Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 1995 / Notices 66995

1. The title of the information

collection: Exercise of Discretion for an

Operating Facility, NRC Enforcement

Policy (NUREG–1600).

2. Current OMB approval number:

3150–0136.

3. How often the collection is

required: On occasion.

4. Who is required or asked to report:

Nuclear power reactor licensees.

5. The number of annual respondents:

36.

6. The number of hours needed

annually to complete the requirement or

request: 2,160.

7. Abstract: The NRC’s revised

Enforcement Policy includes the

circumstances in which the NRC may

exercise enforcement discretion. This

enforcement discretion is designated as

a Notice of Enforcement Discretion

(NOED) and relates to circumstances

which may arise where a licensee’s

compliance with a Technical

Specification Limiting Condition for

Operation or with other license

conditions would involve an

unnecessary plant transient or

performance of testing, inspection, or

system realignment that is inappropriate

for the specific plant conditions, or

unnecessary delays in plant startup

without a corresponding health and

safety benefit. A licensee seeking the

issuance of a NOED must provide a

written justification, which documents

the safety basis for the request and

provides whatever other information the

NRC staff deems necessary to decide

whether or not to exercise discretion.

Submit, by February 26, 1996,

comments that address the following

questions:

1. Is the proposed collection of

information necessary for the NRC to

properly perform its functions? Does the

information have practical utility?

2. Is the burden estimate accurate?

3. Is there a way to enhance the

quality, utility, and clarity of the

information to be collected?

4. How can the burden of the

information collection be minimized,

including the use of automated

collection techniques or other forms of

information technology?

A copy of the draft supporting

statement may be viewed free of charge

at the NRC Public Document Room,

2120 L Street, NW (lower level),

Washington, DC. Members of the public

who are in the Washington, DC, area can

access this document via modem on the

Public Document Room Bulletin Board

(NRC’s Advanced Copy Document

Library), NRC subsystem at FedWorld,

703–321–3339. Members of the public

who are located outside of the

Washington, DC, area can dial

FedWorld, 1–800–303–9672, or use the

FedWorld Internet address:

fedworld.gov (Telnet). The document

will be available on the bulletin board

for 30 days after the signature date of

this notice. If assistance is needed in

accessing the document, please contact

the FedWorld help desk at 703–487–

4608.

Comments and questions may be

directed to the NRC Clearance Officer,

Brenda Jo. Shelton, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, T–6 F33,

Washington, DC, 20555–0001, or by

telephone at (301) 415–7233, or by

Internet electronic mail at

BJS1@NRC.GOV.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day

of December, 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Gerald F. Cranford,

Designated Senior Official for Information

Resources Management.

[FR Doc. 95–31302 Filed 12–26–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

[Docket No. 50–285]

Omaha Public Power District Fort

Calhoun Station, Unit No. 1;

Environmental Assessment and

Finding of No Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of an exemption

from the requirements of 10 CFR Part

50, Section IV.F.2.c of Appendix E

regarding a biennial emergency

preparedness exercise for Facility

Operating License No. DRP–40, issued

to Omaha Public Power District, (the

licensee), for operation of the Fort

Calhoun Station, Unit 1, located in

Washington County, Nebraska.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

The proposed action would grant a

schedular exemption from the

requirement of Section IV.F.2.c of

Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50, which

requires that each licensee perform a

biennial emergency preparedness

exercise, including offsite plans with

full participation by offsite State and

local authorities. This action would

allow the licensee to extend the biennial

interval until the first quarter of 1996.

The proposed action is in accordance

with the licensee’s application for

exemption dated December 8, 1995, as

supplemented by letter dated December

15, 1995.

The Need for the Proposed Action

The proposed action is needed

because the Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA) was not

able to support the licensee’s previously

scheduled biennial full exercise as

result of the federal impasse over the

1996 Federal Budget. Without the

exemption, FEMA will not be able to

complete its required biennial

assessment of the licensee’s ability to

ensure adequate protection can and will

be taken in the event of a radiological

emergency.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The proposed exemption would not

adversely affect the response

capabilities of the licensee and State

and local authorities. The Commission

has completed its evaluation of the

proposed action and concludes that the

intent of Appendix E, Section IV.F.2.c to

ensure offsite emergency preparedness

is maintained, has been met. Therefore,

the change will not increase the

probability or consequences of

accidents, no changes are being made in

the types or amounts of any effluents

that may be released offsite, and 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 action.

With regard to potential

nonradiological impacts, the proposed

action does involve 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.

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. 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 similar.

Alternative Use of Resources

This action does not involve the use

of any resources not previously

considered in the Final Environmental

Statement (FES) for the Fort Calhoun

Station, Unit 1, dated August 1972.
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