420 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 4 / Friday, January 5, 1996 / Notices

assumption that all other tests will be

conducted in accordance with the

requirements of Appendix J.

The Commission’s regulations at 10

CFR 50.12 provide that special

circumstances must be present in order

for an exemption from the regulations to

be granted. According to 10 CFR

50.12(a)(2)(ii), special circumstances are

present whenever 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. As discussed above,

the intent of Appendix J is to assure that

containment leakage does not exceed

technical specifications limits, and the

staff finds that this small interval

extension will not significantly affect

that assurance. To require a shutdown

solely for surveillance testing is not

necessary to achieve the underlying

purpose of the rule.

Accordingly, the Commission has

determined, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12,

that this exemption is authorized by law

and will not present an undue risk to

the public health and safety, and is

consistent with the common defense

and security. The Commission further

determines that special circumstances

as provided in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii) are

present in that application of the

regulation in these particular

circumstances is not necessary to

achieve the underlying purpose of the

rule. Therefore, the Commission hereby

grants the exemption from 10 CFR Part

50, Appendix J, Sections III.D.2(a) and

III.D.3 to the extent that the Appendix

J test interval for performing Type B and

Type C tests may be extended by 25

percent until the fall 1996 refueling

outage, on a one-time only basis, for

Fermi 2, as described in Section III

above.

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 61576).

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 18th 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. 96–147 Filed 1–4–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

[Docket No. 50–354]

Public Service Electric & Gas

Company and Atlantic City Electric

Company Hope Creek Generating

Station 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. NPF–

57, issued to Public Service Electric &

Gas Company and Atlantic City Electric

Company (the licensee), for operation of

the Hope Creek Generating Station,

located on the east shore of the

Delaware River in Lower Alloways

Creek Township, Salem County, New

Jersey.

The proposed amendment would

change Hope Creek Generating Station

Technical Specification (TS) 1.4,

‘‘Channel Calibration’’, to define actions

required for channel calibration of

instrument channels containing

resistance temperature detector or

thermocouple sensors.

The instrument channels affected by

this calibration issue are required to be

operable in Operational Conditions 1, 2

and 3. The licensee has determined this

issue impacts operability of the affected

channels. Hope Creek is currently in

Operational Condition 5 and the

affected instrument channels are not

required to be operable. However, the

outage schedule indicates that the

licensee will be going to Operational

Condition 3 on February 2, 1996. Hope

Creek TS 3.0.4 prohibits entry into an

operational condition when the

Limiting Conditions for Operation are

not met. The licensee requires 3 days to

implement the change. Therefore, the

licensee requested that this amendment

request be approved no later than

January 31, 1996. Since this schedule

does not permit the NRC to publish this

notice in the Federal Register with

allowance for a 30-day public comment

period, the licensee requested that this

action be handled as an exigent request.

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. Will not involve a significant increase in

the probability or consequences of an

accident previously evaluated.

Since no physical change is being made to

the instrumentation channels, or to any

system or component that interfaces with the

instrumentation channels, there is no change

in the probability of any accident analyzed in

the UFSAR [Updated Final Safety Analysis

Report].

There is no change in the consequences of

an accident. The proposed change continues

to ensure the surveillance requirements meet

the licensing basis. Also, the testing

performed will continue to demonstrate the

capability of the affected instrumentation

channels to respond to changes in the state

of the monitored parameters in a manner

consistent with assumptions in the accident

analysis.

Therefore, the proposed change does not

involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of an accident

previously evaluated.

2. Will not create the possibility of a new

or different kind of accident from any

previously evaluated.

The proposed change does not result in

any design or physical configuration changes

to the instrumentation channels. Operation

incorporating the proposed change will not

impair the instrumentation channels from

performing as provided in the design basis.

By aligning the TS to be consistent with the

current calibration practice we will prevent

the possibility for unnecessary removal and

potential damage of the temperature

detectors (for sensor calibration). The

instrument channels will continue to

function as assumed in the accident analyses.

Therefore, the proposed change does not

create the possibility of a new or different

kind of accident from any previously

evaluated.

3. Will not involve a significant reduction

in a margin of safety.

Since the proposed change does not

involve the addition or modification of plant

equipment, is consistent with the intent of

the existing Technical Specifications, is

consistent with the current industry practices

as outlined in NUREG 1433, ‘‘Standard

Technical Specifications General Electric

Plants, BWR/4’’ Revision 1 and is consistent

with the design basis of the Instrumentation

Systems and the accident analysis, no action

will occur that will involve a significant

reduction in a margin of safety.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 4 / Friday, January 5, 1996 / Notices 421

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 February 5, 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

Pennsville Public Library, 190 S.

Broadway, Pennsville, New Jersey

08070. 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 John

Stolz, Director, Project Directorate I–2:

petitioner’s name and telephone
422 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 4 / Friday, January 5, 1996 / Notices

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 M.J. Wetterhahn, Esquire,

Winston and Strawn, 1400 L Street,

NW., Washington, DC 20005–3502

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 28, 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 Pennsville Public Library, 190 S.

Broadway, Pennsville, New Jersey

08070.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day

of January 1996.

For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

David H. Jaffe,

Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate

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

of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 96–144 Filed 1–4–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

[Docket No. 50–155]

Consumers Power Company Big Rock

Point Plant; Environmental

Assessment and Finding of No

Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of an exemption

from certain requirements of 10 CFR

Part 50, Appendix J, Paragraph

III.D.1.(a), Type A Tests, to the

Consumers Power Company (CPCo or

the licensee), for operation of the Big

Rock Point Plant (BRP), located in

Charlevoix County, Michigan.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

The proposed action would allow an

exemption from the requirement of 10

CFR Part 50, Appendix J, [Option A],

Paragraph III.D.1.(a), for a one-time

schedular extension for the Type A test

(containment integrated leak rate test

(ILRT)) of approximately 12 months,

from the 1996 refueling outage to the

1997 refueling outage.

The proposed action is in accordance

with the licensee’s application for

exemption dated November 8, 1995.

The Need for the Proposed Action

The current ILRT requirements for Big

Rock Point as set forth in Appendix J,

are that a set of three Type A tests must

be performed at approximately equal

intervals during each 10-year period

service period. Also, the third test of

each set shall be conducted when the

plant is shut down for the 10-year plant

inservice inspections (ISI). The previous

Type A test was performed in Feburary

1992. The first of the fourth 10-year

period Type A tests is currently

scheduled to be performed in January

1996.

The licensee has requested a

schedular exemption from the

requirement in 10 CFR Part 50,

Appendix J, [Option A], Section

III.D.1.(a) to perform certain Type A

tests at ‘‘approximately equal time

intervals.’’ Specifically, the proposed

exemption would allow CPCo to delay

the Type A test until the January 1997

refueling outage. The interval between

the Type A tests would increase from 47

months to 59 months.

Environment Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The Commission has completed its

evaluation of the proposed action and

concludes that the proposed one-time

exemption would not increase the

probability or consequences of accidents

previously analyzed and the proposed

one-time exemption would not affect

facility radiation levels or facility

radiological effluents. The licensee has

analyzed the results of previous Type A

tests performed at the Big Rock Point

Plant to show adequate containment

performance. The licensee will continue

to be required to conduct Type B and

Type C local leak rate tests which

historically have been shown to be the

principal means of detecting

containment leakage paths with the

Type A tests confirming the Type B and

C tests results. It is also noted that the

licensee would perform a general

inspection of accessible interior or

exterior surfaces of the containment

structures and components although it

is only required by Appendix J to be

conducted in conjunction with Type A

tests. The NRC staff considers that these

inspections, though limited in scope,

provide an important added level of

confidence in the continued integrity of

the containment boundary.

The change will not increase the

probability or consequences of

accidents, no changes are being made in

the types of any effluents that may be

released off site, and there is no

significant increase in the allowable

individual or cumulative occupational

radiation exposure. Accordingly, the

Commission concludes that there are no

significant radiological environmental

impacts associated with the proposed

exemption.

With regard to potential

nonradiological impacts, the proposed

exemption does involve features located

entirely within the restricted area as

defined in 10 CFR Part 20. It does not

affect nonradiological plant effluents

and has no other environmental impact.

Accordingly, the Commission concludes

that there are no significant

nonradiological environmental impacts

associated with the proposed

exemption.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

Since the Commission has concluded

there is no measurable environmental

impact associated with the proposed

action, any alternatives with equal or

greater environmental impact need not

be evaluated. As an alternative to the

proposed action, the staff considered

denial of the proposed action. Denial of

the application would result in no

change in current environmental

impacts. The environmental impacts of

the proposed action and the alternative

action are similar.

Alternative Use of Resources

This action does not involve the use

of any resources not previously

considered in the Final Environmental

Statement Related to the Operation of

Big Rock Point Plant.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on November 20, 1995, the staff

consulted with the Michigan State

official, Mr. Dennis Hahn of the Nuclear

Facilities and Environmental

Monitoring Section, Office of the

Department of Public Health, regarding

the environmental impact of the

proposed action. The State official had

no comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

Based upon the environmental

assessment, the Commission concludes

that the proposed action will not have

a significant effect on the quality of the

human environment. Accordingly, the

Commission has determined not to

prepare an environmental impact

statement for the proposed action.