Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 246 / Friday, December 22, 1995 / Notices 66567

verification of the hand geometry

registered with the badge be performed

as discussed above. Thus, the proposed

system provides an identity verification

process that is equivalent to the existing

process.

Accordingly, the Commission

concludes that the exemption to allow

individuals not employed by the

licensee to take their picture badges off

site will not result in an increase in the

risk that an unauthorized individual

could potentially enter the protected

area. Consequently, the Commission

concludes that there are no significant

radiological environmental impacts

associated with the proposed action.

The proposed exemption 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. The principal alternative

to the proposed action would be to deny

the requested action. Denial of the

requested action would not significantly

enhance the environment in that the

proposed action will result in a process

that is equivalent to the existing

identification verification process.

Alternative Use of Resources

This action does not involve the use

of resources not previously considered

in connection with the Nuclear

Regulatory Commission’s Final

Environmental Statement dated

December 1972, related to the operation

of the Zion Nuclear Power Station,

Units 1 and 2.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on November 15, 1995, the NRC staff

consulted with the Illinois State official,

Mr. Frank Niziolek; Head, Reactor

Safety Section; Division of Engineering;

Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety;

regarding the environmental impact of

the proposed action. The State official

had no comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

Based upon the foregoing

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 exemption.

For further details with respect to

this, see the licensee’s letter dated

October 25, 1995, which is available for

public inspection at the Commission’s

Public Document Room, 2120 L Street,

NW., Washington, DC, and at the local

public document room located at the

Waukegan Public Library, 128 N.

County Street, Waukegan, Illinois

60085.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 13th day

of December 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Robert A. Capra,

Director, Project Directorate III–2, Division

of Reactor Projects—III/IV, Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–31157 Filed 12–21–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

[Docket Nos. 50–413 and 50–414]

Duke Power Co. et al.; Catawba

Nuclear Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2

Environmental Assessment and

Finding of No Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of amendments to

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–35

and NPF–52, issued to Duke Power

Company, et al. (the licensee), for

operation of the Catawba Nuclear

Station, Units 1 and 2, located in York

County, South Carolina.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

By letter dated September 5, 1995,

Duke Power Company submitted a

proposal for amendments of the Facility

Operating Licenses that would allow the

Catawba Units 1 and 2 Containment

Airborne Particulate Radiation Monitors

(CAPRMs, 1/2 EMF38(L)) to be

reclassified in the Updated Final Safety

Analysis Report (UFSAR) as nonseismic Category I.

The Catawba operating license Safety

Evaluation Report (SER, NUREG–0954),

Section 5.2.5, states that the CAPRMs

are designed to seismic Category I

requirements. The basis for this

determination was Section 5.2.5 of the

Catawba UFSAR, which currently states

that the CAPRMs would remain

functional during and following a safe

shutdown earthquake (SSE) as

recommended in Position C.6 of

Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.45 ‘‘Reactor

Coolant Pressure Boundary Leakage

Detection Systems.’’

By letter dated September 8, 1994, the

licensee informed the staff that

sufficient documentation did not exist

to show that the subject monitors were

seismically qualified to withstand the

SSE. By letter dated September 5, 1995,

the licensee stated that the matter

involved an unreviewed safety question

and requested amendments to its

Facility Operating Licenses including

proposed changes to the UFSAR, which

would clarify that the CAPRMs are not

designed to remain functional following

the SSE. The licensee has proposed an

alternative to Position C.6 of RG 1.45 by

showing that adequate instrumentation

and procedures will be available to

assess conditions inside containment

following a seismic event comparable to

an SSE and that, accordingly, the

seismic qualification requirement for

the CAPRMs may be deleted from the

UFSAR.

The proposed action is in accordance

with the licensee’s application for

amendments dated September 5, 1995.

The Need for the Proposed Action

The proposed action is needed so that

the appropriate seismic qualification for

the CAPRMs can be reflected in the

UFSAR.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The Commission has completed its

evaluation of the proposed revisions to

the UFSAR. The proposed revisions

would permit the Containment Airborne

Particulate Radiation Monitors (1/

2EMF38(L)) at Catawba Units 1 and 2 to

be classified as non-seismic Category I.

The safety considerations associated

with this re-classification have been

evaluated by the NRC staff. The staff has

concluded that the licensee has

demonstrated an acceptable alternative

to Position C.6 of RG 1.45 by showing

that adequate instrumentation and

procedures will be available to assess

conditions inside containment

following a seismic event comparable to

an SSE. The proposed changes have no

adverse effect on the probability of any

accident. No changes are being made in

the types or amounts of any radiological

effluents that may be released offsite.

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

amendments.

With regard to potential

nonradiological impacts, the proposed

action involves 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.
66568 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 246 / Friday, December 22, 1995 / Notices

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. The principal alternative

to this action would be to deny the

requested amendments. Such action

would not reduce the environmental

impacts of plant operations.

Alternative Use of Resources

This action does not involve the use

of resources not previously considered

in the ‘‘Final Environmental Statement

Related to the Operation of Catawba

Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2,’’ dated

January 1983.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on November 30, 1995, the NRC staff

consulted with the South Carolina State

official, Mr. V. Autrey of the Bureau of

Radiological Health, Department of

Health and Environmental Controls,

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 license

amendments.

For further details with respect to this

action, see the licensee’s letter dated

September 5, 1995, which 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

York County Library, 138 East Black

Street, Rock Hill, South Carolina.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day

of December 1995.

For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Leonard A. Wiens, Acting Director,

Project Directorate II–2, Division of Reactor

Projects - I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–31158 Filed 12–21–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

Docket No. 50–344

Portland General Electric Company;

Trojan Nuclear Plant; Notice of

Issuance of Environmental

Assessment and Final Finding of no

Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) is considering

approving a Portland General Electric

(PGE) proposed decommissioning plan

for the Trojan Nuclear Plant (TNP) and

issuing an order authorizing

decommissioning of the facility.

Description of the Proposed Action

On January 27, 1993, PGE notified the

NRC of their decision to permanently

cease power operations after

approximately 17 years of operation.

The fuel was transferred to the spent

fuel pool, and on May 5, 1993, the NRC

amended the TNP Facility Operating

License (NFP–1) to a Possession Only

License, which allows the licensee to

maintain but not operate the facility. On

January 26, 1995, the licensee submitted

an application to terminate the TNP

Possession Only License. The

application for termination of the TNP

license included a proposed

decommissioning plan and an

supplement to the environmental report.

The licensee proposes to decommission

the TNP using a dismantlement

(DECON) approach as defined in the

‘‘Final Generic Environmental Impact

Statement on Decommissioning of

Nuclear Facilities’’ NUREG–0586, dated

August 1988 (GEIS).

The licensee plans to precede the

DECON radiological decontamination

and dismantlement period with a fiveyear transition period. Transition period

activities include the removal and

disposal of selected large components,

licensing and construction of an

Independent Spent Fuel Storage

Installation (ISFSI), and transfer of the

fuel to the ISFSI. Assessment of the

environmental impact associated with

the construction and operation of the

Trojan ISFSI will be conducted during

the licensing of the ISFSI. Radioactive

structures, systems, and components

that are removed from the facility

during decommissioning will be

shipped to a licensed burial site for

permanent disposal.

Summary of the Environmental

Assessment

The purpose of decommissioning a

nuclear facility is to remove the facility

safely from service, and to reduce

residual radioactivity at the site to levels

that permit the release of the property

for unrestricted use. Once this state is

reached the license granted by the NRC

may be terminated.

The NRC staff has reviewed the PGE

decommissioning plan, and

supplemental environmental report

prepared in accordance with 10 CFR

51.53(b). To document its review, the

staff has prepared an environmental

assessment (EA) consistent with 10 CFR

51.95(b), which examined

decommissioning alternatives, nonradiological and radiological impacts of

decommissioning, and effects of

postulated radiological accidents during

decommissioning. The alternatives

available for decommissioning—

DECON, ENTOMB, SAFSTOR, and No

Action—are evaluated and discussed in

the GEIS. Based on its review of the

proposed PGE decommissioning plan,

the staff has determined that the

environmental impacts associated with

the decommissioning of TNP in

accordance with the plan are either

bounded by the impacts evaluated by

the GEIS or in the NRC Final

Environmental Statement related to

Operation of Trojan Nuclear Plant dated

August 1973. The staff also finds that

the proposed decommissioning of TNP

is in compliance with 10 CFR Part 50,

Appendix I annual design objectives for

offsite releases or 10 CFR Part 20.

Final Finding of No Significant Impact

The staff has reviewed the proposed

decommissioning plan and supplement

to the environmental report in

accordance with the requirements of 10

CFR Part 51. The staff has concluded

that there are no significant

environmental impacts associated with

the proposed action and that the

proposed action will not have a

significant effect on the quality of the

human environment. Therefore, the

NRC has determined, pursuant to 10

CFR 51.31, not to prepare an

environmental impact statement.

For further details with respect to this

action, see the licensee application for

termination of license, dated January 26,

1995 and updated November 13, 1995,

and the NRC staff Environmental

Assessment and Safety Evaluation

Report. These documents are available

for public inspection at the NRC Public

Document Room, Gelman Building,

2120 L Street, NW, Washington, DC.

20555, and at the Local Public

Document Room for TNP at the

Branford Price Millar Library, Portland

State University, Portland, Oregon

97207. Single copies of the NRC staff

Environmental Assessment and Safety

Evaluation may be obtained from Dr.

Michael T. Masnik, Senior Project

Manager, Office of Nuclear Reactor