[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 97 (Friday, May 19, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26905-26908]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12343]



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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-277 and 50-278]


Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility 
Operating License and Opportunity for a Hearing

    In the matter of Philadelphia Electric 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.

    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 Philadelphia Electric 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, requested by the licensee in a letter dated 
September 29, 1994, as supplemented by letters dated March 3, 1995 and 
March 30, 1995, would represent a full conversion from the current 
Technical Specifications (TS) to a set of TS based on NUREG-1433, 
``Standard Technical Specifications, General Electric Plants, BWR/4,'' 
Revision O, September 1992. NUREG-1433 has been developed through 
working groups composed of both NRC staff members and the BWR/4 owners 
and has been endorsed by the staff as part of an industry-wide 
initiative to standardize and improve TS. As part of this submittal, 
the licensee has applied the criteria contained in the Commission's 
Final Policy Statement on Technical Specification Improvements for 
Nuclear Power Reactors of July 22, 1993 to the current Peach Bottom 
Technical Specifications, and, using NUREG-1433 as a basis, developed a 
proposed set of improved TS for PBAPS.
    The licensee has categorized the proposed changes to the existing 
TS into four general groupings. These groupings are characterized as 
administrative changes, relocated changes, more 
[[Page 26906]] restrictive changes, and less restrictive changes.
    Administrative changes are those that involve restructuring, 
interpretation and complex rearranging of requirements and other 
changes not substantially revising an existing requirement. The 
reformatting, renumbering and rewording process reflects the attributes 
of NUREG-1433 and do not involve technical changes to the existing TS. 
Such changes are administrative in nature and do not impact initiators 
of analyzed events or assumed mitigation of accident or transient 
events.
    Relocated changes are those involving relocation of requirements 
and surveillances for structures, systems, components or variables that 
do not meet the criteria for inclusion in TS. The licensees 
applications on the screening criteria is described in that portion of 
their September 29, 1994 application titled ``Application of Selection 
Criteria to the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station TS.'' The affected 
structures, systems, components or variables are not assumed to be 
initiators of analyzed events and are not assumed to mitigate accident 
or transient events. The requirements and surveillances for these 
affected structures, systems, components or variables will be relocated 
from the TS to administratively controlled documents. Changes made to 
these documents will be made pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59 or other 
appropriate control mechanisms. In addition, the affected structures, 
systems, components or variables are addressed in existing surveillance 
procedures which are also subject to 10 CFR 50.59. These proposed 
changes will not impose or eliminate any requirements.
    More restrictive changes are those involving more stringent 
requirements for operation of the facility. These more stringent 
requirements do not result in operation that will alter assumptions 
relative to mitigation of an accident or transient event. The more 
restrictive requirements will not alter the operation of process 
variables, structures, systems and components described in the safety 
analyses.
    Less restrictive changes are those where existing requirements are 
relaxed or eliminated, or new flexibility is provided.
    In addition to the changes described above, the licensee proposed 
certain changes to the existing technical specifications that deviated 
from the standard technical specifications in NUREG-1433. Each of these 
additional proposed changes is described below.
    The licensee proposed required actions in the event the standby 
liquid control system boron solution concentration exceeds 9.82% weight 
(proposed specification 3.1.7, Condition A). Under this condition, the 
licensee proposed to verify that the concentration and temperature of 
the boron in solution is within certain limits within 8 hours. NUREG-
1433 requires restoration of boron concentration within limits within 
72 hours.
    The licensee proposed to relocate response time testing 
requirements for the reactor protection system out of the technical 
specifications to plant procedures. Existing Peach Bottom technical 
specifications and NUREG-1433 have response time testing requirements 
for the reactor protection system.
    The licensee proposed a reactor core isolation cooling compartment 
and steam line area high temperature instrument calibration frequency 
of once per 24 months (proposed surveillance requirement 3.3.6.1.5). 
This is less restrictive than the existing technical specifications and 
it is a deviation from NUREG-1433, which would impose a calibration 
frequency of once per 92 days.
    The licensee proposed several relaxations of the current technical 
specification requirements for loss of AC power instrumentation. The 
licensee proposed a 30-day completion time for actions associated with 
an inoperable degraded voltage-high function and a degraded voltage-
non-LOCA function (proposed specification 3.3.8.1, Action B.2). In 
addition, the licensee proposed a 2-hour delay for actions required for 
inoperable loss of power channels provided the automatic emergency 
diesel generator initiation and automation bus transfer functions that 
remain are for the remaining emergency buses (proposed Note 2 to 
surveillance requirement Table 3.3.8.1). The licensee also proposed to 
delete channel calibration surveillance requirements for the emergency 
bus loss of voltage function (proposed specification Table 3.3.8.1-1). 
The proposed changes are less restrictive than the existing Peach 
Bottom technical specification and are deviations from the requirements 
in NUREG-1433.
    The licensee proposed to modify existing requirements for the 
containment atmospheric dilution system nitrogen storage tank levels 
(proposed surveillance requirement 3.6.1.3.1). The licensee proposed to 
change the required level from 2500 gallons to 16 inches of water. This 
is less restrictive than the existing Peach Bottom technical 
specifications and is a deviation from the requirements of NUREG-1433 
because NUREG-1433 does not have requirements for containment 
atmospheric dilution system nitrogen storage tank levels.
    The licensee proposed to extend the suppression pool spray header 
air test from once per 5 years to once per 10 years (proposed 
surveillance requirement 3.6.2.4.2). NUREG-1433 implements a flow test 
to verify the spray header is unobstructed.
    The licensee proposed a 14-day completion time to restore single 
inoperable emergency cooling tower fan (proposed specification 3.7.3, 
Condition A). The existing technical specification do not have specific 
requirements for a single inoperable fan. NUREG-1433 does not have 
requirements for the emergency cooling tower.
    The licensee proposed required actions for the DC electrical 
distribution system. The existing technical specifications for one 
Peach Bottom unit do not have explicit action requirements associated 
with the inoperability of DC systems in the opposite unit. The proposed 
specifications include action requirements associated with the 
inoperability of DC systems in the opposite Peach Bottom unit because 
the DC systems are shared between the two Peach Bottom units. The 
licensee proposed a 7-day completion time to restore the DC subsystem 
if the opposite unit DC subsystem is inoperable due to performance of a 
battery service or discharge test (proposed specification 3.8.4, 
Condition A). The licensee also proposed a 12-hour completion time to 
restore the DC subsystem if the opposite unit DC subsystem is rendered 
inoperable for reasons other than performance of a battery service or 
discharge test (proposed specification 3.8.4, Condition B). NUREG-1443 
does not contain requirements associated with the DC subsystems of 
shared units.
    The licensee proposed an extended surveillance frequency for the DC 
systems batteries if the battery was on a equalizing charge during the 
previous one day (proposed surveillance requirements 3.8.4.1 and 
3.8.6.1). The existing Peach Bottom specifications and NUREG-1433 do 
not allow for this extension.
    The licensee proposed to allow the Senior Manager of Operations to 
have previously held a senior reactor operator license (proposed 
specification 5.2.2.f). The existing Peach Bottom specifications and 
NUREG-1433 require the Senior Manager of Operations to hold a senior 
reactor operator license.
    The licensee proposed requirements for the control of high 
radiation areas (proposed specification 5.7). The proposed 
specifications are based on [[Page 26907]] revisions to 10 CFR part 20. 
The proposed specifications are modifications of existing Peach Bottom 
specifications and NUREG-1433 requirements.
    The licensee proposed changes to the existing environmental 
technical specifications (proposed Appendix B to the facility operating 
license). The proposed changes reformat and renumber existing Appendix 
B requirements into changes consistent with the specifications in 
Appendix A. NUREG-1433 does not address Appendix B environmental 
specifications.
    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.
    By June 19, 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. Request 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 State Library of Pennsylvania, (REGIONAL 
DEPOSITORY) Government Publications Section, 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 result 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 providing 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 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 limitation 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.
    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 James W. Durham, Senior Vice President 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).
    If a request for a hearing is received, the Commission's staff may 
issue the amendment after it completes its technical review and prior 
to the completion of any required hearing if it publishes a further 
notice for public comment of its proposed finding of no significant 
hazards consideration in accordance with 10 CFR 50.91 and 50.92.
    For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment dated September 29, 1994, as supplemented by 
letters dated March 3, 1995 and March 30, 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 State Library of Pennsylvania, (Regional 
Depository) Government Publications Section, Education Building, Walnut 
Street and Commonwealth Avenue, Box 1601, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 
17105.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day of May 1995.

    [[Page 26908]] For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
David H. Moran,
Acting Director, Project Directorate I-2, Division of Reactor 
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 95-12343 Filed 5-18-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M