66806 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 26, 1995 / Notices

leakage paths, but rather leakage paths

out of containment isolation valves

through valve diaphragms. The

potential leakage paths are small or

restrictive and are through cracks or

tears in valve diaphragms. The leakage

path for a significant leak to occur

requires a sequence of events for which

the probability of occurrence is low. The

proposed test, with water as the test

medium and with a zero leakage

acceptance criterion, is conservative

enough to provide reasonable assurance

of no significant increase in risk to

health and safety of the public when

compared to testing with air. In

addition, seismic support of the

systems, missile protection, and, for P–

70, the isolation valve seal water system

all provide additional assurance that the

risk of a significant leak is minimal.

To justify granting an exemption to

the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50,

Appendix J, a licensee must show that

the requirements of 10 CFR 50.12(a)(1)

are met. The licensee stated that its

exemption requests meet the

requirements of 10 CFR 50.12(a)(1), for

the following reasons:

Criteria for Granting Exemptions are Met per

10 CFR 50.12(a)(1)

1. The requested exemptions and the

activities which would be allowed

thereunder are authorized by law.

If the criteria established in 10 CFR

50.12(a) are satisfied, as they are in this case,

and if no other prohibition of law exists to

preclude the activities which would be

authorized by the requested exemption, and

there is no such prohibition, the Commission

is authorized by law to grant this exemption

request.

2. The requested exemption will not

present undue risk to the public.

As stated in 10 CFR 50, Appendix J, the

purpose of primary containment leak rate

testing is to assure that leakage through

primary containment and systems and

components penetrating primary

containment shall not exceed the allowable

leakage rate values as specified by the

Technical Specifications or associated bases

and to ensure that the proper maintenance

and repairs are made during the service life

of the containment and systems and

components penetrating primary

containment. The requested exemption is

consistent with this intent for those

penetrations in that alternate means of

ensuring leakage remains acceptably low will

be performed as proposed herein.

3. The requested exemption will not

endanger the common defense and security.

The common defense and security are not

in any way compromised by this exemption

request.

In addition, the licensee must show

that at least one of the special

circumstances, as defined in 10 CFR

50.12(a)(2) is present. One of the special

circumstances that a licensee may show

to exist is that the application of the

regulation in the particular

circumstance is not necessary to achieve

the underlying purposes of the rule. The

purposes of the rule, as stated in Section

I of 10 CFR 50, Appendix J, are to

ensure that: (1) Leakage through the

primary reactor containment and

systems and components penetrating

containment shall not exceed allowable

values, and (2) periodic surveillance of

reactor containment penetrations and

isolation valves is performed so that

proper maintenance and repairs are

made. The staff has reviewed the

licensee’s proposal and has concluded

that the proposed alternative tests will

confirm the integrity of the subject

pathways. Therefore, application of the

regulation in this particular

circumstance is not necessary to achieve

the underlying purpose of the rule.

IV

Sections III.C and III.D.3 of 10 CFR

Part 50, Appendix J, require that Type

C local leak rate periodic tests shall be

performed during reactor shutdown for

refueling, or other convenient intervals,

but in no case at intervals greater than

2 years.

The licensee proposes exemptions to

these sections which would provide

relief from the requirement to perform

the Type C containment leak rate tests

of certain valves in accordance with the

requirements of Sections III.C and III.D

of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J.

The Commission has determined that,

pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a)(1), this

exemption is authorized by law, will not

present an undue risk to the public

health and safety, and is consistent with

the common defense and security. The

Commission further determined that

special circumstances, as provided in 10

CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), are present justifying

the exemption; namely, that the

application of the regulation is not

necessary to achieve the underlying

purpose of the rule.

Therefore the Commission hereby grants

the following exemption:

The requirement of 10 CFR Part 50,

Appendix J, to pressurize the valves in

penetrations P–70 and P–99 with air or

nitrogen is not necessary. Instead, the test

pressure medium may be water.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the

Commission has determined that

granting these exemptions will not have

a significant impact on the human

environment (60 FR 63549).

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day

of December 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Jack W. Roe,

Director, Division of Reactor Projects—III/IV,

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–31254 Filed 12–22–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

[Docket No. 50–395]

South Carolina Electric & Gas

Company, South Carolina Public

Service Authority, Virgil C. Summer

Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1;

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. NPF–

12, issued to South Carolina Electric &

Gas Company and South Carolina

Public Service Authority (the licensee),

for operation of the Virgil C. Summer

Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1, located in

Fairfield County, South Carolina.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

The proposed action would support

the licensee’s plan to implement the

revised 10 CFR Part 20, ‘‘Standards for

Protection Against Radiation.’’ Also, the

licensee proposed several editorial

changes to improve the clarity of the

Technical Specifications (TS). The

majority of the licensee’s proposal meets

the eligibility criteria for categorical

exclusion set forth in 10 CFR

51.22(c)(9). However, one aspect of the

licensee’s proposal changes

requirements with respect to use of a

facility component located outside the

restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part

20. Specifically, requirements for use of

the settling ponds will be changed by

the proposed amendment.

The proposed action is in accordance

with the licensee’s application for

amendment dated February 21, 1995, as

revised on August 31, 1995, and

December 4, 1995.

The Need for the Proposed Action

The proposed action is needed to

update the license to incorporate the

revised requirements of 10 CFR Part 20

(i.e., the need for the proposed action

was created by a change in the

regulatory requirements).

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The Commission has completed its

evaluation of the proposed action and

concludes that the proposed revision to

the radioactive material quantity in the

settling ponds will not change the types
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 26, 1995 / Notices 66807

and will conservatively lower the

amount of effluents that can be released.

Therefore, it will not cause an increase

in individual or cumulative

occupational radiation exposures. The

new settling pond limit is based on that

quantity which would not exceed the

effluent concentrations of 10 CFR Part

20, Appendix B, Table 2, Column 2, at

the nearest potable water supply if an

uncontrolled release of settling pond

inventory should occur. The effluent

concentration limits in 10 CFR Part 20,

Appendix B, Table 2, are more

conservative than the current limits in

the licensee’s TS. Thus the change

proposed by the licensee results in a net

decrease in the maximum quantity of

radioactive material permitted in the

settling ponds.

The 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 the proposed

action.

With regard to potential

nonradiological impacts, the proposed

action 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 action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

Since the Commission has concluded

there is no measurable environmental

impact associated with the proposed

action, 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 any resources not previously

considered in the Final Environmental

Statement for the Virgil C. Summer

Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on October 26, 1995 the staff consulted

with the South Carolina State official,

Mr. Virgil Autry of the Bureau of Solid

and Hazardous Waste Management,

Department of Health and

Environmental Control, regarding the

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 action.

For further details with respect to the

proposed action, see the licensee’s letter

dated February 21, 1995, as

supplemented by letters dated August

31, 1995, and December 4, 1995, 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

Fairfield County Library, 300

Washington Street, Winnsboro, SC.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day

of December 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Frederick J. Hebdon,

Director, Project Directorate II–3, Division of

Reactor Projects—I/II Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–31253 Filed 12–22–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

[Docket No. 50–245]

Northeast Utilities, Millstone Nuclear

Power Station, Unit 1; Issuance of

Director’s Decision Under 10 CFR

2.206

Notice is hereby given that the

Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation, has taken action with regard

to a Petition dated January 8, 1995, by

Mr. Anthony J. Ross. The Petition

pertains to Millstone Nuclear Power

Station, Unit 1.

In the Petition, the Petitioner raised

concerns regarding the Millstone station

site paging and site siren evacuation

alarm system at Millstone Unit 1. The

Petitioner requested that the U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

institute at least three sanctions against

his department manager and institute

sanctions against the Petitioner’s

coworker and maintenance first-line

supervisor for engaging in deliberate

misconduct in violation of 10 CFR 50.5.

As grounds for this request, the

Petitioner alleged that on numerous

occasions since January 1994, his

department manager had instructed the

Petitioner’s coworkers to shut off or turn

down the volume on the site paging and

site siren evacuation alarm system in

the Unit 1 maintenance shop, and the

Petitioner’s first-line supervisor and

coworker had complied with this

request, in violation of Technical

Specification 6.8.1 and NUREG–0654.

The Director of the Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation has determined to

deny the Petition. The reasons for this

denial are explained in the ‘‘Director’s

Decision Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206’’

(DD–95–23), the complete text of which

follows this notice and is 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 Learning

Resources Center, Three Rivers

Community-Technical College, 574 New

London Turnpike, Norwich, CT 06360.

A copy of the Decision will be filed

with the Secretary of the Commission

for the Commission’s review in

accordance with 10 CFR 2.206(c) of the

Commission’s regulations. As provided

by this regulation, the Decision will

constitute the final action of the

Commission 25 days after the date of

issuance unless the Commission, on its

own motion, institutes a review of the

Decision in that time.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day

of December 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

William T. Russell,

Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–31255 Filed 12–22–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

[Rel. No. IC–21605; File No. 812–9334]

New England Variable Life Insurance

Company, et al.

December 18, 1995.

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange

Commission (the ‘‘SEC’’ or the

‘‘Commission’’).

ACTION: Notice of application for an

order of approval under the Investment

Company Act of 1940 (the ‘‘1940 Act’’).

APPLICANTS: New England Variable Life

Insurance Company (‘‘NEVLICO’’), New

England Variable Annuity Separate

Account (‘‘NEVLICO Account’’), New

England Mutual Life Insurance

Company (‘‘New England’’), The New