3280 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 9 / Friday, January 13, 1995 / Notices

Radiological Environmental Assessment

As discussed previously, the licensee

addressed potential radiological impacts

attributable to operation at uprated

power conditions in Sections 8, 9, and

11 of the initial Topical Report. The

licensee concluded:

Adequate margin also exists for the

proposed power uprate without exceeding

regulatory limits for radiological effects.

Current operating experience indicates that

actual releases and waste disposal after

power uprate will continue to be

significantly less than the original estimates.

For these reasons, power uprate is not

expected to have an adverse effect on the

routine operation ‘‘dose commitment’’

estimated by previous radiological

environmental analyses, and no revision of

these analyses is required.

The environmental assessment includes an

estimate of potential exposure from all

accident types combined. Regulatory Guide

1.49 requires calculation of accident doses at

102% of uprated thermal power, or 3510

MWt. Although direct comparison with the

original analyses is not meaningful because

of changes in methodology, a comparison on

a consistent basis would show that the

expected dose is approximately proportional

to power. The original calculation was done

at 3439 MWt. The estimated potential

exposure from all accident types combined

will therefore change by about the ratio of

3510/3439, or about 2 percent, which is not

a significant change compared to the

uncertainty in the probability estimates. No

revision of these analyses is therefore

required.

[Liquid radwaste throughput may increase

up to 5% to a level which is within the

processing capability of the system.] The

activity levels of some radwaste streams

containing coolant activation products may

increase up to 10%, due to the 4.5% core flux

increase and a 5% crud increase to the

reactor which are assumed to occur.

Since the power uprate level of 3441 MWt

is not significantly different from that

analyzed previously, it is not anticipated

there will be a significant increase in

radiological effluents. Also, pre-power uprate

technical specification limits will be

maintained.

The Commission has completed its

evaluation of the proposed action and

the licensee’s evaluation of the potential

radiological and non-radiological

impacts. The Commission found that

the FES (NUREG–0564) is valid for

operation at the proposed uprated

power conditions for SSES Unit 1 (the

second uprated unit at the site). The

Commission also concluded that the

plant operating parameters impacted by

the proposed uprate would remain

within the bounding conditions on

which the conclusions of the FES are

based.

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 this

proposed action would result in no

significant radiological environmental

impacts.

With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed

action will not have a significant impact

on the environs located outside the

restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part

20 or significantly affect nonradiological plant effluent or other

environmental impacts. Therefore, the

Commission concludes that this

proposed action would result in no

significant non-radiological

environmental impacts.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

Since the Commission has concluded

there is no significant 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 not enhance the protection

of the environment and would result in

preventing the facility from having the

flexibility to generate the approximately

additional 50 megawatts that are

obtainable from the existing plant.

Alternative Use of Resources

This action does not involve the use

of any resources not previously

considered in the ‘‘Final Environmental

Statement related to the operation of

Susquehanna Steam Electric Station,

Units 1 and 2,’’ dated June 1981.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

The Commission’s staff reviewed the

licensee’s request and consulted with

the Bureau of Radiation Protection,

Pennsylvania Department of

Environmental Resources. The State

Liaison Officer had no comment

regarding the NRC’s proposed action.

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 this

action, see the application for

amendment dated July 27, 1994, as

supplemented September 16, October

27, and November 17, 1994, and letter

dated February 7, 1994. These

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 Osterhout Free Library, Reference

Department, 71 South Franklin Street,

Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania 18701.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day

of January 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Chester Poslusny,

Acting Director, Project Directorate I–2,

Division of Reactor Projects—I/II, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–920 Filed 1–12–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

Regulatory Guide; Issuance,

Availability

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission

has issued for public comment a

proposed revision to a guide in its

Regulatory Guide Series. This series has

been developed to describe and make

available to the public such information

as methods acceptable to the NRC staff

for implementing specific parts of the

Commission’s regulations, techniques

used by the staff in evaluating specific

problems or postulated accidents, and

data needed by the staff in its review of

applications for permits and licenses.

The draft guide, temporarily

identified by its task number, DG–8012

(which should be mentioned in all

correspondence concerning this draft

guide), is a proposed Revision 1 to

Regulatory Guide 8.29, ‘‘Instruction

Concerning Risks from Occupational

Radiation Exposure.’’ This guide is

being revised to provide guidance on

the instructions and information that

should be provided to workers by

licensees about health risks from

occupational radiation exposure.

This draft guide is being issued to

involve the public in the early stages of

the development of a regulatory position

in this area. It has not received complete

staff review and does not represent an

official NRC staff position.

Public comments are being solicited

on the draft guide. Comments should be

accompanied by supporting data.

Written comments may be submitted to

the Rules Review and Directives Branch,

Division of Freedom of Information and

Publications Services, Office of

Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555.

Comments will be most helpful if

received by March 15, 1995.

Comments may be submitted

electronically, in either ASCII text or

Wordperfect format (version 5.1 or

later), by calling the NRC Electronic
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 9 / Friday, January 13, 1995 / Notices 3281

Bulletin Board on FedWorld. The

bulletin board may be accessed using a

personal computer, a modem, and one

of the commonly available

communications software packages, or

directly via Internet. Background

documents on the rulemaking are also

available for downloading and viewing

on the bulletin board.

If using a personal computer and

modem, the NRC subsystem on

FedWorld can be accessed directly by

dialing the toll free number: 1–800–

303–9672. Communication software

parameters should be set as follows:

parity to none, data bits to 8, and stop

bits to 1 (N, 8, 1). Using ANSI or VT–

100 terminal emulation, the NRC

NUREGs and RegGuides for Comment

subsystem can then be accessed by

selecting the ‘‘Rules Menu’’ option from

the ‘‘NRC Main Menu.’’ For further

information about options available for

NRC at FedWorld consult the ‘‘Help/

Information Center’’ from the ‘‘NRC

Main Menu.’’ Users will find the

‘‘FedWorld Online User’s Guides’’

particularly helpful. Many NRC

subsystems and databases also have a

‘‘Help/Information Center’’ option that

is tailored to the particular subsystem.

The NRC subsystem on FedWorld can

also be accessed by a direct dial phone

number for the main FedWorld BBS:

703–321–8020; Telnet via Internet:

fedworld. gov (192.239.93.3); File

Transfer Protocol (FTP) via Internet:

ftp.fedworld.gov (192.239.92.205); and

World Wide Web using: http://

www.fedworld.gov (this is the Uniform

Resource Locator (URL)).

If using a method other than the toll

free number to contact FedWorld, the

NRC subsystem will be accessed from

the main FedWorld menu by selecting

the ‘‘F—Regulatory, Government

Administration and State Systems,’’

then selecting ‘‘A—Regulatory

Information Mall.’’ At that point, a

menu will be displayed that has an

option ‘‘A—U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission’’ that will take you to the

NRC Online main menu. You can also

go directly to the NRC Online area by

typing ‘‘/go nrc’’ at a FedWorld

command line. If you access NRC from

FedWorld’s main menu, you may return

to FedWorld by selecting the ‘‘Return to

FedWorld’’ option from the NRC Online

Main Menu. However, if you access

NRC at FedWorld by using NRC’s tollfree number, you will have full access

to all NRC systems, but you will not

have access to the main FedWorld

system. For more information on NRC

bulletin boards call Mr. Arthur Davis,

Systems Integration and Development

Branch, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555,

telephone (301) 415–5780; e-mail

AXD3@nrc.gov.

Although a time limit is given for

comments on this draft, comments and

suggestions in connection with items for

inclusion in guides currently being

developed or improvements in all

published guides are encouraged at any

time.

Regulatory guides are available for

inspection at the Commission’s Public

Document Room, 2120 L Street NW.,

Washington, DC. Requests for single

copies of draft guides (which may be

reproduced) or for placement on an

automatic distribution list for single

copies of future draft guides in specific

divisions should be made in writing to

the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555,

Attention: Director, Distribution and

Mail Services Section. Telephone

requests cannot be accommodated.

Regulatory guides are not copyrighted,

and Commission approval is not

required to reproduce them.

(5 U.S.C. 552(a))

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd

day of December 1994.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Frank A. Costanzi,

Deputy Director, Division of Regulatory

Applications, Office of Nuclear Regulatory

Research.

[FR Doc. 95–921 Filed 1–12–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

[Docket No. 50–277]

Philadelphia Electric Company, Public

Service Electric and Gas Company,

Delmarva Power and Light Company,

Atlantic City Electric Company, Peach

Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit 2;

Notice of Withdrawal of Application for

Amendment to Facility Operating

License

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) has

granted the request of PECO Energy

Company (the licensee) to withdraw its

April 6, 1994 application for proposed

amendment to Facility Operating

License No. DPR–44 for the Peach

Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit No.

2, located in York County,

Pennsylvania.

The proposed amendment would

have revised the facility technical

specifications to reflect incorporation of

the end-of-cycle recirculation pump trip

(EOC–RPT) and installation of an

adjustable speed drive for the

recirculation pumps.

The Commission had previously

issued a Notice of Consideration of

Issuance of Amendment published in

the Federal Register on April 28, 1994

(59 FR 22011). However, by letter dated

December 29, 1994, the licensee

withdrew the proposed change.

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application for

amendment dated April 6, 1994,

supplemental letters dated July 6, July

15, August 17 and August 28, 1994, and

the licensee’s letter dated December 29,

1994, 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 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 9th day

of January 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Joseph W. Shea,

Project Manager, Project Directorate, Division

of Reactor Projects—Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–922 Filed 1–12–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

[Docket No. 50–286]

Power Authority of the State of New

York; Indian Point Nuclear Generating

Unit No. 3; Exemption

I

The Power Authority of the State of

New York (the licensee) is the holder of

Facility Operating License No. DPR–64,

which authorizes operation of the

Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit

No. 3 (IP3). The license provides, among

other things, that the licensee is subject

to all rules, regulations, and orders of

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the

Commission) now or hereafter in effect.

The facility consists of a pressurized

water reactor at the licensee’s site

located in Westchester County, New

York.

II

By letter dated November 30, 1993, as

supplemented July 6, 1994, the licensee

requested an exemption from the

requirements of 10 CFR Part 50,

Appendix R, Section III.G.2, which

specifies requirements to ensure that

one train of redundant equipment

necessary to achieve and maintain hot

shutdown remains free of fire damage.

Specifically, the licensee requested an

exemption from Section III.G.2.f such

that the redundant wide-range steam