Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 29 / Monday, February 13, 1995 / Notices 8259

The Commission has completed its

evaluation of the proposed action and

concludes that the NRC’s FES is valid

for operation at the proposed uprated

power conditions for LGS, Units 1 and

2. The staff also concluded that the

plant operating parameters impacted by

the proposed uprate would remain

within the bounding conditions on

which the conclusions of the FES are

based.

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.

The NRC staff finds the radiological

and nonradiological environmental

impacts associated with the proposed

small increase in power are very small

and do not change the conclusion in the

FES that the operation of LGS, Units 1

and 2, would cause no significant

adverse impact upon the quality of the

human environment.

Accordingly, the Commission

concludes that there are no significant

radiological 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 action

would be to deny the request. Such

action would not significantly reduce

the environmental impact of plant

operation but would restrict operation

of LGS, Units 1 and 2 to the currently

licensed power level and prevent the

facility from generating approximately

60 MWe (165 MWt) additional that is

obtainable from the existing plant

design.

Alternative Use of Resources

This action does not involve the use

of any resources not previously

considered in the ‘‘Final Environmental

Statement related to the operation of

Limerick Generating Station, Units 1

and 2,’’ dated April 1984.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

the staff consulted with the Bureau of

Radiation Protection, Pennsylvania

Department of Environmental

Resources, 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 9, 1993, as

supplemented by letters dated July 5,

September 9, October 19, and November

19, 1994, and January 6, and January 23,

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 Pottstown Public Library,

500 High Street, Pottstown, PA 19464.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day

of February 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Chester Poslusny,

Acting Director, Project Directorate I–2,

Division of Reactor Projects—I/II, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–3520 Filed 2–10–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

Draft NUREG: Issuance, Availability

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission

has issued a draft report entitled,

‘‘Management of Radioactive Material

Safety Programs at Medical Facilities’’

(NUREG–1516). This draft report,

prepared by NRC staff and two

representatives of Agreement States, is

available for review and comment.

The draft report describes a

systematic approach for effectively

managing radiation safety programs at

medical facilities. This is accomplished

by defining and emphasizing the roles

of an institution’s executive

management, radiation safety officer

(RSO), and radiation safety committee,

if required. Various aspects of program

management are discussed and

guidance is offered on selecting the

RSO, determining adequate program

resources, using contractual services

such as consultants and service

companies, conducting program audits,

and clarifying the roles of physician

authorized users and supervised

individuals. NRC’s reporting and

notification requirements are outlined

and a general description is given of

how NRC’s licensing, inspection, and

enforcement programs work. There are

19 appendices that present detailed

information on specific aspects of

program management and include an

annotated bibliography prepared by the

Radiological Sciences Division of

Brookhaven National Laboratory.

This report presents regulatory

guidance. It does not describe new or

proposed regulations, and licensees are

not required to adhere to its principles.

Any discussion or specific information

that implies a new or proposed

regulatory requirement does so

unintentionally. Rather, this should be

viewed as a practical guide to present a

management approach and describe

management tools which regulatory

agencies have observed to be effective

when managing a radiation safety

program at a medical facility. Even

though the radiation safety principles

and practices in NUREG–1516 are

directed towards the safe use of

byproduct material, they have universal

applicability and may be used by the

RSO and other responsible individuals

to manage the safe use of other sources

of radiation for medical use not

specifically addressed in this report.

Comments and suggestions on the

Draft NUREG–1516 should be sent to

the Chief, Rules Review and Directives

Branch, Division of Freedom of

Information and Publications Services,

Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555–0001. Hand deliver

comments to 11545 Rockville Pike,

Rockville, Maryland, between 7:15 a.m.

and 4:30 p.m. on Federal workdays.

Copies of the comments received may

be examined at the NRC Public

Document Room at 2120 L Street, NW.,

Washington, DC. Submit comments on

this draft report by December 31, 1995.

Comments received after this date will

be considered if it is practical to do so,

but the Commission is able to assure

consideration only for those comments

received by this date.

Copies of draft NUREG–1516 may be

obtained by written request or telefax

(301–504–2260) from Distribution

Services, Printing and Mail Services

Branch, Office of Administration, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001.

For further information contact Janet

Schlueter, Division of Industrial and

Medical Nuclear Safety, Office of

Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards,

Mail Stop, T–8F5, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555–0001, telephone (301) 415–

7894.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day

of January 1995.
8260 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 29 / Monday, February 13, 1995 / Notices

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Larry W. Camper,

Acting Chief, Medical, Academic, and

Commercial Use Safety Branch, Division of

Industrial and Medical Nuclear Safety, Office

of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.

[FR Doc. 95–3521 Filed 2–10–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

[Docket No. 50–313]

Entergy Operations, Inc. (Arkansas

Nuclear One, Unit 1); Exemption

I

Entergy Operations, Inc. (the licensee)

is the holder of Operating License No.

DPR–51, which authorizes operation of

Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1 (ANO–1).

The operating license provides, among

other things, that it is subject to all

rules, regulations, and orders of the

Commission now and hereafter in effect.

The facility consist of pressurized

water reactor at the licensee’s site in

Pope County, Arkansas.

II

Section III.D.1(a) of appendix J to 10

CFR part 50 requires, ‘‘* * * a set of

three Type A tests [Overall Integrated

Containment Leakage Rate Tests, or

ILRTs] shall be preformed, at

approximately equal intervals during

each 10-year service period. The third

test of each set shall be conducted when

the plant is shutdown for the 10-year

plant inservice inspection.’’ By letter

dated November 8, 1994, the licensee

requested an exemption from this

requirement of the Commission’s

regulations.

The NRC may grant exemptions from

the requirements of the regulations,

pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, that (1) are

authorized by law, will not present an

undue risk to the public health and

safety, and are consistent with the

common defense and security; and (2)

present special circumstances. Section

50.12(a)(2) of 10 CFR part 50 describes

special circumstances as including cases

that would not serve the underlying

purpose of the rule or are not necessary

to achieve the underlying purpose of the

rule.

In its November 8, 1994, letter, the

licensee also applied for an amendment

to Facility Operating License No. DPR–

51 to change related provisions of the

ANO–1 Technical Specifications (TSs).

The TS amendment request will be

addressed as a separate action.

III

The Type A test is defined in 10 CFR

part 50, appendix J, section II.F, as a

‘‘test intended to measure the primary

reactor containment overall integrated

leakage rate (1) after the containment

has been completed and is ready for

operation, and (2) at periodic intervals

thereafter.’’ A total of six Type A tests

(ILRT) has been performed on the ANO–

1 containment including the

preoperational ILRT that was performed

in 1973. Except for leakage detected by

Type B and C tests, containment leakage

rates have always been below the ANO–

1 acceptance criteria. The requested

exemption does not affect the

performance of Type B and C leakage

tests which are expected to detect the

most probable sources of containment

leakage.

In order to schedule the next ILRT

(the third ILRT of this service period)

such that it coincides with the 10-year

inservice inspections, the licensee has

requested a one-time exemption from

the appendix J requirements. The

exemption would permit the licensee to

perform the ILRT together with the 10-

year inservice inspections that are

schedule during the thirteenth refueling

outage. If performed during the

thirteenth refueling outage, the third

ILRT will not be completed until after

the end of the current 10-year service

period. To comply with regulations as

written, an ILRT would be required

during the twelfth refueling outage to

satisfy the requirement for three ILRTs

during the 10-year service period and

another ILRT would be required during

the thirteenth refueling outage to satisfy

the requirement for the third ILRT to be

performed when the plant is shutdown

for the 10-year inservice inspections.

The thirteenth refueling outage is

currently scheduled for the summer of

1996 and an ILRT performed during this

refueling outage would result in a test

interval between the second and third

ILRTs of approximately 53 months. If

the ILRT were performed during the

twelfth refueling outrage, currently

scheduled for early 1995, the interval

between the second and third ILRTs

would be approximately 34 months. In

the absence of the exemption and

related technical specification changes,

the licensee would be required to

perform ILRTs during both the twelfth

and thirteenth refueling outages. A

requirement to perform ILRTs during

two consecutive refueling is clearly

beyond the intent of the regulations and

given the satisfactory results of previous

tests at ANO–1, there is little, if

anything, to gain from two closely

spaced tests.

For the reasons set forth above, the

NRC staff concludes that this one-time

relief from the requirement to perform

the third ILRT within a 10-year service

period is not significant in terms of

complying with the intent of appendix

J, section III.D.1(a). Accordingly, the

staff finds that the performance of ILRTs

during both the twelfth and thirteenth

refueling outages would not result in a

commensuate increase in the confidence

of containment integrity. Therefore, the

subject exemption request meets the

special circumstances of 10 CFR

50.12(a)(2)(ii), in that in these particular

circumstances, the fourth test is not

necessary to achieve the underlying

purpose of the rule.

On this basis, the NRC staff finds that

the licensee has demonstrated that

special circumstances are present as

required by 10 CFR 50.12. Further the

staff also finds that extending the

schedule for the third ILRT to beyond

the 10-year service period will not

present a undue risk to the public health

and safety.

IV

Accordingly, the Commission has

determined pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a),

that this exemption is authorized by law

and will not endanger life or property or

the common defense and security and is

otherwise in the public interest.

Therefore, the Commission hereby

grants Entery Operations, Inc. an

exemption from the requirements of 10

CFR part 50, appendix J, section

III.D.1(a).

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the

Commission has determined that the

granting of this exemption will have no

significant impact of the quality of the

human environment (60 FR 6568).

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 3rd day

of February 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Elinor G. Adensam,

Deputy Director, Division of Reactor Projects

III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–3522 Filed 2–10–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY

CORPORATION

Request for Review Under the

Paperwork Reduction Act; Collection

of Information Under 29 CFR Part 2645,

Extension of Special Withdrawal

Liability Rules

AGENCY: Pension Benefit Guaranty

Corporation.

ACTION: Notice of request for OMB

review.

SUMMARY: This notice advises the public

that the Pension Benefit Guaranty

Corporation has requested review by the

Office of Management and Budget for a

collection of information (1212–0023)