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

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A95-12343

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Notice
- **Published:** May 19, 1995
- **Citation:** 60 FR 26905

## Text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A95-12343. Public record. Not legal advice.