[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 233 (Tuesday, December 5, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62270-62272]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-29537]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-277 and 50-278]
Peco Energy Company; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of
Amendments 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 (the licensee) for
operation of the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3,
located in York County, Pennsylvania.
The proposed amendments would revise surveillance requirements for
the high pressure coolant injection and reactor core isolation cooling
systems and would make an administrative change to Section 5.5.7 of the
technical specifications to eliminate reference to a section which was
previously eliminated.
Before issuance of the proposed license amendments, the Commission
will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended (the Act) and the Commission's regulations.
The Commission has made a proposed determination 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 will not alter assumptions relative to
initiation and mitigation of analyzed events. These changes will not
alter the operation of process variables, or SSC [system, structure
or component] as described in the safety analysis. These changes do
not involve any physical changes to plant SSC or the manner in which
these SSC are operated, maintained, modified or inspected. Routine
testing is not assumed to be an initiator of any analyzed event. The
proposed changes will not alter the operation of equipment assumed
to be available for the mitigation of accidents or transients by the
plant safety analysis or licensing basis. These changes have been
confirmed to ensure no previously evaluated accident has been
adversely affected. The proposed lower test pressure for the HPCI
[high pressure coolant injection] and RCIC [reactor core isolation
cooling] system flow testing is consistent with the minimum EHC
[electro-hydraulic control] pressure setpoint at which reactor power
can be increased without the need to adjust the EHC pressure
setpoint during operation in MODE 1. Increasing the lower test
pressure from 920 psig to 940 psig does not impact when the
performance of the test is required. The proposed upper test
pressure for the HPCI and RCIC system flow testing is consistent
with the Reactor Steam Dome Pressure Limit in Specification 3.4.10.
Additionally, the HPCI and RCIC systems are both designed to provide
adequate core cooling at reactor pressures from 150 psig to 1150
psig. SR [surveillance requirement] 3.5.1.8 and SR 3.5.3.3 still
will require verifying HPCI and RCIC pumps can develop the required
flow rates against system head corresponding to reactor pressure.
Therefore, the proposed changes provide adequate assurance that the
HPCI and RCIC systems will be maintained operable. In addition,
these proposed changes eliminate the need to adjust reactor pressure
from normally stable plant conditions to perform the test. As such,
the probability of plant transients is expected to be reduced.
Therefore, the proposed 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 proposed changes do not alter the plant configuration
(no new or different type of equipment will be installed or removed)
and will not alter the method used by any system to perform its
design function. The proposed changes do not allow plant operation
in any mode that is not already evaluated in the SAR [safety
analysis report]. Therefore, these changes will not create the
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. The proposed change to the VFTP [ventilation
filter test program] in Section 5.5.7 is administrative in nature
and does not involve any technical changes. This proposed change
will not reduce a margin of safety because it has no impact on any
safety analysis assumptions. Because this change is administrative
in nature, no question of safety is involved. The proposed changes
also revise the upper and lower test pressure for the HPCI and RCIC
system high pressure flow tests. These changes do not impact safety
analysis assumptions or the ability of the HPCI and RCIC systems to
perform their design functions. The HPCI and RCIC systems are
designed to provide adequate core cooling at reactor pressures from
150 psig to 1150 psig. SR 3.5.1.8 and SR 3.5.3.3 still will require
verifying HPCI and RCIC pumps can develop the required flow rates
against system head corresponding to reactor pressure. The proposed
lower test pressure for the HPCI and RCIC system flow testing is
[[Page 62271]]
consistent with the minimum EHC pressure setpoint that provides
adequate steam flow at which reactor power can be increased without
the need to adjust the EHC pressure setpoint during operation in
MODE 1. Increasing the lower test pressure from 920 psig to 940 psig
does not impact when the performance of the test is required. The
proposed upper test pressure for the HPCI and RCIC system flow
testing is consistent with the initial condition for the reactor
vessel overpressure protection analysis. In addition, the proposed
changes provide the benefit of eliminating the need to adjust
reactor pressure from normally stable plant conditions to perform
the test, thereby reducing the potential for a plant transient.
Therefore, these changes will 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 30 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 30-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 30-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 and provide for opportunity for a hearing
after 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
20555.
The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to
intervene is discussed below.
By January 3, 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 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 a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. 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.
[[Page 62272]]
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 November 21, 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 29th day of November 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. 95-29537 Filed 12-4-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
