Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 83 / Monday, May 1, 1995 / Notices 21225

Environmental Assessment

Identification of Proposed Action

By application dated August 2, 1994,

UW requested authorization to

decontaminate and dismantle the UW

research reactor, to dispose of its

component parts in accordance with the

proposed decommissioning plan, and to

terminate Facility License No. R–73.

The UW research reactor was shut down

in June 1988, and has not operated since

then. The reactor fuel was removed from

the facility and shipped to a Department

of Energy (DOE) facility as directed by

the DOE in accordance with DOE, NRC,

and Department of Transportation

requirements.

Opportunity for a hearing was

afforded by a ‘‘Notice of Proposed

Issuance of Orders Authorizing

Disposition of Component Parts and

Terminating Facility License’’ published

in the Federal Register on September 2,

1994, (59 FR 45738). No request for a

hearing or petition for leave to intervene

was filed following notice of the

proposed action.

Need for Proposed Action

In order to prepare the property for

unrestricted access and use, the

dismantling and decontamination

activities proposed by UW must be

accomplished.

Environmental Impact of the Proposed

Action

All decontamination will be

performed by trained personnel in

accordance with previously reviewed

procedures and will be overseen by

experienced health physics staff. Solid

and liquid waste will be removed from

the facility and managed in accordance

with NRC requirements. The UW staff

has calculated that the collective dose

equivalent to the UW staff and public

for the project will be less than 0.06

person-sievert (6.02 person-rem).

The above conclusions were based on

all proposed operations being carefully

planned and controlled, all

contaminated components being

removed, packaged, and shipped offsite,

and the existence of radiological control

procedures will be in place that will

help to ensure that releases of

radioactive wastes from the facility are

within the limits of 10 CFR Part 20 and

are as low as reasonably achievable

(ALARA).

Based on the review of the specific

proposed activities associated with the

dismantling and decontamination of the

UW facility, the staff has determined

that there will be no significant increase

in the amounts of effluents that may be

released offsite, and no significant

increase in individual or cumulative

occupational or population radiation

exposure.

The staff has also determined that the

proposed activities will not result in any

significant impacts on air, water, land,

or biota in the area.

Alternative Use of Resources

The only alternative to the proposed

dismantling and decontamination

activities is to maintain possession of

the reactor. This approach would

include monitoring and reporting for the

duration of the safe storage period.

However, UW intends to use the area for

other academic purposes.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

the staff consulted with the State of

Washington, Division of Radiation

Protection, Debra McBaugh (360/586–

8945), regarding the environmental

impact of the proposed actions. There

was no objection to the conclusions

reached in the environmental

assessment.

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 details with respect to the

proposed action, see the licensee’s letter

dated August 2, 1994, which is available

for public inspection at the

Commission’s Public Document Room,

the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street

NW., Washington, DC 20555.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day

of April 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Seymour H. Weiss,

Director, Non-Power Reactors and

Decommissioning Project Directorate,

Division of Project Support, Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–10727 Filed 4–28–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

Supplemental Environmental

Statement; Availability

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory

Commission has issued a Supplement

(NUREG–0498, Supplement 1) to the

Final Environmental Statement related

to the operation of Watts Bar Nuclear

Plant Units 1 and 2 (issued in December

1978). This supplement documents the

NRC’s latest review of the

environmental issues at Watts Bar

Nuclear Plant.

Single copies of the supplement will

be provided to the Environmental

Protection Agency, the applicant,

Appropriate State, regional and local

clearinghouses, and each individual or

group that provided written comments

on the draft supplement.

ADDRESSES: Other interested parties can

obtain a copy of the supplement, for a

fee, upon written request to the

Superintendent of Documents, U.S.

Government Printing Office, P.O. Box

37082, Washington, DC 20013–7082 or

the Office of Administration,

Distribution and Mail Service Section,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001.

An individual copy is available for

inspection and/or copying for a fee in

the NRC Public Document Room, 2120

L Street NW., Washington, DC 20555.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Scott C. Flanders, Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555, telephone (301) 415–1172.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The NRC issued the Final

Environmental Statement concerning

the operation of the Watts Bar Nuclear

Plant in 1978. The NRC reexamined the

issues associated with the

environmental review before issuance of

an operating license in order to

document the observed changes in the

environment and to evaluate the

potential changes in environmental

impacts that may have occurred as a

result of changes in the Watts Bar

Nuclear plant design or proposed

methods of operations since the last

environmental review. The NRC

evaluated a broad scope of

environmental topics including regional

demography, land and water use,

meteorology, terrestrial and aquatic

ecology, radiological and nonradiological impacts on humans and the

environment, socioeconomic impacts,

and environmental justice. The staff

concluded that there are no significant

changes in the environmental impacts

expected from the operation of the

Watts Bar plant when compared to the

impacts previously discussed in the

NRC 1978 FES–OL.

The applicant’s preoperational and

operational monitoring programs were

reviewed and found to be appropriate

for establishing baseline conditions and
21226 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 83 / Monday, May 1, 1995 / Notices

1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1) (1988).

ongoing assessments of environmental

impacts.

The staff also conducted an analysis

of plant operation with severe accident

mitigation design alternatives

(SAMDAs) and concluded that none of

the SAMDAs, beyond three procedural

changes that the applicant committed to

implement, would be cost-beneficial for

further mitigating environmental

impacts.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21 day

of April 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Scott F. Newberry,

Director, License Renewal and Environmental

Review Project Directorate, Associate Director

for Advanced Reactors and License Renewal,

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–10610 Filed 4–28–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

[Docket Nos. 50–498 and 50–499]

Houston Lighting & Power Co., City

Public Service Board of San Antonio,

Central Power & Light Co., City of

Austin, TX, South Texas Project, Unit

Nos. 1 and 2; Notice of Issuance and

Availability of NUREG

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission

has issued NUREG–1517, ‘‘Report of the

South Texas Project Allegations Review

Team.’’ This report provides the results

of the South Texas Project Allegations

Review Team.

This team was formed to obtain and

review allegations from individuals

associated with three attorneys who had

contacted congressional staff members

from the Subcommittee on Oversight

and Investigations of the U.S. House of

Representatives’ Committee on Energy

and Commerce. The allegers were

employed in various capacities at

Houston Lighting and Power

Company’s, et al., South Texas Project

Electric Generating Station, and

therefore, the allegations are confined to

this site.

Copies of the report have been placed

in the NRC’s Public Document Room,

2120 L Street, NW., Lower Level,

Washington, DC 20555 and at the Local

Public Document Room for the South

Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Wharton

County Junior College, J.M. Hodges

Learning Center, 911 Boling Highway,

Wharton, Texas 77488. Copies of the

report may be purchased from the

Superintendent of Documents, U.S.

Government Printing Office, Post Office

Box 37082, Washington, DC 20013–

7082. GPO deposit account holders may

charge their order by calling 202/275–

2060. Copies are also available from the

National Technical Information Service,

Springfield, Virginia 22161.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day

of April 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Lawrence E. Kokajko, Team Leader,

Project Directorate, IV–1, Division of Reactor

Projects III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–10609 Filed 4–28–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

[Docket Nos. 50–424–OLA–3 50–425–OLA–

3; ASLBP No. 96–671–01–OLA–3]

In the Matter of: Georgia Power

Company, et al. (Vogtle Electric

Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2);

Evidentiary Hearing; Atomic Safety

and Licensing Board

Before Administrative Judges: Peter B.

Bloch, Chair, Dr. James H. Carpenter, Thomas

D. Murphy.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.752, the public

evidentiary hearing will continue at 9

am on May 15–18, 1995, at the Hearing

Room (T 3 B45), Two White Flint North,

11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville,

Maryland.

The purpose of the hearing is to hear

motions concerning the admissibility of

evidence and to receive evidence

concerning alleged misrepresentations

about diesel generators at the Vogtle

Nuclear Power Plant. The hearing is

expected to continue at 1 pm in

Augusta, Georgia on May 22 at a place

to be designated. It will continue in

session for several weeks, in Augusta,

Georgia and in Rockville, Maryland

until the hearing is completed.

For the Atomic Safety and Licensing

Board.

Peter B. Bloch,

Chair.

[FR Doc. 95–10611 Filed 4–28–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

[Release No. 34–35642; File No. SR–NASD–

95–11]

Self-Regulatory Organizations;

National Association of Securities

Dealers Inc.; Notice of Filing of

Proposed Rule Change Relating to

Requiring Use of the Facilities of a

Registered Clearing Agency for the

Clearance of Transactions in

Corporate Debt Securities

April 24, 1995.

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

Securities Exchange Act of 1934

(‘‘Act’’),1 notice is hereby given that on

April 10, 1995, the National Association

of Securities Dealers, Inc. (‘‘NASD’’)

filed with the Securities and Exchange

Commission (‘‘Commission’’) a

proposed rule change as described in

Items I, II, and III below, which items

have been prepared primarily by the

NASD. 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 NASD is proposing to amend its

Uniform Practice Code (‘‘UPC’’) to add

a new section 72 to require members

that are participants in a registered

clearing agency to use the facilities of a

registered clearing agency for the

clearance of securities transactions

between members in corporate debt

securities.

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

NASD 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. Summaries of the

most significant aspects of such

statements are set forth in sections (A),

(B), and (C) below.

(A) Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement of the Purpose of, and

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule

Change

The NASD has observed that

approximately thirty percent of all

transactions in corporate bonds are

being compared, cleared, and settled

broker-to-broker or ex-clearing (i.e.,

without the use of the facilities of a

registered clearing agency). Clearing

such transactions broker-to-broker is

labor intensive, requires more time to

complete, and results in more fails than

transactions processed through a

clearing agency. The labor intensive

nature of broker-to-broker processing

introduces errors into the process from

keystroke errors, manual document

handling errors, delivery errors, and

payment errors. Because such broker-tobroker clearance is labor intensive, it

also generally requires more time to

complete. Finally, both of these factors

increase the systemic clearance risk by