[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 189 (Friday, September 30, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-24211]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: September 30, 1994]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-352/50-353]

 

Philadelphia Electric Company; 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. 
NPF-39 and NPF-85 issued to Philadelphia Electric Company (the 
licensee) for operation of the Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 
2, located in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania.
    The proposed amendment would extend the snubber functional testing 
interval from 18-months (+/- 25%) to 24 months (+/- 25%), and to 
increase the sample plan size from 10% to 13.3%.
    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.
    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 Technical Specifications (TS) changes do not 
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of 
an accident previously evaluated.
    The proposed TS changes do not require any modifications to 
plant systems, snubbers, or other plant equipment. The snubber will 
continue to function as designed to mitigate the effects of 
earthquakes and other dynamic transients (e.g., main turbine trip). 
Extending the snubber functional testing interval from 18 months to 
24 months ([greater than or equal to] 25%) and increasing the 
initial sample size from 10% to 13.3%, as proposed, will continue to 
maintain the same test scope ratio as that which currently exists 
(i.e. 1.5 yr./interval [at] 10% snubbers/interval and 2 yr./interval 
[at] 13.3% snubbers/interval results in approximately 100% of all 
snubbers of a given type being tested within 15 years). The proposed 
TS change will only affect the interval between functional tests and 
the initial sample size population. As previously stated, LGS 
currently uses the 10% plan for compensating struts only, and since 
there are less than 10 struts per Unit, this proposed change will 
have a negligible impact on the number of struts in the initial 
sample size to be tested during a particular interval (i.e., each 
refueling outage). All systems and equipment important to safety 
that rely on snubbers will continue to function as designed.
    Therefore, the proposed TS changes do not involve an increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. The proposed TS changes do not create the possibility of a 
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    The proposed TS changes do not involve any physical changes to 
plant systems or equipment. The snubbers will continue to function 
as designed to mitigate the effects of earthquakes and other dynamic 
transients (e.g., main turbine trip). Snubbers are not accident 
initiators, and function to mitigate the effects of an accident. The 
snubbers will continue to protect piping and equipment during 
dynamic events. Extending the snubber functional testing interval 
from 18 months to 24 months ([greater than or equal to] 25%) and 
increasing the initial sample size from 10% to 13.3%, as proposed, 
will continue to maintain the same test scope ratio as that which 
currently exists in the TS. The proposed TS changes will continue to 
ensure that approximately 100% of the snubbers of a given type are 
tested within a 15-year period.
    Therefore, the proposed TS changes do not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. The proposed TS changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.
    The bases for the TS require that all snubbers whose failure 
could have an adverse effect on any safety-related systems, be 
operable. This ensures that the structural integrity of the reactor 
coolant system and other safety-related systems are maintained 
during and following a seismic or other event initiating dynamic 
loads. The bases also discuss clarification and grouping of the 
general snubber population, snubber listing requirements, visual 
inspection frequency, and visual acceptance criteria. The proposed 
TS changes will provide for the same confidence level as that which 
currently exists in TS for determining snubber operability. The 
proposed TS changes will continue to maintain the same test scope 
ratio as that currently provided in the TS. The 10% plan is used at 
LGS for compensating struts only, and increasing initial sample size 
to 13.3%, as proposed, will have a negligible effect on the number 
of struts functionally tested during each interval. No other aspects 
of the bases associated with snubber surveillance will be affected 
by these proposed TS changes.
    Therefore, the proposed TS changes do not involve a 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 October 31, 1994, 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 20555 and at the local 
public document room located at the Pottstown Public Library, 500 High 
Street, Pottstown, Pennsylvania 19464. 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.
    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 20555, 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 Mohan C. Thadani (Acting): 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. V.P. and General Counsel, Philadelphia Electric 
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 September 16, 1994, which is available 
for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the 
Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20555 and at the 
local public document room located at the Pottstown Public Library, 500 
High Street, Pottstown, Pennsylvania 19464.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day of September 1994.

    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. 94-24211 Filed 9-29-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M