Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 43 / Monday, March 6, 1995 / Notices 12255

and on which the petitioner intends to

rely in proving the contention at the

hearing. The petitioner must also

provide reference to those specific

sources and documents of which the

petitioner is aware and on which the

petitioner intends to rely to establish

those facts or expert opinion. Petitioner

must provide sufficient information to

show that a genuine dispute exists with

the applicant on a material issue of law

or fact. Contentions shall be limited to

matters within the scope of the

amendment under consideration. The

contention must be one which, if

proven, would entitle the petitioner to

relief. A petitioner who fails to file such

a supplement which satisfies these

requirements with respect to at least one

contention will not be permitted to

participate as a party.

Those permitted to intervene become

parties to the proceedings, subject to

any limitations in the order granting

leave to intervene, and have the

opportunity to participate fully in the

conduct of the hearing, including the

opportunity to present evidence and

cross-examine witnesses.

If a hearing is requested, the

Commission will make a final

determination on the issue of no

significant hazards consideration. The

final determination will serve to decide

when the hearing is held.

If the final determination is that the

amendment request involves no

significant hazards consideration, the

Commission may issue the amendment

and make it immediately effective,

notwithstanding the request for a

hearing. Any hearing held would take

place after issuance of the amendment.

If the final determination is that the

amendment request involves a

significant hazards consideration, any

hearing held would take place before

the issuance of any amendment.

A request for a hearing or a petition

for leave to intervene must be filed with

the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555, Attention:

Docketing and Services Branch, or may

be delivered to the Commission’s Public

Document Room, the Gelman Building,

2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, by

the above date. Where petitions are filed

during the last 10 days of the notice

period, it is requested that the petitioner

promptly so inform the Commission by

a toll-free telephone call to Western

Union at 1–(800) 248–5100 (in Missouri

1–(800) 342–6700). The Western Union

operator should be given Datagram

Identification Number N1023 and the

following message addressed to William

H. Bateman: petitioner’s name and

telephone number, date petition was

mailed, plant name, and publication

date and page number of this Federal

Register notice. A copy of the petition

should also be sent to the Office of the

General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555, and to M. Stanford Blanton,

Esq., Balch and Bingham, Post Office

Box 306, 1710 Sixth Avenue North,

Birmingham, Alabama 35201, attorney

for the license.

Nontimely filings of petitions for

leave to intervene, amended petitions,

supplemental petitions and/or requests

for hearing will not be entertained

absent a determination by the

Commission, the presiding officer or the

presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing

Board that the petition and/or request

should be granted based upon a

balancing of the factors specified in 10

CFR 2.714(a)(1) (i)–(v) and 2.714(d).

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application for

amendment dated June 10, 1994, which

is 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

Houston-Love Memorial Library, 212 W.

Burdeshaw Street, Post Office Box 1369,

Dothan, Alabama 36302.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day

of February 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Byron L. Siegel,

Project Manager, Project Directorate II–1,

Division of Reactor Projects—I/II, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–5364 Filed 3–3–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

[Docket Nos. 50–445 and 50–446]

Texas Utilities Electric Co.; Notice of

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 Nos. NPF–

87 and NPF–89 issued to Texas Utilities

Electric Company (TU Electric, the

licensee) for operation of the Comanche

Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and

2 located in Somervell County, Texas.

The proposed amendment would

modify the Comanche Peak Steam

Electric Station (CPSES) Technical

Specification (TS) 3/4.6.2,

‘‘Depressurization and Cooling

Systems—Containment Spray System’’

Surveillance Requirement (SR) 4.6.2.1b,

is replaced with NUREG–1431 SR

3.6.6A.4. This change replaces the

specific pump flow and head values

now contained in the SR with the

general requirement that the pump

develop the required head at the flow

test point. Also Bases 3/4.6.2.1

‘‘Containment Spray System’’ will be

revised to expand the detail consistent

with the NUREG–1431 Bases SR

3.6.6A.4. The Bases from NUREG–1431

has minor modifications to reflect (1)

that the CPSES containment spray

pumps are tested via a special test line

which allows testing at flows higher

than that allowed by the miniflow

recirculation line; (2) the ‘‘pump design

curve’’ is termed the ‘‘analytical pump

curve’’; and (3) the reference to the

technical requirements manual where

the pump head requirements are

defined is provided for the user’s

information.

Before issuance of the proposed

license amendment, the Commission

will have made findings required by the

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended

(the Act) and the Commission’s

regulations.

The Commission has made a

proposed determination that the

amendment request involves no

significant hazards consideration. Under

the Commission’s regulations in 10 CFR

50.92, this means that operation of the

facility in accordance with the proposed

amendment would not: (1) Involve a

significant increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of

a new or different kind of accident from

any accident previously evaluated; or

(3) involve a significant reduction in a

margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR

50.91(a), the licensee has provided its

analysis of the issue of no significant

hazards consideration, which is

presented below:

1. Do the proposed changes involve a

significant increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated?

The relocation of the specific values for

flow and developed head at the flow test

point to the Technical Requirements Manual

(TRM) is essentially an administrative

change. The change does not change the

plant hardware or operating procedures. As

such, the change has no impact on the

probability of an accident.

The consequences of an accident

previously evaluated, as it relates to the

performance characteristics of the

containment spray pumps, depends on the

pumps meeting the performance

characteristics in the analytical pump curve

used by the containment analyses. Since the

limitations established in the TRM will

continue to ensure that this analytical pump

curve is met, there is no impact on the
12256 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 43 / Monday, March 6, 1995 / Notices

accident analyses. The initial TRM will

duplicate the existing surveillance values. In

the future, the TRM values may be slightly

more or slightly less restrictive based on

changes to the containment analyses or their

design inputs. The result of this variation

could be a minor variation in the

consequences of an actual event were one to

occur; however, the consequences would be

bounded by the existing safety analyses and

therefore, the change does not involve a

significant increase in the consequences of an

accident previously evaluated.

2. Do the proposed changes create the

possiblity of a new or different kind of

accident from any accident previously

evaluated?

The proposed change does not add new

hardware to the units or change plant

operations. Relocation of the surveillance

acceptance criteria to the TRM cannot initiate

an event nor cause an analyzed event to

progress differently. Thus, the possibility of

a new or different kind of accident is not

created.

3. Do the proposed changes involve a

significant reduction in a margin of safety?

The margin of safety is not affected since

the surveillance will continue to be required

by Techincal Specifications at the same

frequency and that surveillance will continue

to ensure the containment spray pump

performance is bounded by the analytical

pump curve used in the containment

analyses.

The NRC staff has reviewed the

licensee’s analysis and, based on this

review, it appears that the three

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff

proposes to determine that the

amendment request involves no

significant hazards consideration.

The Commission is seeking public

comments on this proposed

determination. Any comments received

within 30 days after the date of

publication of this notice will be

considered in making any final

determination.

Normally, the Commission will not

issue the amendment until the

expiration of the 30-day notice period.

However, should circumstances change

during the notice period such that

failure to act in a timely way would

result, for example, in derating or

shutdown of the facility, the

Commission may issue the license

amendment before the expiration of the

30-day notice period, provided that its

final determination is that the

amendment involves no significant

hazards consideration. The final

determination will consider all public

and State comments received. Should

the Commission take this action, it will

publish in the Federal Register a notice

of issuance and provide for opportunity

for a hearing after issuance. The

Commission expects that the need to

take this action will occur very

infrequently.

Written comments may be submitted

by mail to the Rules Review and

Directives Branch, Division of Freedom

of Information and Publications

Services, Office of Aministration, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555, and should cite

the publication date and page number of

this Federal Register notice. Written

comments may also be delivered to

Room 6D22, Two White Flint North,

11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville,

Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m.

Federal workdays. Copies of written

comments received may be examined at

the NRC Public Document Room, the

Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW.,

Washington, DC.

The filing of requests for hearing and

petitions for leave to intervene is

discussed below.

By April 5, 1995, the licensee may file

a request for a hearing with respect to

issuance of the amendment to the

subject facility operating license and

any person whose interest may be

affected by this proceeding and who

wishes to participate as a party in the

proceeding must file a written request

for a hearing and a petition for leave to

intervene. Requests for a hearing and a

petition for leave to intervene shall be

filed in accordance with the

Commission’s ‘‘Rules of Practice for

Domestic Licensing Proceedings’’ in 10

CFR Part 2. Interested persons should

consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.714

which is available 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

University of Texas at Arlington Library,

Government Publications/Maps, 702

College, P.O. Box 19497, Arlington,

Texas 76019. If a request for a hearing

or petition for leave to intervene is filed

by the above date, the Commission or an

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board,

designated by the Commission or by the

Chairman of the Atomic Safety and

Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the

request and/or petition; and the

Secretary or the designated Atomic

Safety and Licensing Board will issue a

notice of hearing or an appropriate

order.

As required by 10 CFR 2.714, a

petition for leave to intervene shall set

forth with particularity the interest of

the petitioner in the proceeding, and

how that interest may be affected by the

results of the proceeding. The petition

should specifically explain the reasons

why intervention should be permitted

with particular reference to the

following factors: (1) The nature of the

petitioner’s right under the Act to be

made party to the proceeding; (2) the

nature and extent of the petitioner’s

property, financial, or other interest in

the proceeding; and (3) the possible

effect of any order which may be

entered in the proceeding on the

petitioner’s interest. The petition should

also identify the specific aspect(s) of the

subject matter of the proceeding as to

which petitioner wishes to intervene.

Any person who has filed a petition for

leave to intervene or who has been

admitted as a party may amend the

petition without requesting leave of the

Board up to 15 days prior to the first

prehearing conference scheduled in the

proceeding, but such an amended

petition must satisfy the specificity

requirements described above.

Not later than 15 days prior to the first

prehearing conference scheduled in the

proceeding, a petitioners shall file a

supplement to the petition to intervene

which must incude a list of the

contentions which are sought to be

litigated in the matter. Each contention

must consist of a specific statement of

the issue of law or fact to be raised or

controverted. In addition, the petitioner

shall provide a brief explanation of the

bases of the contention and a concise

statement of the alleged facts or expert

opinion which support the contention

and on which the petitioner intends to

rely in proving the contention at the

hearing. The petitioner must also

provide references to those specific

sources and documents of which the

petitioner is aware and on which the

petitioner intends to rely to establish

those facts or expert opinion. Petitioner

must provide sufficient information to

show that a genuine dispute exists with

the applicant on a material issue of law

or fact. Contentions shall be limited to

matters within the scope of the

amendment under consideration. The

contention must be one which, if

proven, would entitle the petitioner to

relief. A petitioner who fails to file such

a supplement which satisfies these

requirements with respect to at least one

contention will not be permitted to

participate as a party.

Those permitted to intervene become

parties to the proceeding, subject to any

limitations in the order granting leave to

intervene, and have the opportunity to

participate fully in the conduct of the

hearing, including the opportunity to

present evidence and cross-examine

witnesses.

If a hearing is requested, the

Commission will make a final

determination on the issue of no

significant hazards consideration. The

final determination will serve to decide

when the hearing is held.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 43 / Monday, March 6, 1995 / Notices 12257

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

2Letter from David T. Rusoff, Foley & Lardner, to

Jerry Carpenter, Assistant Director, Division of

Market Regulation, Commission (January 30, 1995).

3For a complete description of MSTC’s pilot

SDFS service, refer to Securities Exchange Act

Release No. 32300 (May 12, 1993), 58 FR 29438

[File No. SR–MSTC–90–8] (order approving a pilot

SDFS service).

4 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii) (1988).

5 17 CFR 240.19b–4(e)(4) (1994).

If the final determination is that the

amendment request involves no

significant hazards consideration, the

Commission may issue the amendment

and make it immediately effective,

notwithstanding the request for a

hearing. Any hearing held would take

place after issuance of the amendment.

If the final determination is that the

amendment request involves a

significant hazards consideration, any

hearing held would take place before

the issuance of any amendment.

A request for a hearing or a petition

for leave to intervene must be filed with

the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555, Attention:

Docketing and Services Branch, or may

be delivered to the Commission’s Public

Document Room, the Gelman Building,

2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, by

the above date. Where petitions are filed

during the last 10 days of the notice

period, it is requested that the petitioner

promptly so inform the Commission by

a toll-free telephone call to Western

Union at 1–(800) 248–5100 (in Missouri

1–(800) 342–6700). The Western Union

operator should be given Datagram

Identification Number N1023 and the

following message addressed to William

D. Beckner, Director, Project Directorate

IV–1: petitioner’s name and telephone

number, date petition was mailed, plant

name, and publication date and page

number of this Federal Register notice.

A copy of the petition should also be

sent to the Office of the General

Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555,

and to George L. Edgar, Esq., Newman

and Holtzinger, 1615 L Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20036, attorney for the

licensee.

Nontimely filings of petitions for

leave to intervene, amended petitions,

supplemental petitions and/or requests

for hearing will not be entertained

absent a determination by the

Commission, the presiding officer or the

presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing

Board that the petition and/or request

should be granted based upon a

balancing of the factors specified in 10

CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i)–(v) and 2.714(d).

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application for

amendment dated February 28, 1995,

which is 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 University of Texas at Arlington

Library, Government Publications/

Maps, 702 College, P.O. Box 19497,

Arlington, Texas 76019.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day

of March 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Timothy J. Polich,

Project Manager, Project Directorate IV–I,

Division of Reactor Projects—III/IV, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–5365 Filed 3–3–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

[Release No. 34–35425; File No. SR–MSTC–

95–01]

Self-Regulatory Organizations;

Midwest Securities Trust Company;

Notice of Filing and Immediate

Effectiveness of Proposed Rule

Change Making Technical Corrections

to Articles III & IV of the Midwest

Securities Trust Company Rules

February 28, 1995.

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

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 1

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

January 18, 1995, the Midwest

Securities Trust Company (‘‘MSTC’’)

filed with the Securities and Exchange

Commission (‘‘Commission’’) the

proposed rule change as described in

Items I, II, and III below, which items

have been prepared primarily by MSTC.

On January 30, 1995, MSTC amended

the proposal to include an additional

cross-reference correction.2 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

MSTC proposes the following rule

change in order to make technical

corrections to Section 3(ii) of Rule 1 of

Article IV and to Section 2(ii) of Rule

1(B) of Article III of MSTC’s rules.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement of the Purpose of, and

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule

Change

In its filing with the Commission,

MSTC 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. MSTC has prepared

summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B),

and (C) below, of the most significant

aspects of such statements.

(A) Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement of the Purpose of, and

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule

Change

The purpose of the proposal is to

make a technical revision to Section

3(ii) of Rule 1 of Article IV of MSTC’s

rules. On May 12, 1993, the Commission

approved MSTC’s pilot Same-Day Fund

Settlement (‘‘SDFS’’) service.3 The SDFS

rules amended and renumbered Section

3 of Rule 1 of Article III to Sections 2

and 3 of Rule 1(B) of Article III.

However, Section 3(ii) of Rule 1 of

Article IV was not amended to reflect

the proper cross-reference to Sections 2

and 3 of Rule 1(B) of Article III instead

of Section 3(ii) of Rule 1 of Article III;

this proposal makes this correction.

MSTC also proposes to make a technical

revision to Section 2(ii) of Rule 1(B) of

Article III of MSTC’s rules to reflect the

proper cross-reference to Section 1 of

Rule 1(B) of Article III instead of Section

1 of Rule 1 of Article III.

MSTC believes the proposed rule

change is consistent with the

requirements of the Act, specifically

Section 17A of the Act, and the rules

and regulations thereunder because

clarifying MSTC’s rules will facilitate

the prompt and accurate clearance and

settlement of securities transactions.

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement on Burden on Competition

MSTC does not believe that the

proposed rule change will have an

impact on or impose a burden on

competition.

(C) Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement on Comments on the

Proposed Rule Change Received From

Members, Participants or Others

No written comments have been

solicited or received. MSTC will notify

the Commission of any written

comments received by MSTC.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the

Proposed Rule Change and Timing for

Commission Action

The foregoing rule change has become

effective pursuant to Section

19(b)(3)(A)(iii) 4 of the Act and pursuant

to Rule 19b–4(e)(4) 5 promulgated

thereunder in that the proposal effects a

change in an existing service that does