Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 1995 / Notices 66997

Safety Light Corporation; Bloomsburg, PA

Schott Glass Technologies; Duryea, PA

Sequoyah Fuels Corporation; Gore, OK

Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation;

Cambridge, OH

Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation;

Newfield, NJ

Texas Instruments, Inc.; Attleboro, MA

Watertown Arsenal/Mall; Watertown, MA

Watertown GSA; Watertown, MA

Westinghouse Electric Corporation; Waltz

Mill, PA

Whittaker Corporation; Greenville, PA

Wyman-Gordon Company; North Grafton,

MA

[FR Doc. 95–31298 Filed 12–26–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

[Docket No. 50–412]

Duquesne Light Co., Ohio Edison Co.,

The Cleveland Electric Illuminating

Co., The Toledo Edison Co., Beaver

Valley Power Station, Unit 2; Notice of

Withdrawal of Application for

Amendment to Facility Operating

License

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) has

granted the request by Duquesne Light

Company (the licensee) to withdraw its

April 14, 1993, application for a

proposed amendment to Facility

Operating License No. NPF–73 for

Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 2

(BVPS–2), located in Beaver County,

Pennsylvania.

The proposed amendment involved

revision of Table Notation (10) of Table

4.3–1 of Technical Specification

4.3.1.1.1. The proposed revision would

have added a footnote to Table Notation

(10) that would have stated: ‘‘Complete

verification of OPERABILITY of the

manual reactor trip switch circuitry

shall be performed prior to startup from

the first shutdown to Mode 3 occurring

after April 6, 1993.’’

The Commission has previously

issued a Notice of Consideration of

Issuance of Amendment in the Federal

Register on April 27, 1993 (58 FR

25676). However, on December 23,

1993, the licensee submitted a letter to

the NRC requesting withdrawal of the

proposed change because the change

was no longer required. BVPS–2 had

entered Mode 3 on September 18, 1993,

in preparation for its fourth refueling

outage and had performed the required

surveillance test on November 18, 1993.

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application for

amendment dated April 14, 1993, and

the licensee’s letter of December 23,

1993, which withdrew the application

for license amendment. The above

documents are available for public

inspection at the Commission’s Public

Document Room, The Gelman Building,

2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC,

20555 and at the B. F. Jones Memorial

Library, 663 Franklin Avenue,

Aliquippa, Pennsylvania 15001.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, 19th day of

December 1995.

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. 95–31301 Filed 12–26–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

[Docket Nos. 50–277 AND 50–278]

Peco Energy Company, Public Service

Electric and Gas Company, Delmarva

Power and Light Company, Atlantic

City Electric Company, Peach Bottom

Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3;

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–

44 and DPR–56, issued to the PECO

Energy Company (PECO, the licensee),

for operation of the Peach Bottom

Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3

(Peach Bottom, PBAPS), located in York

County, Pennsylvania.

The proposed amendment would

revise the ventilation filter test program

(VFTP) bypass and penetration leakage

test acceptance criteria from less than

0.05 percent to less than 1.0 percent.

The change corrects an administrative

error that occurred during the

development of the Peach Bottom

Improved Technical Specifications

which were issued as Amendments 210

and 214 to the Peach Bottom licenses on

August 30, 1995.

The amendment is being proposed on

an exigent basis in accordance with 10

CFR 50.91(a)(6). On December 11, 1995,

the licensee determined that a change to

the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station

Improved Technical Specifications,

issued by Amendments 210 and 214 to

the Unit 2 and Unit 3 licenses,

respectively, was required. An

administrative error contained in the

Improved Technical Specification VFTP

would result in the Engineered Safety

Feature (ESF) filter ventilation systems

being declared inoperable upon

implementation of Improved Technical

Specifications. Implementation of the

Improved Technical Specifications is

scheduled for January 11, 1996. Because

these ESF filter ventilation systems are

common to both Units and because the

ESF filter ventilation systems cannot be

maintained operable in accordance with

the administrative error in the VFTP, a

shutdown of both Units would be

required. Therefore, the licensee has

requested approval of the proposed

amendment in advance of the

implementation of the Improved

Technical Specifications in order to

eliminate the unnecessary hardship

associated with shutting down both

units.

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 consideration, which is

presented below:

(1) The proposed changes do not involve

a significant increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated because the changes are purely

administrative and do not involve any

physical changes to plant SSC [systems,

structures and components]. These proposed

changes do not impact initiators of analyzed

events, and will not increase the probability

of occurrence of an accident previously

evaluated. These proposed changes do not

impact the assumed mitigation of accidents

or transient events. Therefore, these changes

will not involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of an accident

previously evaluated.

(2) The proposed changes do not create the

possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from any accident previously

evaluated because the changes will not

involve a physical alteration of the plant (no

new or different type of equipment will be

installed) or changes in methods governing

normal plant operation. The changes do not

allow plant operation in any mode that is not

already evaluated in the safety analysis.

Therefore, these changes will not create the
66998 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 1995 / Notices

possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from any accident previously

evaluated.

(3) The proposed changes do not involve

a significant reduction in a margin of safety

because they are purely administrative and

will not involve any technical changes.

Generic Letter 83–13 (GL 83–13),

‘‘Clarification of Surveillance Requirements

for HEPA [high efficiency particulate air]

Filters and Charcoal Adsorber Units in

Standard Technical Specifications on ESF

Cleanup Systems,’’ was reviewed for

guidance. GL 83–13 based in-place

penetration and bypass leakage testing

acceptance criteria in part on the NRC staff

assumptions used in its safety evaluation

reports (SERs) for the ESF atmospheric

cleanup systems. GL 83–13 stated, ‘‘0.05%

value applicable when a HEPA filter or

charcoal adsorber efficiency of 99% is

assumed, or 1% when a HEPA filter or

charcoal adsorber efficiency of 95% or less is

assumed in the NRC staff’s safety

evaluation.’’ In the original SER for PBAPS

dated August 11, 1972, the NRC staff

assumed a 90% halogen removal efficiency

for the elemental and particulate forms of

iodine, and 70% for the organic forms of

iodine in the HEPA filters and charcoal

adsorbers of the Standby Gas Treatment

System (SGTS). The SER for Amendments

10/7 dated June 25, 1975 was issued to

resolve an issue raised by a December 10,

1974, letter from the NRC proposing model

TS [technical specifications] for PBAPS

Control Room Air Treatment Systems and

SGTS. The June 25, 1975, SER documented

the acceptability of values of less than 1%

penetration and bypass leakage which is still

in place in the existing TS Bases. No SERs

assumed HEPA filter or charcoal adsorber

efficiency of 99%. Therefore, GL 83–13

recommends acceptance of less than 1%

penetration and bypass leakage. Therefore,

maintaining the current requirements for

penetration and bypass leakage does not

involve a reduction in the margin of safety.

Also, because the change is administrative in

nature, no question of safety is involved.

Therefore, the change does not involve a

significant 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 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

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 January 25, 1996, 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

Government Publications Section, State

Library of Pennsylvania, (Regional

Depository) Education Building, Walnut

Street and Commonwealth Avenue, Box

1601, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105. 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.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 1995 / Notices 66999

1The Postal Service states that there are currently

three locations which have equipment appropriate

for processing the proposed parcel categories: the

Southeastern Pennsylvania Processing and

Distribution Center, the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Airport Mail Facility, and the St. Petersburg,

Florida Sectional Center Facility.

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 John F.

Stolz, Director, Project Directorate I–2:

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 J. W. Durham, Sr., Esquire, Sr.

V.P. and General Counsel, PECO Energy

Company, 2301 Market Street,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101,

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 December 19, 1995,

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 Government Publications Section,

State Library of Pennsylvania, (Regional

Depository) Education Building, Walnut

Street and Commonwealth Avenue, Box

1601, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day

of December, 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Joseph W. Shea,

Project Manager, Project Directorate I–2,

Division of Reactor Projects—I/II, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–31299 Filed 12–26–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

POSTAL RATE COMMISSION

[Order No. 1097; Docket No. MC96–1]

Notice of Filing of Request for

Establishment of an Experimental

First-Class and Priority Mail Small

Parcel Automation Rate Category

Issued December 20, 1995.

Before Commissioners: Edward J. Gleiman,

Chairman; W.H. ‘‘Trey’’ LeBlanc III, Vice

Chairman; George W. Haley, H. Edward

Quick, Jr.; Experimental First-Class and

Priority Mail Small Parcel Automation Rate

Category, 1995.

Notice is hereby given that on

December 19, 1995, the U.S. Postal

Service filed a request with the Postal

Rate Commission pursuant to 3623 of

the Postal Reorganization Act, 39 U.S.C.

101 et seq., for a recommended decision

on proposed changes in the Domestic

Mail Classification Schedule (DMCS).

The proposed revisions also include

proposed new rates. The request

includes attachments supported by the

testimony of four witnesses and four

library references. It is on file in the

Commission Docket Room and is

available for inspection during the

Commission’s regular business hours.

Experimental Nature of the Proposed

Change

The Postal Service indicates that it is

requesting new, experimental small

parcel automation rate categories within

First Class and Priority Mail.

Description of Request

The Postal Service requests the

establishment of discounted rate

categories within Priority Mail and

First-Class Mail for bulk quantities of

small parcels that are prebarcoded and

otherwise compatible with processing

on sorting machines equipped with

barcode scanners. The proposed service

would be available to all Priority and

First-Class Mail pieces which: (1) Are

entered at one of the designated test

sites; 1 (2) are presented in mailings of

50 or more pieces; (3) bear a barcode as

prescribed by the Postal Service; (4)

meet machinability specifications

prescribed by the Postal Service; (5) bear

a label placed on the surface of the

parcel with the largest measured area;

(6) meet address readability

specifications as prescribed by the

Postal Service; and (7) are presented for

mailing in a manner which does not

require cancellation. The Postal Service

proposes a rate discount of four cents

per piece for mailings that would

qualify for inclusion in the proposed

categories.

The request of the Postal Service

proposes that the experimental FirstClass and Priority Mail Small Parcel

Automation Rate Categories be in effect

for two years. The Postal Service states

a belief that this period of effectiveness

will allow mailers sufficient time to

adjust their mailing practices to use the

classification, and provide adequate

time for the Service to aggregate and

fully analyze data collected under the

experiment. If the data generated in the

experiment are determined to support a

request for a permanent mail

classification change, the Postal Service

anticipates that such a filing would be

made sufficiently in advance of the

termination date that service at the

experimental sites would not be

interrupted.

Motion for Waiver of Certain Filing

Requirements

The Postal Service’s request was also

accompanied by a motion for waiver of

compliance with certain requirements of

section 64(h) of the rules of practice [39

CFR 3001.64(h)], which specify raterelated information to be included in

classification requests that would affect

rates and fees. Specifically, the Postal

Service seeks waiver of compliance with

subsections (d) (in part), (f)(2), (f)(3), (h),

(j), (l)(1) (in part), and (l)(2) of section