12788 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 8, 1995 / Notices

1994, as supplemented on January 13,

1995, and February 3, 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

interval extension for the Type A test

(containment integrated leak rate test)

by approximately 24 months from the

February 1995 refueling outage to the

February 1997 refueling outage would

be granted.

The Need for the Proposed Action

The proposed action is needed to

permit the licensee to defer the Type A

test from the February 1995 refueling

outage, to the February 1997 refueling

outage, thereby saving the cost of

performing the test and eliminating the

test period from the critical path time of

the outage.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The Commission has completed its

evaluation of the proposed action and

concludes that 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 IP2 to show good

containment performance and will

continue to be required to conduct the

Type B and C local leak rate tests which

historically have been shown to be the

principal means of detecting

containment leakage paths with the

Type A tests confirming the Type B and

C test results. It is also noted that the

licensee, as a condition of the proposed

exemption, will perform the visual

containment inspection although it is

only required by Appendix J to be

conducted in conjunction with Type A

tests. The NRC staff considers that these

inspections, though limited in scope,

provide an important added level of

confidence in the continued integrity of

the containment boundary. The NRC

staff also notes that the IP2 Containment

Penetration and Weld Channel

Pressurization System provides a means

for continuously monitoring potential

containment leakage paths during

power operation. 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. 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 NRC staff

considered denial of the proposed

action. Denial of the application would

result in no change in current

environmental impacts.

Alternative Use of Resources

This action does not involve the use

of any resources not previously

considered in the Final Environmental

Statement for the Indian Point Nuclear

Generating Unit No. 2.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

the NRC staff consulted with the New

York 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 action.

For further details with respect to the

proposed action, see the licensee’s letter

dated September 19, 1994, as

supplemented by letters dated January

13, 1995, and February 3, 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

White Plains Public Library, 100

Martine Avenue, White Plains, New

York 10610

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day

of March 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Ledyard B. Marsh,

Director, Project Directorate I–1, Division of

Reactor Projects—I/II, Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–5612 Filed 3–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

[Docket No. 50–344]

Portland General Electric Co., Receipt

of Decommissioning Plan and

Decommissioning Environmental

Report and Opportunity for Public

Comments; Trojan Nuclear Power

Plant

By letter January 26, 1995, Portland

General Electric Company (PGE or the

licensee) submitted the

Decommissioning Plan and a

supplement to the Environmental

Report describing the decommissioning

of the Trojan Nuclear Plant (Trojan or

the plant). The licensee is the holder of

Facility Operating License No. NFP–1

that was issued on November 21, 1975.

The permanently shut down nuclear

plant is located on the west shore of the

Columbia River in Columbia County,

Oregon.

Pursuant to the 10 CFR 50.82(e) the

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC) is providing this notice to

interested persons prior to approval of

the Decommissioning Plan. The

Decommissioning Plan does not contain

any requests for amendments to the

Trojan Operating License. Therefore, an

opportunity for a hearing under 10 CFR

part 2 of Commission regulations, is not

being offered by this notice. Should the

Commission determine that a license

amendment is necessary in connection

with the proposed Decommissioning

Plan, that action will be noticed

separately.

Interested persons are invited to

submit written comments or questions

on the Decommissioning Plan or

Environmental Report. Any written

comments should be limited to the

contents of the Decommissioning Plan

and Environmental Report.

The staff will review and consider all

comments that are received before

taking final action on the proposed

Decommissioning Plan. Written

comments should be submitted within

120 days of the publication date of this

notice and addressed to: Michael T.

Masnik, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555.

In addition, the NRC is planning to

hold a joint public meeting with the

Oregon Department of Energy (ODOE)

on Wednesday, March 29, 1995, at the

St. Helens High School, U.S. Highway
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 8, 1995 / Notices 12789

30 and Gable Road, St. Helens, Oregon.

The meeting will begin at 7:30 pm and

will last approximately two hours. The

purpose of the meeting is to provide the

NRC and the ODOE an opportunity to

explain their respective

decommissioning review processes and

to provide interested members of the

public an opportunity to ask questions

and provide comments on the

decommissioning of the Trojan plant.

Copies of the Decommissioning Plan

and Environmental Report are available

at the Commission’s Public Document

Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L

Street, NW, Washington, DC 20555, and

at the Local Public Document Room

located on the fifth floor of the Branford

Price Millar Library, Portland State

University, 934 S.W. Harrison Street,

P.O. Box 1151, Portland, Oregon 97207.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day

of February 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Seymour H. Weiss,

Director, Non-Power Reactors and

Decommissioning Project Directorate,

Division of Project Support, Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–5613 Filed 3–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

Regulatory Guide; Issuance,

Availability

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission

has issued a new guide in its Regulatory

Guide Series. This series has been

developed to describe and make

available to the public such information

as methods acceptable to the NRC staff

for implementing specific parts of the

Commission’s regulations, techniques

used by the staff in evaluating specific

problems or postulated accidents, and

data needed by the staff in its review of

applications for permits and licenses.

Regulatory Guide 6.9, ‘‘Establishing

Quality Assurance Programs for the

Manufacture and Distribution of Sealed

Sources and Devices Containing

Byproduct Material,’’ provides guidance

acceptable to the NRC staff on the

essential elements needed to develop,

establish, and maintain a quality

assurance program for the manufacture

and distribution of sealed sources and

devices.

Comments and suggestions in

connection with items for inclusion in

guides currently being developed or

improvements in all published guides

are encouraged at any time. Written

comments may be submitted to the

Rules Review and Directives Branch,

Division of Freedom of Information and

Publications Services, Office of

Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555.

Regulatory guides are available for

inspection at the Commission’s Public

Document Room, 2120 L Street NW.,

Washington, DC. Copies of issued

guides may be purchased from the

Government Printing Office at the

current GPO price. Information on

current GPO prices may be obtained by

contacting the Superintendent of

Documents, U.S. Government Printing

Office, Post Office Box 37082,

Washington, DC 20013–7082, telephone

(202) 512–2249. Issued guides may also

be purchased from the National

Technical Information Service on a

standing order basis. Details on this

service may be obtained by writing

NTIS, 5285 Port Royal Road,

Springfield, VA 22161.

(5 U.S.C. 552(a))

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 13th day

of February 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Eric S. Beckjord,

Director, Office of Nuclear Regulatory

Research.

[FR Doc. 95–5609 Filed 3–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

[Docket No. 50–318]

Baltimore Gas and Electric Co.;

Issuance of Amendment to Facility

Operating License, Proposed No

Significant Hazards Consideration

Determination, and Opportunity for a

Hearing

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of an amendment

to Facility Operating License No. DPR–

69 issued to Baltimore Gas and Electric

Company (the licensee) for operation of

the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant,

Unit No. 2, located in Calvert County,

Maryland.

The proposed amendment would

revise the Calvert Cliffs, Unit No. 2,

Technical Specifications (TSs).

Specifically, TS 4.G.1.2 would reference

10 CFR part 50, Appendix J directly,

and any approved exemptions to the

Type A testing frequently requirements,

rather than paraphrase the regulation.

The proposed wording is consistent

with that used in NUREG–1432,

‘‘Standard Technical Specifications—

Combustion Engineering Plants,’’ dated

September 1992.

Before issuance of the proposed

license amendment, the Commission

will have made findings required by the

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended

(the Act) and the Commission’s

regulations.

The Commission has made a

proposed determination that the

amendment request involves no

significant hazards consideration. Under

the Commission’s regulations in 10 CFR

50.92, this means that operation of the

facility in accordance with the proposed

amendment would not (1) involve a

significant increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of

a new or different kind of accident from

any accident previously evaluated; or

(3) involve a significant reduction in a

margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR

50.91(a), the licensee has provided its

analysis of the issue of no significant

hazards consideration, which is

presented below:

1. Would not involve a significant increase

in the probability or consequences of an

accident previously evaluated.

The proposed change revises Technical

Specification 4.6.1.2.a to reference the testing

frequency requirements of 10 CFR part 50,

Appendix J, and to state that NRC-approved

exemptions to the applicable regulatory

requirements are permitted. The current

Technical Specification 4.6.1.2.a paraphrases

the requirements of Appendix J, paragraph

III.D.1.(a) and necessitates a change to the

Technical Specifications should the

Appendix J language change or an exemption

be granted. The proposed administrative

revision simply deletes the paraphrased

language and directly references Appendix J

and any approved exemptions. No new

requirements are added, nor are any existing

requirements deleted. Any specific

exemptions from the requirements of

Appendix J, paragraph III.D.1.(a) will

continue to require a submittal from

Baltimore Gas and Electric Company under

10 CFR 50.12 and subsequent review and

approval by the NRC prior to

implementation.

The proposed change will provide a onetime exemption from the 10 CFR part 50,

Appendix J, paragraph III.D.1.(a) leak rate test

schedule requirement. This change will

allow for a one-time interval between

subsequent Type A test of approximately 72

months. It will also extend the second tenyear Type A testing service period to 12 years

to coincide with the inservice inspection

interval.

No physical or operational changes to the

structure, plant systems or components

would be made as a result of the proposed

change. Furthermore, leak rate testing is not

an initiating event in any accident, therefore

this proposed change does not involve a

significant increase in the probability of any

accident previously evaluated.

Type A tests are capable of detecting

containment leaks through containment

penetrations and through the containment

liner. The history at Calvert Cliffs Unit 2

demonstrates that Type B and C Local Leak

Rate Tests (LLRTs) have consistently

detected leakage through penetrations. With

the exception of the first periodic Unit 2

Type A test in 1979, which failed and was

promptly corrected, Type A tests have not