[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 47 (Thursday, March 9, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12589-12591]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-5747]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-277 and 50-278]


Peco Energy Company; 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 PECO Energy Company (the licensee) for 
operation of the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS), Units 2 and 
3, located in York County, Pennsylvania.
    The proposed amendment would add a note to the Completion Time of 
Condition A for Technical Specification (TS) 3.7.2, ``Emergency Service 
Water (ESW) System and Normal Heat Sink.'' This note would provide a 
one-time extension to the completion time (allowed outage time) from 7 
to 14 days for one ESW subsystem inoperable.
    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 TS changes do not involve a significant increase 
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    This change adds a note to the Completion Time of Condition A 
for Technical Specification 3.7.2 (``Emergency Service Water (ESW) 
System and Normal Heat Sink''). This note extends the completion 
time for the Condition of one Emergency Service Water (ESW) 
subsystem inoperable from 7 to 14 days. This note, which will expire 
on May 31, 2000, allows the replacement of the ESW pump currently 
scheduled to occur in May 2000. The ESW system is not an input into 
the probability of occurrence of any of the accidents previously 
evaluated in the SAR [Safety Analysis Report]. Since accident 
initiation is not dependent on the operability of either ESW 
subsystem, changing the maximum allowable time which an ESW 
subsystem can be inoperable does not involve a significant increase 
in the probability of an accident previously evaluated.
    The ESW system is used to mitigate the consequences of accidents 
as discussed in the PBAPS, Units 2 and 3, UFSAR [Updated Final 
Safety Analysis Report], Section 14.6. With the ``B'' subsystem 
inoperable, the other subsystem is capable of providing the heat 
removal function with the ``A'' ESW pump. In addition, the Emergency 
Cooling Water pump can provide this function. However, removal of 
the ``B'' ESW pump from service would reduce system redundancy. As a 
result of the loss of redundancy, the Core Damage Probability (CDP) 
will increase slightly. A comparison to the risk criteria provided 
in Regulatory Guide 1.174 (``An Approach For Using Probabilistic 
Risk Assessment In Risk-Informed Decisions On Plant-Specific Changes 
To The Current Licensing Basis'') and Regulatory Guide 1.177 (``An 
Approach for Plant-Specific, Risk-Informed Decisionmaking: Technical 
Specifications'') was performed to benchmark the significance of the 
temporary ESW pump maintenance configuration. This comparison 
reveals that the change in calculated core damage frequency (CDF) 
over the 14 day outage time represents a small fraction of the risk 
considered as the threshold for risk significance. The calculated 
CDP, the CDF increase multiplied by the fraction of the year this 
configuration will exist (14 days), is only 7% of the 5E-7 CDP risk 
significance threshold cited in RG 1.177 for Unit 2, and 3% for Unit 
3 for single allowed out-of-service time Technical Specification 
changes.

[[Page 12590]]

These small fractions demonstrate that the risk incurred during the 
``B'' ESW pump outage is not risk significant.
    The 100% capacity Emergency Cooling Water (ECW) pump will 
function as an additional barrier along with the remaining ESW 
subsystem. However, this additional barrier is not required to 
ensure the CDP remains below the risk significance threshold cited 
in RG 1.177. The ECW pump is capable of providing the heat removal 
function that ESW normally provides during the additional seven (7) 
day period which is being requested for pump maintenance activities.
    The ECW pump receives an automatic start signal coincident with 
the ESW pumps. The ECW pump is seismically qualified and is powered 
from a safety-related power source. The safety-related power source 
used to power the ECW pump is different than the safety-related 
power source used to power the remaining ESW subsystem. The ECW pump 
is not safety-related. However, during the replacement of the ``B'' 
ESW pump, appropriate actions will be in place to ensure that no 
planned activities will effect the operability of the remaining ESW 
subsystem including all support systems associated with the 
remaining ESW pump, and the ECW pump.
    Based on the above, extending the completion time from 7 days to 
14 days, when one ESW subsystem is inoperable, does not involve a 
significant 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 ESW system is not an accident initiator, nor is any new 
failure mode introduced by an extension of the completion time from 
7 days to 14 days, for the Condition of one ESW subsystem 
inoperable. This change only affects the single failure capability 
of the ESW system in that only the ``A'' ESW system pump will be 
operable. During this seven (7) day extension, the ECW pump is 
planned to be maintained available to serve as a backup to the ``A'' 
ESW pump. The design basis heat removal capability of this equipment 
is not being reduced during this seven (7) day period, since one 
subsystem of ESW (or the ECW pump) is capable of meeting the heat 
removal requirement in the unlikely possibility of the LOCA [loss-
of-coolant accident] coincident with a loss-of-offsite power. 
Additionally, the method of operation of equipment which utilizes 
ESW for cooling is not being changed. The length of time that PBAPS, 
Unit 2 and 3 can operate in Modes 1, 2 and 3 with one ESW subsystem 
inoperable, does not create a different type accident than any 
previously evaluated. Changing the length of time with one ESW 
subsystem inoperable does not create any new failure modes or change 
any evaluated failure modes. Therefore, the proposed TS changes do 
not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident 
from any accident previously evaluated.
    3. The proposed TS changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.
    This change will not involve a significant reduction in a margin 
of safety. This change only affects the single failure capability of 
the ESW system in that only the ``A'' ESW system pump will be 
operable. The design basis heat removal capability of this equipment 
is not being reduced during this seven (7) day period, since one 
subsystem of ESW (or the ECW pump) is capable of meeting the heat 
removal requirement in the unlikely possibility of the LOCA 
coincident with a loss-of-offsite power. Additionally, the method of 
operation of equipment which utilize ESW for cooling is not being 
changed.
    With adequate heat removal capability, the equipment necessary 
to function following a design basis accident will be able to 
perform their required mitigating functions. Therefore, this change 
does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
    As a result of the loss of redundancy, the Core Damage 
Probability (CDP) does increase slightly. The calculated CDP, the 
CDF increase multiplied by the fraction of the year this 
configuration will exist (14 days), is only 7% of the 5E-7 CDP risk 
significance threshold cited in RG [Regulatory Guide] 1.177 for Unit 
2, and 3% for Unit 3. These small fractions demonstrate that the 
risk incurred during the ``B'' ESW pump outage is not significant.

    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 Chief, Rules 
and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office 
of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, 
DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page number 
of this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also be 
delivered to Room 6D59, 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 April 10, 2000 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 accessible electronically through the ADAMS 
Public Electronic Reading Room link at the NRC Web site (http://
www.nrc.gov). 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

[[Page 12591]]

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 20555-0001, Attention: 
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, or may be delivered to the 
Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L 
Street, NW., Washington, DC, by the above date. A copy of the 
petition should also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and 
to J. W. Durham, Sr., Esquire, Sr. V. P. and General Counsel, PECO 
Energy Company, 2301 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 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 February 29, 2000, which is 
available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document 
Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and 
accessible electronically through the ADAMS Public Electronic 
Reading Room link at the NRC Web site 
(http://www.nrc.gov).

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of March 2000.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Bartholomew C. Buckley,
Senior Project Manager, Section 2, Project Directorate I, Division of 
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 00-5747 Filed 3-8-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P