Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 77 / Friday, April 21, 1995 / Notices 19969

environmental impacts associated with

the proposed exemption.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

Since the Commission concluded that

there are no measurable environmental

affects that would result from the

proposed action, any alternatives with

equal or greater environmental impacts

need not be evaluated.

The principal alternative would be to

deny the requested exemption. This

would not reduce environmental

impacts of plant operation and would

result in reduced operational flexibility.

Alternate Use of Resources

This proposed action does not involve

the use of any resources not previously

considered in the Final Environmental

Statements for the Peach Bottom Atomic

Power Station, Units 2 and 3, dated

April 1973.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

The staff consulted with the State of

Pennsylvania regarding the

environmental impact of the proposed

action. The State Official had no

comment.

Finding of No Significant Impact

The Commission has determined not

to prepare an environmental impact

statement for the proposed exemption.

Based upon the foregoing

environmental assessment, the

Commission concludes that the

proposed action will not have a

significant effect on the quality of the

human environment.

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application for

exemption dated February 22, 1995,

which is available for public inspection

at the Commission’s Public Document

Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20555, and

at the local public document room

located at Government Publications

Section, State Library of Pennsylvania,

(Regional Depository) Education

Building, Walnut Street and

Commonwealth Avenue, Box 1601,

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day

of April 1994.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

John F. Stolz,

Director, Project Directorate, I–2 Division of

Reactor Projects—I/II, Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–9893 Filed 4–20–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

Nuclear Safety Research Review

Committee Meetings of Subcommittee

on Instrumentation and Control (I&C)

and Human Factors and Subcommittee

on Research in Support of Risk-Based

Regulation (PRA Subcommittee)

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of meetings.

The NSRRC I&C and Human Factors

Subcommittee will hold a meeting on

May 18 and 19, 1995 and the PRA

Subcommittee on May 19, 1995. A part

of the May 19 meeting will be a joint

meeting of the two subcommittees. The

meetings will take place in Room T–

2B3, Two White Flint North (TWFN)

Building, 11545 Rockville Pike,

Rockville, MD.

The meetings will be open to public

attendance.

The I&C and Human Factors

Subcommittee will review human

factors research programs. In the joint

meeting, the two subcommittees will

jointly review research related to

representation of human performance

and organizational factors in

probabilistic risk assessments. After the

joint meeting, the PRA subcommittee

will review NRC probabilistic risk

assessment policy and practice in

relation to research needs.

The agenda will be as follows:

Thursday, May 18: I&C and Human Factors

Subcommittee

8:30–10:00 Introduction; overview of

human factors research.

10:15–11:45 Human-system interface;

safety-related operator actions.

1:00–3:45 Human performance data

collection, Halden human error project,

communications, simulator training;

radiation therapy; staffing projects.

3:45–5:00 Subcommittee discussion.

Friday, May 19: Joint Meeting of Both

Subcommittees

8:00–8:30 Introduction, background.

8:30–9:45 Organizational performance

measures and methods to include

organizational factors in PRA.

10:00–11:45 Human performance measures.

11:45–12:00 Subcommittees discussion.

12:00 I&C and Human Factors

Subcommittee adjourns at the

conclusion of the joint meeting.

Friday, May 19, continued: PRA

Subcommittee

1:15–1:30 Introductory remarks.

1:30–4:00 Update on PRA Policy Statement

and PRA Implementation Plan.

4:00–5:00 Subcommittee discussion.

The Subcommittees will report to the full

Committee on the facts and analyses

discussed at the meetings.

Detailed agenda will be made available at

the meetings.

Oral statements may be presented by

members of the public with the concurrence

of the presiding Subcommittee Chairman;

written statements will be accepted and

made available to the Subcommittee.

Questions may be asked only by members of

the Committee and the staff. Persons desiring

to make oral statements should notify the

Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff

member named below as far in advance as is

practicable so that appropriate arrangements

can be made.

During the initial portions of the meetings,

the Subcommittees may exchange

preliminary views regarding matters to be

considered during the balance of the meeting.

The Subcommittees will then hear

presentations by and hold discussions with

representatives of the NRC staff regarding

this review.

Further information regarding topics to be

discussed, the scheduling of sessions,

whether the meetings have been canceled or

rescheduled, and the Chairmen’s ruling on

requests for the opportunity to present oral

statements and the time allotted therefore can

be obtained by a prepaid telephone call to

Mr. George Sege (telephone 301/415–6593)

between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. (EST).

Persons planning to attend these meetings are

urged to contact the above named individual

one or two business days before the

scheduled meeting to be advised of any

changes in schedule, etc., that may have

occurred.

Dated: April 13 1995.

George Sege,

Technical Assistant to the Director Office of

Nuclear Regulatory Research.

[FR Doc. 95–9895 Filed 4–20–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

[Docket No. 50–309]

Maine Yankee Atomic Power

Company; 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 No. DPR–

36 issued to Maine Yankee Atomic

Power Company (the licensee) for

operation of the Maine Yankee Atomic

Power Station located in Lincoln

County, Maine.

The proposed amendment would

revise the Technical Specifications to

allow the use of the Westinghouse

Electric Corporation sleeving process for

repairing steam generator tubes.

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.
19970 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 77 / Friday, April 21, 1995 / Notices

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. The NRC staff

has reviewed the licensee’s analysis

against the standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c).

The staff’s review is presented below:

1. The proposed amendment would

not involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of an

accident previously evaluated. With the

sleeve dimensions, materials, and

connecting joints to the existing tube

designed to the applicable ASME Boiler

and Pressure Vessel Code, the proposed

sleeving repair acts as an in-kind

substitution for the original steam

generator tubing. The applicable design

criteria for the sleeves conform to the

stress limits and margins of Section III

of the ASME Code. Safety factors of 3

for normal operation and 1.5 for

accident conditions were applied to the

design. Mechanical testing using the

ASME Code stress allowables has been

performed in support of the design.

Based on the results of vendor analytical

and test programs, the sleeves fulfill

their intended function as leak tight

structural members and meet or exceed

all design criteria.

Evaluation of the proposed sleeved

tubes indicates no detrimental effects on

the sleeve or sleeve-tube assembly from

reactor system flow, thermal conditions

or transients, or pressure conditions or

transients as may be experienced at the

Maine Yankee plant. Field experience

and corrosion testing of sleeve-tube

assemblies indicate acceptable primary

and secondary corrosion performance of

the sleeve and parent tube under

anticipated service conditions.

Installation of the proposed sleeves

(joined at the top by laser welding, and

at the bottom by mechanical means) is

controlled via the sleeving vendor’s

proprietary process and equipment.

This process has been in use since 1989

for the installation of approximately

12,000 laser welded sleeves. The Maine

Yankee steam generator design was

reviewed and found to be compatible

with the installation process and

equipment. Installation of the proposed

sleeves will have no significant effect on

either plant configuration or operation.

The licensee therefore concludes that

implementation of the proposed change

will not involve a significant increase in

the probability or consequences of an

accident previously evaluated.

2. The proposed amendment would

not create the possibility of a new or

different kind of accident from any

accident previously evaluated. As

discussed above, the structural integrity,

thermal characteristics, and material

properties of the proposed sleeves are

consistent with Maine Yankee’s steam

generators. Therefore, the functions of

the steam generators will not be

significantly affected by installation of

the proposed sleeves. In addition, the

proposed sleeves do not interact with

any other plant systems. Finally, the

continued integrity of installed sleeves

is periodically verified by steam

generator inspections required by plant

Technical Specifications. The licensee

therefore concludes that

implementation of the proposed change

will not create a new or different kind

of accident from any accident

previously evaluated.

3. The proposed amendment would

not involve a significant reduction in a

margin of safety.

Repair of degraded steam generator

tubes via the use of the proposed sleeves

has been confirmed to restore the

structural integrity of faulted tubes

under normal operating and postulated

accident conditions. The design safety

factors used for the sleeves are

consistent with ASME Code safety

factors required in the design of Maine

Yankee’s steam generators. The repair

limit for the proposed sleeves is

consistent with that established for

Maine Yankee’s steam generators. The

design of the sleeve-to-tube joint has

been verified by testing to preclude

significant leakage during normal and

postulated accident conditions. Use of

the previously identified design safety

factors and design verification testing

assures that margin to safety with

respect to installation of the proposed

sleeves is not significantly different

from the original steam generator tubes.

The licensee therefore concludes that

implementation of the proposed change

would not involve a significant

reduction in a margin of safety.

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 Administration, 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 May 22, 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
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 77 / Friday, April 21, 1995 / Notices 19971

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

Building, 2120 L Street, NW.,

Washington, DC, and at the local public

document room located at the Wiscasset

Public Library, High Street, P.O. Box

367, Wiscasset, ME 04578. 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 petitioner shall file a

supplement to the petition to intervene

which must include 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 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.

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 Phillip

F. McKee: 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 Mary Ann Lynch,

Esquire, Maine Yankee Atomic Power

Company, 329 Bath Road, Brunswick,

ME 04011, 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 April 14, 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

Wiscasset Public Library, High Street,

P.O. Box 367, Wiscasset, ME 04578.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day

of April 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Edouard H. Trottier,

Project Manager, Project Directorate I–3,

Division of Reactor Projects—I/II, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–9894 Filed 4–20–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

[Release No. 34–35613; File No. SR–DTC–

95–06]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The

Depository Trust Company; Notice of

Filing of a Proposed Rule Change

Seeking to Modify the Same-Day

Funds Settlement System to

Accommodate the Overall Conversion

to Same-Day Funds Settlement for

Securities Transactions

April 17, 1995.

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

Securities Exchange Act of 1934

(‘‘Act’’),1 notice is hereby given that on

March 22, 1995, The Depository Trust

Company (‘‘DTC’’) filed with the

Securities and Exchange Commission

(‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule

change (File No. SR–DTC–95–06) as

described in Items I, II, and III below,

which items have been prepared

primarily by DTC. The Commission is

publishing this notice to solicit

comments on the proposed rule change

from interested persons.