41100 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 147 / Thursday, July 31, 1997 / Notices

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 Mr. Jay Silberg, P.C., Shaw,

Pittman, Potts, & Trowbridge, 2300 N

Street, NW, Washington, DC 20037–

8007.

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 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

designated to rule on the petition and/

or request, 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 dated June

20, 1997, which is available for public

inspection at the Commission’s Public

Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW,

Washington, DC 20555. The

Commission’s license and safety

evaluation report, when issued, may be

inspected at the above location.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day

of July 1997.

For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

William F. Kane,

Director, Spent Fuel Project Office, Office of

Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.

[FR Doc. 97–20184 Filed 7–30–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket 70–7002]

Notice of Amendment to Certificate of

Compliance GDP–2 for the U.S.

Enrichment Corporation Portsmouth

Gaseous Diffusion Plant Portsmouth,

Ohio

The Director, Office of Nuclear

Material Safety and Safeguards, has

made a determination that the following

amendment request is not significant in

accordance with 10 CFR 76.45. In

making that determination the staff

concluded that (1) there is no change in

the types or significant increase in the

amounts of any effluents that may be

released offsite; (2) there is no

significant increase in individual or

cumulative occupational radiation

exposure; (3) there is no significant

construction impact; (4) there is no

significant increase in the potential for,

or radiological or chemical

consequences from, previously analyzed

accidents; (5) the proposed changes do

not result in the possibility of a new or

different kind of accident; (6) there is no

significant reduction in any margin of

safety; and (7) the proposed changes

will not result in an overall decrease in

the effectiveness of the plant’s safety,

safeguards or security programs. The

basis for this determination for the

amendment request is shown below.

The NRC staff has reviewed the

certificate amendment application and

concluded that it provides reasonable

assurance of adequate safety, safeguards,

and security, and compliance with NRC

requirements. Therefore, the Director,

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and

Safeguards, is prepared to issue an

amendment to the Certificate of

Compliance for the Portsmouth Gaseous

Diffusion Plant. The staff has prepared

a Compliance Evaluation Report which

provides details of the staff’s evaluation.

The NRC staff has determined that

this amendment satisfies the criteria for

a categorical exclusion in accordance

with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant

to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental

impact statement or environmental

assessment need be prepared for this

amendment.

USEC or any person whose interest

may be affected may file a petition, not

exceeding 30 pages, requesting review

of the Director’s Decision. The petition

must be filed with the Commission not

later than 15 days after publication of

this Federal Register Notice. A petition

for review of the Director’s Decision

shall set forth with particularity the

interest of the petitioner and how that

interest may be affected by the results of

the decision. The petition should

specifically explain the reasons why

review of the Decision should be

permitted with particular reference to

the following factors: (1) The interest of

the petitioner; (2) how that interest may

be affected by the Decision, including

the reasons why the petitioner should

be permitted a review of the Decision;

and (3) the petitioner’s areas of concern

about the activity that is the subject

matter of the Decision. Any person

described in this paragraph (USEC or

any person who filed a petition) may

file a response to any petition for

review, not to exceed 30 pages, within

10 days after filing of the petition. If no

petition is received within the

designated 15-day period, the Director

will issue the final amendment to the

Certificate of Compliance without

further delay. If a petition for review is

received, the decision on the

amendment application will become

final in 60 days, unless the Commission

grants the petition for review or

otherwise acts within 60 days after

publication of this Federal Register

Notice.

A petition for review must be filed

with the Secretary of the Commission,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention:

Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, or

may be delivered to the Commission’s

Public Document Room, the Gelman

Building, 2120 L Street, NW,

Washington, DC, by the above date.

For further details with respect to the

action see (1) the application for

amendment and (2) the Commission’s

Compliance Evaluation Report. These

items are 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.

Date of amendment request: April 28,

1997

Brief description of amendment: The

proposed amendment corrects a

typographical error contained in

Technical Safety Requirement 2.6.4.2

entitled ‘‘Air Gaps’’ by revising

Surveillance Requirement 2.6.4.2.1 from

‘‘Verify and document the pressure of

air gaps required by NCSAs’’ to ‘‘Verify

and document the presence of air gaps

required by NCSAs.’’

Basis for Finding of No Significance

1. The proposed amendment will not

result in a change in the types or

significant increase in the amounts of

any effluents that may be released

offsite.

The amendment corrects a

typographical error in the surveillance

requirement of Technical Safety

Requirement 2.6.4.2 by replacing the

word ‘‘pressure’’ with ‘‘presence.’’ As

such, the proposed amendment will not

result in a change in the types or

significant increase in the amounts of

any effluents that may be released

offsite.

2. The proposed amendment will not

result in a significant increase in

individual or cumulative occupational

radiation exposure.

The proposed amendment will not

increase radiation exposure.

3. The proposed amendment will not

result in a significant construction

impact.

The proposed amendment will not

result in any construction, therefore,

there will be no construction impacts.

4. The proposed amendment will not

result in a significant increase in the

potential for, or radiological or chemical

consequences from, previously analyzed

accidents.

The proposed change involves

correction of a typographical error. As

such, it does not affect the potential for,
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 147 / Thursday, July 31, 1997 / Notices 41101

or radiological or chemical

consequences from, previously

evaluated accidents.

5. The proposed amendment will not

result in the possibility of a new or

different kind of accident.

The change will not create new

operating conditions or a new plant

configuration that could lead to a new

or different type of accident.

6. The proposed amendment will not

result in a significant reduction in any

margin of safety.

The proposed change corrects a

typographical error. As such, there is no

reductions in the margins of safety.

7. The proposed amendment will not

result in an overall decrease in the

effectiveness of the plant’s safety,

safeguards or security programs.

The proposed amendment corrects a

typographical error. As such, the

effectiveness of the safety, safeguards,

and security programs is not decreased.

Effective date: 30 days after issuance

Certificate of Compliance No. GDP–2:

Amendment will incorporate a revised

Surveillance Requirement of a

Technical Safety Requirement.

Local Public Document Room

location: Portsmouth Public Library,

1220 Gallia Street, Portsmouth, Ohio

45662.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd

day of July 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Carl J. Paperiello,

Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and

Safeguards.

[FR Doc. 97–20036 Filed 7–30–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket 70–7001]

Notice of Receipt of Amendment

Application to Certificate of

Compliance GDP–1 for The U.S.

Enrichment Corporation Paducah

Gaseous Diffusion Plant Paducah,

Kentucky; Notice of Comment Period

Notice is hereby given that the U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC

or the Commission) has received an

amendment application from the United

States Enrichment Corporation that may

be considered to be significant pursuant

to 10 CFR 76.45. Any interested party

may submit written comments on the

application for amendment for

consideration by the staff. To be certain

of consideration, comments must be

received by September 2, 1997.

Comments received after the due date

will be considered if it is practical to do

so, but the Commission is able to assure

consideration only for comments

received on or before this date.

Written comments on the amendment

application should be mailed to the

Chief, Rules Review and Directives

Branch, Office of Administration, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555, or may be hand

delivered to 11545 Rockville Pike,

Rockville, MD 20852 between 7:45 a.m.

and 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays.

Comments should be legible and

reproducible, and include the name,

affiliation (if any), and address of the

submitter. All comments received by the

Commission will be made available for

public inspection at the Commission’s

Public Document Room and the Local

Public Document Room. In accordance

with 10 CFR 76.62 and 76.64, a member

of the public must submit written

comments to be eligible to petition the

Commission requesting review of the

Director’s Decision on the amendment

request.

For further details with respect to the

action see the application for

amendment. The application 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.

Date of amendment request: April 23,

1997.

Brief description of amendment: The

amendment is related to the planned

modifications to upgrade the seismic

capability of Buildings C–331 and C–

335 at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion

Plant. Specifically, the proposed

amendment will move back the

completion date for the seismic

modifications contained in Compliance

Plan Issue 36. Additionally, the

following three issues will be addressed:

(1) The increased stiffness of the

buildings following completion of the

modifications may increase the number

and the probability of seismicallyinduced equipment failures inside the

buildings; (2) the process of installing

the new structural steel may temporarily

make the building and contained

equipment more susceptible to

seismically-induced failure as the

existing structural frames are altered

and/or replaced; and (3) the process of

installing the new structural steel may

temporarily increase the probability of

equipment failures due to postulated

load handling accidents during

construction.

Certificate of Compliance No. GDP–1:

Amendment will revise Compliance

Plan Issue 36 on the seismic

modifications and will allow the

planned modifications to proceed.

Local Public Document Room

location: Paducah Public Library, 555

Washington Street, Paducah, Kentucky

42003.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd

day of July 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Carl J. Paperiello,

Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety

and Safeguards.

[FR Doc. 97–20039 Filed 7–30–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–369 and 50–370]

Duke Power Company; McGuire

Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2;

Environmental Assessment and;

Finding of No Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of an exemption

from certain requirements of its

regulations for Facility Operating

License Nos. NPF–9 and NPF–17 issued

to the Duke Power Company (the

licensee), for operation of the McGuire

Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, located

in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of Proposed Action

The proposed action would exempt

the licensee from the requirements of 10

CFR 70.24, which requires a monitoring

system that will energize clear audible

alarms if accidental criticality occurs in

each area in which special nuclear

material is handled, used, or stored. The

proposed action would also exempt the

licensee from the requirements to

maintain emergency procedures for each

area in which this licensed special

nuclear material is handled, used, or

stored to ensure that all personnel

withdraw to an area of safety upon the

sounding of the alarm, to familiarize

personnel with the evacuation plan, and

to designate responsible individuals for

determining the cause of the alarm, and

to place radiation survey instruments in

accessible locations.

The proposed action is in response to

the licensee’s application dated

February 4, 1997, as supplemented on

March 19, 1997.

The Need for the Proposed Action

The purpose of 10 CFR 70.24 is to

ensure that if a criticality were to occur

during the handling of special nuclear

material, personnel would be alerted to

that fact and would take appropriate

action. At a commercial nuclear power