6280 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Notices

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:

Docketing and Services Branch, 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:

September 30, 1996.

Brief description of amendment: The

amendment changes the Technical

Safety Requirement for the cascade cell

trip function and revises limiting

specific values for battery performance.

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 to TSR 2.4.4.12

and SAR section 3.9.1.3.2 provide limits

for battery voltage and air circuit

breaker air pressure, improve the

surveillance requirements for measuring

battery cell specific gravity, as well as

improved bases for the limits. These

changes provide improved assurance

that the cell trip function will be

available, if required. As such, these

changes enhance the ability of the

cascade trip function to deenergize the

process motors (‘‘tripping the cell’’),

thus bringing the cell below

atmospheric pressure. By enhancing the

ability to perform the cell trip function,

the ability to mitigate the consequences

of postulated accidents has been

improved. As such, these changes have

no impact on plant effluents and will

not result in any impact to the

environment.

2. The proposed amendment will not

result in a significant increase in

individual or cumulative occupational

radiation exposure.

The proposed changes provide

enhanced assurance that the cell trip

function will be available if necessary.

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 enhance the

availability of the cascade cell trip

function and affect no other equipment

functions. The cascade cell trip function

is not involved in any precursor to an

evaluated accident; therefore, the

potential of occurrence of an evaluated

event is unaffected. The cell trip

function is involved in the mitigation of

the consequences of previously

evaluated accidents by deenergizing the

process motors, thus bringing the cell

below atmospheric pressure. Revising

the limiting specific values for battery

performance and the air pressure

requirements for the ‘‘000’’ air circuit

breakers enhances the ability of the cell

trip function by ensuring that adequate

DC voltage and air pressure are available

to effect cell trip. Since the proposed

changes provide enhanced assurance

that the function will be available if

required, the consequences of

previously evaluated accidents are not

increased.

5. The proposed amendment will not

result in the possibility of a new or

different kind of accident.

The proposed changes establish new

operating limits for plant equipment

that are within the existing operating

ranges of that equipment. The changes

create no 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.

The minimum air pressures and

battery voltages established by these

proposed changes are within the

existing operating ranges of the

equipment and have been increased to

enhance the cell trip function, which is

the only safety function affected by

these parameters. The proposed changes

cause no reductions in 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.

The proposed changes enhance the

availability of the cascade cell trip

function and do not affect any other

equipment functions or administrative

requirements. The cell trip function is

not addressed in the safeguards and

security programs. The effectiveness of

the safety, safeguards, and security

programs is not decreased.

Effective date: 60 days after issuance.

Certificate of Compliance No. GDP–1:

Amendment will revise the Technical

Safety Requirements.

Local Public Document Room

location: Paducah Public Library, 555

Washington Street, Paducah, Kentucky

42003.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 4th day

of February 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Carl J. Paperiello,

Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety

and Safeguards.

[FR Doc. 97–3323 Filed 2–10–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Nuclear

Regulatory Commission.

DATE: Weeks of February 10, 17, 24, and

March 3, 1997.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Notices 6281

PLACE: Commissioners’ Conference

Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,

Maryland.

STATUS: Public and Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

Week of February 10

Thursday, February 13

2:00 p.m.

Briefing on Operating Reactor Oversight

Program and Status of Improvements in

NRC Inspection Program (Public

Meeting)

(Contact: Bill Borchardt, 301–415–1257)

3:30 p.m.

Affirmation Session (Public Meeting)

*(Please Note: These items will be affirmed

immediately following the conclusion of

the preceding meeting.)

a: Louisiana Energy Services (Claiborne

Enrichment Center); Atomic Safety and

Licensing Board Partial Initial Decision

(Resolving Contentions J.4, K, and Q),

LBP–96–25.

Week of February 17—Tentative

Tuesday, February 18

1:00 p.m.

Briefing on BPR Project on Redesigned

Materials Licensing Process (Public

Meeting)

(Contact: Don Cool, 301–415–7197)

2:30 p.m.

Briefing on Analysis of Quantifying Plant

Watch List Indicators (Public Meeting)

(Contact: Rich Barrett, 301–415–7482)

Wednesday, February 19

2:00 p.m.

Briefing on Millstone and Maine Yankee

Lessons Learned (Public Meeting)

(Contact: Steve Stein, 301–415–1296)

3:30 p.m.

Affirmation Session (Public Meeting) (if

needed)

Thursday, February 20

2:00 p.m.

Briefing on EEO Program (Public Meeting)

(Contact: Ed Tucker, 301–415–7382)

Week of February 24—Tentative

Wednesday, February 26

11:30 a.m.

Affirmation Session (Public Meeting) (if

needed)

Week of March 3—Tentative

There are no meetings scheduled for the

Week of March 3.

lllllll

*The schedule for Commission meetings is

subject to change on short notice. To verify

the status of meetings call (recording)—(301)

415–1292.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Bill Hill, (301) 415–1661.

The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule

can be found on the Internet at:

http://www.nrc.gov/SECY/smj/schedule. htm

This notice is distributed by mail to

several hundred subscribers; if you no

longer wish to receive it, or would like

to be added to it, please contact the

Office of the Secretary, Attn: Operations

Branch, Washington, D.C. 20555 (301–

415–1661).

In addition, distribution of this

meeting notice over the internet system

is available. If you are interested in

receiving this Commission meeting

schedule electronically, please send an

electronic message to wmh@nrc.gov or

dkw@nrc.gov.

Dated: February 7, 1997.

William M. Hill, Jr.,

SECY Tracking Officer, Office of the

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–3500 Filed 2–7–97; 1:40 p.m.]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

Final Memorandum of Understanding

Between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission and the State of Vermont

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice is to advise the

public of the issuance of a Final

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)

between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) and the State of

Vermont. The MOU provides the basis

for mutually agreeable procedures

whereby the State of Vermont may

utilize the NRC Emergency Response

Data System (ERDS) to receive data

during an emergency at a commercial

nuclear power plant in Vermont. Public

comments were addressed in

conjunction with the MOU with the

State of Michigan published in the

Federal Register, Vol. 57. No. 28,

February 11, 1992.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This MOU is effective

December 10, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Copies of all NRC

documents are available for public

inspection and copying for a fee in the

NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L

Street, N.W. (Lower Level), Washington,

DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

R. Jolicoeur or Eric D. Weinstein, Office

for Analysis and Evaluation of

Operational Data, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555. Telephone (301) 415–6402 or

(301) 415–7559.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

attached MOU is intended to formalize

and define the manner in which the

NRC will cooperate with the State of

Vermont to provide data related to plant

conditions during emergencies at

commercial nuclear power plants in

Vermont.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day

of January, 1997.

For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

Denwood F. Ross, Jr.,

Acting Director, Office for Analysis and

Evaluation of Operational Data.

Agreement Pertaining to the Emergency

Response Data System Between the

State of Vermont and the U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission

I. Authority

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) and the State of

Vermont enter into this Agreement

under the authority of Section 274i of

the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as

amended.

The State of Vermont recognizes the

Federal Government, primarily the NRC,

as having the exclusive authority and

responsibility to regulate the

radiological and national security

aspects of the construction and

operation of nuclear production or

utilization facilities, except for certain

authority over air emissions granted to

States by the Clean Air Act.

II. Background

A. The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as

amended, and the Energy

Reorganization Act of 1974, as

amended, authorize the Nuclear

Regulatory Commission (NRC) to license

and regulate, among other activities, the

manufacture, construction, and

operation of utilization facilities

(nuclear power plants) in order to assure

common defense and security and to

protect the public health and safety.

Under these statutes, the NRC is the

responsible agency regulating nuclear

power plant safety.

B. NRC believes that its mission to

protect the public health and safety can

be served by a policy of cooperation

with the State governments and has

formally adopted a policy statement on

‘‘Cooperation with States at Commercial

Nuclear Power Plants and Other Nuclear

Production or Utilization Facilities’’ (54

FR 7530, February 22, 1989). The policy

statement provides that NRC will

consider State proposals to enter into

instruments of cooperation for certain

programs when these programs have

provisions to ensure close cooperation

with NRC. This agreement is intended

to be consistent with, and implement

the provisions of the NRC’s policy

statement.

C. NRC fulfills its statutory mandate

to regulate nuclear power plant safety

by, among other things, responding to

emergencies at the licensee’s facilities

and monitoring the status and adequacy