Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 36 / Thursday, February 23, 1995 / Notices 10123

previously evaluated already include

dose contributions from MSIV leakage at

the maximum leakage rate currently

permitted by the TS. Appendix 2 of

Attachment 3 of the January 14, 1994,

submittal shows the previously

calculated doses and the new calculated

doses resulting from the proposed

changes.

The staff concluded that the current

exemption was acceptable based on:

The method of MSIV testing (i.e., 22

psig test pressure when applied between

MSIVs on a single steam line); a

radiological analysis that assumed a

11.5 scfh MSIV leak rate, and the

licensee’s commitment that the MSIVs

would be periodically tested to ensure

the validity of the radiological analysis

(i.e., verify that the MSIV leakage rate

during testing is accounted for

separately in the radiological analysis of

the site. The proposed changes do not

affect the bases for the current

exemption. The modification and

implementing TS change request: Will

not alter the procedure method of MSIV

testing (i.e., test pressure will remain at

22 psig when applied between MSIVs)

and are based on the results of a

radiological analysis where the

proposed leakage rate and the resulting

doses are still within regulatory limits.

Also, the MSIVs will be periodically

tested to assure the validity of the

analysis (i.e., verify that the proposed

MSIV leakage rate assumed in the

radiological analysis is not exceeded per

proposed TS 3.6.1.2.c), and the MSIV

leakage will still be accounted for

separately in the radiological analysis of

the site.

For the reasons set forth above, the

NRC staff concludes that there is

reasonable assurance that: The current

MSIV leak testing method (i.e., test

pressure of 22 psig when applied

between MSIV) is an acceptable method;

the proposed alternate MSIV leakage

pathway (main steam lines and

condenser), and the calculated doses

obtained by performing radiological

analysis (calculated using an MSIV

leakage rate limit of 100 scfh per MSIV

not to exceed 200 scfh for all four main

steam lines) are within the limits of 10

CFR Part 100 and GDC 19. The staff

finds it acceptable to continue to

exclude the measured MSIV leakage rate

from the combined local rate, since the

leakage is accounted for separately and

continues to meet the underlying

purpose of the rule. Therefore, the staff

finds the requested exemption

presented in the licensee’s December 22,

1994, submittal acceptable.

III

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the

Commission may, upon application by

any interested person or upon its own

initiative, grant exemptions from the

requirements of 10 CFR Part 50 when (1)

the exemptions are authorized by law,

will not present an undue risk to public

health and safety, and are consistent

with the common defense and security;

and (2) when special circumstances are

present. Special circumstances are

present whenever, according to 10 CFR

50.12(a)(2)(ii), ‘‘Application of the

regulation in the particular

circumstances would not serve the

underlying purpose of the rule or is not

necessary to achieve the underlying

purpose of the rule * * *,’’

The underlying purpose of the rule is

to assure that the total valve leakage is

within the limits of 10 CFR Part 100 and

GDC–19. The licensee’s analysis has

demonstrated that an adequate margin

can be maintained even if leakage from

the MSIV is considered separately and

subject to a leakage restriction of 100

scfh per MSIV, not to exceed a total of

200 scfh for all four main steam lines.

IV

Accordingly, the Commission has

determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR

Part 50.12, an exemption is authorized

by law and will not present an undue

risk to the public health and safety, and

that there are special circumstances

present, as specified in 10 CFR

50.12(a)(2). An exemption is hereby

granted from the requirements of

Sections II.H.4, III.C.2(a), and III.C.3 of

Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50. The

exemption allows (1) leakage testing of

the MSIVs after deletion of the LCS,

using a test pressure of 22 psig applied

between MSIVs and a leakage rate limit

of 100 scfh per MSIV, not to exceed 200

scfh for all main steam lines, and (2)

exclusion of the measured MSIV leakage

rate from the combined local leak rate.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the

Commission has determined that the

granting of this exemption will have no

significant impact on the quality of the

human environment (60 FR 7226).

The exemption is effective upon

issuance and will be implemented prior

to startup of Cycle 4 for LGS, Unit 2,

and prior to startup of Cycle 7 for LGS,

Unit 1.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 16th day

of February 1995.

[FR Doc. 95–4383 Filed 2–22–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

[Docket No. 50–353]

Philadelphia Electric Company; Notice

of Issuance of Amendment to Facility

Operating License

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (Commission) has issued

Amendment No. 53 to Facility

Operating License No. NPF–85 issued to

Philadelphia Electric Company, which

revised the Technical Specifications for

operation of the Limerick Generating

Station, Unit 2, located in Montgomery

County, Pennsylvania.

The amendment is effective as of the

date of issuance. The amendment

modified the Technical Specifications to

permit an increase in the allowable leak

rate for main steam isolation valves

(MSIV), and delete the MSIV leakage

control system (LCS). The main steam

drain lines and the main condenser

would be utilized as an alternate MSIV

leakage treatment system.

The application for the amendments

complies with the standards and

requirements of the Atomic Energy Act

of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the

Commission’s rules and regulations.

The Commission has made appropriate

findings as required by the Act and the

Commission’s rules and regulations in

10 CFR Chapter I, which set forth in the

license amendment.

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of

Amendments and Opportunity for

Hearing in connection with this action

was published in the Federal Register

on September 26, 1994 (59 FR 49089).

No request for a hearing or petition for

leave to intervene was filed following

this notice.

The Commission has prepared an

Environmental Assessment related to

the action and has determined not to

prepare an environmental impact

statement. Based upon the

environmental assessment, the

Commission has concluded that the

issuance of the amendment will not

have a significant effect on the quality

of the human environment (60 FR 7226).

For further details with respect to the

action see (1) the application for

amendments dated January 14, 1994,

and supplemented by letters dated

August 1, October 25, December 13,

December 22, 1994 (two submittals),

and February 7, 1995 (2) Amendment

No. 53 to License No. NPF–85, (3) the

Commission’s related Safety Evaluation,

and (4) the Commission’s

Environmental Assessment. All of these

items are 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
10124 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 36 / Thursday, February 23, 1995 / Notices

the Pottstown Public library, 500 High

Street, Pottstown, PA.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day

of February 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Frank Rinaldi,

Project Manager, Project Directorate I–2,

Division of Reactor Projects I/II, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–4384 Filed 2–22–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

[Docket No. 030–29343; License No. 29–

19310–02 (Expired); EA 94–226]

Environmental Testing Laboratories,

Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Order

Imposing a Civil Monetary Penalty

I

Environmental Testing Laboratories

(ETL), Inc. (Licensee), is the holder of

expired Byproduct Materials License

No. 29–19310–02 (License) issued by

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC or Commission) pursuant to 10

CFR Part 30 on July 31, 1986. The

License authorized the possession and

use of nickel–63 in plated sources or

foils, not to exceed 15 millicuries per

foil, in accordance with the conditions

specified therein. The License expired

on August 31, 1991.

II

ETL did not submit an application for

renewal of the License under 10 CFR

30.37 prior to its expiration on August

31, 1991, nor did ETL notify the

Commission, in writing under 10 CFR

30.36, of a decision not to renew the

License 30 days prior to its expiration.

Although Mr. Walter Holm, Jr., the

Radiation Safety Officer, stated ETL’s

intentions in a letter dated May 15,

1991, to terminate the license, until

January 24, 1995, ETL had not

transferred the licensed material to an

authorized recipient, nor had ETL

applied for an NRC license.

On January 14, 1993, NRC Region I

issued a Notice of Violation (NOV) at

Severity Level IV to ETL, mailed to Mr.

Walter Holm, for possession of

byproduct material without a valid NRC

license. The letter forwarding the NOV

directed the Licensee to lace the

byproduct material in secure storage,

not to use the material, and promptly

transfer the byproduct material to an

authorized recipient. The Licensee did

not respond to that NOV. In a June 7,

1994 letter, the NRC again reminded

ETL of the need to respond to the NRC

Notice of Violation. ETL did not

respond. In addition, ETL did not

respond to a telephone message left on

October 26, 1994. On November 10,

1994, a written Notice of Violation and

Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty

(Notice); Notification of Consideration

of the Imposition of Daily Civil

Penalties; and Order to Cease and Desist

Use and Possession of Regulated

Byproduct Material were served upon

ETL. The Notice categorized the

violation at Severity Level III since ETL

had not transferred the material nor

responded to the NOV issued on

January 14, 1993. ETL has not

responded in writing to the Notice, even

though a response was required by

December 10, 1994, and even though the

NRC contacted ETL on January 3, 6 and

18, 1995, regarding submittal of a

response. ETL has not responded to the

Order to Cease and Desist as required.

However, NRD, a sub-contractor of

Perkin-Elmer (an authorized recipient)

received the sealed source from ETL on

January 24, 1995.

III

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 a penalty of $3,000

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:

ETL pay a penalty in the amount of $3,000

within 30 days of the date on 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, MD

20852–2738.

V

ETL 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 ETL 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 ETL requests a hearing as

provided above, the issues to be

considered at such hearing shall be:

(a) Whether ETL was in violation of

the Commission’s requirements as set

forth in the Notice referenced in Section

II above, and

(b) Whether on the basis of such

violations, this Order should be

sustained.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 15th day

of February 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

James Lieberman,

Director, Office of Enforcement.

Appendix—Violations and Conclusion

On November 10, 1994, a Notice of

Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil

Penalty (Notice) was issued based on a

review of communications (and associated

documents) conducted between the NRC and

Environmental Testing Laboratories, Inc.

(ETL) between November 1991 and October

26, 1994. ETL has not responded to the

Notice, even though a response was required

by December 10, 1994, and even though NRC

contacted ETL on January 3, 6 and 18, 1995,

to remind them of need to respond. The

violations set forth in the Notice, as well as

the NRC conclusion on this matter, are as

follows:

1. Restatement of Violations

A. 10 CFR 30.3 states, in part, that except

for persons exempt as provided in 10 CFR

Parts 30 and 150, no person shall possess or

use byproduct material except as authorized

in a specific or general license issued

pursuant to the regulations in this chapter.

Contrary to the above, from January 14,

1993 through October 31, 1994, ETL has been

in possession of byproduct material not

authorized under a specific or general

license, and ETL is not exempt as provided

in 10 CFR Parts 30 and 150. (01013)

B. 10 CFR 30.36(b) requires, in part, that

each licensee notify the Commission

promptly, in writing, and request termination

of the license when the licensee decides to

terminate all activities involving materials

authorized under the license.

10 CFR 30.36(c)(1) requires, in part, that if

a licensee does not submit an application for

license renewal under 10 CFR 30.37, the

licensee shall, on or before the expiration

date specified in the license, terminate use of

byproduct material; properly dispose of

byproduct material; submit a completed form

NRC–314, which certifies information

concerning the disposition of material; and

conduct a radiation survey of the premises

where the licensed activities were carried out

and submit a report of the results of this

survey.

Contrary to the above, as of August 31,

1991, the NRC license issued to ETL expired

and the licensee did not submit an

application for license renewal nor did it