150 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 3, 1995 / Notices

Name: Special Emphasis Panel in Civil and

Mechanical Systems (1205).

Date and Time: January 18, 1995, 8:30 a.m.

to 5:00 p.m.

Place: NSF, Room 580, 4201 Wilson

Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.

Contact: Dr. John B. Scalzi, Program

Director, 703–306–1361.

Type of meeting: Closed.

Purpose of meeting: To provide advice and

recommendations concerning support for

research proposals submitted to the NSF for

financial research.

Agenda: To review and evaluate proposals

as part of the selection process for awards.

Reason for Closing: The proposals being

reviewed include information of a

proprietary or confidential nature, including

technical information; financial data, such as

salaries, and personal information

concerning individuals associated with the

proposals. These matters are exempt under 5

U.S.C. 552 b. (c) (4) and (6) of the

Government in the Sunshine Act.

Dated: December 28, 1994.

Linda Allen-Benton,

Deputy Director, HRM.

[FR Doc. 94–32326 Filed 12–30–94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555–01–M

Special Emphasis Panel in Engineering

Education and Centers—Notice of

Meeting

In accordance with Federal Advisory

Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463, as

amended), the National Science

Foundation announces the following

meeting:

Name: Special Emphasis Panel in

Engineering Education and Centers (173).

Date/Time: January 18, 1995, 8:30 a.m.–

5:30 p.m.

Place: National Science Foundation, 4201

Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230,

Conference Room 365.

Type of Meeting: Closed.

Contact Person: Sharon Middledorf and

Mary Poats, Engineering Education and

Centers Division, National Science

Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Rm 585,

Arlington, VA 22230, (703) 306–1384.

Purpose of Meeting: To carry out

Committee of Visitors (COV) review,

including examination of decisions on

proposals, reviewer comments, and other

privileged materials.

Reason for Closing: The meeting is closed

to the public because the Committee is

reviewing proposal actions that will include

privileged intellectual property and personal

information that could harm individuals if

they were discussed. If discussions were to

open to the public, these matters that are

exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) (4) and (6) of

the Government in the Sunshine Act would

be improperly disclosed.

Dated: December 28, 1994.

Linda Allen-Benton,

Deputy Director, HRM.

[FR Doc. 94–32327 Filed 12–30–94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555–01–M

Special Emphasis Panel in

Geosciences; Meeting

In accordance with the Federal

Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–

463, as amended), the National Science

Foundation announces the following

meeting.

Name and Committee Code: Special

Emphasis Panel in Geosciences (1756).

Date and Time: January 17–18, 1995; 8:00

a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

Place: Room 730, National Science

Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard,

Arlington, VA 22230.

Type of Meeting: Closed.

Contact Person: Dr. Jarvis L. Moyers (703)

306–1522 and Dr. Sherry O. Farwell (703)

306–1522, Program Directors Division of

Atmospheric Sciences, Room 775, National

Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard,

Arlington, VA 22230.

Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and

recommendations concerning proposals

submitted to NSF for financial support.

Agenda: To review and evaluate Aerosol

Characterization Experiment (ACE–1)

proposals as part of the selection process for

awards.

Reason for Closing: The proposals being

reviewed include information of a propretary

or confidential nature, including technical

information; financial data, such as salaries;

and personal information concerning

individuals associated with the proposals.

These matters are exempt under 5 USC

552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the

Sunshine Act.

Dated: December 28, 1994.

Linda Allen-Benton,

Deputy Director, HRM.

[FR Doc. 94–32329 Filed 12–30–94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555–01–M

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Proposed Availability of FY 95 Funds

for Financial Assistance (Grants) To

Support Research at Educational

Institutions and the Exchange of

Information

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC), Office of Nuclear

Regulatory Research, announces

proposed availability of Fiscal Year (FY)

95 funds to support a limited number of

research grants to educational

institutions. These funds may also be

used to support professional meetings

and conferences for the exchange and

transfer of research concepts and

findings related to the safety of nuclear

power production.

The FY 95 ceiling for research grants

to educational institutions is

approximately $1,050,000.00. Of this

amount, approximately $456,000.00 will

be available for new grants. Because of

this limitation, proposed grant budgets

should be restricted to about $50,000.00

per year, with total project funding not

exceeding $100,000.00 over a two-year

period. Proposals for new FY 95

research grants should be submitted

between the date of this Notice and

February 17, 1995. Proposals received

after February 17, 1995 will be

considered for FY 95 funding to the

extent practicable.

ADDRESS: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission. ATTN: Grants Officer,

Mail Stop T–7–I–2 Division of

Contracts, Office of Administration,

Washington, DC, 20555.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Shirley Crampton on (301) 415–6589 or

Mary Mace on (301) 415–7314.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On March 17, 1994, the Nuclear

Regulatory Commission (NRC)

published in the Federal Register a

notice that announced the proposed

availability of FY 94 funds for the NRC

Grant Program. The NRC is revising that

notice to provide information on their

grant program for FY 95.

Scope and Purpose of This

Announcement

Pursuant to Section 31.a and 141.b of

the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as

amended, the NRC’s Office of Nuclear

Regulatory Research proposes to

support educational institutions,

nonprofit entities, state and local

governments, and professional societies

through providing funds for expansion,

exchange and transfer of knowledge,

ideas, and concepts directed toward the

NRC safety research program. The

program includes, but is not limited to,

support of professional meetings and

conferences. In addition, the NRC has a

limited amount for research grants to

educational institutions (see topics

below). The FY 95 ceiling for these

grants is approximately $1,050,000.00

with approximately $456,000.00 of this

amount available for new grants.

The purpose of this program is to

stimulate research to provide a

technological base for the safety

assessment of system and subsystem

technologies used in nuclear power

applications. The results of this program

will be to increase public understanding

relating to nuclear safety, to pool the

funds of theoretical and practical

knowledge and technical information,

and ultimately to enhance the

protection of the public health and
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 3, 1995 / Notices 151

safety. In addition, each grant to an

educational institution should contain

elements which will potentially benefit

the graduate research program of the

institution, e.g., graduate student

training.

The NRC encourages educational

institutions to submit research grant

proposals in the following areas:

1. Experiments and predictive

modeling for thermal stratification,

thermal striping and flow-induced

vibration in plant fluid systems.

2. Evaluation, modeling, and

experiments on phenomena associated

with the cooling of molten debris in a

reactor vessel lower head and associated

lower head failure analyses during a

severe accident.

3. Modeling and experimentation on

two-phase flow, interfacial relations,

and heat transfer in reactor coolant

systems. Experiments in modeling of

passive heat transfer in natural

circulation systems.

4. Development of condensation

models for systems codes such as

RELAP5/MOD3 or TRAC—PFI/MOD2

for two cases: with and without

condensible gases.

5. Conduct experimentation and

model development of the boron in

reactor coolant systems under natural

circulation conditions.

6. Development and validation of a

standard model of human performance

in (a) nuclear power plant operations

and maintenance, (b) medical uses of

by-product materials, and (c) industrial

uses of by-product materials.

7. Effect of digital I&C technology on

operator performance, including

vigilance, response rate, response

accuracy, and completeness.

8. Develop and codify pragmatic,

statistically valid methods for updating

severe accident frequency and

consequence analysis to reflect results

of new operational, experimental and

calculation data.

9. Develop methods and comparison

of probabilistic risk assessment (PRA)

results with operational data and

experience.

10. Evaluation and modelling of

microstructural and chemistry changes

in grain boundaries of irradiated

austenitic materials.

11. Development of nondestructive

testing methods for in-situ evaluation of

reactor vessel material properties and

property degradation due to aging, such

as fracture toughness, fatigue, residual

life, and radiation effects.

12. Determine data requirements to

assess system reliability performance to

a prescribed goal at a predetermined

assurance level.

13. Development of innovative

methods for accurate imaging of flaws in

thin wall, small diameter tubes.

14. Development of non-intrusive, insitu condition monitoring and

diagnostic methods for detecting and

evaluating degradation of electrical

insulation materials.

15. Development of methods for

predicting and measuring

electrochemistry and chemistry in

crevices and cracks.

16. Development of and/or validation

of models to predict the propagation of

seismic ground motion in Central and

Eastern United States including the

effects of ground motions on the

response of NPPs and their site

characteristics, taking into consideration

uncertainties inherent in such estimates.

17. Development and/or validation of

models to explain the quaternary

tectonics and seismicity of the Central

and Eastern United States (East of 105

degrees W).

18. Development of techniques and

QA and QC procedures necessary for

rapid bioassay analysis in the event of

accidental internal exposure.

19. Studies of volcanism or other

disruptive processes or events in the

Basin and Range.

20. Development of improved

instrumentation or techniques for

measuring activity, radiation dose, and

dose rates, especially from small

radioactive particles, and materials in

the environment in concentrations

approaching background.

21. Research on the metabolism of

radionuclides and their compounds

relative to the calculation of internal

dose.

22. Validation of approaches to

quantitatively assess human health

effects of radiation, including new

approaches to analyses of human

epidemiological studies and

experimental animal studies, and

investigation of radiation induced

effects at the cellular/molecular levels

and repairs thereof.

23. Development of, or analysis of the

effectiveness of decontamination

technologies for land, structures,

recycled materials and equipment and

estimation of individual comparative

costs.

24. Investigations, including natural

analogue studies for long-term analyses,

of coupling between hydrologic,

thermal, chemical, and/or mechanical

processes as they affect the simulation

of high-level waste repository

performance.

25. Development of methods needed

for realization of risk-based regulation.

Eligible Applicants

Educational institutions, nonprofit

entities, State and Local governments,

and professional societies are eligible to

apply for a grant under this

announcement.

Factors Generally Indicating Support

Through Grants

The NRC’s benefit from the results of

grants should be no greater than for

other interested parties, i.e., the public

must be the primary beneficiary of the

work performed. Surveys, studies, or

research which provide specific

information or data necessary for the

NRC to exercise its regulatory or

research mission responsibilities will

not be funded by a grant. Applicants

requesting support for work which has

a direct regulatory application should

submit their requests as an unsolicited

proposal for consideration as a contract

rather than a grant.

1. The primary purpose of NRC grants

is to support the development of

knowledge or understanding of the

subject or phenomena under study.

2. The exact course of the work and

its outcome are usually not defined

precisely, and specific points in time for

achievement of significant results need

not be specified.

3. The NRC desires that the nature of

the proposed investigation be such that

the recipient will bear prime

responsibility for the conduct of the

research and exercise judgment and

original thought toward attaining the

scientific goals within broad parameters

of the proposed research areas and the

resources provided.

4. Meaningful technical reports (as

distinguished from Semi-Annual Status

Reports) can be prepared only as new

findings are made, rather than on a

predetermined time schedule.

5. Simplicity and economy in

execution and administration are

mutually desirable.

Proposal Format

Proposals should be concise and

provide a thorough understanding of the

proposed project. Neither unduly

elaborate applications nor voluminous

supporting documentation is desired.

State and local governments shall

submit proposals utilizing the standard

forms specified in Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) Circular A–102

(Revised), Paragraph 6.c). Nonprofit

organizations, universities, and

professional societies shall submit

proposals utilizing the standard forms

stipulated in OMB Circular A–110,

(Attachment M).

The format used for project proposals

should give a clear presentation of the
152 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 3, 1995 / Notices

proposed project and its relation to the

specific objectives contained in this

notice. Each proposal should follow the

format outlined below unless the NRC

specifically authorizes exception.

1. Cover Page. The Cover Page should

be typed according to the following

format (submit separate cover pages if

the proposal is multi-institutional):

Title of proposal.—To include the

term ‘‘research,’’ ‘‘study,’’ ‘‘conference,’’

‘‘symposium,’’ ‘‘workshop,’’ or other

similar designation to assist in the

identification of the project;

Location and Dates for Conferences,

Symposium, Workshop, etc.;

Names of Principal Researchers or

Participants;

Total cost of Proposal; (Identify Cost by

Fiscal Year)

Period of Proposal;

Organization or Institution and Department;

Required Signatures:

Principal Participants:

Name: lllllllllllllllll

Date: llllllllllllllllll

Address: llllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

Telephone No.: lllllllllllll

Required Organization Approval:

Name: lllllllllllllllll

Date: llllllllllllllllll

Address: llllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

Telephone No.: lllllllllllll

Organization Financial Officer:

Name: lllllllllllllllll

Date: llllllllllllllllll

Address: llllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

Telephone No.: lllllllllllll

2. Project Description. Each proposal

shall provide, in ten pages or less, a

complete and accurate description of

the proposed project. This section

should provide the basic information to

be used in evaluating the proposal to

determine its priority for funding.

Applicants must identify other possible

sources of financial support for a

particular project, and list those sources

from which financial support has been

or will be requested.

The information provided in this

section must be brief and specific.

Detailed background information may

be included as supporting

documentation to the proposal.

The following format shall be used for

the project description:

(a) Project Goals and Objectives. The

project’s objectives must be clearly and

unambiguously stated. The proposal

should justify the project including the

problems it intends to clarify and the

development it may stimulate.

(b) Project Outline. The proposal

should show the project format and

agenda, including a list of principal

areas of topics to be addressed.

(c) Project Benefits. The proposal

should indicate the direct and indirect

benefits that the project seeks to achieve

and to whom these benefits will accrue.

(d) Project Management. The proposal

should describe the physical facilities

required for the conduct of project.

Further, the proposal should include

brief biographical sketches of

individuals responsible for planning the

project.

(e) Project Costs. Nonprofit

organization shall adhere to the cost

principles set forth in OMB Circular A–

122. Educational institutions shall

adhere to the cost principles set forth in

OMB Circular A–21, and state and local

government shall adhere to the cost

principles set forth in OMB Circular A–

87.

The proposal must provide a detailed

schedule of project costs, identifying in

particular—

(1) Salaries—in proportion to the time

or effort directly related to the projects;

(2) Equipment (rental only):

(3) Travel and Per Diem/Subsistence

in relation to the project;

(4) Publication Costs;

(5) Other Direct Costs (Specify)—e.g.,

supplies or registration fees; Note—Dues

to organizations, federations or

societies, exclusive of registration fees,

are not allowed as a charge.

(6) Indirect Costs (attached negotiated

agreement/cost allocation plan); and

(7) Supporting Documentation. The

supporting documentation should

contain any additional information that

will strengthen the proposal.

Proposal Submission and Deadline

This notice is valid for Federal

Government Fiscal Year 95 (October 1,

1994 to September 30, 1995). Potential

grantees are advised, however, that due

to the limited funding available for new

research grants to educational

institutions, such proposals received

after February 17, 1995 will be

considered for FY95 funding to the

extent practicable.

Funds

For Fiscal Year 95, the U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Office of

Nuclear Regulatory Research,

anticipates making a total of

approximately $1,050,000.00 available

for funding research grants to

educational institutions. Of this amount,

approximately $456,000.00 will be

available for new research grants in

FY95. Because of this limitation,

proposed grant budgets should be

restricted to about $50,000.00 per year,

with total project funding not exceeding

$100,000.00 over a period of two years.

Evaluation Process

All proposals received as a result of

this announcement will be evaluated by

an NRC review panel.

Evaluation Criteria

The award of NRC grants is

discretionary. Generally, projects are

supported in order of merit to the extent

permitted by available funds.

Evaluation of proposals for research

projects will employ the following

criteria. No level of importance is

implied by the order in which these

criteria are listed.

1. Adequacy of the research design.

2. Scientific significance of proposal.

3. Technical adequacy of the

investigators and their institutional

4. Relevance to a research area(s)

described above.

5. Reasonableness of estimated cost in

relation to the work to be performed and

anticipated result.

6. Potential benefit of the project to

the overall benefit of the institution’s

graduate research program.

Evaluation of proposals for

professional meetings, conferences,

symposia, etc. will employ the

following criteria:

1. Potential usefulness of the

proposed project for the advancement of

scientific knowledge.

2. Clarity of statement of objectives,

methods, and anticipated results.

3. Range of issues covered by the

meeting agenda.

4. Qualifications and experience of

project speakers.

5. Reasonableness of estimated cost in

relation to anticipated results.

Disposition of Proposals

Notification of award will be made by

the Grants Officer, and organizations

whose proposals are unsuccessful will

be so advised.

Proposal Instructions and Forms

Questions concerning the preceding

information, copies of application

forms, and applicable regulations shall

be obtained from or submitted to (Grant

applications packages, Standard Form

424, must be requested in writing): U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN:

Grants Officer, Division of Contracts,

Mail Stop T–712, Office of

Administration, Washington, D.C.

20555.

The address for hand-carried

applications is: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, ATTN: Grants Officer,

Division of Contracts, Office of

Administration, Mail Stop T–7I2, 11555

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Md. 20852.

Note: Upon delivery of the application to

the NRC guard desk (at the above address),
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 3, 1995 / Notices 153

the guard should be requested to telephone

the Division of Contracts (415–7314) for pickup of the application.

Nothing in this solicitation should be

construed as committing the NRC to

dividing available funds among all

qualified applicants.

Dated Rockville, MD this 20th day of

December, 1994.

For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

Mary Mace,

3Grants Officer, Division of Contracts, Office

of Administration.

[FR Doc. 94–32301 Filed 12–30–94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

[Docket Nos. 50–295 and 50–304]

Commonwealth Edison Company, Zion

Nuclear Power Station, Receipt of

Petition for Director’s Decision Under

10 CFR 2.206

Notice is hereby given that by a letter

dated November 3, 1994, and a signed

petition, Robert K. Rutherford and other

Zion Nuclear Power Station security

guards (Petitioners) request that the U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

take action with regard to the new

response team member (RTM) security

plan at Zion Nuclear Power Station.

Petitioners request that the NRC

reassess and withdraw its approval of

the new RTM security plan and require

greater justification from both the

licensee and the security contractor

about reduction of armed guards and the

defense of the plant to what Petitioners

characterize as a minimum state of

operational readiness. As bases for the

request, Petitioners assert that the new

RTM security plan degrades actual plant

security; that the proposed

qualifications in the plan are causing

employee turnover, undue stress, labor

problems, and inconsistency in plant

defense; that monetary considerations

should not take priority over plant

defense and administrative jobs should

not replace front-line security guards;

that the total disarming of the Zion

owner-controlled area and the Zionprotected area is highly detrimental to

plant defense and public safety; and that

modern armaments and increased

hostility among the general public as

well as terrorist threats from either

domestic and/or international sources

have not abated.

The letter and enclosed petition are

being treated as a Petition pursuant to

10 CFR 2.206 of the Commission’s

regulations. The Petition has been

referred to the Director of the Office of

Nuclear Regulatory Regulation (NRR).

As provided by 10 CFR 2.206,

appropriate action will be taken on the

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.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 22nd day

of December 1994.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

William T. Russell,

Director, Office of Nuclear Regulatory

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 94–32302 Filed 12–30–94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

Rosemount Nuclear Instruments, Inc.;

Receipt of Petition for Director’s

Decision

Notice is hereby given that by Petition

dated November 21, 1994, Paul M.

Blanch (Petitioner) has requested that

the NRC take ‘‘prompt’’ action with

regard to Rosemount Nuclear

Instruments, Inc. Specifically, the

Petitioner requests that: (1) Rosemount

‘‘immediately’’ inform all users of safety

related transmitters pursuant to Part 21

of Title 10 of the Code of Federal

Regulations (10 CFR Part 21) of the shelf

life limitations of the fill oil and that the

oil may crystallize if the transmitters are

exposed to temperatures of less than 70

degrees Fahrenheit (°F), and provide all

available information to each licensee

for evaluation as applicable to each

facility; (2) the NRC take ‘‘prompt and

vigorous’’ enforcement against

Rosemount for both its failure to report

to users of the transmitters the shelf life

limitations of the fill oil and its failure

to report the potential of the oil to

crystallize when exposed to

temperatures of less than 70 °F, and that

a ‘‘separate violation must be issued’’

for each defect and each day of failure

to provide the required notice; and (3)

the NRC consider escalated enforcement

action due to the repetitive nature of

these violations. As a basis for his

request, the Petitioner asserts that,

contrary to 10 CFR Part 21, although

Rosemount was aware of a defect that

may create a substantial safety hazard,

it failed to report this defect to the

affected licensees within five working

days for evaluation. Specifically, the

Petitioner alleged that, although the

NRC informed Rosemount by letter

dated June 2, 1994, that the fill oil did

not meet the specified performance

requirements to assure operability of

transmitters under normal operating

conditions in that crystallization may

occur when the transmitters are

subjected to temperatures of less than 70

°F, which may inhibit the operation of

many transmitters, Rosemount withheld

this information from licensees. The

Petitioner asserts further that this is a

‘‘repetitive’’ violation in that on

November 15, 1994, the NRC assessed a

Severity Level II violation against

Rosemount for failing to properly

inform licensees of a potential for a

sensor cell oil-loss problem in violation

of 10 CFR 21.21.

The request is being treated pursuant

to 10 CFR § 2.206 of the Commission’s

regulations. The request has been

referred to the Director of the Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation. The request

that Rosemount ‘‘immediately’’ inform

all users of safety related transmitters of

the shelf life limitations of the fill oil

and the potential for crystallization has

been denied. As provided by Section

2.206, action will be taken on the

Petitioner’s remaining requests 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 20555–0001.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd

day of December, 1994.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

William T. Russell,

Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 94–32303 Filed 12–30–94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

[Docket No. 50–298]

Nebraska Public Power District;

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–

46, issued to the Nebraska Public Power

District (the licensee) for operation of

the Cooper Nuclear Station (CNS)

located in Nemaha County, Nebraska.

The proposed amendment is a Line

Item Technical Specifications

Improvement and would revise the CNS

Technical Specifications, definition

1.0.J. concerning entering an operational

condition consistent with the wording

proposed in NRC Generic Letter 87–09,

‘‘Sections 3.0 and 4.0 of the Standard

Technical Specifications on the

Applicability of Limiting Conditions for

Operation and Surveillance

Requirements,’’ dated June 4, 1987.

Before issuance of the proposed

license amendment, the Commission

will have made findings required by the

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended