Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 66 / Monday, April 7, 1997 / Notices 16627

public may access the electronic OMB

clearance package by following the

directions for electronic access provided

in the preamble to the titled rulemaking.

Comments and questions should be

directed to the OMB reviewer by May 7,

1997: Edward Michlovich, Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs,

3150–0002, NEOB–10202, Office of

Management and Budget, Washington,

D.C. 20503.

Comments may also be communicated

by telephone at (202) 395–3084. The

NRC Clearance Officer is Brenda J.

Shelton, (301) 415–7233.

Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 1st day

of April, 1997.

Gerald F. Cranford,

Designated Senior Official for Information

Resources Management.

[FR Doc. 97–8834 Filed 4–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–213]

Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power

Company; (Haddam Neck Plant);

Correction to Notice of Withdrawal of

Application for Amendment

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission issued a Notice of

Withdrawal of Application for

Amendment for Facility Operating

License No. DPR–61 for the Haddam

Neck Plant on March 13, 1997. In the

Federal Register issue of Monday,

March 24, 1997, make the following

correction:

On page 13899, first column, last

paragraph, the date as issued ‘‘this 13th

day of March 1997,’’ should have read

‘‘this 17th day of March 1997.’’

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 31st day

of March.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

James W. Andersen,

Project Manager, Special Projects Office—

Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–8833 Filed 4–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket 70–7001]

Notice of Amendment to Certificate of

Compliance GDP–1 for the U.S.

Enrichment Corporation Paducah

Gaseous Diffusion Plant Paducah,

Kentucky

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

basis for this determination for the

amendment request is shown 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 Paducah Gaseous

Diffusion Plant. 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:

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: February

28, 1997.

Brief description of amendment: The

amendment proposes to add a definition

for completion times and to define the

maximum interval between repetitive

action completion times in the

Technical Safety Requirements and to

make the same changes to the Safety

Analysis Report.

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 amendment to include

a definition for completion time and to

define the maximum time interval for

repetitive actions is an administrative

action. As such, these changes have no
16628 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 66 / Monday, April 7, 1997 / Notices

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 amendment will not

increase exposure.

3. The proposed amendment will not

result in a significant construction

impact.

The proposed amendment 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 amendment to include

a definition for completion time and to

define the maximum time interval for

repetitive actions will provide more

formality for the conduct of plant

operations. This inclusion will ensure

consistent interpretation of the

requirements. The proposed changes do

not affect the potential for or

radiological or chemical consequences

from previously evaluated accidents.

5. The proposed amendment will not

result in the possibility of a new or

different kind of accident.

The proposed amendment to include

a definition for completion time and to

define the maximum time interval for

repetitive actions will ensure consistent

interpretation of the requirements. The

changes will not create new operating

conditions or a 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.

A definition for completion time and

the definition for a maximum time

interval for repetitive actions were not

formally defined in the past and were

subject to interpretation. The addition of

these definitions for completion time

and the maximum time interval for

repetitive actions provides more

formality for the conduct of plant

operations. 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 amendment to include

a definition for completion time and to

define the maximum time interval for

repetitive actions provides more

formality for the conduct of plant

operations. The effectiveness of the

safety, safeguards, and security

programs is not decreased.

Effective date: 30 days after issuance

Certificate of Compliance No. GDP–1:

Amendment will incorporate a new

Technical Safety Requirement, a revised

Technical Safety Requirement and

Safety Analysis Report changes.

Local Public Document Room

location: Paducah Public Library, 555

Washington Street, Paducah, Kentucky

42003.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day

of March 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Carl J. Paperiello,

Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety

and Safeguards.

[FR Doc. 97–8831 Filed 4–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Commonwealth of Massachusetts:

Discontinuance of Certain Commission

Regulatory Authority Within the

Commonwealth

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of agreement with the

Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that

Shirley Ann Jackson, Chairman of the

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC) and William F. Weld, Governor of

the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,

have signed the Agreement set forth

below for the discontinuance by the

Commission and assumption by the

Commonwealth of certain Commission

regulatory authority. The Agreement is

published pursuant to Section 274 of

the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as

amended. Under the Agreement, certain

persons would be exempted from

certain of the regulatory requirements of

the Commission. The pertinent

exemptions have been previously

published in the Federal Register and

are codified in the Commission’s

regulations as 10 CFR part 150.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Richard L. Blanton, Office of State

Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001. Telephone (301) 415–2322 or email RLB@NRC.GOV.

The draft of the Agreement was

published in the Federal Register for

comment on four separate dates (see,

e.g. 61 FR 68066, December 26, 1996).

One comment was received which

requested that NRC retain jurisdiction

over a site listed on the Site

Decommissioning Management Plan

(SDMP) until the NRC license for the

site is terminated. NRC expedited the

actions necessary to terminate the

subject SDMP site license and on March

21, 1997, NRC terminated the license

and removed the site from the SDMP

list.

Appendix—Text of the Agreement

Agreement Between the United States

Nuclear Regulatory Commission and

the Commonwealth of Massachusetts

for the Discontinuance of Certain

Commission Regulatory Authority and

Responsibility Within the

Commonwealth Pursuant to Section 274

of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as

Amended

Whereas, The United States Nuclear

Regulatory Commission (hereinafter

referred to as the Commission) is

authorized under Section 274 of the

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended

(hereinafter referred to as the Act), to

enter into agreements with the Governor

of any State providing for

discontinuance of the regulatory

authority of the Commission within the

State under Chapters 6, 7, and 8, and

Section 161 of the Act with respect to

by-product materials as defined in

Sections 11e.(1) and (2) of the Act,

source materials, and special nuclear

materials in quantities not sufficient to

form a critical mass; and,

Whereas, The Governor of the

Commonwealth of Massachusetts is

authorized under Massachusetts General

Laws, Chapter 111H, to enter into this

Agreement with the Commission; and,

Whereas, The Governor of the

Commonwealth of Massachusetts

certified on March 28, 1996, that the

Commonwealth of Massachusetts

(hereinafter referred to as the

Commonwealth) has a program for the

control of radiation hazards adequate to

protect public health and safety with

respect to the materials within the

Commonwealth covered by this

Agreement, and that the Commonwealth

desires to assume regulatory

responsibility for such materials; and,

Whereas, The Commission found on

March 3, 1997, that the program of the

Commonwealth for the regulation of the

materials covered by this Agreement is

compatible with the Commission’s

program for the regulation of such

materials and is adequate to protect

public health and safety; and,

Whereas, The Commonwealth and the

Commission recognize the desirability

and importance of cooperation between

the Commission and the

Commonwealth in the formulation of

standards for protection against hazards

of radiation and in assuring that

Commonwealth and Commission

programs for protection against hazards