Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 193 / Monday, October 6, 1997 / Notices 52159

Service area Applicant name

VA–8 ..................................................... Legal Aid Society of Roanoke Valley.

VA–9 ..................................................... Tidewater Legal Aid Society.

VA–10 ................................................... Virginia Legal Aid Society, Inc.

VA–11 ................................................... Southside Virginia Legal Services, Inc.

VA–12 ................................................... Blue Ridge Legal Services, Inc.

VA–13 ................................................... Client Centered Legal Services of Southwest Virginia, Inc.

MVA ...................................................... Peninsula Legal Aid Center, Inc.

WA–1 .................................................... Northwest Justice Project.

NWA–1 ................................................. Northwest Justice Project.

MWA ..................................................... Northwest Justice Project.

WV–1 .................................................... Appalachian Research and Defense Fund, Inc.

WV–2 .................................................... Legal Aid Society of Charleston.

WV–3 .................................................... West Virginia Legal Services Plan, Inc.

MWV ..................................................... West Virginia Legal Services Plan, Inc.

WI–1 ..................................................... Legal Action of Wisconsin, Inc.

WI–2 ..................................................... Wisconsin Judicare, Inc.

WI–3 ..................................................... Legal Services of Northeastern Wisconsin, Inc.

WI–4 ..................................................... Western Wisconsin Legal Services, Inc.

NWI–1 ................................................... Wisconsin Judicare, Inc.

MWI ...................................................... Legal Action of Wisconsin, Inc.

WY–4 .................................................... Wind River Legal Services, Inc.

NWY–1 ................................................. Wind River Legal Services, Inc.

MWY ..................................................... Wind River Legal Services, Inc.

These grants and contracts will be

awarded under the authority conferred

on LSC by the Legal Services

Corporation Act, as amended (42 U.S.C.

2996e(a)(1)). Awards will be made so

that each service area indicated is

served by one of the organizations listed

above, although none of the listed

organizations are guaranteed an award

or contract. This public notice is issued

pursuant to the LSC Act (42 U.S.C.

2996f(f)), with a request for comments

and recommendations concerning the

potential grantees within a period of

thirty (30) days from the date of

publication of this notice. Grants will

become effective and grant funds will be

distributed on or about January 1, 1998.

Dated: October 1, 1997.

John A. Tull,

Director, Office of Program Operations.

[FR Doc. 97–26445 Filed 10–3–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7050–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–003 and 50–247]

Consolidated Edison Company of New

York, Inc. (Indian Point Nuclear

Generating Unit Nos. 1 and 2);

Environmental Assessment and

Finding of No Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering approval under 10 CFR

50.80, by issuance of an Order, the

transfer of control of Facility Operating

License Nos. DPR–5 and DPR–26, for

the Indian Point Nuclear Generating

Units No. 1 (IP1) and No. 2 (IP2),

located in Westchester County, New

York, to the extent such transfer would

be affected by the proposed corporate

reorganization of Consolidated Edison

Company of New York, Inc. (Con Ed, the

licensee), holder of the licenses.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

The proposed action would consent to

the transfer of control of the licenses, to

the extent affected by the reorganization

of Con Ed by establishment of a holding

company. Con Ed would become a

wholly-owned subsidiary of the holding

company and would continue to be the

licensee for IP1 and IP2. The proposed

action is in accordance with Con Ed’s

application dated December 24, 1996.

The Need for the Proposed Action

The proposed action is needed to the

extent the proposed reorganization of

Con Ed will effect a transfer of control

of the licenses. Con Ed has submitted

that the proposed restructuring will

enable it to better prepare to implement

changes resulting from electric industry

restructuring, and will enhance the

insulation of Con Ed’s nuclear utility

business from business risks associated

with non-nuclear enterprises.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The Commission has completed its

evaluation of the proposed corporate

restructuring and concludes that there

will be no physical or operational

changes to IP1 and IP2. The corporate

restructuring will not affect the

qualifications or organizational

affiliation of the personnel who operate

or maintain the facility, as Con Ed will

continue to be responsible for the

operation of IP2 and the maintenance

and possession of IP1, which is

permanently shut down.

The Commission has evaluated the

environmental impact of the proposed

action and had determined that the

probability or consequences of accidents

would not be increased by the proposed

action, and that post-accident

radiological releases would not be

greater than previously determined.

Further, the Commission has

determined that the proposed action

would not affect routine radiological

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 would not affect nonradiological

plant effluents and would have no other

environmental impact. Therefore, the

Commission concludes that there are no

significant nonradiological

environmental impacts associated with

the proposed action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

Since the Commission concluded that

there are not significant environmental

effects that would result from the

proposed action, any alternative with

equal or greater environmental impacts

need not be evaluated.

The principal alternative would be to

deny the requested action. Denial of the

application would result in no change

in current environmental impacts. The

environmental impacts of the proposed
52160 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 193 / Monday, October 6, 1997 / Notices

action and the alternative action are

identical.

Alternative Use of Resources

This action does not involve the use

of any resources not previously

considered in the Final Environmental

Statement for Indian Point Nuclear

Generating Unit No. 2, dated November

1976.

Agencies and Persons Contacted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on July 23, 1997, the staff consulted

with the New York State Official, Heidi

Volk, of the New York State Research

and Development Authority 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 December 24, 1996, which is

available for public inspection at the

Commission Public Document Room,

the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street,

NW., Washington, DC, and at the local

public document room located at the

White Plains Public Library, 100

Martine Avenue, White Plains, New

York 10610.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day

of September 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Jefferey F. Harold,

Project Manager, Project Directorate I–1,

Division of Reactor Projects—I/II, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–26406 Filed 10–3–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 40–6622]

Pathfinder Mines Corporation; Notice

of Opportunity for a Hearing

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of receipt of application

from Pathfinder Mines Corporation to

change three site-reclamation

milestones in Condition 50 of Source

Material License SUA–442 for the

Shirley Basin, Wyoming Uranium Mill

site.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that

the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) has received, by

letter dated September 11, 1997, an

application from Pathfinder Mines

Corporation (PMC) to amend License

Condition (LC) 50 of its Source Material

License No. SUA–442 for the Shirley

Basin, Wyoming uranium mill site. The

license amendment application

proposes to modify LC 50 to change the

completion date for three sitereclamation milestones. The new dates

proposed by PMC would extend

completion of placement of the interim

cover over tailings pile by two years,

completion of placement of the final

radon barrier by three years, and

completion of placement of the erosion

protection cover by three years.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mohammad W. Haque, Uranium

Recovery Branch, Division of Waste

Management, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555.

Telephone (301) 415–6640.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

portion of LC 50 with the proposed

changes would read as follows:

A. (2) Placement of the interim cover

to decrease the potential for tailings

dispersal and erosion-December 31,

1999.

A. (3) Placement of final radon barrier

designed and constructed to limit radon

emissions to an average flux of no more

than 20 pCi/m2/s above backgroundDecember 31, 2002.

B. (1) Placement of erosion protection

as part of reclamation to comply with

Criterion 6 of Appendix A of 10 CFR

Part 40-December 31, 2003.

PMC’s application to amend LC 50 of

Source Material License SUA-442,

which describes the proposed changes

to the license condition and the reasons

for the request is being made available

for public inspection at the NRC’s

Public Document Room at 2120 L Street,

NW (Lower Level), Washington, DC

20555.

The NRC hereby provides notice of an

opportunity for a hearing on the license

amendment under the provisions of 10

CFR Part 2, Subpart L. ‘‘Informal

Hearing Procedures for Adjudications in

Materials and Operator Licensing

Proceedings.’’ Pursuant to § 2.1205(a),

and person whose interest may be

affected by this proceeding may file a

request for a hearing. In accordance

with § 2.1205(c), a request for hearing

must be filed within 30 days of the

publication of this notice in the Federal

Register. The request for a hearing must

be filed with the Office of the Secretary,

either:

(1) By delivery to the Docketing and

Service Branch of the Office of the

Secretary at One White Flint North,

11555 Rockville Pike. Rockville MD

20852; or

(2) By mail or telegram addressed to

the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555,

Attention: Docketing and Service

Branch.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.1205(e),

each request for a hearing must also be

served, by delivering it personally or by

mail, to:

(1) The applicant, Pathfinder Mines

Corporation, 935 Pendell Boulevard,

P.O. Box 730, Mills, Wyoming 82644,

Attention: Tom Hardgrove; and

(2) The NRC staff, by delivery to the

Executive Director for Operations, One

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville

Pike, Rockville, MD 20852 or by mail

addressed to the Executive Director for

Operations, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555.

In addition to meeting other

applicable requirements of 10 CFR Part

2 of the NRC’s regulations, a request for

a hearing filed by a person other than

an applicant must describe in detail:

(1) The interest of the requestor in the

proceeding;

(2) How that interest may be affected

by the results of the proceeding,

including the reasons why the requestor

should be permitted a hearing, with

particular reference to the factors set out

in § 2.1205(g);

(3) The requestor’s areas of concern

about the licensing activity that is the

subject matter of the proceeding; and

(4) The circumstances establishing

that the request for a hearing is timely

in accordance with § 2.1205(c).

The request must also set forth the

specific aspect or aspects of the subject

matter of the proceeding as to which

petitioner wishes a hearing.

Dated: at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th

day of September 1997.

Joseph J. Holonich,

Chief Uranium Recovery Branch, Division of

Waste Management, Office of Nuclear

Material Safety and Safeguards.

[FR Doc. 97–26401 Filed 10–3–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P