Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 5, 1995 / Notices 17373

amended by the Omnibus Trade and

Competitiveness Act of 1988 (Pub. L.

100–418), the Department of Labor

herein presents the results of an

investigation regarding certification of

eligibility to apply for worker

adjustment assistance.

In order to make an affirmative

determination and issue a certification

of eligibility to apply for adjustment

assistance each of the group eligibility

requirements of Section 222 of the Act

must be met. It is determined in this

case that all of the requirements have

been met.

The investigation was initiated in

response to a petition received on

February 14, 1995 and filed on behalf of

workers at Wirekraft Industries,

Incorporated, Marion, Ohio. The

workers produced wire harnesses.

The investigation revealed that a

major customer of the subject firm

increased their imports of electrical wire

harnesses during the relevant period

under investigation and is transferring

production formerly supplied by the

subject firm to foreign sources.

Conclusion

After careful review of the facts

obtained in the investigation, I conclude

that increases of imports of articles like

or directly competitive with wire

harnesses produced at Wirekraft

Industries, Incorporated, Marion, Ohio

contributed importantly to the decline

in sales or production and to the total

or partial separation of workers of that

firm. In accordance with the provisions

of the Act, I make the following

certification:

All workers of Wirekraft Industries,

Incorporated, Marion, Ohio engaged in

employment related to the production of wire

harnesses who became totally or partially

separated from employment on or after

February 9, 1994 through two years from the

date of certification are eligible to apply for

adjustment assistance under Section 223 of

the Trade Act of 1974.

Signed in Washington, D.C. this 17th day

of February, 1995.

Victor J. Trunzo,

Program Manager, Policy and Reemployment

Services, Office of Trade Adjustment

Assistance.

[FR Doc. 95–8333 Filed 4–4–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–219]

GPU Nuclear Corporation; Oyster

Creek Nuclear Generating Station

Environmental Assessment and

Finding of No Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of an amendment

to Facility Operating License No. DPR–

16, issued to GPU Nuclear Corporation

(the licensee), for operation of the

Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station

(OCNGS), located in Ocean County,

New Jersey.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

The proposed action would revise the

Technical Specification (TS) to allow

2645 fuel assemblies to be stored in the

fuel pool. This is an increase of 45 fuel

assemblies from the current limit of

2600 contained in TS 5.3.1.E. The 45

additional storage locations exist in

racks in the fuel pool.

The proposed action is in accordance

with the licensee’s application for

amendment dated November 25, 1994,

as supplemented by letter dated

February 15, 1995.

Background

During the spent fuel pool expansion

project in 1983, the licensee designed

and installed 10 free standing high

density spent fuel racks in the spent fuel

pool to increase the spent fuel storage

capacity from 1800 to 2645 spent fuel

assemblies. However, the licensee

elected to impose a TS limit of 2600

spent fuel assemblies (approved by the

staff in License Amendment No. 76,

dated September 17, 1984) to be stored

in the spent fuel pool at the time. The

increased capacity from 1800 to 2600

spent fuel assemblies would meet

anticipated spent fuel storage

requirements through 1992. An

Environmental Assessment and Finding

of No Significant Impact supporting this

action was issued on September 13,

1984. The additional 45 fuel assembly

storage locations were not licensed with

License Amendment No. 76 because it

was believed that they would not be

needed for spent fuel storage. (It was

anticipated that an off-site spent fuel

storage facility would be available after

1992.) These additional storage

locations were, therefore, used for the

storage of miscellaneous equipment

such as fuel channels.

As the result of the recent refueling

(Cycle 15R) which took place in

December 1994 and the present

unavailability of an off-site spent fuel

storage facility, OCNGS has lost the

capability to completely offload the

reactor core. The licensee is in the

process of installing a dry storage

facility on-site which is scheduled to be

operational in 1996. This provision of a

dry storage facility on-site will allow

full core offload beyond the current

operating cycle (Cycle 15) until such

time as an off-site spent fuel storage

facility is available. The OCNGS on-site

spent fuel storage facility is presently

under construction. Consequently, the

licensee proposed to use the additional

45 fuel assembly storage locations for

spent fuel storage.

The Need for the Proposed Action

The proposed action is required

should a full core offload be necessary

during Cycle 15 with the proposed dry

spent fuel storage facility not yet in

service. Without the ability to fully

offload the core, any inspection or

repair activity will most likely result in

higher personnel exposure and

schedular delays. Full core offload

capability, in particular, would facilitate

any in-vessel repair which requires

draining of the vessel.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The Commission has completed its

evaluation of the proposed action and

concludes that based on its review, the

licensee’s proposal to increase the spent

fuel pool capacity to 2645 fuel

assemblies is acceptable. In addition,

the staff has determined that the

conclusions reached in the staff’s SE

dated September 17, 1984, supporting

Amendment No. 76, and the

Environmental Assessment and Finding

of No Significant Impact—Spent Fuel

Pool Expansion dated September 13,

1994 remains applicable.

Radiological Environmental Impacts

In the staff’s Environmental

Assessment dated September 13, 1984,

regarding increasing the spent fuel pool

capability from 1800 to 2600 spent fuel

assemblies, the staff concluded that the

potential radiological environmental

impacts associated with the expansion

of the spent fuel storage capacity were

evaluated and determined to be

environmentally insignificant. The basis

for the staff’s conclusions were

determined by the staff’s evaluation of

(1) radioactive materials released to the

atmosphere, (2) solid radioactive wastes,

(3) liquid radioactive waste, and (4) the

staff’s radiological assessment.

Considering the small incremental

addition to the licensed storage
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.