11124 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 40 / Wednesday, March 1, 1995 / Notices

the Interagency Group and the Director

of the Institute. In addition, the Institute

consults with the Board on the award of

fellowships.

The Board will meet in Washington,

DC on March 14, 1995 from 10 am to 4

pm. The meeting of the Board is open

to the public. The agenda includes a

review of 1994 activities, preliminary

discussions of potential 1995–1996

NIFL activities, and a discussion on the

status of the reauthorization.

Records are kept of all Board

proceedings and are available for public

inspection at the National Institute for

Literacy, 800 Connecticut Avenue NW.,

Suite 200, Washington, DC 20006 from

8:30 a.m. to 5:00 pm.

Andrew J. Hartman,

Executive Director, National Institute for

Literacy.

[FR Doc. 95–4955 Filed 2–28–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6055–01–M

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–213

Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power

Company; Haddam Neck Plant;

Environmental Assessment and

Finding of No Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of an amendment

to Facility Operating License No. DPR–

61, issued to Connecticut Yankee

Atomic Power Company (CYAPCO, the

licensee), for operation of the Haddam

Neck Plant, located in Middlesex

County, Connecticut.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

By amendment request dated

December 22, 1993, CYAPCO has

proposed to revise Technical

Specification (TS) 3/4.4.10, ‘‘Structural

Integrity,’’ Surveillance Requirement

4.4.10. The licensee has proposed an

alternate Reactor Coolant Pump (RCP)

flywheel inspection frequency and

examination methods. The staff has

extended the RCP flywheel inspection

frequency for RCPs 1 and 2 for one

refueling outage until the staff can

complete the review for a permanent

change.

The Need for the Proposed Action

CYAPCO has determined that the

existing RCP flywheel inspection

program as discussed in Regulatory

Guide (RG) 1.14, ‘‘Reactor Coolant

Pump Flywheel Integrity,’’ can be

optimized by revising the RCP flywheel

inspection frequency and examination

methods. By optimizing the RCP

flywheel inspection program, the

licensee will alleviate current testing

requirements that are overly restrictive

for predicting RCP flywheel integrity

and gain increased flexibility in

utilizing personnel during subsequent

RCP flywheel examinations. This TS

change reflects the licensee’s proposed

alternate RCP flywheel inspection

frequency and examination methods.

The staff has determined additional

information is needed to complete this

review, however, the staff has

concluded that the request has sufficient

merit to extend the TS required

inspections for RCPs 1 and 2 for one

Cycle.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The Commission has reviewed the

proposed revision to the TS. The staff

has concluded that additional

information regarding the proposed

inservice examination methods, flaw

acceptance criteria, and the supporting

fracture mechanics analysis are needed

to complete the review. However, the

staff has concluded that the proposed

TS change involving the changes in TS

3/4.4.10, ‘‘Structural Integrity,’’

Surveillance Requirement 4.4.10, can be

implemented for Cycle 18 refueling

outage as the change would only affect

one of the five inspection criteria and

two of the four RCPs. In particular, the

ultrasonic volumetric inspection

frequency for the areas of higher stress

concentration for RCPs 1 and 2 be

extended for one cycle until the staff

can complete the review of the

licensee’s proposed increased

inspection frequency and alternative

examination methods for the RCP

flywheels. These changes will not affect

the desired margins of safety for the two

affected accidents: (1) RCP locked rotor

event, and (2) adequacy of missile

protection inside containment and,

therefore, the extension of the

inspection interval by one refueling

cycle is acceptable. This conclusion is

based on the flaw history of the RCP

flywheels and the likelihood that the

most recent inspections would have

detected any flaws of structural

significance.

The proposed TS 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. Accordingly, the

Commission concludes that there are no

significant radiological environmental

impacts associated with this proposed

TS amendment.

With regard to potential

nonradiological impacts, the proposed

amendment 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 amendment.

Accordingly, the Commission

concludes that there are no significant

radiological or nonradiological

environmental impacts associated with

the proposed amendment.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

Since the Commission has concluded

there is no measurable environmental

impact associated with the proposed

amendment, 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 resources not considered previously

in the Final Environmental Statement

for the Haddam Neck Plant.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

the staff consulted with the Connecticut

State official 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 amendment.

For further details with respect to this

proposed action, see the licensee’s letter

dated December 22, 1993, which is

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 06547.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 40 / Wednesday, March 1, 1995 / Notices 11125

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd

day of February 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Ronald W. Hernan,

Acting Director, Project Directorate I–4,

Division of Reactor Projects—I/II, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–4975 Filed 2–28–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

[Docket No. 50–413]

Duke Power Company, et al., Catawba

Nuclear 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 certain requirements of 10 CFR

Part 50, Appendix J, Paragraph

III.D.1.(a), Type A Tests, to the Duke

Power Company, et al. (the licensee), for

operation of the Catawba Nuclear

Station, Unit No. 1, located in York

County, South Carolina, in accordance

with Facility Operating License No.

NFP–35.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

This Environmental Assessment has

been prepared to address potential

environmental issues related to the

licensee’s application of October 18,

1994, as supplemented on February 7,

1995. The proposed action would

exempt the licensee from the

requirements of 10 CFR Part 50,

Appendix J, Paragraph III.D.1.(a), to the

extent that a one-time schedular

extension would permit rescheduling

the third containment integrated leak

rate test (ILRT) in the first 10-year

service period from the end-of-Cycle 8

outage until the end-of-Cycle 9 outage.

The requested exemption would also

allow the decoupling of this third test

from the endpoint of the first 10-year

inservice inspection.

The Need for the Proposed Action

The current containment integrated

leakage rate (ILRT) requirements for

Catawba Units 1 and 2, pursuant to

Appendix J, are that, after the

preoperational leak rate test, a set of

three Type A tests must be performed at

approximately equal intervals during

each 10-year period. Also, the third test

of each set must be conducted when the

plant is shut down for the 10-year plant

inservice inspection. This is reflected in

the Catawba Technical Specifications

(TS) as a testing interval of once each 40

months plus or minus 10 months, for a

frequency of three times in a 120-month

period. To date, for Catawba Unit 1, the

preoperational and the first two periodic

ILRTs have been conducted. The most

recent ILRT was conducted in March

1991, approximately 47 months ago.

Thus, in accordance with Appendix J

and the current TS, and ILRT would

have to be conducted during the

refueling outage beginning in February

1995 (the end-of-cycle (EOC) 8 outage).

The licensee has requested an

exemption from Appendix J and a

corresponding change to the TS that

would allow a one-time change to the

interval for the Unit 1 ILRT from 40 plus

or minus 10 months to 60 plus or minus

10 months (once each 5 years). This

would allow the EOC–8 ILRT to be

rescheduled for EOC–9. Therefore, the

need for the licensee’s proposed action

is to allow a longer interval between the

Catawba Unit 1 second and third

periodic Type A ILRTs which will result

in a cost savings to the licensee.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The proposed one-time exemption

would not increase the probability or

consequences of accidents previously

analyzed and the proposed one-time

exemption would not affect facility

radiation levels or facility radiological

effluents. The licensee has analyzed the

results of previous Type A tests

performed at the Catawba Nuclear

Station, Unit No. 1. The licensee has

provided an acceptable basis for

concluding that the proposed one-time

extension of the Type A test interval

would maintain the containment

leakage rates within acceptable limits.

Accordingly, the Commission has

concluded that the one-time extension

does not result in a significant increase

in the amounts of any effluents that may

be released nor does it result in a

significant increase in individual or

cumulative occupational radiation

exposure. Therefore, there are no

significant radiological environmental

impacts associated with the proposed

exemption.

With regard to potential

nonradiological impacts, the proposed

exemption only involves Type A testing

on the containment. 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

exemption.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

Since the Commission has concluded

there is no measurable environmental

impact associated with the proposed

exemption, any alternatives with equal

or greater environmental impact need

not be evaluated. The principal

alternative to this action would be to

deny the request for exemption. Such

action would not reduce the

environmental impacts of plant

operations.

Alternative Use of Resources

This action does not involve the use

of resources not previously considered

in the ‘‘Final Environmental Statement

Related to the Operation of Catawba

Nuclear Station Unit No. 1,’’ dated

January 1983.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

the NRC staff consulted with the South

Carolina State official 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 exemption.

For further details with respect to this

action, see the licensee’s letter dated

October 18, 1994, as supplemented

February 7, 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

York County Library, 138 East Black

Street, Rock Hill, South Carolina.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day

of February 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Herbert N. Berkow,

Director, Project Directorate II–3, Division of

Reactor Projects—I/II, Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–4976 Filed 2–28–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

Biweekly Notice; Applications and

Amendments to Facility Operating

Licenses Involving No Significant

Hazards Considerations

I. Background

Pursuant to Pubic Law 97–415, the

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(the Commission on NRC staff) is

publishing this regular biweekly notice.

Public Law 97–415 revised section 189

of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as

amended (the Act), to require the