Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 26, 1995 / Notices 66805

2Legislation to sunset the Commission on

December 31, 1995, and transfer remaining

functions is now under consideration in Congress.

Until further notice, parties submitting pleadings

should continue to use the current name and

address.

or misleading information, the

exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to

revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C.

10505(d) may be filed at any time. The

filing of a petition to revoke will not

automatically stay the transaction.

Any comments must be filed with:

Office of the Secretary, Case Control

Branch, Interstate Commerce

Commission, Washington, DC 20423. A

copy of any pleading filed with the

Commission should be sent to

applicant’s representative: Keith G.

O’Brien, 1920 N St., NW., Suite 420,

Washington, DC 20036.2

As a condition to the use of this

exemption, any employees adversely

affected by this transaction will be

protected under Norfolk and Western

Ry. Co.—Trackage Rights—BN, 354

I.C.C. 605 (1978), as modified in

Mendocino Coast Ry., Inc.—Lease and

Operate, 360 I.C.C. 653 (1980).

Decided: December 15, 1995.

By the Commission, David M. Konschnik,

Director, Office of Proceedings.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–31173 Filed 12–22–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7035–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–295 and 50–304]

Commonwealth Edison Company (Zion

Nuclear Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and

2)

Exemption

I

Commonwealth Edison Company

(ComEd or the licensee) is the holder of

Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–39

and DPR–48, which authorize operation

of the Zion Nuclear Power Station, Unit

Nos. 1 and 2, at a steady-state reactor

power level not in excess of 3250

megawatts thermal. The facilities are

pressurized water reactors located at the

licensee’s site in Lake County, Illinois.

The licenses provide, among other

things, that the Zion Nuclear Power

Station is subject to all rules,

regulations, and Orders of the U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the

Commission or NRC) now or hereafter

in effect.

II

Sections III.C and III.D.3 of 10 CFR

part 50, appendix J, require that Type C

local leak rate periodic tests shall be

performed during reactor shutdown for

refueling, or other convenient intervals,

but in no case at intervals greater than

2 years. These requirements are

reflected in the Zion Technical

Specifications (TS) as requirements to

perform type C containment leak rate

testing in accordance with 10 CFR part

50, appendix J, and approved

exemptions.

III

The licensee has determined that

certain containment isolation pathways

have not been locally leak rate tested

(type C tests) as required by appendix J

to 10 CFR part 50. In a letter dated

August 16, 1995, the licensee requested

relief from the requirement to perform

the type C containment leak rate tests of

certain penetrations and valves in these

pathways in accordance with the

requirements of sections III.C and III.D

of 10 CFR part 50, appendix J. On

August 16, 1995 the staff authorized in

writing, continued operation of the Zion

units in a notice of enforcement

discretion (NOED) until such time as the

staff acted on the exemption requests. In

a letter dated November 20, 1995, the

staff granted the schedular exemptions

requested in the licensee’s letter of

August 16, 1995, and granted schedular

exemptions for the permanent

exemption requests to allow time for

additional staff review and until final

staff action could be taken. In its letter

of November 28, 1995, and

supplemented on December 6, 1995, the

licensee requested that certain

schedular exemption requests be

granted as permanent exemptions.

The licensee’s letter of November 28,

1995, requested permanent exemptions

for components in the following

containment penetrations:

Units 1 and 2: P–70, Valve

1(2)SF8767, Refuel Cavity to

Purification Pump; P–99, Valve

1(2)SF8787, Purification Pump to Refuel

Cavity.

The licensee’s letter of November 28,

1995, also requested that the following

permanent exemption requests be

changed to schedular exemption

requests.

Units 1 and 2: P–77, 1(2)PP0101,

1(2)PP0102, 1(2)PP0103, 1(2)PP0104

(Penetration Pressurization to

Containment Valve Stations); P–102,

1(2)AOV–RC8029 (Primary Water to the

Pressurizer Relief Tank).

For unit 1, the penetrations would be

tested during the refueling outage in the

fall of 1995, and for unit 2, they would

be tested during the next cold shutdown

of sufficient duration, and subsequently

thereafter as required. For P–77 and P–

102, the staff’s letter of November 20,

1995, granted schedular exemptions

until December 31, 1995, at which time

final action will be taken. This

schedular exemption still applies for

units 1 and 2.

The licensee’s letter of November 28,

1995, also requested that for P–44, the

permanent exemption request be

changed to a schedular exemption

request. In a letter dated December 6,

1995, the licensee withdrew the

previous requests because it intends to

test the penetration in accordance with

the requirements of 10 CFR part 50,

appendix J.

The licensee’s request dated

November 28, 1995, justified the

proposed permanent exemptions for P–

70 and P–99 on the following basis.

For P–70 and P–99, the tests were

intended to be performed with air by

installing a hole plug to allow a pressure

source hookup while maintaining an

adequate pressure boundary. During a

walkdown of the test boundary, it was

identified that the design of the piping

for these penetrations does not allow

draining of accumulated water in the

line and, therefore, prevents a proper

leak rate test with air per the

requirements of 10 CFR part 50,

appendix J. The piping configurations

were not known to the licensee when

the exemption request dated August 16,

1995, was submitted. For P–70, in

addition to not being able to completely

drain the line, the dose rates for the

location where the hole plug would

have to be installed are extremely high,

on the order of 1–2 Rem/hour. For P–

99, the piping configuration is such that

the location of the test connection

would pose a personnel safety issue

since the connection is located on the

side of the refueling cavity

approximately 30 feet above the cavity

floor. In its submittal dated November

28, 1995, the licensee, therefore,

requested a permanent exemption to be

allowed to perform the test with water.

If the exemptions were approved,

dewatering of the lines would not be

necessary, and the isolation for the test

boundaries would be by other means.

The test would be performed by

pressurizing the subject valve with

water to approximately 100 psig (greater

than Pa, which is 47 psig) and

inspecting the valve for leakage. The

acceptance criterion will be the same as

the other tests which use water as a test

medium, zero leakage.

The leakage pathways for P–70 and P–

99 do not consist of through-valve
66806 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 26, 1995 / Notices

leakage paths, but rather leakage paths

out of containment isolation valves

through valve diaphragms. The

potential leakage paths are small or

restrictive and are through cracks or

tears in valve diaphragms. The leakage

path for a significant leak to occur

requires a sequence of events for which

the probability of occurrence is low. The

proposed test, with water as the test

medium and with a zero leakage

acceptance criterion, is conservative

enough to provide reasonable assurance

of no significant increase in risk to

health and safety of the public when

compared to testing with air. In

addition, seismic support of the

systems, missile protection, and, for P–

70, the isolation valve seal water system

all provide additional assurance that the

risk of a significant leak is minimal.

To justify granting an exemption to

the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50,

Appendix J, a licensee must show that

the requirements of 10 CFR 50.12(a)(1)

are met. The licensee stated that its

exemption requests meet the

requirements of 10 CFR 50.12(a)(1), for

the following reasons:

Criteria for Granting Exemptions are Met per

10 CFR 50.12(a)(1)

1. The requested exemptions and the

activities which would be allowed

thereunder are authorized by law.

If the criteria established in 10 CFR

50.12(a) are satisfied, as they are in this case,

and if no other prohibition of law exists to

preclude the activities which would be

authorized by the requested exemption, and

there is no such prohibition, the Commission

is authorized by law to grant this exemption

request.

2. The requested exemption will not

present undue risk to the public.

As stated in 10 CFR 50, Appendix J, the

purpose of primary containment leak rate

testing is to assure that leakage through

primary containment and systems and

components penetrating primary

containment shall not exceed the allowable

leakage rate values as specified by the

Technical Specifications or associated bases

and to ensure that the proper maintenance

and repairs are made during the service life

of the containment and systems and

components penetrating primary

containment. The requested exemption is

consistent with this intent for those

penetrations in that alternate means of

ensuring leakage remains acceptably low will

be performed as proposed herein.

3. The requested exemption will not

endanger the common defense and security.

The common defense and security are not

in any way compromised by this exemption

request.

In addition, the licensee must show

that at least one of the special

circumstances, as defined in 10 CFR

50.12(a)(2) is present. One of the special

circumstances that a licensee may show

to exist is that the application of the

regulation in the particular

circumstance is not necessary to achieve

the underlying purposes of the rule. The

purposes of the rule, as stated in Section

I of 10 CFR 50, Appendix J, are to

ensure that: (1) Leakage through the

primary reactor containment and

systems and components penetrating

containment shall not exceed allowable

values, and (2) periodic surveillance of

reactor containment penetrations and

isolation valves is performed so that

proper maintenance and repairs are

made. The staff has reviewed the

licensee’s proposal and has concluded

that the proposed alternative tests will

confirm the integrity of the subject

pathways. Therefore, application of the

regulation in this particular

circumstance is not necessary to achieve

the underlying purpose of the rule.

IV

Sections III.C and III.D.3 of 10 CFR

Part 50, Appendix J, require that Type

C local leak rate periodic tests shall be

performed during reactor shutdown for

refueling, or other convenient intervals,

but in no case at intervals greater than

2 years.

The licensee proposes exemptions to

these sections which would provide

relief from the requirement to perform

the Type C containment leak rate tests

of certain valves in accordance with the

requirements of Sections III.C and III.D

of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J.

The Commission has determined that,

pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a)(1), this

exemption is authorized by law, will not

present an undue risk to the public

health and safety, and is consistent with

the common defense and security. The

Commission further determined that

special circumstances, as provided in 10

CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), are present justifying

the exemption; namely, that the

application of the regulation is not

necessary to achieve the underlying

purpose of the rule.

Therefore the Commission hereby grants

the following exemption:

The requirement of 10 CFR Part 50,

Appendix J, to pressurize the valves in

penetrations P–70 and P–99 with air or

nitrogen is not necessary. Instead, the test

pressure medium may be water.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the

Commission has determined that

granting these exemptions will not have

a significant impact on the human

environment (60 FR 63549).

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day

of December 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Jack W. Roe,

Director, Division of Reactor Projects—III/IV,

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–31254 Filed 12–22–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

[Docket No. 50–395]

South Carolina Electric & Gas

Company, South Carolina Public

Service Authority, Virgil C. Summer

Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1;

Environmental Assessment and

Finding of No Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of an amendment

to Facility Operating License No. NPF–

12, issued to South Carolina Electric &

Gas Company and South Carolina

Public Service Authority (the licensee),

for operation of the Virgil C. Summer

Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1, located in

Fairfield County, South Carolina.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

The proposed action would support

the licensee’s plan to implement the

revised 10 CFR Part 20, ‘‘Standards for

Protection Against Radiation.’’ Also, the

licensee proposed several editorial

changes to improve the clarity of the

Technical Specifications (TS). The

majority of the licensee’s proposal meets

the eligibility criteria for categorical

exclusion set forth in 10 CFR

51.22(c)(9). However, one aspect of the

licensee’s proposal changes

requirements with respect to use of a

facility component located outside the

restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part

20. Specifically, requirements for use of

the settling ponds will be changed by

the proposed amendment.

The proposed action is in accordance

with the licensee’s application for

amendment dated February 21, 1995, as

revised on August 31, 1995, and

December 4, 1995.

The Need for the Proposed Action

The proposed action is needed to

update the license to incorporate the

revised requirements of 10 CFR Part 20

(i.e., the need for the proposed action

was created by a change in the

regulatory requirements).

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The Commission has completed its

evaluation of the proposed action and

concludes that the proposed revision to

the radioactive material quantity in the

settling ponds will not change the types