95-23176. PECO Energy Co.; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing  

  • [Federal Register Volume 60, Number 181 (Tuesday, September 19, 1995)]
    [Notices]
    [Pages 48530-48532]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 95-23176]
    
    
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
    [Docket No. 50-278]
    
    
    PECO Energy Co.; 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. 
    DPR-56, issued to PECO Energy Company, et al., (the licensee), for 
    operation of the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit 3, located in 
    York County, Pennsylvania.
        The proposed amendment would delete License Condition 2.C(5) from 
    Facility Operating License DPR-56 which restricts power levels to no 
    less than seventy percent in the coastdown condition.
        The amendment is being proposed on a exigent basis in accordance 
    with 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6). On August 29, 1995, the licensee discovered 
    that it was operating at sixty-two percent power in the coastdown 
    condition in violation of License Condition 2.C(5). On August 30, 1995, 
    in order to avoid an unwarranted plant shutdown, the licensee requested 
    enforcement condition for this violation until such time as the staff 
    could process a permanent change to the facility operating license that 
    would delete License Condition 2.C(5). The NRC staff authorized 
    enforcement discretion verbally on August 30, 1995 and in writing on 
    September 1, 1995, by letter to Mr. George Hunger, PECO Energy Company. 
    The amendment is being considered on an exigent basis in order to 
    minimize the length of time the licensee is operating in violation of 
    License Condition 2.C(5).
        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 change does not involve a significant increase 
    in the probability or consequences of any accident previously 
    evaluated.
        Deletion of License Condition 2.C(5) is an administrative change 
    that will not involve a significant increase in the probability or 
    consequences of any accident previously evaluated. This license 
    condition is more appropriately controlled by other licensing bases 
    documents, which include the NRC approved GESTAR II analyses and the 
    cycle specific reload licensing reports, and should not be part of 
    the FOL. Accidentally, this FOL change will not alter any safety 
    limits which ensure the integrity of fuel barriers, and will not 
    result in any increase to onsite or offsite dose.
        No physical changes are being made to the plant, nor are there 
    any changes being made in the operation of the plant as a result of 
    this change which could involve a significant increase in the 
    probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated. 
    Additionally, this change will not alter the operation of equipment 
    assumed to be available for the mitigation of accidents or 
    transients.
        2. The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new 
    or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
        Deletion of License Condition 2.C(5) is an administrative change 
    that will not create the possibility of a new or different type of 
    accident from any previously evaluated. Deletion of License 
    Condition 2.C(5) is an administrative change that will not involve 
    any changes to plant systems, structures or components (SCCs) which 
    could act as new accident initiators. This change will not impact 
    the manner in which SSCs are tested such that a new or different 
    type of accident from any previously evaluated could be created.
        3. The proposed change does not result in a significant 
    reduction in the margin of safety.
        No margins of safety are reduced as a result of the proposed 
    deletion of License Condition 2.C(5). No safety limits will be 
    changed as a result of this change. The proposed change does not 
    involve a reduction in the margin of safety because this change is 
    an administrative change which will not impact core limits or any 
    other parameters that are used in the mitigation of a UFSAR design 
    basis accident or transient. The change to the FOL does not 
    introduce any hardware changes, and will not alter the intended 
    operation of plant structures, systems or components utilized in the 
    mitigation of UFSAR design basis accidents or transients. 
    Additionally, this change will not introduce any new failure modes 
    of plant equipment not previously evaluated.
    
        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 
    
    [[Page 48531]]
    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 October 18, 1995, 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.
        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: 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 letter dated 
    August 30, 1995, and the application for amendment dated September 1, 
    1995, which 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 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, MD, this 13th day of September 1995.
    
    
    [[Page 48532]]
    
        For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
    John F. Stolz,
    Director, Project Directorate I-2, Division of Reactor Projects--I/II, 
    Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
    [FR Doc. 95-23176 Filed 9-18-95; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    
    

Document Information

Published:
09/19/1995
Department:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Entry Type:
Notice
Document Number:
95-23176
Pages:
48530-48532 (3 pages)
Docket Numbers:
Docket No. 50-278
PDF File:
95-23176.pdf