Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 2, 1995 / Notices 21555

corresponds to approximately 52

megawatts-electrical (MWe). This would

provide additional electrical power to

the grids which service the commercial

and residential areas of the distribution

utility.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

A slight change in the environmental

impact can be expected for an increase

in plant power level, but the effects

were found to be minimal and did not

alter the findings stated in NUREG–

0812, ‘‘Final Environmental Statement

Related to Operation of Nuclear Project

No. 2’’ (FES), December 1981.

The proposed core uprating is

projected to increase the rejected heat

by approximately 5 percent. However,

the thermal discharges from the

circulating and service water systems

remain bounded by the values evaluated

in the FES. Thus, the 5 percent increase

in rejected heat has been evaluated and

determined not to significantly impact

on the quality of the human

environment.

The licensing basis analyses related to

radiological source terms were

originally performed assuming a core

power of 3486 MWt which corresponds

to the proposed rerate conditions. The

NRC review of these calculations was

documented in NUREG–0892, ‘‘Safety

Evaluation Report Related to the

Operation of Nuclear Project No. 2.’’

Additional assessments by the licensee

related to the rerated conditions (power

level and reactor coolant temperature)

and other changes related to plant

operation determined there would be no

significant increase in the potential

radioactive releases resulting from plant

operation or design basis reactor

accidents. In addition, no significant

increases in individual or cumulative

occupational radiation exposure would

result from the proposed changes in

operating conditions. Also, he proposed

increase in the NSSS power involves no

significant change in the amount of any

non-radiological effluents that may be

released offsite compared to those

evaluated and approved in the FES.

Therefore, the Commission concludes

that there is no significant radiological

or non-radiological environmental

impacts associated with the proposed

amendment.

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 staff considered

denial of the proposed action. Denial of

the amendment would not significantly

reduce the environmental impact of

plant operation and would restrict

operation of the Nuclear Project No. 2 to

the currently licensed power level,

thereby reducing operational flexibility.

Alternative Use of Resources

This action does not involve the use

of any resources not previously

considered in the Final Environmental

Statement for the Nuclear Project No. 2.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

By letter of September 26, 1994, Mr.

Jason J. Zeller of the Energy Facility Site

Evaluation Council of the State of

Washington informed the staff that 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 July 9, 1993, as supplemented by

letters dated October 9, and October 25,

1993, January 6, January 6, February 2,

May 3, May 13, September 26, and

October 12, 1994, 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

Richland Public Library, 955 Northgate

Street, Richland, Washington 99352.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day

of April 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

William H. Bateman,

Director, Project Directorate IV–2, Division

of Reactor Projects III/IV, Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–10886 Filed 5–1–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

Advisory Committee on Nuclear

Waste; Notice of Meeting

The Advisory Committee on Nuclear

Waste (ACNW) will hold its 74th

meeting on May 10, 1995, in Room T–

2B3 and May 11, 1995, in Room T–2B1,

at 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville,

Maryland.

The entire meeting will be open to

public attendance.

The agenda for this meeting shall be

as follows:

Wednesday, May 10, 1995—8:30 A.M.

until 6:00 P.M. and Thursday, May

11, 1995—8:30 A.M. until 6:00 P.M.

During this meeting the Committee

plans to consider the following:

A. NRC staff Position on Substantially

Complete Containment—The

Committee will review the NRC staff

position on the meaning of substantially

complete containment as used in the

Commission’s regulations for the

disposal of high-level radioactive wastes

in geologic repositories.

B. Electronic Data Transfer—

Representatives from the U.S.

Department of Energy will discuss the

electronic transfer of site

characterization data from the DOE to

the NRC and Center for Nuclear Waste

Regulatory Analyses staffs.

C. Meeting with the Director, NRC’s

Division of Waste Management, Nuclear

Materials Safety and Safeguards—The

Director will provide information to the

Committee on current waste

management issues, which may include

the progress of site characterization at

the proposed Yucca Mountain site and

a preview of the NRC staff’s review

strategy for DOE seismic hazard

analysis.

D. National Performance Review

Phase 2—The Committee will hear

presentations by and hold discussions

with the NRC staff on initiatives to

streamline the Federal government and

regulatory process.

E. Preparation of ACNW Reports—

The Committee will discuss proposed

reports on the Approach to

Groundwater Travel Time at Yucca

Mountain and comments on a low-level

waste branch technical position on

performance assessment. Additional

topics will be considered as time

permits.

F. Committee Activities/Future

Agenda—The Committee will consider

topics proposed for future consideration

by the full Committee and Working

Groups. The Committee will also

discuss ACNW-related activities of

individual members.

G. Miscellaneous—The Committee

will discuss miscellaneous matters

related to the conduct of Committee

activities and organizational activities

and complete discussion of matters and

specific issues that were not completed

during previous meetings, as time and

availability of information permit.

Procedures for the conduct of and

participation in ACNW meetings were

published in the Federal Register on

October 7, 1994 (59 FR 51219). In

accordance with these procedures, oral

or written statements may be presented

by members of the public, electronic
21556 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 2, 1995 / Notices

recordings will be permitted only

during those portions of the meeting

that are open to the public, and

questions may be asked only by

members of the Committee, its

consultants, and staff. Persons desiring

to make oral statements should notify

the ACNW Executive Director, Dr. John

T. Larkins, as far in advance as

practicable so that appropriate

arrangements can be made to allow the

necessary time during the meeting for

such statements. Use of still, motion

picture, and television cameras during

this meeting may be limited to selected

portions of the meeting as determined

by the ACNW Chairman. Information

regarding the time to be set aside for this

purpose may be obtained by contacting

the ACNW Executive Director prior to

the meeting. In view of the possibility

that the schedule for ACNW meetings

may be adjusted by the Chairman as

necessary to facilitate the conduct of the

meeting, persons planning to attend

should check with the ACNW Executive

Director if such rescheduling would

result in major inconvenience.

Further information regarding topics

to be discussed, whether the meeting

has been cancelled or rescheduled, the

Chairman’s ruling on requests for the

opportunity to present oral statements

and the time allotted therefor can be

obtained by contacting the ACNW

Executive Director, Dr. John T. Larkins

(telephone 301/415–7360), between 7:30

a.m. and 4:15 p.m. EDT.

Dated: April 26, 1995.

Andrew L. Bates,

Advisory Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 95–10724 Filed 5–1–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

[Docket No. 50–293]

Boston Edison Company; Pilgrim

Nuclear Power Station; Receipt of

Petition for Director’s Decision Under

10 CFR 2.206

Notice is hereby given that by letter

dated March 10, 1995, Mary Elizabeth

Lampert and 62 other persons request

that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) take action with

regard to the Pilgrim Nuclear Power

Station operated by the Boston Edison

Company (the licensee).

Petitioners request that during the

March 25, 1995, refueling outage and InVessel Visual Inspection conducted by

the licensee, certain technical concerns

be addressed, and that before Pilgrim

goes back on-line, appropriate repairs be

made or corrective action be taken, and

that the NRC discuss the status of such

repairs and corrective actions with the

public in Plymouth, Massachusetts.

Petitioners also request that the NRC

terminate its policy of issuing Notices of

Enforcement Discretion (NOED) and

commence enforcing NRC regulations

again. Finally, Petitioners request that

the letter be treated as a Petition

pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206.

As the bases for their requests,

Petitioners identify three groups of

technical concerns: (1) Age-related

deterioration of 25 safety related reactor

internals; (2) parts and components

‘‘known to be a problem at Pilgrim,’’

including the core shroud, water level

indicators, QA for fuel pool cooling

system during loss-of-coolant accident/

loss-of-coolant protection, coolant

protection, motor-operated valves,

containment integrity, drywell liner

corrosion vulnerability, station blackout

vulnerability, and Rosemount

transmitters; and (3) parts and

components ‘‘potentially a problem at

Pilgrim,’’ including potential fuel rod

corrosion and substandard and/or

counterfeit parts. Additionally,

Petitioners contend that allowing a

reactor to operate under an NOED

cannot pose less risk to the public

health and safety than keeping the

reactor shut down until NRC regulations

are met.

The Petition is being evaluated

pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 of the

Commission’s regulations. The Petition

has been referred to the Director of the

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. As

provided by Section 2.206, appropriate

action will be taken on this Petition

within a reasonable time.

A copy of the Petition is available for

inspection at the Commission’s Public

Document Room at 2120 L Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20001.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day

of April 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

William T. Russell,

Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–10732 Filed 5–1–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

Appointments to Performance Review

Boards for Senior Executive Service

AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Appointment to Performance

Review Boards for Senior Executive

Service.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) has announced the

following appointments to the NRC

Performance Review Boards.

The following individuals are

appointed as members of the NRC

Performance Review Board (PRB)

responsible for making

recommendations to the appointing and

awarding authorities on performance

appraisal ratings and performance

awards for Senior Executives:

New Appointees:

Lawrence J. Chandler, Assistant General

Counsel, Office of the General

Counsel

Richard L. Bangart, Director, Office of

State Programs

Leonard J. Callan, Regional

Administrator, Region IV

Ronald M. Scroggins, Deputy Chief

Financial Officer/Controller, Office of

the Controller

Ashok Thadani, Associate Director for

Technical Assessment, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation

In addition to the above new

appointments, the following members

are continuing on the PRB:

Stephen G. Burns, Associate General

Counsel, Office of the General

Counsel

John C. Hoyle, Secretary of the

Commission, Office of the Secretary

James L. Blaha, Assistant for Operations,

Office of the Executive Director for

Operations

Frank J. Miraglia, Deputy Director,

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Bill M. Morris, Director, Division of

Regulatory Applications, Office of

Nuclear Regulatory Research

Elizabeth Q. Ten Eyck, Deputy Director,

Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and

Safeguards, Office of Nuclear Material

Safety and Safeguards

The following individuals will

continue as members of the NRC PRB

Panel that was established to review

appraisals and make recommendations

to the appointing and awarding

authorities for NRC PRB members:

Hugh L. Thompson, Jr., Deputy

Executive Director for Nuclear

Materials Safety, Safeguards and

Operations Support, Office of the

Executive Director for Operations

Karen D. Cyr, General Counsel, Office of

the General Counsel

James L. Milhoan, Deputy Executive

Director for Nuclear Reactor

Operations, Regulatory Operations,

and Research, Office of the Executive

Director for Operations

All appointments are made pursuant

to Section 4314 of Chapter 43 of Title

5 of the United States Code.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 2, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James F. McDermott, Secretary,

Executive Resources Board, U.S.