[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 156 (Friday, August 13, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44243-44245]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-21053]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-277 and 50-278]
PECO Energy Co., Notice of Consideration of Issuance of
Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses, Proposed No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is
considering issuance of amendments 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 amendments would revise the Technical Specifications
(TSs) contained in Appendix A to the Operating Licenses to incorporate
a note into the TSs which will permit a one-time exemption, until
September 30, 1999, from the 90 deg.F limit stated in Surveillance
Requirement (SR) 3.7.2.2. This SR currently requires that the average
water temperature of the normal heat sink be less than or equal to 90
deg.F as demonstrated on a 24-hour frequency. As stated in the proposed
TS note, during the time period between approval and September 30,
1999, the average water temperature of the normal heat sink will be
limited to less than or equal to 92 deg.F.
The licensee requested that these proposed amendments be processed
as an exigent request pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6) to permit
implementation during this summer. The licensee's basis for the exigent
request is as follows: ``On August 1, 1999 at approximately 1500 hours,
the normal heat sink temperature for the intake of Units 2 and 3
reached 89 deg.F. Based on the current and projected low rainfall
conditions, above normal atmospheric temperatures, and below normal
precipitation, the Conowingo Pond (Normal Heat Sink) temperature is
expected to approach and/or exceed 90 deg.F on a periodic basis
resulting in the failure to meet Technical Specification SR 3.7.2.2.
This would require PBAPS, Units 2 and 3 to enter into Mode 3 [hot
shutdown] operation within 12 hours and Mode 4 [cold shutdown]
operation within 36 hours.
On July 18, 1999, the normal heat sink temperature reached 86
deg.F, which is four (4) degrees below the TS limit of 90 deg.F. At
that time, PBAPS Engineering began to identify the design basis impacts
of the increased cooling water temperatures, analyze the environmental
conditions that impact the normal heat sink temperature, and develop
the analysis which would support continued safe plant operation at
elevated cooling water temperatures. Throughout this period, up to the
submittal of this exigent license change, significant resources have
been committed to performing engineering analysis and preparing related
documents, reviews of the analysis by on-site and off-site review
groups, and preparation of the license amendment package itself.
Shutdown of the plants would cause undue stress on the regional
electrical grid which could potentially destabilize power flow to all
customers and to the PBAPS offsite sources. During two periods in the
month of July (July 6 and 19, 1999), energy demands resulted in voltage
reduction situations. Loss of the PBAPS, Units 2 and 3, capacity during
a period in which energy is needed most, could result in a load
shedding situation. Additionally, the unforeseen weather conditions
resulting in the recent abnormally high normal heat sink temperature
did not permit the submittal of this change under the normal license
amendment process.'' Before issuance of the proposed license
amendments, 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
requests involve 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 amendments 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
[[Page 44244]]
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.
The proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated
because the probability of a Loss of Coolant Accident is independent
of an increase in the normal heat sink temperature limit. The
increase in the heat sink temperature does not affect any accident
or transient initiators. The engineering analysis discussed has
determined that ESW[Emergency Service Water]/HPSW[High Pressure
Service Water] systems remain capable of their design safety
functions at the increased normal heat sink temperature and will not
impact the consequences of evaluated accidents.
2. The proposed TS changes do not create the possibility of a
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
The proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated because the
requested change is increasing the heat sink temperature limit, and
this in and of itself does not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident. Increasing the heat sink temperature
does not introduce any new accident initiator. Additionally, this
change will not introduce any new failure mechanisms.
3. The proposed TS changes do not involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety.
The proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety, because the PBAPS, Units 2 and 3 ESW/HPSW heat
exchangers have been analyzed using current plant conditions and
performance data. This analysis has concluded that the ESW/HPSW
systems will continue to be capable of performing their design bases
heat removal functions with normal heat sink temperature as high as
92 deg.F. In order to maintain the margin of safety with a higher
normal heat sink temperature, the performance of the equipment must
be better than assumed in the design basis analyses. The actual
performance of the affected heat exchangers is better than assumed
in the accident analyses. Using the actual performance capability of
the equipment, based on the most recent plant data and trending,
more than compensates for the increased normal heat sink
temperature. Additionally, many design calculations used a Normal
Heat Sink temperature of 95 deg.F with minimum torus water level.
Also, the containment heat-up analysis was performed with
conservatisms including a decay heat input which is based on a rated
power level which is nominally 5% above the maximum licensed
operating power level. These are examples of additional conservative
assumptions which remain in the analysis. Therefore, the increase in
normal heat sink temperature does not involve a significant
reduction in the 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 requests involve no significant hazards consideration.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received within 14 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendments until the
expiration of the 14-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 amendments before the expiration
of the 14-day notice period, provided that its final determination is
that the amendments involve 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 Chief, Rules and
Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of
Administration, US 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 September 13, 1999, the licensee may file a request for a
hearing with respect to issuance of the amendments to the subject
facility operating licenses 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, PA 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
[[Page 44245]]
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
amendments 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 the amendments are 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 requests involve
no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the
amendments and make them immediately effective, notwithstanding the
request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance
of the amendments.
If the final determination is that the amendment requests involve a
significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place
before the issuance of any amendments.
A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must
be filed with the Secretary of the Commission, US 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, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001, and to J. W. Durham, Sr., Esquire, Sr. VP
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 amendments dated August 6, 1999, 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, PA 17105.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day of August 1999.
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. 99-21053 Filed 8-12-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P