21558 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 2, 1995 / Notices

achieve the underlying purpose of the

rule.

Based on generic and plant specific

data, the NRC staff finds the basis for

the licensee’s proposed exemption to

allow a one-time exemption to permit a

scheduler extension for NMP2 of one

cycle for the performance of the

Appendix J, Type A test, provided that

the visual containment inspection is

performed, to be acceptable.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the

Commission has determined that

granting this Exemption will not have a

significant impact on the environment

(60 FR 17374).

This Exemption is effective upon

issuance and shall expire at the

completion of the late 1996 refueling

outage.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day

of April 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Steven A. Varga,

Director, Division of Reactor Projects—I/II,

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–10729 Filed 5–1–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

[Docket No. 50–336]

Northeast Nuclear Energy Co.; 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 No. DPR–

21, issued to the Northeast Nuclear

Energy Company (NNECO/the licensee),

for operation of the Millstone Nuclear

Power Station, Unit No. 2, located in

New London County, Connecticut.

The proposed amendment would

revise the Technical Specification (TS)

3.1.2.4, ‘‘Charging Pumps—Operating,’’

by adding a note that indicates that the

provisions of TS 3.0.4 and 4.0.4 are not

applicable for entry into MODE 4 from

MODE 5.

Currently Millstone Unit 2 is in an

extended shutdown, but is scheduled to

start up in the near future. The current

TS 3.1.2.3 limits Millstone Unit No. 2 to

only one charging pump and one high

pressure safety injection (HPSI) pump

for MODES 4 and 6. TS 3.1.2.4 requires

that two charging pumps be operable in

MODES 1, 2, 3 and 4. The ACTION

statement requires that if one charging

pump is operable, that an additional

charging pump must be restored to an

operable status or the unit must be shut

down. TS 3.0.4 prohibits entrance into

an operational MODE when the limiting

condition for operation (LCO) is not met

and the ACTION statement requires a

shutdown. Similarly, TS 4.0.4 prohibits

entry into an operational MODE if the

Surveillance Requirement cannot be

met. The proposed change would permit

Millstone Unit 2 to enter MODE 4 as

planned. Exigent action is justified in

order to avoid an unnecessary delay in

reactor startup.

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.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6) for

amendments to be granted under

exigent circumstances, the NRC staff

must determine 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 (SHC) consideration, which is

presented below:

* * * The proposed changes do not

involve a SHC because the changes would

not:

1. Involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of an accident

previously evaluated.

The proposed technical specification

change will require that a second charging

pump be returned to service within four

hours of entering MODE 4 or prior to entering

MODE 3, which ever occurs first. The

addition of the footnote indicating that

Technical Specifications 3.0.4 and 4.0.4 are

not applicable for entry into MODE 4 from

MODE 5 will allow for the testing and

subsequent return to service of a charging

pump that was required to be inoperable in

MODE 5. The testing is necessary to restore

the pump to operable status.

The need to restrict charging pump

availability in MODE 5 is for LTOP

protection. The restriction contained in the

Technical Specification 3.1.2.4 to have a

maximum of two charging pumps operable

when the RCS [reactor coolant system] is less

than 300°F is provided for the boron dilution

analysis. Maximizing charging pump flow is

desirable from shutdown risk management

schemes. However, all three events, LTOP

[low-temperature overpressure protection],

boron dilution, and shutdown risk

management must be integrated to maximize

overall safety. The short (less than 4 hours)

delay in verifying the operability of the

second charging pump after entry into MODE

4 does not significantly affect the overall risk.

The technical specification as proposed,

balances all three events and will allow the

plant to operate.

The addition of the proposed footnote to

Technical Specification 3.1.2.4 will not

significantly increase the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated. The charging systems safety

related functions are not being impacted by

the proposed change.

2. Create the possibility of a new or

different kind of accident from any

previously evaluated.

The proposed change does not alter or

affect the design, function, failure MODE, or

operation of the plant. The proposed change

will allow NNECO to perform the required

operability tests to support the restoration of

a charging pump to an operable status.

3. Involve a significant reduction in a

margin of safety.

The proposed modification will allow for

the restoration of a second charging pump to

support plant operation in MODES 1, 2, 3,

and 4. Testing of the charging pump is

necessary to verify operability of the pump.

Sufficient flow is provided by the remaining

available pumps to address shutdown risk

issues. This proposed change will not

negatively impact the LTOP evaluation or

boron dilution analysis.

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 15 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 15-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

15-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. The Commission expects

that the need to take this action will

occur very infrequently.

Written comments may be submitted

by mail to the Rules Review and

Directives Branch, Division of Freedom
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 2, 1995 / Notices 21559

of Information and Publications

Services, Office of Administration, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555, 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 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 June 1, 1995, 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 Learning

Resource Center, Three Rivers

Community-Technical College, Thames

Valley Campus, 574 New London

Turnpike, Norwich, CT 06360. 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

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 a 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 the amendment is issued before the

expiration of the 30-day hearing period,

the Commission will make a final

determination on the issue of no

significant hazards consideration. If a

hearing is requested, 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, 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. Where petitions are filed

during the last 10 days of the notice

period, it is requested that the petitioner

promptly so inform the Commission by

a toll-free telephone call to Western

Union at 1–(800) 248–5100 (in Missouri

1–(800) 342–6700). The Western Union

operator should be given Datagram

Identification Number N1023 and the

following message addressed to Phillip

F. McKee, Director, Project Directorate

I–3: Petitioner’s name and telephone

number, date petition was mailed, plant

name, and publication date and page

number of this Federal Register notice.

A copy of the petition should also be

sent to the Office of the General

Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555,

and to Ms. L.M. Cuoco, Senior Nuclear

Counsel, Northeast Utilities Service

Company, Post Office Box 270, Hartford,

CT 06141–0270 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 24, 1994, 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

Learning Resource Center, Three Rivers

Community-Technical College, Thames

Valley Campus, 574 New London

Turnpike, Norwich, CT 06360.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day

of April 1995.
21560 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 2, 1995 / Notices

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Guy S. Vissing,

Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate

I–4, Division of Reactor Projects—I/II, Office

of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–10726 Filed 5–1–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

[Docket No. 030–31765, License No. 37–

28540–01, EA 94–006]

Oncology Services Corp., Harrisburg,

PA; Order Imposing Civil Monetary

Penalties

I

Oncology Services Corporation

(Licensee) was the holder of Byproduct

Materials License No. 37–28540–01

(License) issued by the Nuclear

Regulatory Commission (NRC or

Commission) on August 3, 1990. The

License authorized the Licensee to

possess and use certain byproduct

materials in accordance with the

conditions specified therein at six

facilities in Pennsylvania. The License

was due to expire on August 31, 1995.

However, on December 13, 1993, the

Licensee requested termination of the

License, with the License to be replaced

by individual licenses issued to the

facilities named as locations of use on

the License. On August 24, 1994,

License No. 37–28540–01 was

terminated, and the NRC subsequently

issued separate licenses for the

following facilities previously named as

locations of use under License No. 37–

28540–01: Greater Pittsburgh Cancer

Center (License No. 37–30163–01);

Mahoning Valley Cancer Center

(License No. 37–30086–01); Stoneboro

Oncology Associates, P.C. (License No.

37–30092–01); Greater Harrisburg

Cancer Center (License No. 37–30084–

01); Indiana Regional Cancer Center

(License No. 37–28179–02); and Exton

Cancer Center (License No. 37–30087–

01). In addition, a license was issued to

Jefferson Radiation Oncology Center

(License No. 37–30085–01).

II

An inspection of the Licensee’s

activities at its facilities located in

Indiana, Pennsylvania and Pittsburgh,

Pennsylvania was conducted on

December 3–18, 1992, by an NRC

Incident Investigation Team, following

an event involving the Indiana,

Pennsylvania facility in which there

was a significant misadministration to a

patient who died five days later, and

significant radiological exposures to

members of the public. In addition, NRC

Region I performed an inspection on

December 8, 1992, at the Licensee’s

Exton and Lehighton, Pennsylvania

facilities. The results of these

inspections indicated that the Licensee

had not conducted its activities in full

compliance with NRC requirements. A

written Notice of Violation and

Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties

(Notice) was served upon the Licensee

by letter dated May 31, 1994. The Notice

states the nature of the violations, the

provisions of the NRC requirements that

the Licensee had violated, and the

amount of the civil penalties proposed

for the violations.

The Licensee responded to the Notice

in letters dated August 31, 1994 and

October 4, 1994. In its responses, the

Licensee admits Violations III.C.2,

III.D.5, III.E. III.F, and III.I; denies

Violations I.A, I.B, II.A, II.B, III.A, III.B,

III.C.1, III.D.1–4, III.D.6, III.G, III.H, and

III.J.1–3 protests the amount of civil

penalties proposed; and requests

mitigation of the penalties, as

appropriate.

III

After consideration of the Licensee’s

responses and the statements of fact,

explanation, and argument for

mitigation contained therein, the NRC

staff has determined, as set forth in the

Appendix to this Order, that the

violations occurred as stated in the

Notice, and that the penalties proposed

for the violations designated in the

Notice should be imposed.

IV

In view of the foregoing and pursuant

to Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act

of 1954, as amended (Act), 42 U.S.C.

2282, and 10 CFR 2.205, it is hereby

ordered that:

The Licensee pay civil penalties in the

cumulative amount of $280,000 within 30

days of the date of this Order, by check, draft,

money order, or electronic transfer, payable

to the Treasurer of the United States and

mailed to James Lieberman, Director, Office

of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, One White Flint North, 11555

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852–

2738.

V

The Licensee may request a hearing

within 30 days of the date of this Order.

A request for a hearing should be clearly

marked as a ‘‘Request for an

Enforcement Hearing’’ and shall be

addressed to the Director, Office of

Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555,

with a copy to the Commission’s

Document Control Desk, Washington,

D.C. 20555. Copies also shall be sent to

the Assistant General Counsel for

Hearings and Enforcement at the same

address and to the Regional

Administrator, NRC Region I, 475

Allendale Road, King of Prussia, PA

19406.

If a hearing is requested, the

Commission will issue an Order

designating the time and place of the

hearing. If the Licensee fails to request

a hearing within 30 days of the date of

this Order, the provisions of this Order

shall be effective without further

proceedings. If payment has not been

made by that time, the matter may be

referred to the Attorney General for

collection.

In the event the Licensee requests a

hearing as provided above, the issues to

be considered at such hearing shall be:

(a) Whether the Licensee was in

violation of the Commission’s

requirements as set forth in Violations

I.A, I.B, II.A, II.B, III.A, III.B, III.C.1,

III.D.1–4, III.D.6, III.G, III.H, and III.J.1–

3 of the Notice referenced in Seciton II

above, and

(b) Whether, on the basis of such

violations and the additional violations

set forth in the Notice of Violation that

the Licensee admitted, this Order

should be sustained.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 24th day

of April 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Hugh L. Thompson, Jr.,

Deputy Executive Director for Nuclear

Materials Safety, Safeguards and Operations

Support.

Appendix—Evaluations and Conclusion

On May 31, 1994, a Notice of

Violation and Proposed Imposition of

Civil Penalties (Notice) was issued for

violations identified during NRC

inspections (including an Incident

Investigation Team (IIT) inspection) at

several Oncology Services Corporation

(Licensee) facilities. The Licensee

responded to the Notice on August 31,

1994 and October 4, 1994. The Licensee

admitted Violations III.C.2, III.D.5, III.E,

III.F, and III.I; denied Violations I.A, I.B,

II.A, II.B, III.A, III.B, III.C.1, III.D.1–4,

III.D.6, III.G, III.H, and III.J.1–3; and

requested remission of the civil

penalties. The NRC’s evaluation and

conclusion regarding the Licensee’s

requests are as follows:

Restatement of Violations in Section I of

the Notice

I. A. 10 CFR 20.201(b) requires that

each Licensee make such surveys as

may be necessary to comply with the

requirements of 10 CFR Part 20 and

which are reasonable under the

circumstances to evaluate the extent of

radiation hazards that may be present.

As defined in 10 CFR 20.201(a),

‘‘survey’’ means an evaluation of the

radiation hazards incident to the