Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 3, 1995 / Notices 153

the guard should be requested to telephone

the Division of Contracts (415–7314) for pickup of the application.

Nothing in this solicitation should be

construed as committing the NRC to

dividing available funds among all

qualified applicants.

Dated Rockville, MD this 20th day of

December, 1994.

For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

Mary Mace,

3Grants Officer, Division of Contracts, Office

of Administration.

[FR Doc. 94–32301 Filed 12–30–94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

[Docket Nos. 50–295 and 50–304]

Commonwealth Edison Company, Zion

Nuclear Power Station, Receipt of

Petition for Director’s Decision Under

10 CFR 2.206

Notice is hereby given that by a letter

dated November 3, 1994, and a signed

petition, Robert K. Rutherford and other

Zion Nuclear Power Station security

guards (Petitioners) request that the U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

take action with regard to the new

response team member (RTM) security

plan at Zion Nuclear Power Station.

Petitioners request that the NRC

reassess and withdraw its approval of

the new RTM security plan and require

greater justification from both the

licensee and the security contractor

about reduction of armed guards and the

defense of the plant to what Petitioners

characterize as a minimum state of

operational readiness. As bases for the

request, Petitioners assert that the new

RTM security plan degrades actual plant

security; that the proposed

qualifications in the plan are causing

employee turnover, undue stress, labor

problems, and inconsistency in plant

defense; that monetary considerations

should not take priority over plant

defense and administrative jobs should

not replace front-line security guards;

that the total disarming of the Zion

owner-controlled area and the Zionprotected area is highly detrimental to

plant defense and public safety; and that

modern armaments and increased

hostility among the general public as

well as terrorist threats from either

domestic and/or international sources

have not abated.

The letter and enclosed petition are

being treated as a Petition pursuant to

10 CFR 2.206 of the Commission’s

regulations. The Petition has been

referred to the Director of the Office of

Nuclear Regulatory Regulation (NRR).

As provided by 10 CFR 2.206,

appropriate action will be taken on the

Petition within a reasonable time.

A copy of the Petition is available for

inspection at the Commission’s Public

Document Room at 2120 L Street, NW.,

Washington, DC.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 22nd day

of December 1994.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

William T. Russell,

Director, Office of Nuclear Regulatory

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 94–32302 Filed 12–30–94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

Rosemount Nuclear Instruments, Inc.;

Receipt of Petition for Director’s

Decision

Notice is hereby given that by Petition

dated November 21, 1994, Paul M.

Blanch (Petitioner) has requested that

the NRC take ‘‘prompt’’ action with

regard to Rosemount Nuclear

Instruments, Inc. Specifically, the

Petitioner requests that: (1) Rosemount

‘‘immediately’’ inform all users of safety

related transmitters pursuant to Part 21

of Title 10 of the Code of Federal

Regulations (10 CFR Part 21) of the shelf

life limitations of the fill oil and that the

oil may crystallize if the transmitters are

exposed to temperatures of less than 70

degrees Fahrenheit (°F), and provide all

available information to each licensee

for evaluation as applicable to each

facility; (2) the NRC take ‘‘prompt and

vigorous’’ enforcement against

Rosemount for both its failure to report

to users of the transmitters the shelf life

limitations of the fill oil and its failure

to report the potential of the oil to

crystallize when exposed to

temperatures of less than 70 °F, and that

a ‘‘separate violation must be issued’’

for each defect and each day of failure

to provide the required notice; and (3)

the NRC consider escalated enforcement

action due to the repetitive nature of

these violations. As a basis for his

request, the Petitioner asserts that,

contrary to 10 CFR Part 21, although

Rosemount was aware of a defect that

may create a substantial safety hazard,

it failed to report this defect to the

affected licensees within five working

days for evaluation. Specifically, the

Petitioner alleged that, although the

NRC informed Rosemount by letter

dated June 2, 1994, that the fill oil did

not meet the specified performance

requirements to assure operability of

transmitters under normal operating

conditions in that crystallization may

occur when the transmitters are

subjected to temperatures of less than 70

°F, which may inhibit the operation of

many transmitters, Rosemount withheld

this information from licensees. The

Petitioner asserts further that this is a

‘‘repetitive’’ violation in that on

November 15, 1994, the NRC assessed a

Severity Level II violation against

Rosemount for failing to properly

inform licensees of a potential for a

sensor cell oil-loss problem in violation

of 10 CFR 21.21.

The request is being treated pursuant

to 10 CFR § 2.206 of the Commission’s

regulations. The request has been

referred to the Director of the Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation. The request

that Rosemount ‘‘immediately’’ inform

all users of safety related transmitters of

the shelf life limitations of the fill oil

and the potential for crystallization has

been denied. As provided by Section

2.206, action will be taken on the

Petitioner’s remaining requests within a

reasonable time.

A copy of the Petition is available for

inspection at the Commission’s Public

Document Room at 2120 L Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20555–0001.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd

day of December, 1994.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

William T. Russell,

Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 94–32303 Filed 12–30–94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

[Docket No. 50–298]

Nebraska Public Power District;

Consideration of Issuance of

Amendment to Facility Operating

License, Proposed No Significant

Hazards Consideration Determination,

and Opportunity for a Hearing

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of an amendment

to Facility Operating License No. DPR–

46, issued to the Nebraska Public Power

District (the licensee) for operation of

the Cooper Nuclear Station (CNS)

located in Nemaha County, Nebraska.

The proposed amendment is a Line

Item Technical Specifications

Improvement and would revise the CNS

Technical Specifications, definition

1.0.J. concerning entering an operational

condition consistent with the wording

proposed in NRC Generic Letter 87–09,

‘‘Sections 3.0 and 4.0 of the Standard

Technical Specifications on the

Applicability of Limiting Conditions for

Operation and Surveillance

Requirements,’’ dated June 4, 1987.

Before issuance of the proposed

license amendment, the Commission

will have made findings required by the

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended