Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 28, 1995 / Notices 15943

RECORD GROUPS CLOSING JULY–DECEMBER 1995—Continued

Cluster title RG No. Record group short title Close date Reopen

date

Treasury/Revenue/Finance ................... 365 Treasury Department Collection of Confederate Records .. 07/24/95 08/31/95

Treasury/Revenue/Finance ................... 366 Civil War Special Agencies of the Treasury Department .... 07/24/95 08/31/95

[FR Doc. 95–7514 Filed 3–27–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7515–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board;

Notice

Before Administrative Judges: Peter B.

Bloch, Chair, Dr. James H. Carpenter, Thomas

D. Murphy.

[Docket Nos. 50–424–OLA–3 50–425–OLA–

3; Re: License Amendment (Transfer to

Southern Nuclear) ASLBP No. 96–671–01–

0LA–3]

March 22, 1995.

In the matter of Georgia Power Company,

et al.; (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units

1 and 2)

Pursuant to 10 CFR § 2.752, we will

hold a public evidentiary hearing

beginning at 9 am on April 17, 1995, at

the Hearing Room (T 3 B45), Two White

Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike,

Rockville, Maryland.

The purpose of the hearing is to

receive evidence concerning alleged

misrepresentations about diesel

generators at the Vogtle Nuclear Power

Plant. The first week of hearing may

include Saturday April 22. Thereafter,

the hearing will recess until May 17. It

will reconvene on that date at a place

that is to be determined in light of the

needs of the parties.

For the Atomic Safety and Licensing

Board.

Peter B. Bloch,

Chair.

[FR Doc. 95–7562 Filed 3–27–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

[Docket No. 50–312]

Sacramento Municipal Utility District,

(Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating

Station); Order Approving the

Decommissioning Plan and

Authorizing Decommissioning of

Facility

I

Sacramento Municipal Utility District

(SMUD, the licensee) is the holder of

Facility Operating License No. DPR–54

issued by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC, the Commission)

pursuant to 10 CFR part 50 on August

16, 1974. The license was amended on

March 17, 1992, to remove the authority

of the licensee to operate the Rancho

Seco Nuclear Generating Station

(Rancho Seco). The facility is located on

the licensee site in Sacramento County,

California.

II

On June 6, 1989, the voters of

Sacramento approved a referendum

indicating their desire that the licensee

not operate Rancho Seco. On June 7,

1989, the licensee shut down Rancho

Seco after approximately 15 years of

operation. The licensee defueled the

reactor and reduced its staff. In a letter

of May 20, 1991, the licensee requested

approval of the proposed

decommissioning plan for Rancho Seco.

The Decommissioning Plan was

supplemented on April 15, August 6,

and August 31, 1992; January 7, April 7,

and April 19, 1993; and March 23, April

28, July 26, and October 26, 1994.

A Notice of Consideration of Issuance

of an Order Authorizing

Decommissioning a Facility and

Opportunity for Hearing related to the

requested action was published in the

Federal Register on March 19, 1992 (57

FR 9577). The Environmental and

Resources Conservation Organization

(ECO), in its letter of April 20, 1992,

provided comments on the proposed

action and requested a hearing. On May

8, 1992, the Secretary of the

Commission forwarded the request for

hearing to the Atomic Safety and

Licensing Board (ASLB) for further

action. The ASLB issued an order which

terminated the proceeding by denying

standing to ECO (LBP–92–23, dated

August 20, 1992). On September 8,

1992, ECO appealed this ruling to the

Commission pursuant to 10 CFR

2.714(a). In CLI–93–03, dated March 3,

1993, the Commission remanded certain

issues raised by ECO to the ASLB for

further consideration. On June 16, 1993,

the staff issued its decommissioning

safety evaluation and associated

environmental assessment. As allowed

by CLI–93–03, on July 12, 1993, ECO

submitted contentions to the ASLB on

(1) adequacy of the NRC environmental

assessment, (2) adequacy of the SMUD

analysis of a postulated loss of offsite

power, (3) adequacy of the funding plan

proposed by SMUD, and (4) adequacy of

the staff safety evaluation. On November

30, 1993, the ASLB admitted only the

decommissioning funding issue for

litigation. On December 15, 1993, the

licensee petitioned the Commission for

directed certification of the funding

issue. On March 1, 1994, (in CLI–94–

02), the Commission declined to review

the ASLB determinations on the

particular issues. On August 1, 1994,

ECO reached a settlement with the

licensee and filed a notice of

withdrawal suggesting that the ASLB

terminate the proceeding. A termination

order was issued by the ASLB on

August 11, 1994. On September 2, 1994,

(in CLI–94–14), the Commission

concluded that sua sponte review of the

matter was unwarranted and authorized

the staff to issue a decommissioning

order.

III

The NRC has reviewed the licensee

application with respect to the

provisions of the Commission rules and

regulations and has found that

decommissioning as stated in the

Rancho Seco Decommissioning Plan

will be consistent with the regulations

in 10 CFR Ch. I, and will not be inimical

to the common defense and security or

to the health and safety of the public.

The bases for these findings are given in

the staff safety evaluation previously

issued on June 16, 1993, and updated by

the supplemental safety evaluation

issued concurrently with this Order.

The staff concluded that this Order

should contain provisions which: (1)

Specify the method by which changes

may be made to the FSAR (now referred

to as the Defueled Safety Analysis

Report or DSAR) and to the

decommissioning plan; (2) require

periodic updating of the FSAR/DSAR

and decommissioning plan; and (3)

require the licensee to maintain its fire

protection program in accordance with

this Order. The staff has discussed these

additional provisions with the licensee

and they were found to be mutually

acceptable.

IV

Accordingly, pursuant to sections

103, 161b, 161i, and 161o, of the Atomic

Energy Act of 1954 (as amended), 10

CFR 50.82, and the Commission Order