9060 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 32 / Thursday, February 16, 1995 / Notices

test program have the ability to detect

leaks smaller than would be detected by

the Type A test.

For a two-ply bellows that leaks

through both plies, this revised

exemption allows: (1) A valid Type B

test using one of various developed

alternatives to ensure compliance to

license limits, or (2) a Type A test as

required in the original exemption and,

before the return to power in a

subsequent refuel outage, replacement

of the bellows with a testable bellows

assembly or a valid Type B test to

ensure license limits are met.

The staff finds that the underlying

purpose of the regulation will be met in

that the proposed testing program will

detect bellows assemblies with

significant flaws and result in

replacement of flawed assemblies

within one operating cycle, or be tested

with a Type B test to ensure license

limits are met during which period

there is reasonable assurance that the

bellows assemblies will not suffer

excessive degradation. If the licensee

should propose to wait longer than one

cycle to replace any bellows assembly,

the staff must evaluate and approve the

request at that time.

IV

Accordingly, the Commission has

determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR

50.12(a)(i) and (a)(2)(ii), that (1) the

Exemption from appendix J 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, and (2)

application of the regulation in this

particular circumstance is not necessary

to achieve the underlying purpose of its

rule.

The Commission concludes that the

testing and replacement program for the

containment penetration bellows

assemblies is an acceptable alternative

to the existing appendix J testing

requirement. Accordingly, the

Commission hereby grants the

Exemption from appendix J.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the

Commission has determined that the

granting of this Exemption will have no

significant impact on the quality of the

human environment (59 FR 64001).

This exemption is effective upon

issuance.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 9th day

of February 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Jack W. Roe,

Director, Division of Reactor Projects III/IV,

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–3879 Filed 2–15–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

[Docket No. 50–213]

Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power

Co.; Notice of Issuance of Amendment

To Facility Operating License

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (Commission) has issued

Amendment No. 180 to Facility

Operating License No. DPR–61 issued to

the Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power

Company (the licensee), which revised

the Technical Specifications for

operation of the Haddam Neck Plant

located in Middlesex County,

Connecticut. The amendment is

effective as of the date of issuance to be

implemented within 30 days of

issuance.

The amendment revises Technical

Specifications (TS) 3.1.1.3, ‘‘Shutdown

Margin,’’ and TS 3.3.3.9. ‘‘Boron

Dilution Alarm,’’ and their associated

Bases sections and add a new TS

3.1.1.4, ‘‘Shutdown Margin.’’ TSs

3.1.2.2, 3.1.2.4, and 3.1.2.6, will be

revised to reference TS 3.1.1.3 rather

than specify the required shutdown

margin at 200 ° F. In addition, editorial

changes will be made to a reference on

TS pages 3/4 1–13 and 14 to reletter

surveillance specification 4.5.1.c.3 to

4.5.1.b.3.

The application for the amendment

complies with the standards and

requirements of the Atomic Energy Act

of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the

Commission’s rules and regulations.

The Commission has made appropriate

findings as required by the Act and the

Commission’s rules and regulations in

10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in

the license amendment.

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of

Amendment and Opportunity for

Hearing in connection with this action

was published in the Federal Register

on September 28, 1994 (59 FR 49454).

No request for a hearing or petition for

leave to intervene was filed following

the notice.

The Commission has prepared an

Environmental Assessment related to

the action and has determined not to

prepare an environmental impact

statement. Based upon the

environmental assessment, the

Commission has concluded that the

issuance of the amendment will not

have a significant effect on the quality

of the human environment (60 FR 7799).

For further details with respect to the

action see (1) the application for

amendment dated September 7, 1994,

(2) Amendment No. 180 to License No.

DPR–61, (3) the Commission’s related

Safety Evaluation, and (4) the

Commission’s Environmental

Assessment. All of these items 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 06457.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day

of February 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Alan B. Wang,

Project Manager, Project Directorate I–4,

Division of Reactor Projects—I/II, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–3874 Filed 2–15–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

[Docket No. 030–15139; License No. 37–

04594–11; EA No. 94–167]

Drexel University, Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania; Order Imposing a Civil

Monetary Penalty

I

Drexel University (Licensee) is the

holder of Byproduct Materials License

No. 37–04594–11 (License) issued by

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC or Commission) on October 31,

1979. The License authorizes the

Licensee to possess and use certain

byproduct materials in accordance with

the conditions specified therein at its

facility in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

II

An inspection of the Licensee’s

activities was conducted on July 22, July

27, and August 1, 1994, at the Licensee’s

facility located in Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania. The result of this

inspection indicated that the Licensee

had not conducted its activities in full

compliance with NRC requirements. A

written Notice of Violation and

Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty

(Notice) was served upon the Licensee

by letter dated October 17, 1994. The

Notice states the nature of the

violations, the provisions of the NRC

requirements that the Licensee had

violated, and the amount of the civil

penalty proposed for the violations.

The Licensee responded to the Notice

in two letters, both dated November 14,

1994, and a letter dated January 17,

1995. In its responses, the Licensee

denies Violations A.2 and A.6; denies in

part Violation B; admits Violations A.1,

A.3, A.4, A.5, C, D, and E; disagrees

with the classification of the violations

collectively at Severity Level III; and

requests mitigation of the penalty.

III

After consideration of the Licensee’s

response and the statements of fact,