Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 28, 1995 / Notices 15945

RWST, and backup service water

platform.

Need for the Proposed Action

The proposed exemption is needed to

permit the licensee to restart and

operate the plant without being in

violation of the Commission’s

regulations and to obviate the need for

extensive modifications. Physical

modification of the plant to achieve

literal compliance with 10 CFR Part 50,

Appendix R, Section III.J, would require

installation of emergency lighting in an

exposed outdoor environment which

would require special protective

enclosures and extensive maintenance

to maintain operability. Since security

lighting which meets the requirements

of 10 CFR 73.55(c)(5) is already installed

in these areas and since this security

lighting has already been acceptable to

justify a similar exemption which was

issued on January 7, 1987, application

of the regulation in this particular

circumstance would not be necessary to

achieve the underlying purpose of the

rule. The security lighting system

achieves the underlying purpose of the

rule in that it provides adequate

illumination to perform the abovementioned activities in the outside yard

for a period of at least 8 hours, has its

own independent emergency generator

power source, and is not impacted by

fires in other areas of the plant for

which Appendix R fires need to be

considered.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The proposed action is to modify the

exemption which was previously issued

by the NRC on January 7, 1987, to

extend the use of security lighting in the

outside yard to include the CST, RWST,

and backup service water platform. The

Commission has completed its

evaluation of the proposed action and

concludes that the probability or

consequences of accidents will not

increase, 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 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 for the Indian Point Nuclear

Generating Station Unit No. 3,’’ dated

February 1975.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

the staff consulted with the State of New

York 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 March 15, 1995, 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 White

Plains Public Library, 100 Martine

Avenue, White Plains, New York.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day

of March 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Daniel G. McDonald,

Acting Director Project Directorate I–1

Division of Reactor Projects—I/II Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–7696 Filed 3–27–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

Virginia Electric & Power Co.; North

Anna Power Station, Unit No. 2;

Environmental Assessment and

Finding of No Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of an exemption

from Facility Operating License No.

NPF–7, issued to Virginia Electric and

Power Company (the licensee), for

operation of the North Anna Power

Station, Unit No. 2 (NA–2) located in

Louisa County, Virginia.

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 March 2, 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 16 months from the

March 1995 refueling outage to the

October 1996 refueling outage would be

granted. In addition, the proposed

action would exempt the licensee from

a portion of Section IV.A that requires

a Type A test to be performed following

a major modification or replacement of

a component which is part of the

primary reactor containment boundary.

Specifically, the post-modification

exemption is requested from performing

a Type A test due to the activities

associated with the upcoming NA–2

steam generator replacement.

The Need for the Proposed Action

The proposed action is needed to

permit the licensee to defer the Type A

tests from the NA–2 March 1995

refueling steam generator replacement

outage to the October 1996 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

exemptions would not increase the

probability or consequences of accidents

previously analyzed and the proposed

one-time exemptions would not affect

facility radiation levels or facility

radiological effluents. The licensee 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
15946 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 28, 1995 / Notices

containment leakage paths with the

Type A tests confirming the Type B and

C test results. The planned replacement

of the NA–2 steam generators affects

only the closed piping system inside

containment which includes the main

steam lines, the feedwater lines, and the

secondary side of the steam generators.

The affected area of the primary

containment boundary is also part of the

pressure boundary of an ASME Class 2

component/piping system and, as such,

the replacement of the NA–2 steam

generators are subject to the repair and

replacement requirements of ASME

Section XI. The ASME Section XI

surface, volumetric, and system

pressure test requirements are more

stringent than the Type A testing

requirements of Appendix J. The

acceptance criteria for ASME Section XI

system pressure testing of welded joints

is zero leakage and the test pressure for

the system pressure test will be in

excess of 20 times that of a type A test.

In addition, the steam generator

replacement activities do not affect the

containment structure or the

containment liner. The NRC staff

considers that these inspections provide

an important added level of confidence

in the continued integrity of the

containment boundary. The NRC staff

also notes that the containment is

maintained at a subatmospheric

pressure which 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

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 NA–2.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

the NRC staff consulted with the

Virginia 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 March 2, 1995, which is available

for public inspection at the

Commission’s Public Document Room,

Swem Library, College of William and

Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia 23185,

and The Alderman Library, Special

Collections Department, University of

Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia

22903–2498.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day

of March 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

David B. Matthews,

Director Project Directorate II–2, Division of

Reactor Projects—I/II, Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–7695 Filed 3–27–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

Under Review by Office of

Management and Budget

Acting Agency Clearance Officer:

David T. Copenhafer, (202) 272–5407.

Upon written request copy available

from: Securities and Exchange

Commission, Office of Filings and

Information Services, Washington, D.C.

20549.

PROPOSED REVISIONS

Regulation C ................ File No. 270–68.

PROPOSED REVISIONS—Continued

Form S–1 ..................... File No. 270–58.

Form S–2 ..................... File No. 270–60.

Form S–3 ..................... File No. 270–61.

Form S–11 ................... File No. 270–64.

Form SB–1 ................... File No. 270–374.

Form SB–2 ................... File No. 270–366.

Form F–1 ..................... File No. 270–249.

Form F–2 ..................... File No. 270–250.

Form F–3 ..................... File No. 270–251.

Notice is hereby given pursuant to the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), that the Securities

and Exchange Commission

(‘‘Commission’’) has submitted

proposed rule revisions for OMB

approval. Forms S–1, S–2, S–3, S–11,

SB–1, SB–2, F–1, F–2, and F–3 are used

to register securities under the

Securities Act of 1933 and Regulation C

governs the filing of such forms. The

staff estimates that if the proposed

amendments are adopted,

approximately 1,249 respondents would

file Form S–1 annually at an estimated

1,257 burden hours per response with a

total annual burden of 1,569,993 hours;

344 respondents would file Form S–2

annually at an estimated 487 burden

hours per response with a total annual

burden of 167,528 hours; 2,290

respondents would file Form S–3

annually at an estimated 413 burden

hours per response with a total annual

burden of 945,770 hours; 345

respondents would file Form S–11

annually at an estimated 859 burden

hours per response with a total annual

burden of 296,355 hours; 260

respondents would file Form SB–1

annually at an estimated 725 burden

hours per response with a total annual

burden of 188,500 hours; 269

respondents would file Form SB–2

annually at an estimated 893 burden

hours per response with a total annual

burden of 240,217 hours; 15

respondents would file Form F–1

annually at an estimated 1,885 burden

hours per response with a total annual

burden of 28,275 hours; 4 respondents

would file Form F–2 annually at an

estimated 575 burden hours per

response with a total annual burden of

2,300 hours; 6 respondents would file

Form F–3 annually at an estimated 180

burden hours per response with a total

annual burden of 1,080 hours and

Regulation C is assigned one burden

hour for administrative convenience

because the regulation simply prescribes

the disclosure that must appear in the

above referenced forms and other filings

under the federal securities laws.

General comments regarding the

estimated burden hours should be

directed to the Clearance Officer for the