Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 1997 / Notices 67

initiated prior to NRC enforcement

action. Therefore, these factors should

be taken into consideration prior to the

NRC pursuing escalated enforcement

and imposition of a civil penalty. The

Licensee believes that to issue a civil

penalty after action was taken to

reorganize the fire protection program

and provide enhanced management

oversight would be contrary to the NRC

Enforcement Policy. Furthermore, the

imposition of a civil penalty under these

circumstances would serve no purpose

other than to punish the Licensee and

would be contrary to the NRC

Enforcement Policy to focus on current

performance.

NRC Evaluation of Licensee’s Request

for Mitigation of Civil Penalty

The NRC does not agree with the

Licensee’s position that the fire

protection program problems were

identified by the Licensee and

corrective action was taken prior to NRC

involvement. Program oversight

weaknesses were highlighted by the

NRC in the February 1995 SALP Report,

as discussed previously. In addition,

concerns with the timeliness and

adequacy of fire protection program

corrective actions were also identified

by the NRC in February 1996. Although

a QA audit completed in May 1996

elevated the significance of the

programmatic issues to upper TVA

management, a follow-up NRC

inspection in July 1996 found that these

issues had not been resolved. Once the

NRC focused on the multiple fire

protection deficiencies in an inspection

conducted in July and August 1996, the

Licensee placed additional emphasis on

this area, made organizational and

personnel changes, and implemented

plans to correct the deficiencies. The

actions were initiated by the Licensee

after the February 1996 identification by

the NRC of: (1) A related violation and

(2) inadequate responses to QA findings;

but these actions were limited and did

not ensure lasting corrective actions.

Section VI.B.2.c of the Enforcement

Policy discusses the application of the

factor of Corrective Action in the civil

penalty assessment process. The

purpose of this factor is to encourage

licensees to (1) take the immediate

actions necessary upon discovery of a

violation that will restore safety and

compliance with the license,

regulations, or other requirements; and

(2) develop and implement (in a timely

manner) the lasting corrective actions

that will not only prevent recurrence of

the violation at issue, but will be

appropriately comprehensive, given the

significance and complexity of the

violations, to prevent recurrence of

violations with similar root causes. In

assessing Corrective Action,

consideration is given to the timeliness

of the action (including the promptness

in developing the schedule for long term

corrective action), the adequacy of the

licensee’s root cause analysis, and the

comprehensiveness of the corrective

action. Clearly, in this case, the program

deficiencies at issue in the Notice were

discovered by TVA as early as 1991, but

corrective actions were not promptly

taken, and since the issues were

primarily licensee-identified, the time of

reference used in assessing this factor is

discovery, not when the issues were

identified as apparent violations by the

NRC. Further, although in most cases,

schedules for long-term corrective

actions were developed, management

had not placed the appropriate priority

on meeting schedules, which resulted in

substantial deferments. Continued

unjustifiable deferral of known

deficiencies is unacceptable to the NRC.

NRC Conclusion

The NRC concludes that the

violations occurred as stated and that

collectively they represent a Severity

Level III problem. Since the July/August

1996 NRC inspection, it appears that the

licensee has implemented appropriate

corrective actions to address these

problems and is now appropriately

focused on this program area. However,

no adequate basis for either a reduction

of the severity level or for mitigation of

the civil penalty was provided by the

licensee. Consequently, the proposed

civil penalty in the amount of $50,000

should be imposed.

[FR Doc. 97–7638 Filed 3–25–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

[Docket Nos. 70–7001 and 70–7002]

Criteria for Staff Implementation of

‘‘Backfitting’’ Requirements for

Gaseous Diffusion Plants; Notice of

Availability

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

SUMMARY: On March 3, 1997, the U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

assumed regulatory jurisdiction over the

Gaseous Diffusion Plants (GDPs) from

the U.S. Department of Energy. The

GDPs are regulated under 10 CFR part

76 of the Commission’s regulations. The

NRC staff has developed Office of

Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

(NMSS) Policy and Procedures Letter 1–

53 to implement the ‘‘Backfitting’’

provision of 10 CFR 76.76. This

procedure is available for inspection at

the NRC Public Document Room and

Local Public Document Rooms

discussed below.

DATES: The NMSS Policy and

Procedures Letter 1–53 is effective on

March 3, 1997 as an interim procedure.

Comments on the interim procedure are

due on or before May 27, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Mail written comments to:

Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001. ATTN: Docketing and Service

Branch. Hand deliver comments to

11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,

Maryland 20852, between 7:45 am and

4:15 pm during Federal Workdays.

Copies of comments received may be

examined at the NRC Public Document

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

Washington, DC and at the Local Public

Documents Rooms (LPDRs), under

Docket No. 70–7001, at the Paducah

Public Library, 555 Washington Street,

Paducah, Kentucky 42003; and under

Docket No. 70–7002, at the Portsmouth

Public Library, 1220 Gallia Street,

Portsmouth, Ohio 45662.

Copies of NMSS Policy and

Procedures Letter 1–53 may be obtained

as indicated in the Discussion portion of

Supplementary Information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Tom Wenck, Office of Nuclear Material

Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555, telephone (301) 415–8088.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

On November 26, 1996, the Director,

NMSS, issued the initial Certificates of

Compliance to the United States

Enrichment Corporation, authorizing

the continuing operation of its GDPs.

When the certificates became effective

on March 3, 1997, the U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission (NRC) assumed

regulatory jurisdiction over the GDPs

from the Department of Energy.

Section 76.76 of part 76 to Chapter I

of Title 10 of the Code of Federal

Regulations (CFR) contains a provision

on ‘‘Backfitting.’’ ‘‘Backfitting’’ is

defined in 10 CFR 76.76 to be

‘‘* * * the modification of, or addition

to, systems, structures, or components

of a plant or to the procedures or

organization required to operate a plant;

any of which may result from a new or

amended provision in the Commission

rules or the imposition of a regulatory

staff position interpreting the

Commission rules, that is either new or

different from a previous NRC staff

position.’’ The intent of 10 CFR 76.76 is

to provide a process by which to

manage staff’s imposition of new plant-
68 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 1997 / Notices

1These exceptions are backfits that are necessary

in order to ensure (a) that the plants provide

adequate protection to the health and safety of the

public and are in accord with the common defense

and security, or (b) to bring the plants into

compliance with the certificates, rules or orders of

the Commission, or into conformance with written

commitments by the Corporation.

specific and/or generic regulatory staff

positions on the GDPs.

Although backfits are expected to

occur and are a part of the regulatory

process, it is important for sound and

effective regulation that backfits are

conducted in a controlled process. The

NRC staff has developed NMSS Policy

and Procedures Letter 1–53 on GDP

generic and plant-specific backfitting.

Copies of this procedure can be

obtained from the Commission Public

Document Room (PDR), 2120 L Street,

NW., Washington, DC and at the Local

Public Document Rooms (LPDRs), under

Docket No. 70–7001, at the Paducah

Public Library, 555 Washington Street,

Paducah, Kentucky 42003; and under

Docket No. 70–7002, at the Portsmouth

Public Library, 1220 Gallia Street,

Portsmounth, Ohio 45662.

Appendix 1 to NMSS Policy and

Procedures Letter 1–53 provides

guidance to the NRC staff on the proper

NRC mechanisms (e.g., rulemaking) to

use in establishing or communicating

legal requirements and NRC staff

positions to certificatees. Appendix 4

contains guidance to the NRC staff for

making backfit determinations. Once a

backfit determination has been made,

and the proposed backfit does not meet

either of the 2 exception 1 given in 10

CFR 76.76(a)(4) (i) and (ii), the NRC staff

is required by 10 CFR 76.76(a)(3) to

perform a cost/benefit analysis to

determine ‘‘that there is a substantial

increase (emphasis added) in the overall

protection of the public health and

safety or the common defense and

security to be derived from the backfit

and that the direct and indirect costs of

implementation for that plant are

justified in view of this increased

protection.’’

Appendix 3 of NMSS Policy and

Procedures Letter 1–53 contains

guidance on application of the

‘‘Substantial Increase’’ Standard. This

standard provides qualitative criteria for

NRC staff to make a safety/safeguards

‘‘net benefits’’ determination of cost/

benefits for the proposed backfit where

a quantitative approach is not feasible.

NMSS Policy and Procedures Letter

1–53 is the first backfit procedure

developed for facilities other than

nuclear power reactor facilities. In

addition, the GDPs are existing facilities

which have operated under the

Department of Energy for a number of

years. Recognizing that this procedure

may be addressing new issues, the NRC

will accept public comments which

focus on specific technical contents of

the procedure.

Opportunity for Comments

The GDP backfit implementing

procedure will be used by the NRC staff

as an interim procedure pending

completion of public review and

resolution of comments on this FR

Notice. Comments will be accepted

which focus on the specific appendices

discussed above. Comments in other

areas of the procedures will be

considered if they are directly related to

the backfit issue. Procedures such as

NMSS Policy and Procedures Letters are

used by NRC as guidance to the NRC

staff on NRC’s internal management

process.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 17th day

of March 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

John T. Greeves,

Acting Director, Office of Nuclear Material

Safety and Safeguards.

[FR Doc. 97–7641 Filed 3–25–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

Biweekly Notice

Applications and Amendments to

Facility Operating Licenses Involving

No Significant Hazards Considerations

I. Background

Pursuant to Public Law 97-415, the

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(the Commission or NRC staff) is

publishing this regular biweekly notice.

Public Law 97-415 revised section 189

of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as

amended (the Act), to require the

Commission to publish notice of any

amendments issued, or proposed to be

issued, under a new provision of section

189 of the Act. This provision grants the

Commission the authority to issue and

make immediately effective any

amendment to an operating license

upon a determination by the

Commission that such amendment

involves no significant hazards

consideration, notwithstanding the

pendency before the Commission of a

request for a hearing from any person.

This biweekly notice includes all

notices of amendments issued, or

proposed to be issued from March 3,

1997, through March 14, 1997. The last

biweekly notice was published on

March 12, 1997.

Notice Of Consideration Of Issuance Of

Amendments To Facility Operating

Licenses, Proposed No Significant

Hazards Consideration Determination,

And Opportunity For A Hearing

The Commission has made a

proposed determination that the

following amendment requests involve

no significant hazards consideration.

Under the Commission’s regulations in

10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation

of the facility in accordance with the

proposed amendment would not (1)

involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of an

accident previously evaluated; or (2)

create the possibility of a new or

different kind of accident from any

accident previously evaluated; or (3)

involve a significant reduction in a

margin of safety. The basis for this

proposed determination for each

amendment request is shown below.

The Commission is seeking public

comments on this proposed

determination. Any comments received

within 30 days after the date of

publication of this notice will be

considered in making any final

determination.

Normally, the Commission will not

issue the amendment until the

expiration of the 30-day notice period.

However, should circumstances change

during the notice period such that

failure to act in a timely way would

result, for example, in derating or

shutdown of the facility, the

Commission may issue the license

amendment before the expiration of the

30-day notice period, provided that its

final determination is that the

amendment involves no significant

hazards consideration. The final

determination will consider all public

and State comments received before

action is taken. Should the Commission

take this action, it will publish in the

Federal Register a notice of issuance

and provide for opportunity for a

hearing after issuance. The Commission

expects that the need to take this action

will occur very infrequently.

Written comments may be submitted

by mail to the Chief, Rules Review and

Directives Branch, Division of Freedom

of Information and Publications

Services, Office of Administration, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555-0001, and

should cite the publication date and

page number of this Federal Register

notice. Written comments may also be

delivered to Room 6D22, Two White

Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike,

Rockville, Maryland from 7:30 a.m. to

4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. Copies of

written comments received may be