The staff made this

determination by reviewing the plant

specific analysis to assure that the

proposed heatup, cooldown, and

hydrostatic test, pressure/temperature

limit curves have been chosen to ensure

the plant is operated safely. In addition,

the new P/T curves are more restrictive

and conservative than the current

curves.

The proposed TS change 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 the allowable

individual or cumulative occupational

radiation exposure. Accordingly, the

Commission concludes that there are no

significant radiological environmental

impacts associated with this proposed

TS amendment.

With regard to potential

nonradiological impacts, the proposed

amendment does involve features

located entirely within the restricted

area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. It

does not affect nonradiological plant

effluents and has no other

environmental impact. Accordingly, the

Commission concludes that there are no

significant nonradiological

environmental impacts associated with

the proposed amendment.

Accordingly, the Commission

concludes that there are no significant

radiological or nonradiological

environmental impacts associated with

the proposed amendment.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

Since the Commission has concluded

there is no measurable environmental

impact associated with the proposed

amendment, any alternatives with equal

or greater environmental impact need

not be evaluated. As an alternative to

the proposed action, the staff considered

denial of the proposed action. 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 resources not considered previously

in the Final Environmental Statement

for the Haddam Neck Plant.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

the staff consulted with the Connecticut

State official regarding the
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 8, 1995 / Notices 7589

environmental impact of the proposed

action. The State official had no

comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

Based upon 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 amendment.

For further details with respect to this

proposed action, see the licensee’s letter

dated April 7, 1994, as supplemented

November 4, 1994, which are available

for public inspection at the

Commission’s Public Document Room,

the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street,

NW., Washington, DC, and at the local

public document room located at the

Russell Library, 123 Broad Street,

Middletown, Connecticut 06547.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day

of February 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Phillip F. McKee,

Director, Project Directorate I–4, Division of

Reactor Projects—I/II, Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–3086 Filed 2–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

[Docket No. 50–20]

Environmental Assessment and

Finding of No Significant Impact

Regarding Proposed License

Amendment; Changing Expiration Date

of Amended Facility Operating License

No. R–37 Massachusetts Institute of

Technology

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) is considering

issuance of a license amendment

extending the expiration date of

Amended Facility Operating License

No. R–37 (the license) for the

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

(MIT or the licensee) Research Reactor

(MITR) from May 7, 1996, to August 8,

1999. This recaptures construction time

between May 7, 1956, the issuance date

of Construction Permit No. CPRR–5 and

June 9, 1958, the issuance date of the

license, and between May 24, 1974, the

date reactor operations were terminated

to modify the reactor under

Construction Permit No. CPRR–118, and

July 23, 1975, the date of issuance of

Amendment No. 10 to the license which

authorized a return to reactor operation.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of Proposed Action

By application dated March 31, 1994,

as supplemented on September 29, and

November 4, 1994, MIT requested that

the expiration date of Amended Facility

Operating License No. R–37 be extended

from midnight, May, 7, 1996, to

midnight, April 24, 2001. MIT has

requested that four periods of time be

recaptured:

(1) The period from May 7, 1956, the

date of issuance of CPRR–5, until June

9, 1958, the issuance date of the license,

or July 21, 1958, the date of initial

criticality.

(2) The period from July 21, 1958,

until June 1, 1959, during which the

first reactor (MITR–I) was operated

infrequently at low power for startup

testing.

(3) From May 24, 1974, the date the

reactor was shut down to perform

modifications to the facility under

Construction Permit No. CPRR–118,

(CPRR–118 was issued on April 9, 1973,

but component acquisition problems

delayed the reactor shut down until

May 24, 1974) until August 14, 1975,

the date of initial criticality of the

modified reactor (MITR–II). The NRC

issued Amendment No. 10 to the license

on July 23, 1975, which authorized

operation of the modified reactor.

(4) The period from August 14, 1975,

until April 15, 1976, during which the

modified reactor was operated

infrequently at low power for startup

testing.

The staff has determined that the time

between May 7, 1956, the issuance date

of Construction Permit No. CPRR–5 and

June 9, 1958, the issuance date of the

license, and between May 24, 1974, the

day reactor operations where terminated

to modify the reactor under

Construction permit No. CPRR–118, and

July 23, 1975, the date of issuance of

Amendment No. 10 to the license which

authorized a return to reactor operation,

represents time that was not available to

the licensee due to construction. This

period of time is 1188 days, which

when added to the expiration date of the

Amended Facility Operating License of

May 7, 1996, results in a extended

expiration date of August 8, 1999.

The staff has also determined that the

time (a) between July 9, 1958, the

issuance date of the license, through

July 21, 1958, the date of initial

criticality, to June 1, 1959, the end of

low power testing, and (b) between July

23, 1975, the date of issuance of

Amendment No. 10, through August 14,

1975, the date of initial criticality for the

modified reactor, to April 15, 1976, the

end of low power testing, cannot be

added to extend the expiration date of

the license. This is because this time

was authorized by NRC in the license

for reactor operation, was available to

the licensee for operations and, after

initial criticality in both cases, was used

by the licensee for low power testing. A

license term of 40 years from the date

of issuance of the operating license is

permitted by NRC regulations,

specifically 10 CFR 50.51. Commission

approval of the proposed amendment

would be consistent with recent NRC

actions for nuclear power reactors.

Need for Proposed Action

The granting of this request would

allow the licensee to operate the facility

for approximately three years and three

months beyond the current license

expiration date, thus recapturing

construction periods. Over 30 similar

extensions have been issued to other

licensees. Without issuance of the

proposed license amendment, an

application for license renewal would

be required to be developed and

submitted before the expiration of the

current license on May 7, 1996, or the

MITR would be shut down and a

decommissioning plan required to be

developed and submitted.

Environmental Impact of the proposed

Action

The anticipated impact of the facility

on the environment was evaluated in

the Environmental Impact Appraisal for

the MITR dated July 23, 1975. This

appraisal was prepared for the issuance

of Amendment No. 10 to the license,

which authorized a return to operation

for the facility at a power level of 5

MW(t), after modifications were

completed to the reactor as authorized

by construction permit No. CPRR–118.

The descriptions in and findings of that

appraisal are still valid. That appraisal

concluded that there will be no

significant environmental impact

associated with the licensing of the

MITR to be operated at 5 MW(t).

The licensee has not requested any

changes to the facility as part of this

amendment request. The environmental

effects of accidents which were

discussed and considered negligible in

the 1975 appraisal have not changed.

Operating data is available to replace

the estimates of the environmental

effects of facility operation in the 1975

appraisal. The actual environmental

effects of facility operation from July 1,

1984 (FY 85), to June 30, 1994 (FY 94),

were obtained from the licensee.

Environmental surveys within a

quarter mile of the facility detected an

average (averaged because readings are