[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 248 (Wednesday, December 27, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66997-66999]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-31299]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[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
[[Page 66998]]
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.
[[Page 66999]]
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
