9870 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 22, 1995 / Notices

commitment to submit a new license

application. These commitments were

confirmed by NRC in a November 8,

1994 Confirmatory Action Letter (CAL)

to Ms. Hollingsworth. The CAL

described the commitments that she had

made, including her commitment to

‘‘Ensure that licensed material is not

used until this matter is resolved and a

specific license authorizing possession

and use of byproduct material is issued

from this office.’’ Her receipt of the CAL

was confirmed on November 23, 1994,

during another telephone call from NRC

Region IV. On December 19, 1994, NRC

Region IV conducted an inspection of

Blackhawk.

In January 1995, the NRC Office of

Investigations began an investigation

based on concerns about the accuracy of

Ms. Hollingsworth’s statements to NRC

personnel during the December 19, 1994

inspection. Ms. Hollingsworth was

interviewed by an NRC investigator and,

in a signed, sworn statement on January

12, 1995, she admitted that she

understood in November 1994 that she

should no longer use the gauges;

admitted that she had used gauges

containing byproduct material up until

December 22, 1994, to complete a

construction job; and admitted that she

had not been truthful when she told the

NRC inspector, during the December 19,

1994 inspection, that she had not used

any gauges since 1992. She stated ‘‘I

needed to get the job done and I thought

by not telling * * * the truth I could go

ahead and get the job done.’’

III

Based on the above, Maria

Hollingsworth, doing business as

Blackhawk Engineering, Inc., has

willfully violated NRC requirements by

deliberately using NRC-regulated

material in violation of 10 CFR

30.36(c)(1)(i), and by deliberately

making false statements to NRC

personnel in violation of 10 CFR 30.9.

These deliberate violations also

constitute a violation of 10 CFR 30.10,

which prohibits deliberate misconduct.

The NRC must be able to rely on the

Licensee and its employees to comply

with NRC requirements, including the

requirement to provide information that

is complete and accurate in all material

respects. By her actions, Ms.

Hollingsworth has demonstrated that

she is either unwilling or unable to

comply with Commission requirements

and cannot be trusted to provide

complete and accurate information to

the Commission. Furthermore, Ms.

Hollingsworth is currently in possession

of NRC-regulated byproduct material

without a valid NRC license.

Consequently, I lack the requisite

reasonable assurance that the health and

safety of the public will be protected.

Therefore, the public health, safety, and

interest require that Blackhawk

Engineering, Inc. and Maria

Hollingsworth, doing business as

Blackhawk Engineering, Inc., be

required to cease and desist

unauthorized possession of regulated

byproduct material and to provide

certification to the NRC that all

regulated byproduct material has been

transferred to authorized recipients.

IV

Accordingly, pursuant to sections 81,

161b, 161c, 161i, and 161o of the

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended,

and the Commission’s regulations in 10

CFR parts 20 and 30, it is hereby

ordered that Blackhawk Engineering,

Inc. and Maria Hollingsworth, doing

business as Blackhawk Engineering,

Inc., shall:

A. Immediately cease and desist from

any further use of byproduct material

now in their possession, with the

exception that sealed source(s)

containing cesium–137 or americium241 shall be tested for leakage by a

person authorized to perform the test

prior to the transfer of the source(s) to

another person or entity if a leak test has

not been performed within the last six

months prior to transfer.

B. Maintain safe control over the

byproduct material, as required by 10

CFR part 20, by keeping the material in

locked storage and not allowing any

person access to the material, except for

purposes of assuring the material’s

continued safe storage, until the

material is transferred to a person

authorized to receive and possess the

material in accordance with the

provisions of this Order and the

Commission’s regulations.

C. Within 30 days of the date of this

Order, transfer all byproduct material to

a person authorized to receive and

possess it.

D. At least two working days prior to

the transfer of the byproduct material,

notify Ms. Linda Howell, Region IV, by

telephone (817–860–8213) so that the

NRC may, if it elects, observe the

transfer of the material to the authorized

recipient.

E. Within seven days following

completion of the transfer, provide to

the Regional Administrator, Region IV,

in writing, under oath or affirmation: (1)

Confirmation, on NRC Form 314, that

the byproduct material has been

transferred; (2) the last date that the

byproduct material was used; (3) a copy

of the leak test performed prior to

transfer; (4) a copy of the survey

performed in accordance with 10 CFR

30.36(c)(1)(v); and (5) a copy of the

certification from the authorized

recipient that the source has been

received.

Copies of the response to this Order

shall be sent to the Regional

Administrator, Region IV, 611 Ryan

Plaza Drive, Suite 400, Arlington, Texas

76011, and to the Assistant General

Counsel for Hearings and Enforcement,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, D.C. 20555.

After reviewing the response, the NRC

will determine whether further action is

necessary to ensure compliance with

NRC requirements.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 14th day

of February 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Hugh L. Thompson, Jr.,

Deputy Executive Director for Nuclear

Materials Safety, Safeguards, and Operations

Support.

[FR Doc. 95–4269 Filed 2–21–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

[Docket No. 50–029]

Yankee Atomic Electric Co.; Yankee

Nuclear Power Station; Order

Approving the Decommissioning Plan

and Authorizing Decommissioning of

Facility

I

The Yankee Atomic Electric Company

(YAEC, the licensee) is the holder of

Facility Operating License No. DPR–3

issued by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC, the Commission)

formerly the Atomic Energy

Commission, pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50

on July 9, 1960. The license was

amended on August 5, 1992, to remove

the authority of the licensee to operate

the Yankee Nuclear Power Station

(YNPS, the plant). The facility is located

on the licensee site in the Town of

Rowe, Franklin County, Commonwealth

of Massachusetts.

II

On October 1, 1991, the plant was

shut down for an evaluation of potential

reactor vessel integrity problems. In

February 1992, all fuel was removed

from the reactor vessel to the Spent Fuel

Pit. By letter dated February 27, 1992,

YAEC informed the NRC that the plant

was permanently shut down and that

decommissioning would commence.

This action initiated the two year clock

in 10 CFR 50.82 that requires submittal

of a decommissioning plant within that

time interval. YAEC submitted the

Decommissioning Plan (Plan) on
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 22, 1995 / Notices 9871

1 15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.

December 20, 1993 which included an

Environmental Report.

On March 29, 1994, in accord with 10

CFR 50.82(e), a Notice of Receipt of

Decommissioning Plan and

Environmental Report and Opportunity

for Public Comments was published in

the Federal Register, (59 FR 14689). Due

to public interest in the

decommissioning process, the Federal

Register Notice announced a local

meeting to provide the public an

opportunity to make comments on the

Plan. The meeting, an informal public

hearing, was held in August 1994 in

Franklin County and was transcribed.

The public comments have been

addressed in Appendix A to the

attached Safety Evaluation. In addition,

the staff held a second meeting, the day

after the meeting on the Plan, to give the

public an opportunity to present

concerns on issues outside the Plan.

This follow-up meeting was also

transcribed and the staff has provided

separate written responses to all of these

concerns by letters dated May 10 and

September 23, 1994.

The major concerns of the public are

the perceived impacts of Yankee Rowe

power generation and decommissioning

on the Deerfield River Valley and a

claim of denial of public participation

in the decommissioning process. This

latter concern is at issue in a case heard

before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the

First Circuit in Boston, Massachusetts

on January 10, 1995. A decision will be

rendered in the near future. In regard to

the first concern, the plant has been

required to comply with 10 CFR Part 20

throughout the 31 years of power

operation and during the

decommissioning process to date, and

based on many NRC and

Commonwealth of Massachusetts

inspections, the staff concludes that

there are no impacts resulting from

Yankee Rowe that have diminished

public health and safety in the Deerfield

River Valley.

III

The NRC has reviewed the YAEC Plan

with respect to the provisions of the

Commission rules and regulations and

has found the decommissioning as

stated in the YNPS Plan will be

consistent with the regulations in 10

CFR Chapter I, and will not be inimical

to the common defense and security or

to the health and safety of the public.

The staff concluded that this order

should contain a condition that

specifies the method by which the

licensee may make changes to the Plan,

the Final Safety Analysis Report, or the

facility.

IV

Accordingly, pursuant to Sections

103, 161b, 161i, and 161o, of the Atomic

Energy Act of 1954 (as amended), 10

CFR 50.82, the YNPS Decommissioning

Plan is approved and decommissioning

of the plant is authorized subject to the

following condition:

With the respect to changes to the facility

or procedures described in the updated FSAR

or changes to the Decommissioning plan, and

the conduct of tests and experiments not

described in the FSAR, the provisions of 10

CFR 50.59 shall apply.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.21, 51.30, and

51.35, the Commission has prepared an

Environmental Assessment and Finding

of No Significant Impact for the

proposed action. Based on that

assessment, the Commission has

determined that the proposed action

will not result in any significant

environmental impact and that an

environmental impact statement need

not be prepared.

V

For further details with respect to this

action see: (1) The application for

authorization of decommission the

facility, of December 20, 1993, as

supplemented August 5, August 22,

October 24 and October 26, 1994. These

documents are available for public

inspection at the Commission Public

Document Room, the Gelman Building,

2120 L Street NW., Washington, D.C.

20555, and at the Local Public

Document Room located at the

Greenfield Community College, 1

College Drive, Greenfield,

Massachusetts 01301.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 14th day

of February 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

William T. Russell,

Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–4268 Filed 2–21–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

[Release No. 33–7137, File No. S7–6–95]

Securities Uniformity; Annual

Conference on Uniformity of Securities

Law

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange

Commission.

ACTION: Publication of release

announcing issues to be considered at a

conference on uniformity of securities

laws and requesting written comments.

SUMMARY: In conjunction with a

conference to be held on March 27,

1995, the Commission and the North

American Securities Administrators

Association, Inc. today announced a

request for comments on the proposed

agenda for the conference. This meeting

is intended to carry out the policies and

purposes of section 19(c) of the

Securities Act of 1933, adopted as part

of the Small Business Investment

Incentive Act of 1980, to increase

uniformity in matters concerning state

and federal regulation of securities, to

maximize the effectiveness of securities

regulation in promoting investor

protection, and to reduce burdens on

capital formation through increased

cooperation between the Commission

and the state securities regulatory

authorities.

DATES: The conference will be held on

March 27, 1995. Written comments

must be received on or before March 22,

1995 in order to be considered by the

conference participants.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be submitted in triplicate by March 22,

1995 to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary,

Securities and Exchange Commission,

450 5th Street NW., Washington, DC

20549. Comments should refer to File

No. S7–6–95 and will be available for

public inspection at the Commission’s

Public Reference Room, 450 5th Street

NW., Washington, DC 20549.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William E. Toomey or Richard K. Wulff,

Office of Small Business Policy,

Division of Corporation Finance,

Securities and Exchange Commission,

450 5th Street NW., Washington, DC

20549, (202) 942–2950.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Discussion

A dual system of federal-state

securities regulation has existed since

the adoption of the federal regulatory

structure in the Securities Act of 1933

(the ‘‘Securities Act’’).1 Issuers

attempting to raise capital through

securities offerings, as well as

participants in the secondary trading

markets, are responsible for complying

with the federal securities laws as well

as all applicable state laws and

regulations. It has long been recognized

that there is a need to increase

uniformity between federal and state

regulatory systems, and to improve

cooperation among those regulatory

bodies so that capital formation can be

made easier while investor protections

are retained.

The importance of facilitating greater

uniformity in securities regulation was

endorsed by Congress with the