58756 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 210 / Thursday, October 30, 1997 / Notices

environmental assessment, the

Commission has concluded that the

issuance of the amendment will not

have a significant effect on the quality

of the human environment (62 FR

50409).

For further details with respect to the

action see (1) the application for

amendment dated August 27, 1996, as

supplemented by letters dated

December 18, 1996, January 17,

February 18, March 27, April 4, April

25, April 29, May 30, June 2, June 13,

June 18, August 4, August 8, September

10, October 2 (RNP RA/97–0216),

October 2 (RNP RA/97–0207), October

13, and October 21, 1997, (2)

Amendment No. 176 to License No.

DPR–23, (3) the Commission’s related

Safety Evaluation, and (4) the

Commission’s Environmental

Assessment. All of 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 located at the

Hartsville Memorial Library, 147 West

College Avenue, Hartsville, South

Carolina 29550.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day

of October 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

David C. Trimble,

Project Manager, Project Directorate II–1,

Division of Reactor Projects—I/II, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–28754 Filed 10–29–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–423]

Northeast Nuclear Energy Company;

Notice of Withdrawal of Application for

Amendment to Facility Operating

License

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) has

granted the request of Northeast Nuclear

Energy Company (the licensee) to

withdraw its April 28, 1997, application

for proposed amendment to Facility

Operating License No. NPF–49 for the

Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit

3, located in New London County,

Connecticut.

Technical Specification Surveillances

4.1.2.3.1, 4.1.2.4.1, 4.5.2.f, and 4.5.2.h

require the charging and safety injection

pumps to be tested on a periodic basis

and after modifications that alter

subsystem flow characteristics. The

proposed amendment would have made

changes to these surveillance

requirements.

The Commission had previously

issued a Notice of Consideration of

Issuance of Amendment published in

the Federal Register on June 4, 1997

(62 FR 30635). However, by letter dated

October 15, 1997, the licensee withdrew

the proposed change.

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application for

amendment dated April 28, 1997, and

the licensee’s letter dated October 15,

1997, which withdrew the application

for license amendment. The above

documents 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

located at the Learning Resources

Center, Three Rivers CommunityTechnical College, 574 New London

Turnpike, Norwich, Connecticut, and

the Waterford Library, ATTN: Vince

Juliano, 49 Rope Ferry Road, Waterford,

Connecticut.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day

of October 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

James W. Andersen,

Project Manager, Special Projects Office—

Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–28757 Filed 10–29–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–423]

Northeast Nuclear Energy Company

Notice of Withdrawal of Application for

Amendment to Facility Operating

License

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) has

granted the request of Northeast Nuclear

Energy Company (the licensee) to

withdraw its May 30, 1997, application

for proposed amendment to Facility

Operating License No. NPF–49 for the

Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit

3, located in New London County,

Connecticut.

Technical Specification (TS)

Surveillances 4.5.2.f and 4.6.2.2.b

require the periodic flow testing of the

recirculation spray system pumps. The

proposed amendment would have

changed the surveillances by replacing

the pump differential acceptance

criteria with a pump acceptance curve.

The Commission had previously

issued a Notice of Consideration of

Issuance of Amendment published in

the Federal Register on July 2, 1997 (62

FR 35849). However, by letter dated

October 15, 1997, the licensee withdrew

the proposed change.

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application for

amendment dated May 30, 1997, and

the licensee’s letter dated October 15,

1997, which withdrew the application

for license amendment. The above

documents 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

located at the Learning Resources

Center, Three 2-Rivers CommunityTechnical College, 574 New London

Turnpike, Norwich, Connecticut, and

the Waterford Library, ATTN: Vince

Juliano, 49 Rope Ferry Road, Waterford,

Connecticut.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day

of October 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

James W. Andersen,

Project Manager, Special Projects Office—

Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–28758 Filed 10–29–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 210 / Thursday, October 30, 1997 / Notices 58757

basis for this determination for the

amendment request is described 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 (PORTS). 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: June 9,

1997.

Brief description of amendment: The

proposed amendment, in accordance

with a commitment made in the USEC

certificate application, revises Technical

Safety Requirement (TSR) 2.1.3.5

entitled ‘‘Autoclave Shell High Pressure

Containment Shutdown,’’ to account for

the added capability to separately test

inner and outer loop containment valves

on autoclaves in buildings X–342, X–

343, and X–344.

The Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion

Plant uses thirteen autoclaves in

buildings X–342, X–343 and X–344 to

feed, transfer and sample UF6. These

autoclaves were designed and

constructed in accordance with ASME

Section VIII and are utilized to confine

UF6 and any reaction products in the

event of a major UF6 release inside an

autoclave. Steam used to heat a UF6

cylinder within an autoclave is typically

controlled at approximately 5 psig.

However, if a large UF6 release occurs

inside an autoclave, its internal pressure

could rise to as high as 90 psig very

rapidly. To ensure that the contents of

a release are confined inside the

autoclave, except for that which is

released due to the proper operation of

the autoclave pressure relief system

(rupture disc rated at near 150 psig and

relief valve), each line which penetrates

the autoclave boundary is equipped

with at least two valves that can serve

as isolation valves. These close

automatically to isolate the autoclave in

the event of high internal pressure; the

actuation pressure being less than or

equal to 15 psig.

As noted in the Description of

Noncompliance for Issue 3 of the ‘‘Plan

for Achieving Compliance with NRC

Regulations at the Portsmouth Gaseous

Diffusion Plant’’ Revision 3

(Compliance Plan) dated July 9, 1996,

the capability to pressure decay test the

autoclave containment valves (i.e., inner

and outer loop valves) separately did

not exist. According to item 1 of the

Plan of Action and Schedule (POA) for

Issue 3 of the Compliance Plan, USEC

was committed to providing this

capability before July 1, 1997, and

submitting to the NRC, a revised TSR to

reflect the new autoclave containment

valve configuration. In addition, the

POA stated that until the capability to

separately test the inner and outer loop

containment valve is provided, the

applicable TSR requirement will be to

declare an autoclave inoperable and

taken out of service when, in any mode

of operation, either containment valve is

determined to be inoperable or, in the

heating mode, either pressure

instrument channel is determined to be

inoperable. According to USEC’s

certificate amendment request, since

this capability has been provided, the

Action conditions of TSR 2.1.3.5 should

allow completion of the current

operating cycle if only one instrument

channel, or one containment isolation

valve on one or more autoclave

penetrations, is operable. However, if

both instrument channels or all

containment isolation valves on any one

autoclave penetration are inoperable,

then TSR 2.1.3.5 requires USEC to shut

down the autoclave within one hour.

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.

Each line penetration for the thirteen

autoclaves at PORTS, has at least two

valves, that when actuated, would

isolate the autoclaves. In addition, each

autoclave has, as part of the autoclave

shell high pressure containment

shutdown system, two independent

high pressure containment actuation

channels. The proposed change to TSR

2.1.3.5 allows completion of the current

autoclave operating cycle if one

instrument channel, or one containment

isolation valve on one or more autoclave

penetrations, is inoperable. It is noted

that the proposed TSR 2.1.3.5 still

requires at least two channels and two

isolation valves on each autoclave

penetration to be operable prior to

initiating a new operating cycle.

Allowing an autoclave cycle to be

completed, with one instrument

channel and one containment valve

operable, instead of requiring it to be

shut down within one hour, will not

result in a change in the types or

significant increase in the amounts of

any effluents that may be released

offsite for the reasons given in the

following paragraph.

The UF6 containment boundaries

provided by the cylinder, pigtail and

valves inside an autoclave, and steam

and UF6 reaction product confinement

boundaries provided by the autoclave

shell and piping and valves out to and
58758 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 210 / Thursday, October 30, 1997 / Notices

including the second containment

valve, are designated as ‘‘Q’’ systems. As

such, USEC is required to apply the

highest level of quality control (ASME

NQA–1) to ensure that the pressure

boundaries within these systems are

maintained. Taking into consideration

the applicable safety features

(administrative and installed hardware)

for preventing and mitigating UF6

releases associated with autoclaves, and

past operational history at PORTS, the

staff concludes that a major accidental

release of UF6 inside an autoclave is

highly unlikely. The probability of

inoperability of a containment valve or

an instrument channel during an

operating cycle is also low (none have

been reported since March 3, 1997).

According to the surveillance

requirements of TSR 2.1.3.5, these

containment valves are required to be

calibrated semiannually at or below 15

psig, and to be quarterly functionally

tested and separately pressure decay

tested at 90 psig with an acceptable leak

rate of 10 psig/hour or 12 standard cubic

feet per minute. It should be noted that

requiring an autoclave to prematurely

shut down prior to completing an

operating cycle could introduce added

risk by necessitating additional

handling of cylinders containing liquid

UF6 for feed, sampling and transfer

autoclaves, or by introducing cascade

process upsets for feed autoclaves.

The staff has concluded that since

completing the current operating cycle

following inoperability of one

instrument channel or one containment

valve on an autoclave penetration will

not significantly increase the risk of a

UF6 release, this amendment will not

result in a significant 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.

For the reasons provided in the

assessment of criterion 1, the proposed

amendment will not significantly

increase the risk of a UF6 release.

Therefore, allowing an autoclave cycle

to be completed, instead of requiring it

to be shut down within one hour after

discovery of one inoperable instrument

channel or containment valve, will not

result in a significant increase in

individual or cumulative occupational

radiation exposures.

3. The proposed amendment will not

result in a significant construction

impact.

The proposed amendment does not

involve 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.

For the reasons provided in the

assessment of criterion 1, the proposed

amendment will not significantly

increase the risk of a UF6 release.

Therefore, allowing an autoclave cycle

to be completed, instead of requiring it

to be shut down within one hour after

discovering one inoperable instrument

channel or containment valve, will not

significantly increase the potential for,

or radiological or chemical

consequences from, previously analyzed

accidents.

5. The proposed amendment will not

result in the possibility of a new or

different kind of accident.

Based on the staff’s review of the

proposed amendment, no new or

different accidents were identified.

6. The proposed amendment will not

result in a significant reduction in any

margin of safety.

For the reasons provided in the

assessment of criterion 1, the proposed

amendment will not significantly

increase the risk of a UF6 release. Based

on the staff’s review of the proposed

amendment, the staff concludes that

there will be no significant reduction of

any margin 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.

For similar reasons provided in the

assessment of criterion 1, the proposed

amendment will not significantly

increase the risk of a UF6 release. In

addition, the staff has not identified any

criticality related implications from the

proposed amendment. Based on the

staff’s review of the proposed

amendment, the staff concludes that

there will be no decrease in the

effectiveness of the overall plant’s safety

program.

The staff has not identified any

safeguards or security related

implications from the proposed

amendment. Therefore, the proposed

amendment will not result in an overall

decrease in the effectiveness of the

plant’s safeguards, or security programs.

Effective date: The amendment to

GDP–2 will become effective 60 days

after issuance by NRC.

Certificate of Compliance No. GDP–2:

Amendment will revise the Technical

Safety Requirements.

Local Public Document Room

location: Portsmouth Public Library,

1220 Gallia Street, Portsmouth, Ohio

45662.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23d day

of October 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Carl J. Paperiello,

Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety

and Safeguards.

[FR Doc. 97–28756 Filed 10–29–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Privacy Act of 1974, As Amended;

Minor Revisions to Existing System of

Records

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Minor revisions to an existing

system of records.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

Privacy Act of 1974, as amended

(Privacy Act), the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) is revising and

republishing in its entirety the system of

records (system) notice for NRC–22,

‘‘Personnel Performance Appraisals—

NRC,’’ to reflect minor corrective and

administrative changes that will more

accurately and clearly describe the

following sections of the system notice:

System Location, Categories of

Individuals Covered by the System,

Authority for Maintenance of the

System, Routine Uses of Records

Maintained in the System, Storage,

Retrieval, Safeguards, Retention and

Disposal, System Manager(s) and

Address, Notification Procedure, Record

Access Procedures, and Contesting

Record Procedures.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 30, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jona

L. Souder, Freedom of Information/

Local Public Document Room Branch,

Office of Information Resources

Management, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001, telephone: 301–415–7170.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NRC’s

system of records notice for NRC–22,

‘‘Personnel Performance Appraisals—

NRC,’’ is being revised in its entirety to

more accurately and clearly describe the

system. The revisions reflect

organizational and address changes

within the agency since the notice was

last published in the Federal Register

on July 7, 1993 (58 FR 36469), as well

as the current General Records Schedule

(GRS) authorized disposition for

performance appraisal records. The

revisions to the system notice consist of

minor corrective and administrative

changes that do not require the

submission of an altered system of

records report pursuant to subsection (r)