7804 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 1995 / Notices

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 Resource Center,

Three Rivers Community-Technical

College, Thames Valley Campus, 574

New London Turnpike, Norwich , CT

06360.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day

of February 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

James W. Andersen,

Project Manager, Project Directorate I–4,

Division of Reactor Projects—I/II, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–3235 Filed 2–8–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

Public Service Electric and Gas

Company; Environmental Assessment

and Finding of No Significant Impact

[Docket Nos. 50–272 and 50–311]

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of an exemption

from certain requirements of its

regulations to Facility Operating License

Nos. DPR–70 and DPR–75, issued to the

Public Service Electric and Gas

Company, PECO Energy Company,

Delmarva Power and Light Company,

and Atlantic City Electric Company,

licensees for the Salem Nuclear

Generating Station, Units 1 and 2. The

plants are located at the licensee’s site

in Salem County, New Jersey. The

exemption was requested by the

licensee by letter dated December 22,

1994.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of Proposed Action

The proposed action requests an

exemption from certain requirements of

10 CFR 50.60, ‘‘Acceptance Criteria for

Fracture Prevention Measures for LightWater Nuclear Power Reactors for

Normal Operation,’’ to allow application

of an alternate methodology to

determine the low temperature

overpressure protection (LTOP) setpoint

for the Salem Nuclear Generating

Station, Units 1 and 2. The proposed

alternate methodology is consistent with

guidelines developed by the American

Society of Mechanical Engineers

(ASME) Working Group on Operating

Plant Criteria (WGOPC) to define

pressure limits during LTOP events that

avoid certain unnecessary operational

restrictions, provide adequate margins

against failure of the reactor pressure

vessel, and reduce the potential for

unnecessary activation of pressurerelieving devices used for LTOP. These

guidelines have been incorporated into

Code Case N–514, ‘‘Low Temperature

Overpressure Protection,’’ which has

been approved by the ASME Code

Committee. The content of this code

case has been incorporated into

Appendix G of Section XI of the ASME

Code and published in the 1993

Addenda to Section XI.

The philosophy used to develop Code

Case N–514 guidelines is to ensure that

the LTOP limits are still below the

pressure/temperature (P/T) limits for

normal operation, but allow the

pressure that may occur with activation

of pressure-relieving devices to exceed

the P/T limits, provided acceptable

margins are maintained during these

events. This philosophy protects the

pressure vessel from LTOP events, and

still maintains the Technical

Specifications P/T limits applicable for

normal heatup and cooldown in

accordance with Appendix G to 10 CFR

Part 50 and Sections III and XI of the

ASME Code.

The Need for the Proposed Action

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.60, all lightwater nuclear power reactors must meet

the fracture toughness and material

surveillance program requirements for

the reactor coolant pressure boundary as

set forth in Appendices G and H to 10

CFR Part 50. Appendix G to 10 CFR Part

50 defines P/T limits during any

condition of normal operation,

including anticipated operational

occurrences and system hydrostatic

tests, to which the pressure boundary

may be subjected over its service

lifetime. It is specified in 10 CFR

50.60(b) that alternatives to the

described requirements in Appendices

G and H to 10 CFR Part 50 may be used

when an exemption is granted by the

Commission under 10 CFR 50.12.

To prevent transients that would

produce pressure excursions exceeding

the Appendix G P/T limits while the

reactor is operating at low temperatures,

the licensee installed an LTOP system.

The LTOP system includes pressure

relieving devices in the form of PowerOperated Relief Valves (PORVs) that are

set at a pressure low enough that if a

transient occurred while the coolant

temperature is below the LTOP enabling

temperature, they would prevent the

pressure in the reactor vessel from

exceeding the Appendix G P/T limits.

To prevent these valves from lifting as

a result of normal operating pressure

surges (e.g., reactor coolant pump

starting, and shifting operating charging

pumps) with the reactor coolant system

in a water solid condition, the operating

pressure must be maintained below the

PORV setpoint.

In addition, in order to prevent

cavitation of a reactor coolant pump, the

operator must maintain a differential

pressure across the reactor coolant

pump seals. Hence, the licensee must

operate the plant in a pressure window

that is defined as the difference between

the minimum required pressure to start

a reactor coolant pump and the

operating margin to prevent lifting of

the PORVs due to normal operating

pressure surges. The licensee’s current

LTOP analysis, which removes the nonconservatism in a previous analysis by

assuming one reactor coolant pump in

operation, indicates that using the

Appendix G safety margin to determine

the PORV setpoint would result in a

new pressure setpoint within the

current operating window of Salem 1

and a new setpoint just outside the

current operating window of Salem 2. In

both cases, there would be no margin for

normal operating pressure surges.

Operating with these limits could result

in the lifting of the PORVs and

cavitation of the reactor coolant pumps

during normal operation. Therefore, the

licensee proposed that in determining

the PORV setpoint for LTOP events for

Salem, the allowable pressure be

determined using the safety margins

developed in an alternate methodology

in lieu of the safety margins required by

Appendix G to 10 CFR Part 50. The

alternate methodology is consistent with

ASME Code Case N–514. The content of

this code case has been incorporated

into Appendix G of Section XI of the

ASME Code and published in the 1993

Addenda to Section XI.

An exemption from 10 CFR 50.60 is

required to use the alternate

methodology for calculating the

maximum allowable pressure for LTOP

considerations. By application dated

December 22, 1994, the licensee

requested an exemption from 10 CFR

50.60.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The Commission has completed its

evaluation of the proposed action.

Appendix G of the ASME Code

requires that the P/T limits be

calculated: (a) using a safety factor of 2

on the principal membrane (pressure)

stresses, (b) assuming a flaw at the

surface with a depth of one-quarter (1⁄4)

of the vessel wall thickness and a length

of six (6) times its depth, and (c) using

a conservative fracture toughness curve

that is based on the lower bound of

static, dynamic, and crack arrest fracture

toughness tests on material similar to

the Salem reactor vessel material.

In determining the PORV setpoint for

LTOP events, the licensee proposed to
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 1995 / Notices 7805

1Letter from William Floyd-Jones, Jr., Assistant

General Counsel, Amex, to Michael Walinskas,

Derivative Products Regulation, SEC, dated Dec. 23,

1994. The Amex originally proposed listing

BOUNDs with 60 month expirations and extending

the maximum duration of LEAPs from 39 months

to 60 months.

use safety margins based on an alternate

methodology consistent with the

proposed ASME Code Case N–514

guidelines. The ASME Code Case N–514

allows determination of the setpoint for

LTOP events such that the maximum

pressure in the vessel would not exceed

110% of the P/T limits of the existing

ASME Appendix G. This results in a

safety factor of 1.8 on the principal

membrane stresses. All other factors,

including assumed flaw size and

fracture toughness, remain the same.

Although this methodology would

reduce the safety factor on the principal

membrane stresses, use of the proposed

criteria will provide adequate margins

of safety to the reactor vessel during

LTOP transients.

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 occupation

radiation exposure.

Accordingly, the Commission

concludes that this proposed action

would result in no significant

radiological environmental impact.

With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed

change involves use of more realistic

safety margins for determining the

PORV setpoint during LTOP events. It

does not affect non-radiological plant

effluents and has no other

environmental impact. Therefore, the

Commission concludes that there are no

significant non-radiological

environmental impacts associated with

the proposed action.

Alternative 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 to 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

equivalent.

Alternative Use of Resources

This action did not involve the use of

any resources not previously considered

in the Final Environmental Statements

related to operation of the Salem

Nuclear Generating Station, dated April

1973.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

The NRC staff consulted with the state

of Pennsylvania regarding the

environmental impact of the proposed

action. The state official had no

comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

The Commission has determined not

to prepare an environmental impact

statement for the proposed exemption.

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.

For further details with respect to this

action, see the request for exemption

dated December 22, 1994, 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 Salem Free Public Library,

112 West Broadway, Salem, New Jersey

08079.

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. 95–3366 Filed 2–8–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

[Release No. 34–35327; File No. SR–AMEX–

94–56]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice

of Filing of Proposed Rule Change and

Amendment No. 1 to Proposed Rule

Change by the American Stock

Exchange, Inc., Relating to Buy-Write

Options Unitary Derivatives

(‘‘BOUNDs’’)

February 3, 1995.

Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the

Securities Exchange Act of 1934

(‘‘Act’’), 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1), notice is

hereby given that on December 12, 1994,

the American Stock Exchange, Inc.

(‘‘Amex’’ or ‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the

Securities and Exchange Commission

(‘‘SEC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’) the proposed

rule change as described in Items I, II

and III below, which Items have been

prepared by the self-regulatory

organization. The Commission is

publishing this notice to solicit

comments on the proposed rule change

from interested persons.

I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement of the Terms of Substance of

the Proposed Rule Change

The Amex, pursuant to Rule 19b–4

under the Act, proposes to amend its

rules to permit trading in Buy-Write

Options Unitary Derivatives

(‘‘BOUNDs’’). As described in more

detail below, BOUNDs are long term

options which the Amex believes have

the same economic characteristics as a

covered call writing strategy. On

December 23, 1994, the Exchange

submitted Amendment No. 1

(‘‘Amendment No. 1’’) to the filing to

provide that BOUNDs will be listed

with a maximum expiration date

corresponding to the longest prescribed

long term equity options (‘‘LEAPs’’)

then available for trading, which is

currently 39 months.1

The text of the proposed rule change

and Amendment No. 1 are available at

the Office of the Secretary, Amex and at

the Commission.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement of the Purpose of, and

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule

Change

In its filing with the Commission, the

self-regulatory organization included

statements concerning the purpose of,

and statutory basis for, the proposed

rule change and discussed any

comments it received on the proposed

rule change. The text of these statements

may be examined at the places specified

in Item IV below. The self-regulatory

organization has prepared summaries,

set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C)

below, of the most significant aspects of

such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement of the Purpose of, and

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule

Change

(1) Purpose

In 1986, the Exchange began listing 26

unit investment trusts, each of which

held shares of a single ‘‘blue-chip’’

equity security. Investors were offered

an opportunity to separate their

ownership interests in these trusts into

two distinct trading components

representing different economic

characteristics of the individual stocks

held in the trusts. These separate

trading components were known as

PRIMEs and SCOREs.