[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 214 (Monday, November 7, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27485]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: November 7, 1994]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-277 and 50-278]

 

Philadelphia Electric 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 Nos. 
DPR-44 and DPR-56, issued to Philadelphia Electric Company (the 
licensee), for operation of the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, 
Units 2 and 3, located in York County, Pennsylvania.
    The proposed amendment would clarify the minimum reactor steam 
pressure required for Surveillance Requirement 4.5C.1(e). The revised 
Surveillance Requirement will require the licensee to verify that the 
High Pressure Coolant Injection pump, with reactor pressure less than 
or equal to 175 psig. develop a flow rate of greater than or equal to 
5000 gpm against a system head corresponding to reactor pressure. The 
current Surveillance Requirement specifies that the test be performed 
at 150 psig but does not provide a range of acceptable pressures.
    This Technical Specifications (TS) change request (CR) is requested 
to be processed as an exigent TS change in accordance with 10 CFR 
50.91(a)(6). Exigent processing is being requested because the Peach 
Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS) TS low pressure HPCI system testing 
requirements are ambiguous, and the licensee desires to accelerate the 
resolution of this ambiguity. The low pressure surveillance requirement 
(TS 4.5.C.1.e) requires that the test be performed at 150 psig. Prior 
to October 21, 1994, this 150 psig value was interpreted as a nominal 
value. During recent inspection activities surrounding the startup of 
PBAPS Unit 2 from refueling outage 2R010, the NRC revised a previous 
position and determined that this value could not be interpreted as a 
nominal value. The licensee could not have foreseen this event because 
they were conducting station activities in accordance with NRC 
guidance.
    During the 1990 Safety System Functional Inspection (SSFI, Combined 
Inspection Report 90-200), the issue of the HPCI low pressure 
surveillance testing being performed at a nominal value was reviewed 
(Open item 90-200-12). In response to the SSFI open item, the licensee 
revised an existing Plant Operations Review Committee position, to 
document that the 150 psig was a nominal value, and committed to 
revising the TS to clarify the low pressure requirement. This 
commitment was incorporated into the licensee's September 29, 1994 
improved Technical Specifications (ITS) submittal. The NRC accepted 
this position and closed the SSFI open item (Combined Inspection Report 
50-277/90-80, 50-278/90-80, dated November 9, 1990). The anticipated 
effective date of the ITS is the fourth quarter of 1995. Because of the 
recently revised NRC position regarding TS 4.5.C.1(e), the licensee is 
pursuing the attached TSCR in advance of the overall conversion to the 
ITS, and requests that it be processed on an exigent basis.
    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. Does the change involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    These changes increase the maximum pressure for performing the low 
pressure test on the HPCI pump from approximately 150 psig to [less 
than or equal to] 175 psig. For reason stated above, HPCI pump testing 
must be performed when the [electro-hydraulic control] EHC System for 
the main turbine is available and capable of regulating reactor 
pressure. Operating experience has demonstrated that reactor pressures 
as high as 175 psig may be required before the EHC system is capable of 
maintaining stable pressure during the performance of the HPCI test. 
The probability of an accident is not increased because the proposed 
changes will not involve any physical changes to plant systems, 
structures, or components (SSC), or the manner in which these SSC are 
operated, maintained, modified, or inspected. In addition, the pressure 
at which the HPCI System is tested is not assumed to be an initiator of 
any analyzed event. The role of the HPCI System is in the mitigation of 
accident consequences. The consequences of an accident are not 
increased because a small increase in the pressure at which the HPCI 
pump performance to design specifications is verified will not 
significantly delay or otherwise affect the validity of the test to 
determine that the pump and turbine are still operating at the design 
specifications. In addition, it is overly conservative to assume a 
component is inoperable when a surveillance has not been performed. In 
fact, in most cases, it is a matter of component operability not yet 
being demonstrated since the usual outcome of the performance of a 
surveillance is the validation of conformance with surveillance 
requirements. Therefore, these changes will not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    These changes do not involve any physical changes to plant systems, 
structures, or components (SSC), or the manner in which these SSC are 
operated, maintained, modified, or inspected. These changes increase 
the pressure for performing the low pressure test on the HPCI pump from 
approximately 150 psig to [less than or equal to] 175 psig. Therefore, 
these changes will not create the possibility or a new or different 
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    3. Does this change involve a significant reduction in a margin of 
safety?
    The margin of safety is not reduced. These changes increase the 
pressure for performing the low pressure test on the HPCI pump from 
approximately 150 psig to [less than or equal to] 175 psig. For reasons 
stated above, the ability of the HPCI pump to perform at the lowest 
required pressure of 150 psig has already been demonstrated. A small 
increase in the pressure at which the performance to design 
specifications is verified will not significantly delay or affect the 
validity of the test to determine that the pump and turbine are still 
operating at the design specifications. These changes effectively 
extend[s] the initial entry into the applicable condition prior to 
performing the surveillance. However, this is considered acceptable 
since the most common outcome of the performance of a surveillance is 
the successful demonstration that the acceptance criteria are 
satisfied. In addition, the change provides the benefit of allowing the 
surveillance to be postponed until plant conditions exist where 
performance of the surveillance is unlikely to result in a pressure 
transient. These changes do not affect the current analysis 
assumptions. Therefore, these changes do 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 December 7, 1994, the license 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 
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, 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)(l) (i)-(v) and 2.714(d).
    For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment dated October 25, 1994, 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 1st day of November, 1994.

    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. 94-27485 Filed 11-4-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M