13478 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 1995 / Notices

assessment, the Commission concludes

that the proposed action would 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, the request for exemption dated

January 4, 1995, and other documents

are available for public inspection and

for copying (for a fee) at the NRC Public

Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW,

Washington, DC 20555, and at the Local

Public Document Room located in the

Minneapolis Public Library, 300

Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 55401.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day

of March, 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Donald A. Cool,

Director, Division of Industrial and Medical

Nuclear Safety, Office of Nuclear Material

Safety and Safeguards.

[FR Doc. 95–6062 Filed 3–10–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

[Docket 70–364]

Babcock and Wilcox Co., Receipt of

Petition for Director’s Decision Under

10 CFR 2.206

Notice is hereby given that by Petition

dated January 5, 1994, Citizens’ Action

for a Safe Environment (CASE) and the

Kiski Valley Coalition to Save Our

Children (The Coalition) (together

referred to as Intervenors) filed a joint

request for an informal hearing pursuant

to 10 C.F.R. Part 2, Subpart L, with

regard to Babcock & Wilcox Company’s

(Licensee) application for renewal of

Special Nuclear Materials License

SNM–414 issued to the Licensee by the

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(Commission) for the Pennsylvania

Nuclear Service Operation facility

located in Parks Township, Armstrong

County, Pennsylvania (Parks Township

facility). In its Initial Decision, dated

January 3, 1995, authorizing the renewal

of the materials license, the Atomic

Safety and Licensing Board, consistent

with 10 C.F.R. 2.1205(k)(2), referred to

the Commission’s Executive Director for

Operations for consideration as requests

for action under 10 CFR 2.206, twelve

areas of concern (see Sections B, H, I, M,

P, Q, S, T, U, W, X, and Y, Initial

Decision at pages 63 to 70) raised in that

proceeding by the Intervenors. These

concerns were referred to the Director of

the Office of Nuclear Material Safety

and Safeguards. Each of these concerns

has been reviewed with respect to the

requirements of 10 CFR 2.206. Sections

B, H, I, M, P, S, T, U, W and Y have

failed to satisfy the requirement of

Section 2.206 that a request pursuant to

section 2.206 must ‘‘specify the action

requested and set forth the facts that

constitute the basis for the request.’’

However, Section B, H, M, P, S, T, U,

W, and Y were addressed by the

Commission staff in Michael A.

Lamastra’s affidavit dated September 22,

1994, and Section I was addressed by

the Commission staff in Heather M.

Astwood’s affidavit dated September 22,

1994, filed in the Parks Township

proceeding.

Section Q has been interpreted as a

request for the Commission to test for

radioactive contamination in the general

vicinity of Kepple Hill and Riverview in

Parks Township. The apparent concern

is that this area is downwind of the

Apollo facility which the Intervenors

assert had been releasing radioactivity at

a rate above regulatory limits. The

Intervenors rely on letters dated April

20, 1966, and May 26, 1969, concerning

the need for experimental data for an air

surveillance program at the Apollo plant

and authorization by the Commission’s

predecessor, the Atomic Energy

Commission, for the discharge of

radioactive materials in concentrations

exceeding 10 CFR Part 20 limits.

Section X has been interpreted as a

request for the Commission to

investigate radiological contamination

on the Farmers Delight Dairy Farm

(apparently located in Parks Township).

The apparent concern is that past

operations of the Parks Townships

facility caused radioactive

contamination of the farm. As basis for

this request, Intervenors assert that there

is information in a 1966 U.S.

Department of Agriculture (USDA)

study that indicates that the cattle on

the farm were having thyroid problems

and that radionuclides were show-up in

the cow’s milk.

As provided by Section 2.206,

appropriate action will be taken on

these two requests within a reasonable

period of time.

A copy of the Petition and Initial

Decision is available for inspection in

the Commission’s Public Document

Room, 2120 L Street, NW, Washington,

DC 20555.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 3rd day

of March 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Robert M. Bernero,

Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety

and Safeguards.

[FR Doc. 95–6065 Filed 3–10–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

[Docket No. 50–498]

Houston Lighting and Power Co., City

Public Service Board of San Antonio,

Central Power and Light Co., City of

Austin, TX; Notice of Consideration of

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. NPF–

6, issued to Houston Lighting & Power

Company, et al., (the licensee) for

operation of the South Texas Project

(STP), Unit 1, located in Matagorda

County, Texas.

The proposed amendment would

modify the steam generator tube

plugging criteria in Technical

Specification 3/4.4.5, Steam Generators,

and the allowable leakage for Unit 1 in

Technical Specification 3/4.4.6.2,

Operational Leakage, and the associated

Bases.

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. Does the proposed change involve a

significant increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated?

Structural Considerations

Industry testing of model boiler and

operating plant tube specimens for free span

tubing at room temperature conditions shows

typical burst pressures in excess of 5000 psi

for indications of outer diameter stress

corrosion cracking with voltage

measurements at or below the structural limit

of 4.0 volts. One model boiler specimen with

a voltage amplitude of 19 volts also exhibited

a burst pressure greater than 5000 psi. Burst

testing performed on one intersection pulled