51706 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 191 / Thursday, October 2, 1997 / Notices

vessels (RPVs) are set forth in 10 CFR

50, Appendix G, which incorporates, by

reference, P-T limits specified in

Appendix G of the American Society of

Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler

and Pressure Vessel Code, Section XI.

10 CFR 50, Appendix G, Section

IV.A.2.b, requires that the P–T limits

identified in 10 CFR 50, Appendix G, as

‘‘ASME Appendix G limits’’ must be at

least as conservative as limits obtained

by following the methods of analysis

and the margins of safety of the ASME

Code, Section XI, Appendix G. 10 CFR

50, Appendix G, Section I, states that ‘‘If

no edition or addenda are specified, the

ASME Code edition and addenda and

any limitations and modifications

thereof, which are specified in 10 CFR

50.55a, are applicable.’’ With respect to

P–T limits, 10 CFR 50, Appendix G,

does not specify the edition or addenda

of the ASME Code; therefore, the

editions and addenda of the ASME

Code, Section XI, referred to in 10 CFR

50, Appendix G, are those specified in

10 CFR 50.55a, which include addenda

through the 1988 Addenda and editions

through the 1989 Edition.

The proposed exemption would allow

CP&L to use the 1992 Edition of the

ASME Code, Section XI, Appendix A, as

an alternative to the 1989 Edition of the

ASME Code, Section XI, Appendix G,

for determination of BSEP1&2 RPV P–T

requirements. The licensee provided

information in its application for

exemption that demonstrates the

equivalency of the proposed alternative

method for determining RPV P–T limits

to that specified in the 1989 Edition of

the ASME Code, Section XI, Appendix

G.

The licensee’s exemption request and

the bases therefore are contained in a

CP&L letter dated August 15, 1997. The

exemption request is associated with a

CP&L application for license

amendments for BSEP1&2 dated January

7, 1997, as supplemented on July 25,

1997, and September 15, 1997. That

application, which was noticed in the

Federal Register on March 12, 1997 (62

FR 11485), will—

(1) Correct an error involving a

transposition of P–T curves between

BSEP1&2.

(2) Replace the current BSEP1&2 RPV

hydrostatic test P–T curves for 8, 10,

and 12 effective full power years (EFPY)

with new 14 and 16 EFPY curves.

The Need for the Proposed Action

CP&L has proposed an alternative to

the requirements of 10 CFR 50,

Appendix G. In accordance with 10 CFR

50.60(b), an exemption must be granted

by the Commission before the proposed

alternative may be used by the licensee.

The alternative, and thus the exemption,

is needed because CP&L identified

typographical errors in equations

contained in both the 1989 and 1992

Editions of the ASME Code, Section XI,

Appendix G. The alternative of using

the 1992 Edition of the ASME Code,

Section XI, Appendix A in the

determination of P–T limits avoids the

problem presented by the typographical

errors and achieves a level of safety

commensurate to that provided by use

of the 1989 Edition of the ASME Code,

Section XI, Appendix G. Furthermore,

the alternative provides a more efficient

means for the licensee to determine the

P–T limits for the BSEP1&2 RPVs.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The Commission has completed its

evaluation of the proposed exemption.

The exemption would authorize use of

an alternative means for determining

RPV P–T limits that is equivalent to that

provided by 10 CFR 50, Appendix G

and provides a commensurate level of

safety.

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 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 involves features located entirely

within the restricted area, as defined in

10 CFR Part 20. 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.

Accordingly, the Commission

concludes that there is no significant

environmental impact associated with

this action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

Since the Commission has concluded

there is no significant 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 BSEP dated January

1974.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on September 24, 1997, the staff

consulted with the North Carolina State

official, Mr. J. James, of the North

Carolina Department of Environment,

Commerce and Natural Resources,

Division of Radiation Protection,

regarding the environmental impact of

the proposed action. The State official

had no comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

Based upon this 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 15, 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

University of North Carolina at

Wilmington, William Madison Randall

Library, 601 College Road, Wilmington,

North Carolina 28403–3297.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 30th day

of September, 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

James E. Lyons,

Director, Project Directorate II–1, Division of

Reactor Projects—I/II, Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–26272 Filed 10–1–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Review of Dose Modeling Methods for

Demonstration of Compliance With the

Radiological Criteria for License

Termination: Public Workshop

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of workshop.

SUMMARY: The NRC will hold a public

workshop in Rockville, Maryland, to

provide the NRC staff and the public
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 191 / Thursday, October 2, 1997 / Notices 51707

1OPRA is a National Market System Plan

approved by the Commission pursuant to Section

11A of the Exchange Act and Rule 11Aa3–2

thereunder. See Securities Exchange Act Release

No. 17638 (Mar. 18, 1981).

with an overview of dose modeling

methods that may be useful in

demonstrating compliance with dosebased radiological criteria for license

termination. The objectives of the

workshop are to provide information on

Federally-sponsored dose models

appropriate for decommissioning

assessments, and to discuss selection

criteria for evaluating and accepting

dose models used to demonstrate

compliance with the final rule on

‘‘Radiological Criteria for License

Termination’’ (62 FR 39058). This

information may be useful in

developing regulatory guidance for

decommissioning. All interested

licensees and members of the public are

invited to attend this workshop.

DATES: The workshop will be held on

November 13–14, 1997, from 1 p.m. on

Thursday, November 13 thru 5:00 p.m.,

and on November 14 from 9:00 a.m.

until about 5 p.m.

Interested parties who are unable to

attend the workshop are encouraged to

provide written comments on the topic

of dose model selection criteria by

November 10, 1997.

ADDRESSES: The public workshop will

be held in the NRC auditorium at Two

White Flint North, 11545 Rockville

Pike, Rockville, Maryland.

Information on the workshop program

can be viewed, and comments may be

posted, electronically, on the NRC

Technical Conference Forum Website

under the topic ‘‘Final Rule for License

Termination’’ at http://

techconf.llnl.gov/cgi-bin/topics.

Comments submitted electronically can

also be viewed at that website. The

information is also available at the

NRC’s Public Document Room, 2120 L

Street, NW (Lower Level), Washington,

DC 20555; telephone 202–634–3273; fax

202–634–3343.

Comments may also be mailed to the

Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: For

information or questions on meeting

arrangements, contact Jayne

McCausland, Office of Nuclear

Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555, telephone 301–415–6219, fax

301–415–5385, E-mail:

JMM2@NRC.GOV. For technical

information or questions, contact Chris

Daily, Office of Nuclear Regulatory

Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555,

telephone 301–415–6026; fax: 301–415–

5385; E-mail: CXD@NRC.GOV.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

workshop is one of a series of

interactions with the Agreement States,

licensees, and the public to gather

suggestions and ideas for developing a

regulatory guide on ‘‘Demonstrating

Compliance With the Radiological

Criteria for License Termination.’’ The

NRC staff are considering a range of

dose models that may be appropriate for

use in site-specific dose assessments for

specific pathways. The workshop will

begin with a brief introduction by the

NRC staff on the need to use dose

models for evaluating compliance with

decommissioning guidelines, and the

need to develop guidance for evaluating

and selecting dose models. The

workshop will include formal

presentations by invited speakers from

the DOE national laboratories, and other

Federal Agencies that will address a set

of questions developed by the NRC staff

focusing on the capability, experience,

and appropriateness of each dose model

presented. The workshop will conclude

with a panel discussion on questions to

be considered in selecting dose models

related to demonstrating compliance

with the radiological criteria for license

termination. A summary of the

workshop proceedings in the form of a

NUREG/CP is planned to be available in

the Spring of 1998.

Visitor parking around the NRC

building is limited; however, the

workshop site is located adjacent to the

White Flint Station on the Metro Red

Line. Seating for the public will be on

a first-come, first-served basis.

A transcript of this workshop will be

available for inspection, and copying for

a fee at the NRC Public Document

Room, 2120 L Street, NW (Lower Level),

Washington, DC 20555, on or about

December 1, 1997. A copy of the

NUREG/CP will also be available in the

NRC’s Public Document Room later in

the Spring of 1998.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 25th day

of September, 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Cheryl A. Trottier,

Chief, Radiation Protection and Health Effects

Branch, Division of Regulatory Applications,

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research.

[FR Doc. 97–26159 Filed 10–1–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to

the provisions of the Government in the

Sunshine Act, Pub. L. 94–409, that the

Securities and Exchange Commission

will hold the following meeting during

the week of October 6, 1997.

A closed meeting will be held on

Tuesday, October 7, 1997, at 2:30 p.m. Commissioners, Counsel to the

Commissioners, the Secretary to the

Commission, and recording secretaries

will attend the closed meeting. Certain

staff members who have an interest in

the matters may also be present. The General Counsel of the

Commission, or his designee, has

certified that, in his opinion, one or

more of the exemptions set forth in 5

U.S.C. 552b(c) (4), (8), (9)(A) and (10)

and 17 CFR 200.402(a) (4), (8), (9)(i) and

(10), permit consideration of the

scheduled matters at the closed meeting. Commissioner Johnson, as duty

officer, voted to consider the items

listed for the closed meeting in a closed

session.

The subject matter of the closed

meeting scheduled for Tuesday, October

7, 1997, at 2:30 p.m., will be:

Institution and settlement of injunctive

actions.

Institution and settlement of

administrative proceedings of an

enforcement nature.

At times, changes in Commission

priorities require alternations in the

scheduling of meeting items. For further

information and to ascertain what, if

any, matters have been added, deleted

or postponed, please contact: the Office

of the Secretary at (202) 942–7070.

Dated: September 30, 1997.

Jonathan G. Katz,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–26358 Filed 9–30–97; 4:00 pm]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

[Release No. 34–39137; File No. SR–OPRA–

97–4]

Options Price Reporting Authority;

Notice of Filing of Amendment to

OPRA Plan Revising OPRA’s Dial-Up

Market Data Service Rider to its

Vendor Agreement to Accommodate

the Vendor’s Provision of Dial-Up

Service to Customers of OPRA

Subscribers

September 26, 1997.

Pursuant to Rule 11Aa3–2 under the

Securities Exchange Act of 1934

(‘‘Exchange Act’’), notice is hereby given

that on September 11, 1997, the Options

Price Reporting Authority (‘‘OPRA’’) 1