30924 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 18, 1996 / Notices

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–133, 50–275, AND 50–323]

Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1

and 2 and Humboldt Bay Power Plant

Unit 3 Pacific Gas and Electric

Company; Environmental Assessment

and Finding of No Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering approval under 10 CFR

50.80(a) of the transfer of control of the

licenses that would be effected by the

corporate restructuring of Pacific Gas

and Electric Company (the licensee),

holder of Facility Operating Licenses

Nos. DPR–80, DPR–82, and DPR–7,

issued for operation of the Diablo

Canyon Nuclear Power Plant (DCPP),

Units 1 and 2, located in San Luis

Obispo County, California, and the

Humboldt Bay Power Plant (HBPP),

Unit 3, located in Humboldt County,

California.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

The proposed action would consent to

the transfer of control of the licenses

that would result from the restructuring

of Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) by

establishment of a holding company

under the temporary name ‘‘PG&E

Parent Co., Inc.’’ PG&E would become a

wholly owned subsidiary and would

continue to be the licensee of Diablo

Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1

and 2, and Humboldt Bay Power Plant

Unit 3. The proposed action is in

accordance with PG&E’s application

dated November 1, 1995.

The Need for the Proposed Action

The proposed action is required to

enable PG&E to restructure as described

above. PG&E has submitted that

restructuring will enable it to better

prepare to implement changes resulting

from electric industry restructuring, and

will enhance the insulation of PG&E’s

California utility business, including the

DCPP and HBPP units, from any

business risks associated with nonutility enterprises.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The Commission has completed its

evaluation of the proposed corporate

restructuring and concludes that there

will be no physical or operational

changes to Diablo Canyon and

Humboldt Bay. The corporate

restructuring will not affect the

qualifications or organizational

affiliation of the personnel who operate

the facilities, as PG&E will continue to

be responsible for the operation of the

Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant,

Units 1 and 2 and Humboldt Bay Power

Plant Unit 3.

The Commission has evaluated the

environmental impact of the proposed

action and has determined that the

probability or consequences of accidents

would not be increased by the

restructuring, and that post-accident

radiological releases would not be

greater than previously determined.

Further, the Commission has

determined that the corporate

restructuring would not affect routine

radiological plant effluents and would

not increase occupational radiological

exposure. Accordingly, the Commission

concludes that there are no significant

radiological environmental impacts

associated with the proposed action.

With regard to potential

nonradiological impacts, the

restructuring would not affect

nonradiological plant effluents and

would have no other environmental

impact. Therefore, the Commission

concludes that there are no significant

nonradiological environmental impacts

associated with the proposed action.

Alternative to the Proposed Action

Since the Commission concluded that

there are no significant environmental

effects that would result from the

proposed action, any alternative with

equal or greater environmental impacts

need not be evaluated.

The principal alternative would be to

deny the requested action. Denial of the

application would result in no change

in current environmental impacts. The

environmental impacts of the proposed

action and the alternative action are

identical.

Alternative Use of Resources

This action does not involve the use

of any resources not previously

considered in the Final Environmental

Statements for the Diablo Canyon Power

Plant, dated May 1973, and the

Humboldt Bay Power Plant, dated April

1987.

Agencies and Persons Contacted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on May 17, 1996, the staff consulted

with the California State official, Mr.

Steve Hsu of the Radiologic Health

Branch of the State Department of

Health Services, regarding the

environmental impact of the proposed

action. The State official had no

comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

Based upon the environmental

assessment, the Commission concludes

that the proposed action will not have

a significant effect on the quality of the

human environment. Accordingly, the

Commission has determined not to

prepare an environmental impact

statement for the proposed action.

For further details with respect to the

proposed action, see the licensee’s letter

dated November 1, 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 rooms located at the

Humboldt County Library, 1313 3rd

Street, Eureka, California 95501, and at

the California Polytechnic State

University, Robert E. Kennedy Library,

Government Documents and Maps

Department, San Luis Obispo, California

93407.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day

of June 1996.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Steven D. Bloom,

Project Manager, Project Directorate IV–2,

Division of Reactor Projects III/IV, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 96–15399 Filed 6–17–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

Nuclear Safety Research Review

Committee

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of change of meeting.

As previously announced, the Nuclear

Safety Research Review Committee

(NSRRC) will hold its next meeting on

June 27–28, 1996. The purpose of the

present notice is to provide a revised

schedule, reflecting a change in meeting

location and a change in the list of

meeting topics. The location of the

meeting will now be in Room T–10A1,

Two White Flint North (TWFN)

Building, 11545 Rockville Pike,

Rockville, MD. The meeting will still be

held from 9am to 5pm on both days.

The revised list of topics is as follows:

(1) To discuss the March 27, 1996

NSRRC briefing with the Commission;

(2) To receive a presentation by the

Nuclear Energy Institute on their views

on nuclear safety research needs; and

(3) To review and discuss the reports

and recommendations of the

Subcommittees on Research in Support

of Risk-Based Regulation (PRA),

including discussions on risk informed

performance-based regulation;

Instrumentation and Control (I&C) and
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 18, 1996 / Notices 30925

Human Factors; and Subcommittee on

Accident Analysis.

Any inquiries regarding this notice or

any subsequent changes in the status

and schedule of the meeting, may be

made to the Designated Federal Officer,

Dr. Jose Luis M. Cortez (telephone: 301–

415–6596), between 8:15 am and 5:00

pm.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 12th day

of June, 1996.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Andrew L. Bates,

Federal Advisory Committee Management

Officer.

[FR Doc. 96–15396 Filed 6–17–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

Nuclear Safety Research Review

Committee (NSRRC); Meeting of the

Materials and Engineering

Subcommittee

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

The Materials and Engineering

Subcommittee will hold a meeting on

June 26, 1996. The meeting will take

place, starting at 9:00 a.m., in room T–

2B1, Two White Flint North (TWFN)

Building, 11545 Rockville Pike,

Rockville, MD and will be open to

public attendance.

The Materials and Engineering

Subcommittee will review the general

nuclear safety research activities of the

Division of Engineering Technology,

including:

• Recent research activities in the

area of reactor pressure vessel integrity

including developments in the vessel

thermal annealing demonstration

program,

• Progress in the research program on

the equipment qualification of electric

cables,

• Steam generator tube integrity

activities,

• Assessment of degraded structures

and components,

• Generic Safety Issues, and

• Other items of interest to the

Subcommittee.

A detailed agenda will be made

available at the meeting. 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 NSRRC Subcommittee

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 Subcommittee may

exchange preliminary views regarding

matters to be considered during the

balance of the meeting. The

Subcommittee will then hear

presentations by and hold discussions

with representatives of the NRC staff

regarding the topics to be discussed.

Further information regarding topics

to be covered, the rescheduling and/or

cancellation of meeting sessions, and

the Chairman’s ruling on requests for

the opportunity to present oral

statements and the time allotted for

discussion can be obtained by a

telephone call to Dr. Jose Luis M. Cortez

(telephone 301/415–6596) between 9:00

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: June 10, 1996.

Jose Luis M. Cortez,

Senior Research Program Coordinator, Office

of Nuclear Regulatory Research.

[FR Doc. 96–15401 Filed 6–17–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

[Docket Nos. 50–528, 50–529, 50–530]

Arizona Public Service Company (Palo

Verde Nuclear Generating Station)

(License Nos. NPF–41, NPF–51, NPF–

74); Issuance of Director’s Decision

Under 10 CFR 2.206

A Petition was filed by Thomas J.

Saporito, Jr. (Petitioner), in accordance

with 10 CFR 2.206 on May 12, 1993.

The Petition requested that the NRC: (1)

Institute a show cause proceeding

pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202 to modify,

suspend, or revoke Arizona Public

Service (APS) Company’s operating

licenses for Palo Verde Nuclear

Generating Station (Palo Verde); (2)

initiate actions to shut down Palo

Verde; (3) take escalated enforcement

action against APS, including the

issuance of civil penalties against APS

and/or licensee management personnel

at Palo Verde; and (4) survey Palo Verde

employees to gauge the chilling effect

that may exist and whether the

licensee’s actions were effective in

limiting the chilling effect. On May 28,

1993, Petitioner forwarded a New Times

article to the NRC as a supplement to

this petition. On October 26, 1993,

Petitioner supplemented the May 12,

1993 Petition to include a copy of an

October 23, 1993 discrimination

complaint filed by the Petitioner with

the Department of Labor against APS

and The Atlantic Group (TAG). In the

October 26, 1993 supplement, Petitioner

reiterated his earlier request for action

and additionally requested escalated

enforcement action against TAG and

against any of its employees who are

found to have engaged in wrongdoing.

Another Petition was filed by

Petitioner on January 15, 1994. This

Petition, which has been treated as a

supplement to the May 12, 1993

Petition: (1) Reiterated the requests for

escalated enforcement action against

APS that were made in the May 12,

1993 Petition; (2) requested that APS be

required to provide a make-whole

remedy for Petitioner for terminating

Petitioner and failing to rehire him as a

result of Petitioner’s engaging in

protected activities; and (3) requested

that APS be required to abate and

obviate the chilling effect at APS arising

from the failure to provide the Petitioner

with employee protections afforded

under 10 CFR 50.7.

As the bases for the May 12, 1993

request, Petitioner asserted that: (1) A

Department of Labor (DOL)

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled

that APS discriminated against

Petitioner; (2) the DOL case is evidence

that ‘‘the licensee appears to have

violated numerous NRC requirements

regarding operation of the Palo Verde

nuclear station; and (3) licensee

managers have made questionable if not

false statements to the NRC regarding

the emergency lighting at Palo Verde.

Petitioner’s October 26, 1993

supplement to the original Petition

bases the request for action on

Petitioner’s October 23, 1993 complaint

filed with DOL and the ruling in favor

of Ms. Sarah C. Thomas against APS.

Petitioner’s January 15, 1994

supplement to the original Petition

bases the request for action on the

admission by one of the witnesses at the

Petitioner’s DOL hearing that the

witness lied under oath, as evidence of

APS’ intent to discriminate against

Petitioner and that the discriminatory

treatment of Petitioner has caused a

chilling effect on other employees at

Palo Verde.

Another Petition was filed by

Petitioner and Florida Energy

Consultants (Petitioners) on May 27,

1994. This Petition: (1) Reiterated the

request for a show cause proceeding,

and further requested that the NRC: (2)

issue a notice of violation against the

Licensee for continuing to employ TAG

as a labor contractor at Palo Verde; (3)

investigate alleged material false

statements made by William F. Conway,

Executive Vice President at Palo Verde,