66996 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 1995 / Notices

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on December 19, 1995, the staff

consulted with the Nebraska State

official, Ms. Cheryl Rodgers of the

Department of Health, 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 December 8, 1995, and

supplemental letter dated December 15,

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 W. Dale Clark Library, 215

South 15th Street, Omaha, Nebraska

68102.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day

of December 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

L. Raynard Wharton,

Project Manager, Project Directorate IV–2,

Division of Reactor Projects—III/IV, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–31300 Filed 12–26–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

Notice of Contaminated Sites Listed in

NRC Site Decommissioning

Management Plan

SUMMARY: This notice informs the public

about the list of contaminated sites in

the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission’s Site Decommissioning

Management Plan (SDMP). One of the

objectives of the SDMP is to promote

timely and safe decommissioning of

contaminated sites that warrant special

NRC oversight because they pose unique

or complex decommissioning issues.

NRC established the SDMP in 1990 and

updated it annually thereafter. NRC

recently published an updated version

of the SDMP in NUREG–1444 (‘‘Site

Decommissioning Management Plan,’’

NUREG–1444, Supplement 1, November

1995).

There are currently 47 sites listed in

the SDMP. The table at the end of this

notice provides the current list of SDMP

sites by site name and location. Since

1990, nine sites have been removed

from the SDMP after successfully

completing remediation, NRC deferral of

oversight to other agencies, or an NRC

determination that the site was not

subject to NRC licensing.

Sites listed in the SDMP vary in

degree of radiological hazard,

decommissioning complexity, and cost.

Some sites comprise tens of acres that

require assessment for radiological

contamination, whereas other sites have

contamination known to be limited to

individual buildings or discrete piles of

waste or contaminated soil. Many sites

involve active licenses, but some sites

were formerly licensed. SDMP sites also

vary in degree of completion of

decommissioning. At some sites, little

or no decontamination work has been

done. At other sites on the list,

decommissioning is essentially

complete and license termination or site

release is in the offing.

Sites are added to the list if they

satisfy one or more of the following

criteria:

(1) Problems with the viability of the

responsible organization (e.g., inability

to pay for or unwillingness to perform

decommissioning);

(2) Presence of large amounts of soil

contamination or unused settling ponds

or burial grounds that may be difficult

to dispose of;

(3) Long-term presence of

contaminated, unused facility buildings;

(4) Previously terminated license; or

(5) Contamination or potential

contamination of the groundwater from

onsite wastes.

In reviewing the sites against these

criteria, the NRC staff also considers the

projected duration of necessary

decommissioning actions and the

willingness of the responsible

organization to complete these actions

in a timely manner.

Sites are removed from the list if they

meet one or more of the following

criteria:

(1) The license has been terminated

after acceptable remediation;

(2) For operating sites that have an

inactive, contaminated portion of the

site (e.g., contaminated, inactive settling

pond or building or a large volume of

contaminated soil), remediation of the

area has been completed and the license

has been modified to reflect the

remediation;

(3) For unlicensed sites, acceptable

remediation has been completed and the

responsible party has been notified; or

(4) Regulatory jurisdiction and

oversight are completely assumed by an

Agreement State (a State that has signed

an agreement with the NRC to regulate

nuclear materials under section 274 of

the Atomic Energy Act) or by another

State or Federal agency (e.g., the

Environmental Protection Agency).

NRC routinely notices removal of sites

from the SDMP in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David Fauver, Sr. Project Manager, LowLevel Waste and Decommissioning

Projects Branch, Division of Waste

Management, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Mail Stop T7F27,

Washington, DC 20555, Telephone:

(301) 415–6625.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 19th day

of December, 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Michael F. Weber,

Chief, Low-Level Waste and Decommissioning

Projects Branch, Division of Waste

Management, Office of Nuclear Material

Safety and Safeguards.

Table 1.—Site Decommissioning

Management Plan Site List

Advanced Medical Systems, Inc.; Cleveland,

OH

Aluminum Company of America; Cleveland,

OH

Anne Arundel County/Curtis Bay; Anne

Arundel County, MD

Army, Department of, Aberdeen Proving

Ground; Aberdeen, MD

Army, Department of, Jefferson Proving

Ground; Jefferson, IN

Babcock & Wilcox; Apollo, PA

Babcock & Wilcox; Parks Township, PA

BP Chemicals America, Inc.; Lima, OH

Brooks & Perkins; Detroit, MI

Brooks & Perkins; Livonia, MI

Cabot Corporation; Boyerton, PA

Cabot Corporation; Reading, PA

Cabot Corporation; Revere, PA

Chemetron Corporation, Bert Avenue;

Cleveland, OH

Chemetron Corporation, Harvard Avenue;

Cleveland, OH

Clevite; Cleveland, OH

Dow Chemical Company; Bay City and

Midland, MI

Elkem Metals, Inc.; Marietta, OH

Engelhard Corporation; Plainville, MA

Fansteel, Inc.; Muskogee, OK

Hartley and Hartley (Kawkawlin) Landfill;

Bay County, MI

Heritage Minerals; Lakehurst, NJ

Horizons, Inc.; Cleveland, OH

Kaiser Aluminum; Tulsa, OK

Kerr-McGee; Cimarron, OK

Kerr-McGee; Cushing, OK

Lake City Army Ammunition Plant (formerly

Remington Arms Company);

Independence, MO

Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co.

(3M); Pine County, MN

Molycorp, Inc.; Washington, PA

Molycorp, Inc.; York, PA

Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District/

Southerly Plant; Cleveland, OH

Nuclear Metals, Inc.; Concord, MA

Permagrain Products; Media, PA

Pesses Company, METCOA Site; Pulaski, PA

RMI Titanium Company; Ashtabula, OH

RTI, Inc. (formerly Process Technology of

North Jersey, Inc.); Rockaway, NJ
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 1995 / Notices 66997

Safety Light Corporation; Bloomsburg, PA

Schott Glass Technologies; Duryea, PA

Sequoyah Fuels Corporation; Gore, OK

Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation;

Cambridge, OH

Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation;

Newfield, NJ

Texas Instruments, Inc.; Attleboro, MA

Watertown Arsenal/Mall; Watertown, MA

Watertown GSA; Watertown, MA

Westinghouse Electric Corporation; Waltz

Mill, PA

Whittaker Corporation; Greenville, PA

Wyman-Gordon Company; North Grafton,

MA

[FR Doc. 95–31298 Filed 12–26–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

[Docket No. 50–412]

Duquesne Light Co., Ohio Edison Co.,

The Cleveland Electric Illuminating

Co., The Toledo Edison Co., Beaver

Valley Power Station, Unit 2; Notice of

Withdrawal of Application for

Amendment to Facility Operating

License

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) has

granted the request by Duquesne Light

Company (the licensee) to withdraw its

April 14, 1993, application for a

proposed amendment to Facility

Operating License No. NPF–73 for

Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 2

(BVPS–2), located in Beaver County,

Pennsylvania.

The proposed amendment involved

revision of Table Notation (10) of Table

4.3–1 of Technical Specification

4.3.1.1.1. The proposed revision would

have added a footnote to Table Notation

(10) that would have stated: ‘‘Complete

verification of OPERABILITY of the

manual reactor trip switch circuitry

shall be performed prior to startup from

the first shutdown to Mode 3 occurring

after April 6, 1993.’’

The Commission has previously

issued a Notice of Consideration of

Issuance of Amendment in the Federal

Register on April 27, 1993 (58 FR

25676). However, on December 23,

1993, the licensee submitted a letter to

the NRC requesting withdrawal of the

proposed change because the change

was no longer required. BVPS–2 had

entered Mode 3 on September 18, 1993,

in preparation for its fourth refueling

outage and had performed the required

surveillance test on November 18, 1993.

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application for

amendment dated April 14, 1993, and

the licensee’s letter of December 23,

1993, which withdrew the application

for license amendment. The above

documents are available for public

inspection at the Commission’s Public

Document Room, The Gelman Building,

2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC,

20555 and at the B. F. Jones Memorial

Library, 663 Franklin Avenue,

Aliquippa, Pennsylvania 15001.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, 19th day of

December 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Donald S. Brinkman,

Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate

I–2, Division of Reactor Projects—I/II, Office

of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–31301 Filed 12–26–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

[Docket Nos. 50–277 AND 50–278]

Peco Energy Company, Public Service

Electric and Gas Company, Delmarva

Power and Light Company, Atlantic

City Electric Company, Peach Bottom

Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3;

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of

Amendment to Facility Operating

License, Proposed No Significant

Hazards Consideration Determination,

and Opportunity for a Hearing

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of an amendment

to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–

44 and DPR–56, issued to the PECO

Energy Company (PECO, the licensee),

for operation of the Peach Bottom

Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3

(Peach Bottom, PBAPS), located in York

County, Pennsylvania.

The proposed amendment would

revise the ventilation filter test program

(VFTP) bypass and penetration leakage

test acceptance criteria from less than

0.05 percent to less than 1.0 percent.

The change corrects an administrative

error that occurred during the

development of the Peach Bottom

Improved Technical Specifications

which were issued as Amendments 210

and 214 to the Peach Bottom licenses on

August 30, 1995.

The amendment is being proposed on

an exigent basis in accordance with 10

CFR 50.91(a)(6). On December 11, 1995,

the licensee determined that a change to

the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station

Improved Technical Specifications,

issued by Amendments 210 and 214 to

the Unit 2 and Unit 3 licenses,

respectively, was required. An

administrative error contained in the

Improved Technical Specification VFTP

would result in the Engineered Safety

Feature (ESF) filter ventilation systems

being declared inoperable upon

implementation of Improved Technical

Specifications. Implementation of the

Improved Technical Specifications is

scheduled for January 11, 1996. Because

these ESF filter ventilation systems are

common to both Units and because the

ESF filter ventilation systems cannot be

maintained operable in accordance with

the administrative error in the VFTP, a

shutdown of both Units would be

required. Therefore, the licensee has

requested approval of the proposed

amendment in advance of the

implementation of the Improved

Technical Specifications in order to

eliminate the unnecessary hardship

associated with shutting down both

units.

Before issuance of the proposed

license amendment, the Commission

will have made findings required by the

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended

(the Act) and the Commission’s

regulations.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6) for

amendments to be granted under

exigent circumstances, the NRC staff

must determine that the amendment

request involves no significant hazards

consideration. Under the Commission’s

regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means

that operation of the facility in

accordance with the proposed

amendment would not (1) involve a

significant increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of

a new or different kind of accident from

any accident previously evaluated; or

(3) involve a significant reduction in a

margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR

50.91(a), the licensee has provided its

analysis of the issue of no significant

hazards consideration, which is

presented below:

(1) The proposed changes do not involve

a significant increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated because the changes are purely

administrative and do not involve any

physical changes to plant SSC [systems,

structures and components]. These proposed

changes do not impact initiators of analyzed

events, and will not increase the probability

of occurrence of an accident previously

evaluated. These proposed changes do not

impact the assumed mitigation of accidents

or transient events. Therefore, these changes

will not involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of an accident

previously evaluated.

(2) The proposed changes do not create the

possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from any accident previously

evaluated because the changes will not

involve a physical alteration of the plant (no

new or different type of equipment will be

installed) or changes in methods governing

normal plant operation. The changes do not

allow plant operation in any mode that is not

already evaluated in the safety analysis.

Therefore, these changes will not create the