26466 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 17, 1995 / Notices

Violation in the inspection report and

provided additional information. In a

letter dated March 21, 1995, NRC found

NSP’s corrective actions acceptable.

Since receipt of the first cask on site,

NRC has observed selected portions of

the preoperational testing activities and

has reviewed associated test procedures

and results. In addition, during the

weeks of April 17, and April 24, 1995,

the NRC conducted a special team

inspection of cask fabrication records

and preoperational test results at the

Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant.

On April 28, 1995, NRC held an

inspection exit meeting, which was

open to public attendance, in Red Wing,

Minnesota, to discuss its inspection

findings and conclusions. NSP

submitted the report of preoperational

test acceptance criteria and test results

required by 10 CFR 72.83(e) to the NRC

on April 20, 1995. At the inspection exit

meeting held on April 28, 1995, the

following five outstanding issues and

their resolution were:

Issue (1): Fabrication of the

temperature and pressure monitoring

equipment was not complete.

Resolution: NRC Resident Inspectors

observed completion of installation of

fabricated equipment.

Issue (2): NRC review of the

unloading procedure was not complete.

Resolution: NRC Resident Inspectors

have completed their review and all

identified concerns have been

acceptably resolved.

Issue (3): NRC review of licensee

disposition of weld discrepancies was

not complete.

Resolution: NRC staff have completed

their review and have accepted the

licensee’s dispositions.

Issue (4): Resolution of cask

hydrostatic testing requirements was not

complete.

Resolution: NRC staff have resolved

the cask hydrostatic testing

requirements. In addition, the licensee

performed a 10 CFR 72.48 evaluation to

revise the Safety Analysis Report. The

Resident Inspectors have reviewed the

evaluation and found it acceptable.

Issue (5): NRC review of adequate

spent fuel retrievability was not

complete.

Resolution: The licensee provided

information regarding retrievability in a

letter dated May 3, 1995. In a letter to

NSP dated May 5, 1995, NRC found

NSP’s rationale acceptable.

Based on the resolutions described

above, the staff has completed its review

and is granting the exemption.

An exemption to the requirement of

10 CFR 72.82(e) for a 30-day waiting

period would allow NSP to start loading

the first cask before May 20, 1995, the

end of the 30-day period.

IV

As previously described in the

foregoing discussion, and based on its

oversight and inspection of NSP’s ISFSI

preoperational testing activities, the

NRC finds that NSP has satisfactorily

addressed all of the outstanding safety

issues associated with cask loading,

handling, and storage. The results of the

NRC activities described above confirm

there is adequate assurance that the cask

can perform its intended safety

functions and that NSP has the

necessary equipment and procedures in

place to safely conduct spent fuel cask

handling activities.

Accordingly, the NRC has determined

in accordance with 10 CFR 72.7 that this

exemption is authorized by law, will not

endanger life or property or the common

defense and security, and is otherwise

in the public interest. Therefore, the

NRC hereby grants the licensee an

exemption from the 30-day waiting

period required by 10 CFR 72.82(e) as

requested by the licensee’s letter of

January 4, 1995.

The documents related to this

proposed action are available for public

inspection and for copying (for a fee) at

the NRC Public Document Room, 2120

L Street, NW, Washington, DC 20555,

and at the Local Public Document Room

located in the Minneapolis Public

Library, 300 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis,

Minnesota 55401.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the NRC

has determined that granting this

exemption will have no significant

impact on the quality of the human

environment (60 FR 13477).

This exemption is effective upon

issuance.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11 day

of May 1995.

Donald A. Cool,

Director, Division of Industrial and Medical

Nuclear Safety, Office of Nuclear Material

Safety and Safeguards.

[FR Doc. 95–12100 Filed 5–16–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

Elimination of Low-Level Radioactive

Waste Topical Report Review Program

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of elimination of

program.

SUMMARY: This notice is in reference to

low-level radioactive waste (LLW)

topical reports (TRs) submitted in

support of the implementation of 10

CFR Part 61, or compatible Agreement

State regulations. The U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission’s Division of

Waste Management (DWM) is currently

responsible for the Federal review of

these TRs. However, due to higher

priorities and limited staff availability,

DWM has decided to terminate its LLW

TR review program.

ADDRESSES: Documents referred to in

this notice may be examined at the

Commission’s Public Document Room,

1717 H Street, NW., Washington, DC.

Copies of technical positions and

topical report review procedures may be

obtained from the Division of Waste

Management, Office of Nuclear Material

Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555, or by calling the contact

listed below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert J. Lewis, Engineering and

Geosciences Branch, Division of Waste

Management, Office of Nuclear Material

Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555; telephone (301) 415–6680.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: To help

ensure a cost effective and orderly

implementation of 10 CFR Part 61, and

since many licensees utilize similar

services from the same firm, the U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued

a Federal Register notice (48 FR 40512)

encouraging these firms to submit, for

NRC review, generic topical reports on

these services.

To meet 10 CFR 20.2006(d), 10 CFR

61.55, and 10 CFR 61.56, radioactive

waste generators and disposal operators

must demonstrate compliance with the

waste classification and waste form

requirements. One acceptable approach

to satisfying these regulations is to

reference previously reviewed and

approved TRs. A TR is a document

submitted by an industry organization

(i.e., a vendor) for review by NRC or an

Agreement State, outside of specific

licensing action. LLW TRs typically

include reports on qualification of highintegrity containers, solidification

procedures, or computer codes designed

to classify waste.

The ultimate acceptability of a

particular waste is subject to the

disposal restrictions and requirements

specified by the waste disposal facility

operators and governing Agreement

State regulatory agencies. NRC approved

LLW TRs are often accepted by a State

as an acceptable means of

demonstrating compliance with the

State equivalent regulations to 10 CFR

Part 61. However, due to higher

priorities and limited staff availability,

DWM has decided to terminate the LLW

TR review program. The number of LLW
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 17, 1995 / Notices 26467

disposal site applications currently

under regulatory review and the number

of new waste processing technologies do

not support the need for a centralized

review of generic LLW TRs by NRC.

DWM is currently not accepting new

LLW TRs for review. Further, TRs

currently under review but not showing

progress towards resolution of open

issues (e.g., no vendor or NRC action in

the last six months) are being placed

into ‘‘discontinued’’ status. Existing TRs

currently in a ‘‘discontinued’’ or

‘‘withdrawn’’ status will not be

reopened, nor will amendments or

revisions to ‘‘approved’’ TRs be

reviewed. In the future, NRC suggests

that vendors contact individual disposal

facility operators, or the regulatory

agency exercising jurisdiction over that

disposal facility, for guidance on the

review and acceptance of a specific

waste form and classification proposal,

such as a topical report.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day

of May, 1995.

For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

Michael J. Bell,

Chief, Engineering and Geosciences Branch,

Division of Waste Management, Office of

Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.

[FR Doc. 95–12102 Filed 5–16–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

[Docket Nos. 50–528, 50–529, 50–530;

License Nos. DPR–67, NPF–16, DPR–31,

DPR–41]

Florida Power & Light Company

(Turkey Point and St. Lucie Nuclear

Generating Stations); Issuance of

Director’s Decision Under 10 CFR

2.206

Notice is hereby given that the

Director, Office of Enforcement, has

issued a decision concerning the

Petition filed by Mr. Thomas J. Saporito,

Jr., (Petitioner) on Marcy 7, 1994. The

Petition requested that the NRC: (1)

Submit an amicus curiae brief to the

Department of Labor (DOL) regarding

his complaints numbered 89–ERA–007

and 89–ERA–017 concerning the

Petitioner’s claim that the licensee

retaliated against him for engaging in

protected activity during his

employment at Turkey Point Nuclear

Station in violation of 10 CFR 50.7; (2)

institute a show cause proceeding

pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202 to modify,

suspend or revoke Florida Power &

Light Company’s licenses authorizing

the operation of Turkey Point; and (3)

institute a show cause proceeding

pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202 and order the

licensee to provide the Petitioner with

a ‘‘make whole’’ remedy, including but

not limited to, immediate reinstatement

to his previous position, back wages and

front pay with interest, compensatory

damages for pain and suffering, and a

posting requirement to offset any

‘‘chilling effect’’ Petitioner’s discharge

may have had upon other employees at

the Turkey Point and St. Lucie Stations.

On March 13, 1994, Petitioner

supplemented the Petition, reiterating

the three requests noted in the

preceding paragraph and providing

additional information.

On April 7, 1994, Petitioner

supplemented the Petition providing a

chronology of events that relate to his

request for action against FP&L.

Petitioner also described what Petitioner

believes should be the content of the

amicus curiae brief to DOL, including

the fact that a licensee employee can go

directly to NRC with safety concerns,

the NRC instructed Petitioner not to

divulge his safety concerns to FP&L,

that Petitioner’s conduct should not be

considered insubordinate, and the FP&L

engaged in illegal conduct when its Vice

President interrogated Petitioner about

his safety concerns.

On June 7, 1994, the Petitioner

submitted an additional request

pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 which has

been incorporated into the abovementioned request. The June 7 Petition

requested: (1) Enforcement action

against specific FP&L employees (2) an

NRC investigation into the involvement

of FP&L employees in the

discrimination against the Petitioner

with the results of this investigation

being forwarded to the Department of

Justice, and (3) an investigation into

whether the work climate at Turkey

Point and St. Lucie nuclear stations

makes employees feel free to go to their

management and/or the NRC with safety

concerns. This June 7 Petition was

supplemented on June 28 and 30, 1994.

Based on a review of Petitioner’s

requests and supplemental submissions,

the Licensee’s response dated May 20,

1994, and the June 3, 1994 decision by

the Secretary of Labor on complaints

filed by the Petitioner in these cases, the

Director, Office of Enforcement, has

denied this Petition. The reasons for the

denial are explained in the ‘‘Director’s

Decision under 10 CFR 2.206’’ (DD–95–

07) which is available for public

inspection in the Commission’s Public

Document Room at 2120 L Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20555.

A copy of this Decision will be filed

with the Secretary for the Commission’s

review in accordance with 10 CFR

2.206. As provided by this regulation,

the Decision will constitute the final

action of the Commission 25 days after

the date of issuance of the Decision

unless the Commission on its own

motion institutes a review of the

Decision within that time.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 11th day

of May 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

James Liberman,

Director, Office of Enforcement.

[FR Doc. 95–12101 Filed 5–16–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD

Agency Forms Submitted for OMB

Review

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44

U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Railroad

Retirement Board has submitted the

following proposal(s) for the collection

of information to the Office of

Management and Budget for review and

approval.

Summary of Proposal(s)

(1) Collection title: Application for

Search of Census Records (Railroad

Retirement Purposes Only).

(2) Form(s) submitted: RRB Form G–

256.

(3) OMB Number: 3220–0106.

(4) Expiration date of current OMB

clearance: July 31, 1995.

(5) Type of request: Revision of a

currently approved collection.

(6) Respondents: Individuals or

households.

(7) Estimated annual number of

respondents: 150.

(8) Total annual responses: 150.

(9) Total annual reporting hours: 25.

(10) Collection description: Under the

Railroad Retirement Act, an application

for benefits based on age must be

supported by proof of the age claimed.

The application obtains proof of an

applicant’s age from the Bureau of the

Census when other evidence is

unavailable.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR COMMENTS:

Copies of the form and supporting

documents can be obtained from Chuck

Mierzwa, the agency clearance officer

(312–751–3363). Comments regarding

the information collection should be

addressed to Ronald J. Hodapp, Railroad

Retirement Board, 844 North Rush

Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611–2092 and

the OMB reviewer, Laura Oliven (202–

395–7316), Office of Management and

Budget, Room 10230, New Executive