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

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