17374 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 5, 1995 / Notices

capacity, the environmental radiological

conclusions stated in the staff’s

Environmental Assessment dated

September 13, 1984, are not altered by

the storage of 45 additional spent fuel

assemblies.

Nonradiological Assessment

In the staff’s Environmental

Assessment dated September 13, 1984,

the staff also concluded that the

nonradiological impacts of the OCNGS

as designed, were considered in the

Final Environmental Statement (FES)

issued in December 1974 and that the

OCNGS spent fuel pool expansion will

not result in nonradiological

environmental effects significantly

greater or different from those already

reviewed and analyzed in the FES.

Considering the smaller incremental

addition to the licensed storage

capacity, the environmental

nonradiological conclusions stated in

the staff’s Environmental Assessment

dated September 13, 1984, are not

altered by the storage of 45 additional

spent fuel assemblies.

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. The principal alternative

to the action would be to deny the

request. Such action would likely result

in higher personnel exposure and

schedular delays. As discussed

previously the licensee is constructing

an on-site spent fuel storage facility.

Alternative Use of Resources

This action does not involve the use

of any resources not previously

considered in the Final Environmental

Statement for the Oyster Creek Nuclear

Generating Station.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

the staff consulted with the New Jersey

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 November 25, 1994, as

supplemented by letter dated February

15, 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 Ocean County Library,

Toms River, NJ 08753.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day

of March 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Phillip F. McKee,

Director, Project Directorate I–3, Division of

Reactor Projects—I/II, Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–8311 Filed 4–4–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

[Docket No. 50–410]

Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation;

Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station—Unit 2

Environmental Assessment and

Finding of No Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of exemptions

from Facility Operating License No.

NPF–69, issued to Niagara Mohawk

Power Corporation (the licensee), for

operation of the Nine Mile Point

Nuclear Station, Unit 2 (NMP–2) located

in Oswego County, New York.

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 9, 1995.

The proposed action would exempt the

licensee from: (1) The requirements of

10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, Paragraph

III.D.1.(a), to permit a one-time interval

extension between the first and second

Type A test (containment integrated

leak rate test) for approximately 24

months from the 1995 refueling outage

to the 1997 refueling outage.

The Need for the Proposed Action

The proposed action is needed to

permit the licensee to defer the Type A

test from the 1995 refueling outage to

the 1997 refueling outage, thereby

deferring the cost of performing the tests

and eliminating the time required to

perform the test from the critical path

schedule during the upcoming spring

1995 refueling outage.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The Commission has completed its

evaluation of the proposed action and

concludes that the one-time interval

extension between the first and second

Type A tests would not increase the

probability or consequences of accidents

previously analyzed and the proposed

exemptions would not affect facility

radiation levels or facility radiological

effluents. The licensee has analyzed the

results of previous Type A tests

performed at NMP–2 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 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 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 Nine Mile Point

Nuclear Station, Unit 2.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 5, 1995 / Notices 17375

1See Chicago Stock Exchange Guide, Article XX,

Rule 37(a), (CCH) ¶ 1714.

2The Exchange has indicated to the Commission

that this proposed rule change will have the effect

of an ‘‘enabling rule’’ whereby specialists may

provide better guarantees than currently is required

under the Rules through the Exchange’s Midwest

Automated Execution System (‘‘MAX’’). The

Exchange expects modifications to the parameters

of the automated execution system to be on a per

stock basis and the specific execution programs that

are necessary to implement these guarantees will be

filed in the future under Section 19(b)(3)(A).

Telephone conversation with Craig Long and David

Rusoff, Foley & Lardner, and Julio Mojica, Susan

Lee, and Jennifer Choi, SEC, on March 10, 1995.

The Exchange has indicated that the number of

parameters for the automated executions will be

limited. The Exchange anticipates that the options

would include: a system allowing thirty-second

order exposure, the automated execution system

within MAX in which a Specialist may voluntarily

choose to participate on a stock by stock basis

(‘‘SuperMAX’’), and the enhanced version of

SuperMAX (‘‘Enhanced SuperMAX’’), which is

Continued

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 March 9, 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 local

public document room located at the

Reference and Documents Department,

Penfield Library, State University of

New York, Oswego, New York 13126.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th 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. 95–8312 Filed 4–4–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

[Docket No. 50–245]

Northeast Nuclear Energy Company;

Notice of Withdrawal of Application for

Amendment to Facility Operating

License

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) has

granted the request of Northeast Nuclear

Energy Company (the licensee) to

withdraw its June 23, 1994, application

for proposed amendment to Facility

Operating License No. DPR–21 for

Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit

1, located in New London County,

Connecticut.

The proposed amendment would

have reworded Technical Specification

3.7, ‘‘Containment Systems,’’ to permit

operation with one of the two circuits of

the reactor building ventilation logic

temporarily inoperable. In addition,

Section 3.7.C.1.b would have been

reworded to prohibit movement of

irradiated fuel, or movement of any

loads over irradiated fuel, without

secondary containment integrity.

The Commission had previously

issued a Notice of Consideration of

Issuance of Amendment published in

the Federal Register on August 31, 1994

(59 FR 45029). However, by letter dated

March 15, 1995, the licensee withdrew

the proposed change.

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application for

amendment dated June 23, 1994, and

the licensee’s letter dated March 15,

1995, which withdrew the application

for license amendment. The above

documents 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 Learning Resource Center,

Three Rivers Community-Technical

College, Thames Valley Campus, 574

New London Turnpike, Norwich, CT

06360.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day

of March 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

James W. Andersen,

Project Manager, Project Directorate I–4

Division of Reactor Projects—I/II Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–8309 Filed 4–4–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

[Release No. 34–35547; File No. SR–CHX–

95–08]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice

of Filing of Proposed Rule Change by

the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.,

Relating to Order Execution

Guarantees

March 29, 1995.

Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the

Securities Exchange Act of 1934

(‘‘Act’’), 15 U.S.C. § 78s(b)(1), notice is

hereby given that on March 2, 1995, the

Chicago Stock Exchange, Incorporated

(‘‘CHX’’ or ‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the

Securities and Exchange Commission

(‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule

change as described in Items I, II, and

III below, which Items have been

prepared by the self-regulatory

organization. The Commission is

publishing this notice to solicit

comments on the proposed rule change

from interested persons.

I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement of the Terms of Substance of

the Proposed Rule Change

The Exchange proposes to amend

Article XX, Rule 37 to add a new

subsection (d) thereunder. The text of

the proposed rule change is as follows

[new text is italicized]:

Article XX

Rule 37(d) Notwithstanding anything

herein to the contrary, a specialist may

voluntarily provide order execution

guarantees more favorable than those

required pursuant to this Rule 37 (i.e., greater

size, better price, limitations on partial

executions, etc.). At the request of a

specialist, the Exchange may provide for

automatic execution of orders in accordance

with such guarantees upon such terms and

conditions as the Exchange shall determine.

In either event, failure of a specialist to honor

a promised guarantee shall be deemed a

violation of Exchange rules.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement of the Purpose of, and

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule

Change

In its filing with the Commission, the

self-regulatory organization included

statements concerning the purpose of

and basis for the proposed rule change

and discussed any comments it received

on the proposed rule change. The text

of these statements may be examined at

the places specified in Item IV below.

The self-regulatory organization has

prepared summaries, set forth in

Sections A, B, and C below, of the most

significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement of the Purpose of, and

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule

Change

1. Purpose

The purpose of the proposed rule

change is to give specialists on the

Exchange the ability to provide order

execution guarantees that are more

favorable than those required under the

BEST Rule 1 through the Exchange’s

automated execution system (‘‘MAX’’).2