19968 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 77 / Friday, April 21, 1995 / Notices

10202, Office of Management and

Budget, Washington, DC 20503.

Comments can also be submitted by

telephone at (202) 395–3084.

The NRC Clearance Officer is Brenda

Jo. Shelton, (301) 415–7233.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day

of April 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Gerald F. Cranford,

Designated Senior Official for Information

Resources Management.

[FR Doc. 95–9891 Filed 4–20–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

Documents Containing Reporting or

Recordkeeping Requirements: Office

of Management and Budget (OMB)

Review

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC).

ACTION: Notice of the OMB review of

information collection.

SUMMARY: The NRC has recently

submitted to the OMB for review the

following proposal for collection of

information under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44

U.S.C. Chapter 35).

1. Type of submission, new, revision

or extension: New.

2. The title of the information

collection: NRC Survey: Handling of

Your Concern.

3. The form number if applicable:

NRC Form 592.

4. How often the collection is

required: Twice only (initial survey and

a followup survey).

5. Who will be required or asked to

report: Individuals who have submitted

allegations to the NRC.

6. An estimate of the number of

responses: 200.

7. An estimate of average burden per

response: 20 minutes.

8. An estimate of the total number of

hours needed to complete the

requirement or request: 67.

9. An indication of whether Section

3504(h), Pub. L. 96–511 applies: Not

applicable.

10. Abstract: NRC plans to conduct a

voluntary survey of individuals who

have submitted allegations to the NRC

to determine the effectiveness of its

existing program and to develop

training to address identified

deficiencies.

Copies of the submittal may be

inspected or obtained for a fee from the

NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L

Street, NW. (Lower Level), Washington,

DC 20555.

Comments and questions should be

directed to the OMB reviewer: Troy

Hillier, Office of Information and

Regulatory Affairs (3150– ), NEOB–

10202, Office of Management and

Budget, Washington, DC 20503.

Comments can also be submitted by

telephone at (202) 395–3084.

The NRC Clearance Officer is Brenda

J. Shelton, (301) 415–7233.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day

of April, 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Gerald F. Cranford,

Designated Senior Official for Information

Resources Management.

[FR Doc. 95–9892 Filed 4–20–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

[Docket No. 50–278]

PECO Energy Company Public Service

Electric and Gas Company Delmarva

Power and Light Company, Atlantic

City Electric Company, Peach Bottom

Atomic Power Station, Unit 3;

Environmental Assessment and

Finding of No Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of an exemption

from the requirements of Sections

III.D.2.(a) and III.D.3 of Appendix J to 10

CFR Part 50, to PECO Energy Company,

Public Service Electric and Gas

Company, Delmarva Power and Light

Company, and Atlantic City Electric

Company (the licensee), for the Peach

Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS),

Unit 3, located at the licensee’s site in

York County, Pennsylvania.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of Proposed Action

The proposed action would grant an

exemption from 10 CFR Part 50,

Appendix J, Sections III.D.2.(a) and

III.D.3. Section III.D.2.(a) states, in part:

‘‘Type B tests, except tests for air locks,

shall be performed during reactor

shutdown for refueling, or other

convenient intervals, but in no case at

intervals greater than 2 years.’’ Section

III.D.3 states: ‘‘Type C tests shall be

performed during each reactor

shutdown for refueling but in no case at

intervals greater than 2 years.’’ The

exemption would allow a one-time 60-

day extension of the 2-year requirement.

Hence, this exemption would allow the

licensee to perform the testing in

Sections III.D.2.(a) and III.D.3 during

Unit 3’s Cycle 10 refueling outage

scheduled to begin no later than

September 30, 1995.

The proposed action is in accordance

with the licensee’s application for

exemption dated February 22, 1995.

Need for the Proposed Action

PBAPS, Unit 3 is utilizing a new core

design which allows the intervals

between reactor shutdowns for refueling

to extend beyond the maximum

allowable 2-year interval. Prior to the

current operating cycle, local leak rate

tests were performed in conjunction

with an operating cycle of 18 months.

Use of extended cycle core designs has

been recognized as a growing trend in

the industry as discussed in the staff’s

Generic Letter 91–04, ‘‘Changes in

Technical Specification Surveillance

Intervals to Accommodate a 24-Month

Fuel Cycle,’’ dated April 2, 1991. The

staff previously granted the licensee

license amendments to allow PBAPS,

Unit 3 to perform selected surveillances

on a 24-month interval (see Amendment

173 dated August 19, 1992, and

Amendment 182 dated August 2, 1993).

However, the regulations cited by the

licensee in the exemption request have

not been revised to reflect the use of a

24-month operating cycle. Therefore,

the licensee has requested an exemption

in order to avoid a premature shutdown

which would be needed to accomplish

the testing and to properly schedule the

testing during the refueling outage.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The Commission has completed the

evaluation of the proposed exemption

and concludes that this action would

not significantly increase the probability

or amount of expected primary

containment leakage; hence, the

containment integrity would be

maintained.

Based on the information presented in

the licensee’s application, the proposed

extended test interval would not result

in a non-detectable leakage rate in

excess of the value established by 10

CFR Part 50, Appendix J, or in any

changes to the containment structure or

plant systems. Consequently, the

probability of accidents would not be

increased, nor would the post-accident

radiological releases be greater than

previously determined. Neither would

the proposed exemption otherwise

affect radiological plant effluents.

Accordingly, the Commission concludes

that this proposed action would result

in no significant radiological

environmental impact.

With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed

exemption does not affect nonradiological plant effluents and has no

other environmental impact. Therefore,

the Commission concludes that there

are no significant non-radiological
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 77 / Friday, April 21, 1995 / Notices 19969

environmental impacts associated with

the proposed exemption.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

Since the Commission concluded that

there are no measurable environmental

affects that would result from the

proposed action, any alternatives with

equal or greater environmental impacts

need not be evaluated.

The principal alternative would be to

deny the requested exemption. This

would not reduce environmental

impacts of plant operation and would

result in reduced operational flexibility.

Alternate Use of Resources

This proposed action does not involve

the use of any resources not previously

considered in the Final Environmental

Statements for the Peach Bottom Atomic

Power Station, Units 2 and 3, dated

April 1973.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

The staff consulted with the State of

Pennsylvania regarding the

environmental impact of the proposed

action. The State Official had no

comment.

Finding of No Significant Impact

The Commission has determined not

to prepare an environmental impact

statement for the proposed exemption.

Based upon the foregoing

environmental assessment, the

Commission concludes that the

proposed action will not have a

significant effect on the quality of the

human environment.

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application for

exemption dated February 22, 1995,

which is available for public inspection

at the Commission’s Public Document

Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20555, and

at the local public document room

located at Government Publications

Section, State Library of Pennsylvania,

(Regional Depository) Education

Building, Walnut Street and

Commonwealth Avenue, Box 1601,

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day

of April 1994.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

John F. Stolz,

Director, Project Directorate, I–2 Division of

Reactor Projects—I/II, Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–9893 Filed 4–20–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

Nuclear Safety Research Review

Committee Meetings of Subcommittee

on Instrumentation and Control (I&C)

and Human Factors and Subcommittee

on Research in Support of Risk-Based

Regulation (PRA Subcommittee)

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of meetings.

The NSRRC I&C and Human Factors

Subcommittee will hold a meeting on

May 18 and 19, 1995 and the PRA

Subcommittee on May 19, 1995. A part

of the May 19 meeting will be a joint

meeting of the two subcommittees. The

meetings will take place in Room T–

2B3, Two White Flint North (TWFN)

Building, 11545 Rockville Pike,

Rockville, MD.

The meetings will be open to public

attendance.

The I&C and Human Factors

Subcommittee will review human

factors research programs. In the joint

meeting, the two subcommittees will

jointly review research related to

representation of human performance

and organizational factors in

probabilistic risk assessments. After the

joint meeting, the PRA subcommittee

will review NRC probabilistic risk

assessment policy and practice in

relation to research needs.

The agenda will be as follows:

Thursday, May 18: I&C and Human Factors

Subcommittee

8:30–10:00 Introduction; overview of

human factors research.

10:15–11:45 Human-system interface;

safety-related operator actions.

1:00–3:45 Human performance data

collection, Halden human error project,

communications, simulator training;

radiation therapy; staffing projects.

3:45–5:00 Subcommittee discussion.

Friday, May 19: Joint Meeting of Both

Subcommittees

8:00–8:30 Introduction, background.

8:30–9:45 Organizational performance

measures and methods to include

organizational factors in PRA.

10:00–11:45 Human performance measures.

11:45–12:00 Subcommittees discussion.

12:00 I&C and Human Factors

Subcommittee adjourns at the

conclusion of the joint meeting.

Friday, May 19, continued: PRA

Subcommittee

1:15–1:30 Introductory remarks.

1:30–4:00 Update on PRA Policy Statement

and PRA Implementation Plan.

4:00–5:00 Subcommittee discussion.

The Subcommittees will report to the full

Committee on the facts and analyses

discussed at the meetings.

Detailed agenda will be made available at

the meetings.

Oral statements may be presented by

members of the public with the concurrence

of the presiding Subcommittee Chairman;

written statements will be accepted and

made available to the Subcommittee.

Questions may be asked only by members of

the Committee and the staff. Persons desiring

to make oral statements should notify the

Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff

member named below as far in advance as is

practicable so that appropriate arrangements

can be made.

During the initial portions of the meetings,

the Subcommittees may exchange

preliminary views regarding matters to be

considered during the balance of the meeting.

The Subcommittees will then hear

presentations by and hold discussions with

representatives of the NRC staff regarding

this review.

Further information regarding topics to be

discussed, the scheduling of sessions,

whether the meetings have been canceled or

rescheduled, and the Chairmen’s ruling on

requests for the opportunity to present oral

statements and the time allotted therefore can

be obtained by a prepaid telephone call to

Mr. George Sege (telephone 301/415–6593)

between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. (EST).

Persons planning to attend these meetings are

urged to contact the above named individual

one or two business days before the

scheduled meeting to be advised of any

changes in schedule, etc., that may have

occurred.

Dated: April 13 1995.

George Sege,

Technical Assistant to the Director Office of

Nuclear Regulatory Research.

[FR Doc. 95–9895 Filed 4–20–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

[Docket No. 50–309]

Maine Yankee Atomic Power

Company; 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. DPR–

36 issued to Maine Yankee Atomic

Power Company (the licensee) for

operation of the Maine Yankee Atomic

Power Station located in Lincoln

County, Maine.

The proposed amendment would

revise the Technical Specifications to

allow the use of the Westinghouse

Electric Corporation sleeving process for

repairing steam generator tubes.

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.