Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 150 / Tuesday, August 5, 1997 / Notices 42145

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 040–8724, License No. SUB–

1357 EA 93–271]

In the Matter of Chemetron

Corporation, Delray, Florida; Order

Imposing Civil Monetary Penalty

I

Chemetron Corporation (Licensee) is

the holder of License No. SUB–1357

issued by the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC or Commission) on

June 12, 1979. The license authorizes

the Licensee to possess depleted

uranium-contaminated wastes at its

facility located at 2910 Harvard Avenue

in Cuyahoga Heights, Ohio, and at the

McGean-Rohco property located

between 28th and 29th Streets at Bert

Avenue, Newburgh Heights, Ohio, in

accordance with the conditions

specified therein.

II

A review of the remediation plan

submitted by the Licensee on October 1,

1993, revealed that the Licensee had not

conducted its activities in full

compliance with NRC requirements. A

written Notice of Violation and

Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty

(notice) was served upon the Licensee

by letter dated May 11, 1994. The Notice

states the nature of the violation, the

provisions of the NRC’s requirements

that the Licensee had violated, and the

amount of the civil penalty proposed for

the violation.

The Licensee responded to the notice

in letters dated June 9 and September 9,

1994. In its responses, the Licensee

restated the events concerning the

violation, including the fact that three

sections of the remediation plan were

not submitted by the required date,

asserted errors in the Notice, and set out

what it considered extenuating

circumstances.

III

After consideration of the Licensee’s

response and the statements of fact,

explanation, and argument for

mitigation contained therein, the NRC

staff has determined, as set forth in the

Appendix to this Order, that the

violation occurred as stated and that the

penalty proposed for the violation

designated in the Notice should be

imposed.

IV

In view of the foregoing and pursuant

to Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act

of 1954, as amended (Act), 42 U.S.C.

2282, and 10 CFR 2.205, it is hereby

orderd that:

The Licensee pay a civil penalty in the

amount of $10,000 within 30 days of the date

of this Order, by check, draft, money order,

or electronic transfer, payable to the

Treasurer of the United States and mailed to

James Lieberman, Director, Office of

Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, One White Flint North, 11555

Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852–2738.

V

The Licensee may request a hearing

within 30 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, D.C. 20555,

and include a statement of good cause

for the extension. A request for a

hearing should be clearly marked as a

‘‘Request for an Enforcement Hearing’’

and shall be addressed to the Director,

Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

D.C. 20555, with a copy to the

Commission’s Document Control Desk,

Washington, D.C. 20555. Copies also

shall be sent to the Assistant General

Counsel for Hearings and Enforcement

at the same address and to the Regional

Administrator, NRC Region III, 801

Warrenville Rd., Lisle, Illinois 60532–

4351.

If a hearing is requested, the

Commission will issue an Order

designating the time and place of the

hearing. If the Licensee fails to request

a hearing within 30 days of the date of

this Order (or if written approval of an

extension of time in which to request a

hearing has not been granted), the

provisions of this Order shall be

effective without further proceedings. If

payment has not been made by that

time, the matter may be referred to the

Attorney General for collection.

In the event the Licensee requests a

hearing as provided above, the issues to

be considered at such hearing shall be:

(a) Whether the Licensee was in

violation of the Commission’s

requirements as set forth in the Notice

referenced in Section II above, and

(b) Whether, on the basis of such

violation, this Order should be

sustained.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 28th day

of July 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

James Lieberman,

Director, Office of Enforcement.

[FR Doc. 97–20547 Filed 8–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–266 and 50–301]

Wisconsin Electric Power Company;

Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and

2; Environmental Assessment and

Finding of No Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of amendments to

Facility Operating Licenses Nos. DPR–

24 and DPR–27, issued to Wisconsin

Electric Power Company (the licensee),

for operation of the Point Beach Nuclear

Plant, Units 1 and 2, located in

Manitowoc County, Wisconsin.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

The proposed action would revise (1)

Section 3.A of Facility Operating

Licenses DPR–24 and DPR–27 from a

licensed power level of 1518 megawatts

thermal (MWt) to 1518.5 MWt; (2)

technical specification (TS) 15.3.1.B

Bases power level from 1518 MWt to

1518.5 MWt; and (3) TS 15.3.1.B Bases

reference 2 from revision 2 to revision

3. These changes make the value of the

licensed power level listed in Section

3.A of the licenses and in the Units 1

and 2 bases of TS 15.3.1.B consistent

with the value listed in the balance of

the TS and in the final safety analysis

report (FSAR). The changes are

administrative and do not change plant

design or operation.

The proposed action is in accordance

with the licensee’s application for

amendment dated August 22, 1996, as

supplemented by letter dated July 14,

1997.

The Need for the Proposed Action

The proposed action would revise the

power level included in Facility

Operating Licenses DPR–24 and DPR–27

to restore consistency with the

authorized power level defined in the

TS and assumed in performing facility

safety analyses.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The Commission has completed its

evaluation of the proposed changes to

the licenses and TS. According to the

licensee, the administrative change in

the licensed power level restores

consistency between the licenses and

the TS. The TS, as originally issued,

defined the licensed power level as

1518.5 MWt. At no time has the power

level defined in the TS been changed

from 1518.5 MWt. Accident analyses

performed in support of original
42146 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 150 / Tuesday, August 5, 1997 / Notices

licensing used as a bases for analyses

the value of 1518.5 MWt or an

appropriate multiple of 1518.5, as

required. Only one current analysis,

fluence values affecting 10 CFR part 50,

Appendix G, specifically referenced a

power level of 1518 MWt. The licensee

concluded that the results of this

analysis are insensitive to the change in

power level and sufficient assurance

regarding the effect of fluence levels is

obtained in analyzing material

specimens.

This administrative change will not

increase the probability or consequences

of accidents, no changes are being made

in the types of any effluents that may be

released offsite, and there is no

significant increase in the allowable

individual or cumulative occupational

radiation 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 proposed

action is administrative in nature and

does not involve any physical features

of the plant. Thus, it does not affect

nonradiological plant effluents and has

no other environmental impact.

Accordingly, the Commission concludes

that there are no significant

nonradiological environmental impacts

associated with the proposed action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

Since the Commission has concluded

there is no measurable environmental

impact associated with the proposed

action, any alternatives with equal or

greater environmental impact need not

be evaluated. As an alternative to the

proposed action, the staff considered

denial of the proposed 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 similar.

Alternative Use of Resources

This action does not involve the use

of any resources not previously

considered in the Final Environmental

Statement for the Point Beach Nuclear

Plant, Units 1 and 2.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on July 17, 1997, the staff consulted

with the Wisconsin State official, Sarah

Jenkins of the Wisconsin Public Service

Commission, 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 August 22, 1996, as supplemented

on July 14, 1997, 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 Lester

Public Library, 1001 Adams Street, Two

Rivers, Wisconsin 54241.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day

of July 1997.

For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Linda L. Gundrum,

Project Manager, Project Directorate III–1,

Division of Reactor Projects—III/IV, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–20545 Filed 8–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–309]

Maine Yankee Atomic Power

Company; Maine Yankee Atomic

Power Station; Issuance of Director’s

Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206

Notice is hereby given that the

Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation, has taken action with regard

to a Petition for action under 10 CFR

2.206 received from Mr. Patrick M.

Sears (Petitioner), dated August 19,

1996, and revised on April 14, 1997,

with regard to the Maine Yankee Atomic

Power Station.

The Petitioner requested the NRC to

(1) fine Maine Yankee Atomic Power

Company (MYAPCO) and Yankee

Atomic Electric Company (YAEC) if

records regarding use of the computer

code RELAP have not been kept in

accordance with YAEC’s computer code

quality assurance procedures and (2)

inspect all users of RELAP and fine

those users not operating within

required computer code verification

procedures.

The Director of the Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation has acknowledged

parts (1) and (2) of the Petition. The

reasons for this decision are explained

in the ‘‘Director’s Decision Pursuant to

10 CFR 2.206’’ (DD–97–17), the

complete text of which follows this

notice and 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

for the Maine Yankee Atomic Power

Station located at the Wiscasset Public

Library, High Street, P. O. Box 367,

Wiscasset, Maine 04578.

A copy of this Decision will be filed

with the Secretary of the Commission

for the Commission’s review in

accordance with 10 CFR 2.206(c). As

provided by this regulation, this

Decision will constitute the final action

of the Commission 25 days after the date

of issuance unless the Commission, on

its own motion, institutes review of the

Decision within that time.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 30th day

of July 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Samuel J. Collins,

Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

Director’s Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206

I. Introduction

On August 19, 1996, Patrick M. Sears

(Petitioner) filed a Petition with the U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

pursuant to Section 2.206 of Title 10 of

the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR

2.206). Petitioner requested the NRC to

(1) Fine Maine Yankee Atomic Power

Company (MYAPCO) and Yankee

Atomic Electric Company (YAEC) if

records regarding use of the computer

code RELAP5YA have not been kept in

accordance with YAEC’s computer code

quality assurance (QA) procedures, and

(2) inspect all users of RELAP and fine

those users not operating within

required computer code verification

procedures.

As the basis for these requests, the

Petition states that (1) The May 5, 1989,

oral statement of Steve Nichols, then

licensing supervisor of MYAPCO, to

Petitioner, then NRC Project Manager

for Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station

(MYAPS), that RELAP5YA was

‘‘operable’’ and would be used for

subsequent reloads was false; (2) no

computer code inspections were

performed by NRC before a 1992

inspection at YAEC by Mr. Sears, and

not again until 1995; (3) when Mr. Sears

was in the Vendor Inspection Branch,

he was told not to do any more

computer code inspections; (4) RELAP

is widely used; (5) RELAP has been

shown to have serious deficiencies; and

(6) the RELAP problem is not confined

to the MYAPS but is endemic to the

industry as a whole.

On September 24, 1996, Mr. William

T. Russell, then Director of the Office of