Notices. Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for license amendment

9,326 words·~42 min read·/register/2005/08/12/05-16034

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 7555-01-M NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 50-301] Nuclear Management Company, LLC; Notice of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Commission) has issued Amendment No. 225 to Facility Operating License No. DPR-27 issued to Nuclear Management Company, LLC (the licensee), which modified the Point Beach Nuclear Plant (PBNP), Unit 2, Final Safety Analysis Report to include a reactor vessel head drop accident for operation of the PBNP, Unit 2, located in Two Rivers, WI. The amendment is effective as of the date of issuance. The amendment authorized changes to the design basis and Final Safety Analysis Report

(FSAR)related to a postulated reactor vessel head drop accident in accordance with 10 CFR 50.71(e). The application for the amendment complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License and Opportunity for a Hearing in connection with this action was published in the **Federal Register** on May 13, 2005 (70 FR 25621). For further details with respect to this action see

(1)the application for amendment dated April 29, 2005, as supplemented by letters dated May 13, May 19, June 1, June 4, June 9, June 20, and June 23, 2005,

(2)Amendment No. 225 to License No. DPR-301, and

(3)the Commission's related Safety Evaluation dated June 24, 2005. The Commission made a final no significant hazards consideration determination in its Safety Evaluation dated June 24, 2005. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21,11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html* . Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC Public Document Room Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day of June 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Harold K. Chernoff, Sr. Project Manager, Section 1, Project Directorate III, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E5-4374 Filed 8-11-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [IA-05-031] In the Matter of Stanley Pitts; Order Prohibiting Involvement in NRC-Licensed Activities (Effective Immediately) I Stanley Pitts (Mr. Pitts) was formerly employed as a fully qualified technician and authorized nuclear gauge operator by Professional Inspection and Testing Services, Inc. (Licensee) of Chambersburg, Pennsylvania. Professional Inspection and Testing Services, Inc., holds License No. 37-28744-01 issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission pursuant to 10 CFR part 30 on August 4, 1999. The license authorized the possession and use of cesium-137 and americium-241 sealed sources to be used in portable gauging devices in accordance with the conditions specified therein. II On April 7, 2004, the Licensee reported to the NRC that a Troxler Model 3430 moisture/density gauge (Serial No. 75-5183) containing 9 mCi of cesium-137 and 44 mCi of americium-241 (NRC-licensed radioactive material) was unaccounted for and considered stolen by an employee/authorized user, (namely, Mr. Pitts) who was performing work at a temporary job site in Prince George's County, Maryland. This nuclear gauge, along with other licensee property, was last known to have been used by Mr. Pitts on March 25, 2004. The gauge was recovered in Bladensburg, Maryland by police on April 15, 2004, in an apartment formerly occupied by Mr. Pitts. Neither the licensee nor the police were able to locate Mr. Pitts and an arrest warrant was issued regarding the theft of company property that belonged to Professional Inspection and Testing Services, Inc. As of the date of this Order, Mr. Pitts remains a fugitive with an outstanding arrest warrant. The NRC Office of Investigations

(OI)conducted an investigation into the reported loss of the nuclear gauge. OI Report No. 1-2004-027 was issued on February 9, 2005. Information developed during that investigation verified that Mr. Pitts was authorized by the Licensee to use their licensed moisture/density gauges until April 2, 2004, when his employment was terminated by the Licensee. Based on the evidence developed during the investigation, the NRC concluded that Mr. Pitts possessed the nuclear gauge for a period of approximately 13 days after April 2, 2004, when he was no longer employed by the Licensee and was not authorized by the Licensee nor licensed by the NRC as required under 10 CFR part 30. Additionally, Mr. Pitts did not maintain control of the nuclear gauge resulting in the loss of NRC licensed radioactive material in the public domain for approximately twenty-one days. III Based on the above, the NRC concludes that Mr. Pitts, a former employee of the Licensee, deliberately violated 10 CFR 30.3 when he apparently had stolen and illegally possessed the portable gauging device containing licensed radioactive material that belonged to Professional Inspection and Testing Services, Inc. 10 CFR 30.3 requires that no person shall manufacture, produce, transfer, receive, acquire, own, possess, or use byproduct material except as authorized in a specific or general license. The NRC must be able to rely on its licensees, and employees of licensees, to comply with NRC requirements, including the requirement that licensed material cannot be acquired, possessed or transferred without a specific or general license. The deliberate violation of 10 CFR 30.3 by Mr. Pitts, as discussed above, has raised serious doubt as to whether he can be relied upon to comply with NRC requirements in the future. Consequently, I lack the requisite reasonable assurance that licensed activities can be conducted in compliance with the Commission's requirements and that the health and safety of the public will be protected if Mr. Pitts were permitted at this time to be involved in NRC-licensed activities. Therefore, the public health, safety and interest require that Mr. Pitts be prohibited from any involvement in NRC-licensed activities for a period of five

(5)years from the date of this Order. Furthermore, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, I find that the significance of Mr. Pitts's conduct described above is such that the public health, safety and interest require that this Order be immediately effective. IV Accordingly, pursuant to sections 81, 161b, 161i, 161o, 182 and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202, 10 CFR 30.10, and 10 CFR 150.20, *it is hereby ordered, effective immediately, that:* 1. Stanley Pitts is prohibited for five

(5)years from the date of this Order from engaging in NRC-licensed activities. NRC-licensed activities are those activities that are conducted pursuant to a specific or general license issued by the NRC, including, but not limited to, those activities of Agreement State licensees conducted pursuant to the authority granted by 10 CFR 150.20. 2. If Mr. Pitts is currently involved in NRC-licensed activities, he must immediately cease those activities, and inform the NRC of the name, address and telephone number of the employer, and provide a copy of this order to the employer. 3. Subsequent to expiration of the five year prohibition, Mr. Stanley Pitts shall, for the next five years and within 20 days of acceptance of his first employment offer involving NRC-licensed activities or his becoming involved in NRC-licensed activities, as defined in Paragraph IV.1 above, provide notice to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, of the name, address, and telephone number of the employer or entity where he is, or will be, involved in the NRC-licensed activities. In the notification, Stanley Pitts shall include a statement of his commitment to compliance with regulatory requirements and the basis why the Commission should have confidence that he will now comply with applicable NRC requirements. The Director, Office of Enforcement, may, in writing, relax or rescind any of the above conditions upon demonstration by Mr. Pitts of good cause. V In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, Stanley Pitts must, and any other person adversely affected by this Order may, submit an answer to this Order, and may request a hearing on this Order, within 20 days of the date of this Order. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the time to request a hearing. A request for extension of time must be made in writing to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and include a statement of good cause for the extension. The answer may consent to this Order. Unless the answer consents to this Order, the answer shall, in writing and under oath or affirmation, specifically admit or deny each allegation or charge made in this Order and shall set forth the matters of fact and law on which Mr. Pitts or other person adversely affected relies and the reasons as to why the Order should not have been issued. Any answer or request for a hearing shall be submitted to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Attn: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, Washington, DC 20555. Copies also shall be sent to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, to the Assistant General Counsel for Materials Litigation and Enforcement at the same address, to the Regional Administrator, NRC Region I, 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, and to Mr. Pitts if the answer or hearing request is by a person other than Mr. Pitts. Because of continuing disruptions in delivery of mail to United States Government offices, it is requested that answers and requests for hearing be transmitted to the Secretary of the Commission either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-1101 or by e-mail to *hearingdocket@nrc.gov* and also to the Office of the General Counsel either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725 or by e-mail to *OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov.* If a person other than Mr. Pitts requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his interest is adversely affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.309. If a hearing is requested by Mr. Pitts or a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of any hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained. Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(I), Mr. Pitts, may, in addition to demanding a hearing, at the time the answer is filed or sooner, move the presiding officer to set aside the immediate effectiveness of the Order on the ground that the Order, including the need for immediate effectiveness, is not based on adequate evidence but on mere suspicion, unfounded allegations, or error. In the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the provisions specified in Section IV above shall be final 20 days from the date of this Order without further order or proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has been approved, the provisions specified in Section IV shall be final when the extension expires if a hearing request has not been received. An answer or a request for hearing shall not stay the immediate effectiveness of this order. Dated this 2nd day of August, 2005. For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Martin J. Virgilio, Deputy Executive Director for Materials, Research, State and Compliance Programs. [FR Doc. E5-4373 Filed 8-11-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 030-05626] Notice of Environmental Assessment Related to the Issuance of a License Amendment to Byproduct Material License No. 34-00507-16, for the National Aeronautics And Space Administration, Cleveland, OH AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for license amendment. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George M. McCann, Senior Health Physicist, Decommissioning Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region III, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2443 Warrenville Road, Lisle, Illinois 60532-4352; telephone:

(630)829-9856; or by e-mail at *gmm@nrc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC)is considering the issuance of an amendment to NRC materials license No. 34-00507-16 to allow the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the licensee, to temporarily store seven activated control rods containing cadmium in a commercially available on-site storage container on an outdoor storage pad located at its Plum Brook Station, a federal reservation, in Sandusky, Ohio. The NRC has prepared an Environmental Assessment

(EA)in support of this action in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR part 51. Based on the EA, the NRC has determined that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate. II. Environmental Assessment Background The licensee submitted a license amendment to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC)by letter dated December 15, 2004 (ADAMS Accession No. ML043560196). The licensee requested that the NRC approve the temporary storage of seven activated control rods containing cadmium in two commercially available “on-site storage containers” (one inside the other) on an outdoor pad, located at its Plum Brook Station in Sandusky, Ohio. The control rods are from the licensee's former Plum Brook Research Reactor facility, which is currently undergoing decommissioning. The NRC is considering the issuance of an amendment to the licensee's John H. Glenn Research Center materials license 34-00507-16, which currently authorizes NASA to possess byproduct materials for research and development activities at its research facilities, which are also located at the Plum Brook Station Federal Reservation. If approved by the NRC, the licensee will be authorized to possess, for temporary storage, the activated control rods in commercially available on site storage containers on an outdoor pad. The NRC has prepared an Environmental Assessment

(EA)in support of this licensing action in accordance with the requirements of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” The EA was developed to provide sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement or Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). Based on the results of the EA, the NRC has determined that a FONSI is appropriate. Proposed Action The proposed action is to grant an amendment to license No. 34-00507-16 that would allow the licensee to store the activated control rods in two commercially available on-site storage containers (one inside the other) on an outdoor storage pad in accordance with 10 CFR part 30, “Rules of General Applicability to Domestic Licensing of Byproduct Material,” and 10 CFR part 20, “Standards for Protection Against Radiation,” and related NRC guidance documents. The NASA John H. Glenn Research Center currently possesses two NRC reactor licenses (TR-3 and R-93), and one byproduct materials license authorizing activities at the Plum Brook Station facility. The licensee proposes to transfer possession of the activated control rods from the reactor license to the byproduct materials license. The responsibility for storage and oversight of the control rods will remain with NASA, but will be transferred to the NASA John H. Glenn Research Center's byproduct material license. The Need for the Proposed Action The licensee is requesting this license amendment for the temporary storage of the activated rods to facilitate the decommissioning of its Plum Brook Reactor Facility, which was shutdown in 1973. The licensee's decommissioning plan for the Plum Brook Reactor Facility was approved by the NRC on March 20, 2002 (ADAMS Accession No. ML020390069). The licensee is required by license condition to complete decommissioning of the reactor site by December 31, 2007. The licensee must conduct remedial action status surveys to ensure that the contaminated material has been removed to levels consistent with limits for unrestricted release specified in 10 CFR part 20 subpart E, “Radiological Criteria for License Termination,” section 20.1401, “General Provisions and Scope” which limits the total dose for unrestricted release to 25 millirem per year. After the Commission verifies that the release criteria have been met, the reactor license will be terminated. However, the licensee has determined that the activated rods are categorized as a “Class C” waste per 10 CFR 61.55, “Waste Classification,” based upon their radiological composition. The presence of the cadmium modifies the waste categorization to a “Mixed Class C” waste, and currently there are no disposal sites commercially available for such wastes. Thus, the continued presence of the activated control rods on the Plum Brook Reactor Facility site could prevent NASA from meeting the December 31, 2007, completion date. Alternatives to the Proposed Action There are two possible alternatives to the proposed action of allowing the on-site transfer of the control rods between the two NASA licenses at the Plum Brook Station. The first option is no action, and the second is to have the cadmium separated from the activated stainless steel with the endpoint being a Class C waste that would not be classified as a toxic waste. The licensee indicated in a letter dated May 25, 2005 (ADAMS Accession No. ML051930478), that the licensee did not think it was necessary to continue pursuing this reprocessing pathway, which would be costly, and the outcome of which would be uncertain. Rather, the licensee believes that it is in the best interest of the government to transfer the control rods to one of the appropriate U.S. Department of Energy

(DOE)disposal sites, once they become available. Under the no-action alternative, the rods would remain under the authority of NASA's NRC reactor license. Denial of the license amendment request would result in no change to current conditions at the facility. Neither of the alternatives are acceptable because they could result in the licensee being in violation of its NRC reactor license, which requires the licensee to decommission its Plum Brook Reactor Facility by December 31, 2007. The alternatives would also impose an unnecessary regulatory burden and limit potential benefits from future use of the former reactor site. Also, as discussed below, there are minimal, if any, effects from the proposed action to establish the temporary interim storage area. Thus, the alternatives are not considered reasonable or cost effective, and they are not addressed any further in this environmental assessment. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The objective of the temporary storage pad is to accommodate and ensure continued decommissioning of a former NASA reactor site. The presence of the activated control rods could delay termination of the reactor license. The movement of the rods from the reactor site for storage in a commercially available on-site storage container on the temporary pad is considered an interim measure, and NASA is required by license commitments (see, *e.g.* letter dated May 25, 2005 (ADAMS Accession No. ML051930478)), and NRC license condition, to find an appropriate disposal site as expeditiously as possible, but no later than the year 2010. The storage of the control rods will not involve any physical or chemical work, which could damage or change the integrity of the solid metal control rods. The licensee's license also does not authorize any processing or destructive work on the control rods in any way, such that under normal conditions radioactive materials will not be released. The 6400 acres that comprise the Plum Brook Station Federal Reservation are surrounded by a ten-feet high chain-link fence with barbed wire. The federal reservation can be accessed only through guarded gates. The site also possesses an on-site security force. The temporary rod storage pad is located to the south of the Plum Brook Station's Building 9209, Shipping and Receiving Building, in the “Excess Materials Storage Yard.” This storage yard is surrounded by a chain-link security fence. Both the Excess Materials Storage Yard and the on-site storage container can be accessed only by designated persons with keys to locked gates. The concrete storage pad is 18 inches thick, and 17 feet square, and is surrounded by its own 8 feet high and 24 feet square chain-link security fence. The on-site storage container was manufactured by Dufrane Nuclear Shielding, Inc., and is identified as a “Secure Environmental Container,” Model 8-120-H. The seven activated control rods, which weigh 45 pounds each, will be placed in a commercially available polyethylene high integrity container, manufactured by Dufrane, Model OP-246, and will be placed in the on-site storage container. The pad site was selected and evaluated by a NASA Senior Project Engineer (Professional Engineer). The location chosen is a gravel-covered yard, which has been used as a large equipment lay down area since the 1960s. The Senior Project Engineer evaluated the pad and the effects of the loading of the commercially available on-site storage container on it to ascertain whether the pad could adequately hold the weight without detrimental shifting or sinking. The Senior Project Engineer, in a February 16, 2005, memorandum (ADAMS Accession No. ML052130172), certified “that the soil and concrete pad can accommodate the weight of the secure environmental container for the foreseeable storage period.” The activated control rods are constructed primarily of stainless steel, with some cadmium. The radiological activation constituents of the rods were identified as: hydrogen-3, carbon-14, iron-55, nickel-59, cobalt-60, nickel-63, niobium-94, and technetium-99. The on-site storage container offers at least five inches of lead equivalent shielding. The dose rates on contact with the on-site storage container are estimated to be approximately ten millirem per hour. The perimeter fence around the on-site storage container was placed at a distance, based on radiation dose projections, such that the need for controlling access to areas around the on-site storage container for radiation protection purposes is not necessary. The licensee determined, using a computer radiation shielding modeling program, that the estimated dose rate at the perimeter fence will be well below the two millirem in any one hour limit as specified in 10 CFR part 20, subpart D, “Radiation Dose Limits for Individual Members of the Public.” The NRC staff also considered potential impacts on air quality, groundwater, and surface water runoff. The radioactive materials will be monitored and controlled by implementation of the NRC-approved radiation protection program, along with a license restriction which precludes physical work on the activated control rods. Together with the limitation of on-site storage in a commercially designed shielded secure environmental container in an access-controlled storage area, these controls provide assurance that the radioactive materials will not have any impacts on air quality, groundwater, or surface water runoff. The NRC staff has also considered other resources not impacted, such as transportation, potential noise, or socioeconomic effects. Again, based on the small size of the storage area, the limited handling of the control rods, NASA's ongoing industrial and research operations, and previous use of the facility at the site of the proposed action, potential noise, socioeconomic, or transportation effects are considered unlikely. Therefore, no further consideration for these areas is considered necessary. The licensee will utilize an area that is currently being used for storage of construction and industrial material and the area is of small size (17 feet square), and there is no processing of radioactive materials. Physical barriers will be in place to prevent the release of radioactive material into the environment. These barriers would also prevent wildlife access. Therefore, NRC staff has determined that the proposed action will not affect listed species or critical habitats. Conclusion The staff has examined the licensee's request and the information provided in support of its request, which included security, audits, environmental impacts on the storage container, and the dose modeling data performed to demonstrate compliance with radiation protection criteria for persons working in and around the storage area. Based on its review of the specific proposed activities associated with the transfer of the control rods from the authority of the John H. Glenn Research Center's Plum Brook Reactor Facility license to the John H. Glenn Research Center's byproduct material license No. 34-00507-16, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed action will not increase the probability or consequences of accidents, no changes are being made in the types of any effluents that may be released off site, and there is no significant increase in occupational or public radiation exposure. Therefore, there are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. Agencies and Persons Contacted The NRC staff has determined that the proposed action will not affect listed species or critical habitats. Therefore, no further consultation is required under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Likewise, the NRC staff has determined that the proposed action is not a type of activity that has potential to cause effect on historic properties. Therefore, consultation under section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act is not required. The NRC consulted with the Ohio Department of Health, Bureau of Radiation Protection. The Ohio Department of Health was provided the draft EA for comment on July 13, 2005. The State responded back to the NRC on July 18, 2005, and indicated the following: “Provided all license conditions and commitments remain intact, the Ohio Department of Health, Bureau of Radiation Protection concurs with the NRC's Finding of No Significant Impact from the Environmental Assessment related to the issuance of a license amendment to NASA's byproduct material license No. 34-00507-16.” The NRC staff did not make any deletions to the NASA's license, but did add the following license condition, “The licensee will continue to take all actions within its ability to dispose of its material and notify NRC within 30 days if disposal is achieved.” III. Finding of No Significant Impact Pursuant to 10 CFR part 51, the NRC staff has considered the environmental consequences of the proposed action to allow the licensee to amend its license for the temporary storage of the activated control rods. On the basis of this EA, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action. IV. Further Information A copy of this document will be available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records

(PARS)component of the NRC's document system. From this site, you can access the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. The following references are available for inspection at NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html* (the Public Electronic Reading Room). 1. Blotzer, Michael J., NASA letter to the NRC dated September 8, 2004, “requesting license amendment for possession and storage of seven control rods from the Plum Brook Research Reactor (ADAMS Accession No. ML042590171).” 2. Kortes, Trudy E., NEPA Program Manager, NASA Glenn Research Center, email dated March 3, 2005, “PRBF Rod Storage/NEPA issue” (ADAMS Accession No. ML052130148). 3. Blasio, Chris, Radiation Safety Officer, John H. Glenn Research Center, NASA, facsimile to NRC dated March 21, 2005, “Maintenance Plan and PE letter for OSSC holding control rods” (ADAMS Accession No. ML052130155). 4. NRC Telephone Conversation record dated April 27, 2005, documenting call with Christopher Blasio, Radiation Safety Officer, John H. Glenn Research Center, “Request for Additional Information Regarding Request for a Possession Only License Authorization for Activated Cadmium Control Rods on a Temporary Storage Pad” (ADAMS Accession No. ML052130155). 5. McCann, George M., Senior Health Physicist, Decommissioning Branch, Division of Nuclear Material Safety, NRC Region III, email dated April 29, 2005, “Additional Information (Regarding pad and Microshield data)” (ADAMS Accession No. ML052130213). 6. Blasio, Christopher, Radiation Safety Officer, John H. Glenn Research Center, NASA, e-mail dated May 6, 2005, “Additional Information (1. Pad design, 2. Microshield calculations, and 3. Updated/survey sheet for On Site Storage Container)” (ADAMS Accession No. ML052130217). 7. Blasio, Christopher J., Radiation Safety Officer, NASA John H. Glenn Research Center, letter dated May 25, 2005, “Resubmission of additional information to Control No. 314017, Docket No. 030-05626 (ADAMS Accession No. ML051930478).” 8. NRC, NUREG-1748, “Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated With NMSS Programs,” July 2003. 9. NRC, NUREG-1757, “Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance,” Volumes 1-3, September 2003. 10. NRC, Policy and Guidance Directive

(PG)1-27, Revision 0, “Reviewing Requests to Convert Active Licenses to Possession-Only Licenses,” February 22, 2000. 11. NRC, Policy and Guidance Directive, PG-9-12, “Reviewing Efforts to Dispose of Licensed Material and Requesting DOE Assistance.” If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room

(PDR)reference staff at

(800)397-4209,

(301)415-4737 or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* Documents may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's PDR, O 1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Dated in Lisle, Illinois, this 5th day of August 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Jamnes L. Cameron, Chief, Decommissioning Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region III. [FR Doc. E5-4372 Filed 8-11-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Proposed Collection; Comment Request Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC 20549. *Extension:* Rule 10A-1; SEC File No. 270-425; OMB Control No. 3235-0468. Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) a request for extension of the previously approved collection of information discussed below. Rule 10A-1 implements the reporting requirements in Section 10A of the Exchange Act, which was enacted by Congress on December 22, 1995 as part of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Public Law No. 104-67. Under section 10A and Rule 10A-1 reporting occurs only if a registrant's board of directors receives a report from its auditors that

(1)There is an illegal act material to the registrant's financial statements,

(2)senior management and the board have not taken timely and appropriate remedial action, and

(3)the failure to take such action is reasonably expected to warrant the auditor's modification of the audit report or resignation from the audit engagement. The board of directors must notify the Commission within one business day of receiving such a report. If the board fails to provide that notice, then the auditor, within the next business day, must provide the Commission with a copy of the report that it gave to the board. Likely respondents are those registrants filing audited financial statements under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Investment Company Act of 1940. It is estimated that Rule 10A-1 results in an aggregate additional reporting burden of 10 hours per year. The estimated average burden hours are solely for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act and are not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of SEC rules or forms. There are no recordkeeping retention periods in Rule 10A-1. Because of the one business day reporting periods, recordkeeping retention periods should not be significant. Filing the notice or report under Rule 10A-1 is mandatory once the conditions noted above have been satisfied. Because these notices and reports discuss potential illegal acts, they are considered to be investigative records and are kept confidential. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. General comments regarding the above information should be directed to the following persons:

(i)Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 or by e-mail: *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov,* and

(ii)R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief Information Officer, Office of Information Technology, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549. Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice. Dated: August 3, 2005. Margaret H. McFarland, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-4375 Filed 8-11-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Proposed Collection; Comment Request Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC 20549. *Extension:* Rule 15c1-5; SEC File No. 270-422; OMB Control No. 3235-0471. Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) is soliciting comments on the collection of information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this existing collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for extension and approval. Rule 15c1-5 states that any broker-dealer controlled by, controlling, or under common control with the issuer of a security that the broker-dealer is trying to sell to or buy from a customer must give the customer written notification disclosing the control relationship at or before completion of the transaction. The Commission estimates that 360 respondents collect information annually under Rule 15c1-5 and that approximately 3,600 hours would be required annually for these collections. Written comments are invited on:

(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;

(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;

(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(i)the fund's board of directors establishes an audit committee composed solely of independent directors with responsibility for overseeing the fund's accounting and auditing processes, 1

(ii)the fund's board of directors adopts an audit committee charter setting forth the committee's structure, duties, powers and methods of operation, or sets out similar provisions in the fund's charter or bylaws, 2 and

(iii)the fund maintains a copy of such an audit committee charter permanently in an easily accessible place. 3 1 Rule 32a-4(a). 2 Rule 32a-4(b). 3 Rule 32a-4(c). Each fund that chooses to rely on rule 32a-4 incurs two collection of information burdens. The first, related to the board of directors' adoption of the audit committee charter, occurs once, when the committee is established. The second, related to the fund's maintenance and preservation of a copy of the charter in an easily accessible place, is an ongoing annual burden. The information collection requirement in rule 32a-4 enables the Commission to monitor the duties and responsibilities of an independent audit committee formed by a fund relying on the rule. Commission staff estimates that, on average, the board of directors takes 15 minutes to adopt the audit committee charter. Commission staff has estimated that with an average of 8 directors on the board, 4 total director time to adopt the charter is 2 hours. Combined with an estimated 1 hour of paralegal time to prepare the charter for board review, the staff estimates a total one-time collection of information burden of 3 hours for each fund. Once a board adopts an audit committee charter, a fund generally maintains it in a file cabinet or as a computer file. Commission staff has estimated that there is no annual hourly burden associated with maintaining the charter in this form. 5 4 *See* Management Practice Inc. Bulletin: Fund directors pay increases 17% in smaller complexes, 8% in larger

(2003)available at *http://www.mfgovern.com.* 5 No hour burden related to such maintenance of the charter was identified by the funds the Commission staff surveyed. Commission staff understands that many audit committee charters have been significantly revised after their adoption in response to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (Pub. Law 107-204, 116 Stat. 745) and other developments. However, the costs associated with these revisions are not attributable to the requirements of rule 32a-4. Because virtually all funds extant have now adopted audit committee charters, the annual one-time collection of information burden associated with adopting audit committee charters in the future will be limited to the burden incurred by newly established funds. Commission staff estimates that fund sponsors establish approximately 400 new funds each year, 6 and that all of these funds will adopt an audit committee charter in order to rely on rule 32a-4. Thus, Commission staff estimates that the annual one-time hour burden associated with adopting an audit committee charter under rule 32a-4 going forward will be approximately 1200 hours. 7 6 *See* Investment Company Institute (“ICI”), *Mutual Fund Factbook*

(2005)(“ICI 2005 Factbook”), at 9. The total number of funds in the marketplace has remained approximately the same each year for the past three years. Although there has been some variation in the number of funds that are newly established and funds that has ceased operations each year, Commission staff has estimated that the total number of respondents will remain constant. *Id* at 9. 7 This estimate is based on the following calculation: (3.0 burden hours for establishing charter × 400 new funds = 1200 burden hours). As noted above, all funds that rely on rule 32a-4 are subject to the ongoing collection of information requirement to preserve a copy of the charter in an easily accessible place. This ongoing requirement, which Commission staff has estimated has no hourly burden, applies to the 400 new funds that adopt an audit committee charter each year and the 8044 funds that have previously adopted the charter and continue to maintain it. When funds adopt an audit committee charter in order to rely on rule 32a-4, they also may incur one-time costs related to hiring outside counsel to prepare the charter. Commission staff estimates that those costs average approximately $1000 per fund. 8 Commission staff understands that virtually all funds now rely on rule 32a-4 and have adopted audit committee charters, and thus estimates that the annual cost burden related to hiring outside legal counsel will, in the future, be limited to newly established funds. 8 Costs may vary based on the individual needs of each fund. However, based on the staff's conversations with outside counsel that prepare these charters, legal fees related to the preparation and adoption of an audit committee charter usually average $1000 or less. The Commission also understands that the ICI has prepared a model audit committee charter, which most legal professionals use when establishing audit committees, thereby reducing the costs associated with drafting a charter. As noted above, Commission staff estimates that approximately 400 new funds each year will adopt an audit committee charter in order to rely on rule 32a-4, and that an additional 8044 funds will continue to preserve their audit committee charters in order to rely on rule 32a-4. Thus, Commission staff estimates that the ongoing annual cost burden associated with rule 32a-4 in the future will be approximately $400,000. 9 9 This estimate is based on the following calculations: ($1000 cost of adopting charter × 400 newly established funds = $400,000). The estimates of average burden hours and costs are made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and are not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules and forms. 10 10 These estimates are based on telephone interviews between Commission staff and fund representatives. The collections of information required by rule 32a-4 are necessary to obtain the benefits of the rule. The Commission is seeking OMB approval, because an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. Written comments are invited on:

(a)Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information has practical utility;

(b)the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;

(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication. Please direct your written comments to R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief Information Officer, Office of Information Technology, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549. Dated: August 5, 2005 Margaret H. McFarland, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-4378 Filed 8-11-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [File No. 1-31894] Issuer Delisting; Notice of Application of Alestra, S. de R.L. de C.V. To Withdraw Its 8% Senior Notes (Due 2010), From Listing and Registration on the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. August 5, 2005. On July 13, 2005, Alestra, S. de R.L. de C.V., a company organized under the laws of Mexico (“Issuer”), filed an application with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 12(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 12d2-2(d) thereunder, 2 to withdraw its 8% senior notes (due 2010) (“Security”), from listing and registration on the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (“NYSE”). 1 15 U.S.C. 78 *l* (d). 2 17 CFR 240.12d2-2(d). The Board of Directors (“Board”) of the Issuer approved resolutions on April 29, 2005, to withdraw the Security from listing and registration on NYSE. The Issuer stated that the following reasons factored into the Board's decision to withdraw the Security. First, pursuant to the applicable NYSE rules and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the continued listing of the Security requires that the Issuer create an audit committee or qualify a statutory auditor to act as such. Due to the severely limited availability of specialized or otherwise qualified independent directors, domestic and foreign, the novelty of the requirement on Mexican closed-company issuers, and the cost that this would represent for the Issuer, it is not practicable for the Issuer to implement an audit committee. Second, the Security trades in very limited quantities, if at all, on NYSE. The Issuer stated in its application that it has complied with NYSE's rules governing an issuer's voluntary withdrawal of a security from listing and registration by providing NYSE with the required documents governing the removal of securities from listing and registration on NYSE. The Issuer's application relates solely to the withdrawal of the Security from listing on NYSE and from registration under Section 12(b) of the Act, 3 and shall not affect its obligation to be registered under Section 12(g) of the Act. 4 3 15 U.S.C. 78 *l* (b). 4 15 U.S.C. 78 *l* (g). Any interested person may, on or before August 30, 2005, comment on the facts bearing upon whether the application has been made in accordance with the rules of NYSE, and what terms, if any, should be imposed by the Commission for the protection of investors. All comment letters may be submitted by either of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/delist.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include the File Number 1-31894 or; Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303. All submissions should refer to File Number 1-31894. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help us process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/delist.shtml* ). Comments are also available for public inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. All comments received will be posted without change; we do not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. The Commission, based on the information submitted to it, will issue an order granting the application after the date mentioned above, unless the Commission determines to order a hearing on the matter. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 5 5 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(1). Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-4362 Filed 8-11-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [File No. 1-17262] Issuer Delisting; Notice of Application of S.Y. Bancorp, Inc. To Withdraw Its Common Stock, No Par Value, From Listing and Registration on the American Stock Exchange LLC August 5, 2005. On July 8, 2005, S.Y. Bancorp, Inc., a Kentucky corporation (“Issuer”), filed an application with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 12(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 12d2-2(d) thereunder, 2 to withdraw its common stock, no par value (“Security”), from listing and registration on the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex”). 1 15 U.S.C. 78 *l* (d). 2 17 CFR 240.12d2-2(d). On March 15, 2005, the Board of Directors (“Board”) of the Issuer approved a resolution to withdraw the Security from listing and registration on Amex and to list the Security on the Nasdaq National Market (“Nasdaq”). The Issuer stated that moving the Security to Nasdaq is an important part of the Board's plan to gain more visibility for the Issuer, increase liquidity in the Security, and enhance long-term shareholder value. The Issuer stated that the Board believes that Nasdaq's multiple market maker system will help achieve such goals and position the Issuer among other vibrant, innovative companies that are part of Nasdaq. The Issuer stated that it has met the requirements of Amex's rules governing an issuer's voluntary withdrawal of a security from listing and registration by complying with all the applicable laws in effect in Kentucky, in which it is incorporated. The Issuer's application relates solely to the withdrawal of the Security from listing on Amex and from registration under Section 12(b) of the Act, 3 and shall not affect its obligation to be registered under Section 12(g) of the Act. 4 3 15 U.S.C. 78 *1* (b). 4 15 U.S.C. 78 *1* (g). Any interested person may, on or before August 30, 2005, comment on the facts bearing upon whether the application has been made in accordance with the rules of Amex, and what terms, if any, should be imposed by the Commission for the protection of investors. All comment letters may be submitted by either of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/delist.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include the File Number 1-17262 or; Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303. All submissions should refer to File Number 1-17262. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help us process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/delist.shtml* ). Comments are also available for public inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. All comments received will be posted without change; we do not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. The Commission, based on the information submitted to it, will issue an order granting the application after the date mentioned above, unless the Commission determines to order a hearing on the matter. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 5 5 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(1). Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-4363 Filed 8-11-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL Agency Information Collection Activities; Request for Comment AGENCY: Office of Special Counsel. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), and implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 1320, the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC), plans to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for use of a previously approved information collection consisting of a customer survey form. OSC is required by law to conduct an annual survey of those who seek its assistance. The information collection is used to carry out that mandate. The current OMB approval for this collection of information expired on July 31, 2005. Current and former Federal employees, employee representatives, other Federal agencies, state and local government employees, and the general public are invited to comment on this information collection for a second time. The first notification, sent out on April 28, 2005, received no replies. Comments are invited on:

(a)whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of OSC functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(b)the accuracy of OSC's estimate of the burden of the proposed collections of information;

(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. DATES: Comments should be received by September 5, 2005. ADDRESSES: Roderick Anderson, Director of Management and Budget, U.S. Office of Special Counsel, 1730 M Street, N.W., Suite 218, Washington, DC 20036-4505. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roderick Anderson, Director of Management and Budget at the address shown above; by facsimile at

(202)254-3715. The survey form for the collection of information is available for review by calling OSC, or on OSC's Web site, at http://www.osc.gov/reading.htm. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OSC is an independent agency responsible for, among other things,

(1)investigation of allegations of prohibited personnel practices defined by law at 5 U.S.C. 2302(b), protection of whistleblowers, and certain other illegal employment practices under titles 5 and 38 of the U.S. Code, affecting current or former Federal employees or applicants for employment, and covered state and local government employees; and

(2)the interpretation and enforcement of Hatch Act provisions on political activity in chapters 15 and 73 of title 5 of the U.S. Code. OSC is required to conduct an annual survey of individuals who seek its assistance. Section 13 of Public Law 103-424 (1994), codified at 5 U.S.C. 1212 note, states, in part: ``[T]he survey shall--(1) determine if the individual seeking assistance was fully apprised of their rights;

(2)determine whether the individual was successful either at the Office of Special Counsel or the Merit Systems Protection Board; and

(3)determine if the individual, whether successful or not, was satisfied with the treatment received from the Office of Special Counsel.'' The same section also provides that survey results are to be published in OSC's annual report to Congress. Copies of prior years' annual reports are available on OSC's Web site, at http://www.osc.gov/library.htm (at the “Annual Reports to Congress” link), or by calling OSC at

(202)254-3600. OSC has enhanced the effectiveness of this survey by having revised the questions asked, having added a section dealing with the Uniform Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), having limited the questions asked to only those areas where an individual had rights before the MSPB under 5 U.S.C. 1212, and by having converted to an online survey. The form has been edited to make the survey clearer (e.g., by re-ordering questions and possible answers). The estimated response time has been reduced due to the survey's automation. Title of Collection: OSC Survey--Prohibited Personnel Practice or Other Prohibited Activity (Agency Form Number OSC-48a; OMB Control Number 3255-0003) Type of Information Collection Request: Approval of a previously approved collection of information that expires on July 31, 2005, with revisions. Affected public: Current and former Federal employees, applicants for Federal employment, state and local government employees, and their representatives, and the general public. *Respondent's Obligation:* Voluntary. *Estimated Annual Number of Respondents:* 600. *Frequency:* Annual. *Estimated Average Amount of Time for a Person to Respond:* 12 minutes. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 109 hours. *Abstract:* This form is used to survey current and former Federal employees and applicants for Federal employment who have submitted allegations of possible prohibited personnel practices or other prohibited activity for investigation and possible prosecution by OSC, and whose matter has been closed or otherwise resolved during the prior fiscal year, on their experience at OSC. Specifically, the survey asks questions relating to whether the respondent was:

(1)apprised of his or her rights;

(2)successful at the OSC or at the Merit Systems Protection Board; and

(3)satisfied with the treatment received at the OSC. Dated: August 04, 2005. Scott J. Bloch, Special Counsel. [FR Doc. 05-16034 Filed 8-11-05; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 12

Traces to 12 documents

CFR