Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 123 / Friday, June 26, 1998 / Notices 34939

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–334 and 50–412]

Duquesne Light Company; Notice of

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 Nos. DPR–

66 and NPF–73 issued to Duquesne

Light Company, et al. (the licensee) for

operation of the Beaver Valley Power

Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (BVPS–1 and

BVPS–2) located in Beaver County,

Pennsylvania.

The proposed amendment would

revise the BVPS–1 and BVPS–2

Technical Specification (TS) definition

of a channel calibration to add two

sentences stating that (1) the calibration

of instrument channels with resistance

temperature detector or thermocouple

sensors may consist of an inplace

qualitative assessment of sensor

behavior and normal calibration of the

remaining adjustable devices in the

channel and (2) whenever a sensing

element is replaced, the next required

channel calibration shall include an

inplace cross calibration that compares

the other sensing elements with the

recently installed sensing element. This

proposed change would make the

BVPS–1 and BVPS–2 TS definition of

channel calibration consistent with the

definition of a channel calibration

contained in the NRC’s improved

Standard Technical Specifications for

Westinghouse Plants (NUREG–1431,

Revision 1).

Before issuance of the proposed

license amendment, the Commission

will have made findings required by the

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended

(the Act) and the Commission’s

regulations.

The Commission has made a

proposed determination that the

amendment request involves 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. As required by 10 CFR

50.91(a), the licensee has provided its

analysis of the issue of no significant

hazards consideration, which is

presented below:

1. Does the change involve a significant

increase in the probability or consequences

of an accident previously evaluated?

The proposed change is administrative in

nature. It does not involve any change to the

configuration or method of operation of any

plant equipment that is used to mitigate the

consequences of an accident nor alter the

conditions or assumptions in any of the

Updated Final Safety Analysis Report

[UFSAR] accident analyses. The revised

definition would eliminate unnecessary and

potentially damaging removal of resistance

temperature detector (RTD) or thermocouple

sensors in order to perform calibrations that

are not technically possible. Therefore, it can

be concluded that the proposed changes do

not involve any increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated.

2. Does the change create the possibility of

a new or different kind of accident from any

accident previously evaluated?

No new failure modes have been defined

for any plant system or component important

to safety nor has any new limiting failure

been identified as a result of the proposed

changes. There will be no change in the

requirement to assess the entire RTD or

thermocouple channel behavior including

the sensor, alarm, display, and/or trip

function. Therefore, it can be concluded that

the proposed change does not create the

possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from those previously evaluated.

3. Does the change involve a significant

reduction in a margin of safety?

The proposed change is administrative in

nature. Assessment of channel behavior,

including sensors, will continue to be

required. The addition to the Channel

Calibration definition will provide greater

flexibility in the use of the provision for

surveillance testing, and will have no adverse

effect on safety. Also, the inplace qualitative

assessment obviates the need to remove the

RTDs or thermocouples from their installed

location, thereby eliminating the possibility

of damaging them during removal. Therefore,

it can be concluded that the proposed

changes do not involve any reduction in a

margin of safety.

The NRC staff has reviewed the

licensee’s analysis and, based on this

review, it appears that the three

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff

proposes to determine that the

amendment request involves no

significant hazards consideration.

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. 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 and

Directives Branch, Division of

Administrative 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 6D59, 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 examined at the NRC Public

Document Room, the Gelman Building,

2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC.

The filing of requests for hearing and

petitions for leave to intervene is

discussed below.

By July 27, 1998, the licensee may file

a request for a hearing with respect to

issuance of the amendment to the

subject facility operating license and

any person whose interest may be

affected by this proceeding and who

wishes to participate as a party in the

proceeding must file a written request

for a hearing and a petition for leave to

intervene. Requests for a hearing and a

petition for leave to intervene shall be

filed in accordance with the

Commission’s ‘‘Rules of Practice for

Domestic Licensing Proceedings’’ in 10

CFR Part 2. Interested persons should

consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.714

which is available 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 B. F.

Jones Memorial Library, 663 Franklin

Avenue, Aliquippa, PA 15001. If a

request for a hearing or petition for

leave to intervene is filed by the above

date, the Commission or an Atomic

Safety and Licensing Board, designated

by the Commission or by the Chairman

of the Atomic Safety and Licensing

Board Panel, will rule on the request
34940 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 123 / Friday, June 26, 1998 / Notices

and/or petition; and the Secretary or the

designated Atomic Safety and Licensing

Board will issue a notice of hearing or

an appropriate order.

As required by 10 CFR 2.714, a

petition for leave to intervene shall set

forth with particularity the interest of

the petitioner in the proceeding, and

how that interest may be affected by the

results of the proceeding. The petition

should specifically explain the reasons

why intervention should be permitted

with particular reference to the

following factors: (1) the nature of the

petitioner’s right under the Act to be

made party to the proceeding; (2) the

nature and extent of the petitioner’s

property, financial, or other interest in

the proceeding; and (3) the possible

effect of any order which may be

entered in the proceeding on the

petitioner’s interest. The petition should

also identify the specific aspect(s) of the

subject matter of the proceeding as to

which petitioner wishes to intervene.

Any person who has filed a petition for

leave to intervene or who has been

admitted as a party may amend the

petition without requesting leave of the

Board up to 15 days prior to the first

prehearing conference scheduled in the

proceeding, but such an amended

petition must satisfy the specificity

requirements described above.

Not later than 15 days prior to the first

prehearing conference scheduled in the

proceeding, a petitioner shall file a

supplement to the petition to intervene

which must include a list of the

contentions which are sought to be

litigated in the matter. Each contention

must consist of a specific statement of

the issue of law or fact to be raised or

controverted. In addition, the petitioner

shall provide a brief explanation of the

bases of the contention and a concise

statement of the alleged facts or expert

opinion which support the contention

and on which the petitioner intends to

rely in proving the contention at the

hearing. The petitioner must also

provide references to those specific

sources and documents of which the

petitioner is aware and on which the

petitioner intends to rely to establish

those facts or expert opinion. Petitioner

must provide sufficient information to

show that a genuine dispute exists with

the applicant on a material issue of law

or fact. Contentions shall be limited to

matters within the scope of the

amendment under consideration. The

contention must be one which, if

proven, would entitle the petitioner to

relief. A petitioner who fails to file such

a supplement which satisfies these

requirements with respect to at least one

contention will not be permitted to

participate as a party.

Those permitted to intervene become

parties to the proceeding, subject to any

limitations in the order granting leave to

intervene, and have the opportunity to

participate fully in the conduct of the

hearing, including the opportunity to

present evidence and cross-examine

witnesses.

If a hearing is requested, the

Commission will make a final

determination on the issue of no

significant hazards consideration. The

final determination will serve to decide

when the hearing is held.

If the final determination is that the

amendment request involves no

significant hazards consideration, the

Commission may issue the amendment

and make it immediately effective,

notwithstanding the request for a

hearing. Any hearing held would take

place after issuance of the amendment.

If the final determination is that the

amendment request involves a

significant hazards consideration, any

hearing held would take place before

the issuance of any amendment.

A request for a hearing or a petition

for leave to intervene 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. A

copy of the petition should also be sent

to the Office of the General Counsel,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001, and to Jay

E. Silberg, Esquire, Shaw, Pittman, Potts

& Trowbridge, 2300 N Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20037, attorney for the

licensee.

Nontimely filings of petitions for

leave to intervene, amended petitions,

supplemental petitions and/or requests

for hearing will not be entertained

absent a determination by the

Commission, the presiding officer or the

presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing

Board that the petition and/or request

should be granted based upon a

balancing of the factors specified in 10

CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i)–(v) and 2.714(d).

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application for

amendment dated June 19, 1998, which

is 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 B.

F. Jones Memorial Library, 663 Franklin

Avenue, Aliquippa, PA 15001.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd

day of June 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Donald S. Brinkman,

Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate

I–2, Division of Reactor Projects—I/II, Office

of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–17096 Filed 6–25–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–277 and 50–278]

PECO Energy Company, (Peach

Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2

and 3); Exemption

I

PECO Energy Company (the licensee)

is the holder of Facility Operating

License Nos. DPR–44 and DPR–56,

which authorize operation of Peach

Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS),

Units 2 and 3. The licenses provide,

among other things, that the licensee is

subject to all rules, regulations, and

orders of the Commission now or

hereafter in effect.

The facility consists of two boilingwater reactors at the licensee’s site

located in York County, Pennsylvania.

II

Section 70.24 of Title 10 of the Code

of Federal Regulations, ‘‘Criticality

Accident Requirements,’’ requires that

each licensee authorized to possess

special nuclear material (SNM) shall

maintain a criticality accident

monitoring system in each area where

such material is handled, used, or

stored. Subsections (a)(1) and (a)(2) of

10 CFR 70.24 specify detection and

sensitivity requirements that these

monitors must meet. Subsection (a)(3) of

10 CFR 70.24 requires licensees to

maintain emergency procedures for each

area in which this licensed SNM is

handled, used, or stored and provides

that (1) the procedures ensure that all

personnel withdraw to an area of safety

upon the sounding of a criticality

accident monitor alarm, (2) the

procedures must include drills to

familiarize personnel with the

evacuation plan, and (3) the procedures

designate responsible individuals for

determining the cause of the alarm and

placement of radiation survey

instruments in accessible locations for

use in such an emergency. Subsection

(b)(1) of 10 CFR 70.24 requires licensees

to have a means to identify quickly

personnel who have received a dose of

10 rads or more. Subsection (b)(2) of 10

CFR 70.24 requires licensees to

maintain personnel decontamination

facilities, to maintain arrangements for a

physician and other medical personnel