5494 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 24 / Wednesday, February 5, 1997 / Notices

financial viability with respect to Great

Bay’s share of operation and

decommissioning costs of Seabrook. The

staff believes that Great Bay’s financial

viability will not be diminished but

instead likely will be enhanced by the

formation of the holding company. By

approving the indirect transfer of

control now, the staff believes that Great

Bay could be in a stronger position to

meet both the financial qualifications

and decommissioning rules.

Thus, to allow the staff to act upon,

without further delay, Great Bay’s

request for approval of indirect transfer

of control of Great Bay, and at the same

time afford Great Bay a reasonable

opportunity to implement a suitable

decommissioning funding assurance

method required of a non-electric

utility, the staff is granting Great Bay a

6-month exemption from compliance

with the provisions 10 CFR 50.75(e)(2)

pertaining to the additional surety

arrangements for decommissioning

funding assurance for non-electric

utility licensees. If, within the effective

period of this exemption, Great Bay has

been unable to establish itself as an

electric utility as defined in 10 CFR

50.2, Great Bay then must obtain a

surety bond or other allowable

decommissioning funding assurance

mechanism for non-electric utility

licensees meeting all of the

requirements of 10 CFR 50.75(e)(2).

The Commission has determined that

pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a)(1), this

exemption is authorized by law, will not

present an undue risk to the public

health and safety, and is consistent with

the common defense and security. The

Commission further has determined that

special circumstances as provided in 10

CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii) and 10 CFR

50.12(a)(2)(v) are present justifying the

exemption. Under criterion (ii), special

circumstances exist in that application

of the regulation in this particular

circumstance is not necessary, for the 6-

month period, to achieve the underlying

purpose of the rule, which is to ensure

that funds are available for

decommissioning at the end of the

license term or in the event of

premature shutdown. Here, Great Bay’s

projected 1996 cash position is nearly

sufficient to cover the unfunded

decommissioning costs, and its cash

position is not likely to deteriorate

substantially during the period of the

exemption.

Further, under criterion (v), special

circumstances exist because the

exemption provides only temporary

relief from the applicable regulation(s),

and Great Bay has made a good faith

effort to comply with 10 CFR 50.75 by

making payment into an external

sinking fund based on its good faith

belief that it is an electric utility.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the

Commission has determined that

granting this Exemption will not have a

significant impact on the environment

(62 FR 3316).

This Exemption is effective upon

issuance and shall expire 6 months from

the date of issue.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd

day of January 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Frank J. Miraglia,

Acting Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–2814 Filed 2–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

[Docket No. 50–443 (License No. NPF–86)]

North Atlantic Energy Service

Corporation and Great Bay Power

Corporation (Seabrook Station, Unit 1);

Order Modifying the Order Approving

the Restructuring of Great Bay Power

Corporation

I

On January 22, 1997, the NRC issued

an Order approving the application

submitted by Great Bay Power

Corporation (Great Bay) regarding its

proposed corporate restructuring

involving the formation of a holding

company named Great Bay Holdings

Corporation. Great Bay is a minority

non-operating owner of the Seabrook

Station, Unit 1. On January 24, 1997,

Great Bay, through its counsel,

submitted a letter explaining that the

State of New Hampshire informed Great

Bay, subsequent to the filing of its

application with the NRC, that the name

‘‘Great Bay Holdings Corporation’’ is

already in use by another legal entity in

New Hampshire and cannot be used in

connection with Great Bay’s proposed

restructuring. Great Bay indicated that

in view of the foregoing, the name of the

new holding company has been changed

to ‘‘BayCorp Holdings, Ltd.’’ and

requested that the NRC issue an

administrative addendum to the Order

of January 22, 1997, to reflect the name

change. Great Bay stated that its failure

to notify the NRC previously of the

name change was an oversight on its

part.

On the basis of our review of the

circumstances, the Order of January 22,

1997, is hereby modified to the extent

that all references to ‘‘Great Bay

Holdings Corporation’’ as the name of

the proposed holding company of Great

Bay are deemed to be references to

‘‘BayCorp Holdings, Ltd.’’ All other

terms and conditions of the Order of

January 22, 1997, are unchanged.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day

of January 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Frank J. Miraglia,

Acting Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–2816 Filed 2–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NRC Enforcement Policy

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Opportunity for public

comment.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) is providing the

public an opportunity to provide

comments on the agency’s Enforcement

Policy (NUREG–1600, ‘‘General

Statement of Policy and Procedure for

NRC Enforcement Actions’’). This

invitation is open to interested public

interest groups, the regulated industry,

states, and concerned citizens.

DATES: The comment period expires

April 7, 1997. Comments received after

this 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.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments

to: David Meyer, Chief, Rules Review

and Directives Branch, Office of

Administration, Mail Stop: T6D59, U. S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555. Hand deliver

comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike,

Rockville, Maryland, between 7:45 am

and 4:15 pm, Federal workdays. Copies

of comments received may be examined

at the NRC Public Document Room,

2120 L Street, NW, (Lower Level),

Washington, DC. Copies of NUREG–

1600 and NUREG–1525 may be

purchased from the Superintendent of

Documents, U.S. Government Printing

Office, Mail Stop SSOP, Washington,

DC 20402–9328. Copies are also

available from the National Technical

Information Service, 5285 Port Royal

Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161.

Copies are also available for inspection

and copying for a fee in the NRC Public

Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW,

(Lower Level), Washington, DC 20555–

0001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James Lieberman, Director, Office of

Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555,

(301) 415–2741.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 24 / Wednesday, February 5, 1997 / Notices 5495

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June

30, 1995, (60 FR 34381) the Commission

published a complete revision of the

NRC’s Enforcement Policy in the

Federal Register. The changes to the

Enforcement Policy resulted from the

efforts of a review team established in

1994 to assess the NRC’s enforcement

program. The review team published its

recommendations in NUREG–1525,

‘‘Assessment of the NRC Enforcement

Program,’’ and the Commission made

revisions to the Enforcement Policy after

considering those recommendations.

The revisions to the Enforcement Policy

were intended to, among other things:

• Emphasize the importance of

identifying problems before events

occur, and of taking prompt,

comprehensive corrective action when

problems are identified;

• Direct agency attention at licensees

with multiple enforcement actions in a

relatively short period; and

• Focus on current performance of

licensees.

The revisions to the Enforcement

Policy were also intended to better focus

the inspection and enforcement process

on safety, provide greater incentives for

strong self-monitoring and corrective

action programs in the civil penalty

assessment process, provide more

predictability and consistency in the

civil penalty assessment process, and to

better convey clear regulatory messages.

When the Commission published the

revised Enforcement Policy in the

Federal Register on June 30, 1995, it

stated that it would provide the public

an opportunity to comment on the

revised Enforcement Policy after it had

been in effect for about 18 months. This

opportunity for public comment is being

made in accordance with this

commitment.

Dated at Rockville, MD, this 30th day of

January, 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

James Lieberman,

Director, Office of Enforcement.

[FR Doc. 97–2805 Filed 2–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

[Docket No. 50–461]

Illinois Power Company; Soyland

Power Cooperative; Environmental

Assessment and Finding of No

Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering the issuance of an order

approving, under 10 CFR 50.80, the

transfer of Facility Operating License

No. NPF–62, to the extent now held by

Soyland Power Cooperative (Soyland),

to Illinois Power Company (IP, the

licensee) with respect to the Clinton

Power Station, Unit No. 1 (CPS), located

in DeWitt County, Illinois, and issuance

of conforming amendments under 10

CFR 50.90.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

The proposed action would consent,

by the issuance of an order, to the

transfer of the 13.21% minority

ownership interest in the facilities for

CPS from Soyland to IP and approve the

issuance of conforming amendments to

the license. This Environmental

Assessment supersedes that published

on November 19, 1996 (61 FR 58897),

which reflected the licensee’s original

submittal of October 17, 1996. The

licensee’s original submittal, which

proposed transferring the Soyland

interest to Illinova Power Marketing,

Inc., was revised in the licensee’s

submittal of December 13, 1996.

The Need for the Proposed Action

The proposed action is required to

obtain the necessary consent to the

transfer of the license, to the extent now

held by Soyland, and approval of

amendments discussed above. Soyland

is a minority owner of CPS with an

ownership share of 13.21%. Due to

severe financial difficulties arising in

large part because of its CPS-related

debt, Soyland has been forced to seek

significant refinancing of its outstanding

obligations. As a condition precedent to

said refinancing, the U.S. Department of

Agriculture, acting through the

Administrator of the Rural Utilities

Services, required Soyland to

completely divest itself of any

ownership of, or responsibility for, CPS.

As a result, Soyland and Illinova

Corporation (Illinova), the parent

company of Illinois Power Company,

entered into an agreement wherein

Illinova assumed full financial

responsibility for Soyland’s CPS

obligations as of September 1, 1996, and

Soyland agreed to transfer its entire

ownership interest in CPS, subject to

receipt of all necessary regulatory

approvals.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The Commission has reviewed the

proposed action and concludes that

there will be no changes to the facility

or its operation as a result of the

proposed action. Accordingly, the NRC

staff concludes that there are no

significant radiological environmental

impacts associated with the proposed

action.

With regard to potential

nonradiological impacts, the proposed

action will not affect nonradiological

plant effluents and will have no other

environmental impact. Accordingly, the

NRC staff concludes that there are no

significant nonradiological

environmental impacts associated with

the proposed action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

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.

Alterative Use of Resources

This action does not involve the use

of any resources not previously

considered in the Final Environmental

Statement for the Clinton Power Station,

Unit 1, documented in NUREG–0854.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on January 8, 1997, the staff consulted

with the Illinois state official of the

Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety,

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 Illinois Power

submittal dated December 13, 1996,

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 Vespasian Warner Public Library,

310 N. Quincy Street, Clinton, Illinois.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 29th day

of January 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Jon B. Hopkins,

Acting Director, Project Directorate III–3,

Division of Reactor Projects—III/IV Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–2815 Filed 2–4– 97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P