[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