Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Notices 49709

assistance is needed in accessing the

document, please contact the FedWorld

help desk at 703–487–4608. Additional

assistance in locating the document is

available from the NRC Public

Document Room, nationally at 1–800–

397–4209, or within the Washington,

DC, area at 202–634–3273.

Comments and questions should be

directed to the OMB reviewer by

October 24, 1997: Norma Gonzales,

Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs (3150–0052), NEOB–10202,

Office of Management and Budget,

Washington, DC 20503.

Comments can also be submitted by

telephone at (202) 395–3084.

The NRC Clearance Officer is Brenda

Jo Shelton, (301) 415–7233.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day

of September 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Arnold E. Levin,

Acting Designated Senior, Official for

Information Resources Management.

[FR Doc. 97–25211 Filed 9–22–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 030–30691–CivP; ASLBP No.

97–730–02–CivP]

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board;

Notice of Hearing

September 17, 1997.

In the matter of Barnett Industrial X-ray,

Inc. (Stillwater, Oklahoma).

Notice is hereby given that, by

Memorandum and Order dated

September 8, 1997, the Atomic Safety

and Licensing Board has granted the

request of Barnett Industrial X-Ray, Inc.

for a hearing in the captioned

proceeding. The hearing concerns the

Order Imposing a Civil Monetary

Penalty, issued by the NRC Staff on May

23, 1997 and published in the Federal

Register at 62 FR 30347 (1997). The

parties to the proceeding are the

Licensee and the NRC Staff.

The issues to be considered at the

hearing are: (1) Whether the violations

represent a security Level 2 matter in

accordance with the ‘‘General Statement

of Policy and Procedures for NRC

Enforcement Actions,’’ NUREG–1600

(July 1995); and, (2) whether a $4,000.00

civil penalty is warranted in light of the

mitigating actions taken by the Licensee.

Materials concerning this proceeding

are on file at the Commission’s Public

Document Room, 2120 L St. N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20555, and at the

Commission’s Region IV Office, Harris

Tower, 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400,

Arlington, TX 76011–8064.

During the course of this proceeding,

the Licensing Board, as necessary, may

conduct one or more prehearing

conferences. The time and place of these

sessions, which will be open to the

public, will be announced in later

Licensing Board Orders. The evidentiary

hearing will be held in Stillwater,

Oklahoma on November 5, 1997, at

10:00 a.m. in the Payne County

Courthouse, 606 S. Husband Street.

Issued at Rockville, Maryland, September

17, 1997.

For the Atomic Safety and Licensing

Board.

B. Paul Cotter, Jr.,

Chairman, Administrative Judge.

[FR Doc. 97–25221 Filed 9–22–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket 70–7001]

Notice of Amendment to Certificate of

Compliance GDP–1 for the U.S.

Enrichment Corporation, Paducah

Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Paducah,

Kentucky

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 Nuclear Regulatory Commission

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 Paducah 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.

U.S. Enrichment Corporation (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, 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
49710 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Notices

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 14,

1997, as revised June 13, June 23, and

August 18, 1997.

Brief description of amendment: The

amendment proposes to revise the

Technical Safety Requirement (TSR) on

the cell trip function to provide

clarification of battery cell parameters,

to provide for alternate means of

verifying functionality of the cascade

cell trip circuit, and to provide a

definition of planned and unplanned

cell shutdown.

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 proposed changes will provide an

alternative surveillance test to verify the

functionality of the cascade cell trip

circuit and will provide clarification for

battery cell parameters. There are no

effluent releases associated with this

change, the proposed changes will not

affect the effluent.

2. The proposed amendment will not

result in a significant increase in

individual or cumulative occupational

radiation exposure.

The proposed changes do not relate to

controls used to minimize occupational

radiation exposures, therefore, the

changes will not increase exposure.

3. The proposed amendment will not

result in a significant construction

impact.

The proposed changes 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 changes provide for the

clarification of battery parameters and

ability to test cell trip function by a

second method. This surveillance

method can be performed on cells that

are shutdown, providing a means to

meet the surveillance requirements and

restart the shutdown cell. The test is

functionally equivalent to the

surveillance currently specified in the

TSR. The proposed changes do not

represent an increase in the potential

for, 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 proposed changes to the TSR do

not result in any situation whereby

components are not capable of

performing the required safety

functions. The proposed changes would

not create new operating conditions or

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.

Although the timing of the

surveillance for testing cell trip function

is modified by addition of the

alternative test, system operability is

still ensured before the cell is restarted.

The other changes to the TSR do not

result in any situation whereby the

components are not capable of

performing the required safety function.

These changes do not decrease 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.

Implementation of the proposed

changes do not change the safety,

safeguards, or security programs.

Therefore, the effectiveness of the

safety, safeguards, and security

programs is not decreased.

Effective date: The amendment to

Certificate of Compliance GDP–1

becomes effective 15 days after being

signed by the Director, Office of Nuclear

Material Safety and Safeguards.

Certificate of Compliance No. GDP–1:

Amendment will revise the Technical

Safety Requirement for the cell trip

function.

Local Public Document Room

location: Paducah Public Library, 555

Washington Street, Paducah, Kentucky

42003.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day

of September 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Carl J. Paperiello,

Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety

and Safeguards.

[FR Doc. 97–25212 Filed 9–22–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket 70–7001]

Notice of Amendment to Certificate of

Compliance GDP–1 for the U.S.

Enrichment Corporation Paducah

Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Paducah,

Kentucky

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 Paducah 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