ML20067A425
| ML20067A425 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 01/31/1991 |
| From: | Butler W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20067A428 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9102070237 | |
| Download: ML20067A425 (8) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _-__ - - _ _ _ - _ _ _.
(
2 The Commission has made a proposed determination that the request for amendments involves no signit.: ant hazards consideration.
Under the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the f acility 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 50.91f a), the licensee has provided its analyses of the issue of no significant hazards consideration. With regard to the revisions to MCP Safety Limits, the licensee's an'alysis was as follows:
1)
The proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Because the MCPR Safety Limits are operational thresholds analytically selected using proven methods, they cannot, themselves, initiate an accident. The probability of occurrence of transients is determined by the frequency of operator errors and equipment failures, not by the adecuacy of the MCPR Safety Limits selected.
Because the proposed MCPR Safety Limits have been selected such that no fuel damage is calculated to occur during the most severe moderate frequency transient events, they will ensure that the consequences of these events are not increased.
The response of the plant to transients-will be within the bounds of the dis:ussion in Chapter 14 and Appendix G of the Updated Final
- Safety Analysis Report since the proposed MCPR Safety Limits will accomplish the same objectives as the previous limits, ii) The proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated because the proposed MCPR Safety Limits have been selected such that the design basis is satisfied. The MCPR Safety Limits are operational threshholds analytically selected using proven methods; therefore, they cannot, themselver, initiate an accident. An improperly selected' limit could result in fuel damage, which is a consequence of previously evaluated accidents. Thus, no new or different type of accident could be created by revising the limits.
iii) The proposed changes do not involve a sionificant reduction in a margin of safety because the proposed MCPR Safety Limits have been selected such that the design basis is satisfied and such that the 9102070237 9J0131 i
PDR ADOCK 05000277 l
p PDR
r.
-3 conservatisms described in the Bases for the Fuel Cladding Integrity Safety Limit TS are maintained.
Thus, margins of safety with the proposed MCPR Safety Limits are the same as with the previous limits.
With regard to the miscellaneous administrative changes, the licensee's analysis was as follows:
1)
The proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated because they do not affect operation, equipment, or any safety-related activity. Thus, these administrative changes cannot affect the probability or consequences of any accident.
ii) The proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated because these changes are purely administrative and do not affect the plant. :Therefore, these changes cannot create the possibility of any accident, iii) The proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety because the changes do not affect any safety-related activity or equipment.
These changes are purely administrative in nature and increase the probability that the Technical Specifications.are correctly interpreted by adding appropriate references and correcting errors.
Thus, these changes cannot reduce any margin of safety.
The NRC Staff has reviewed the licensee's analyses 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.
Therefore, based on the above considerations, the Commission has made a proposed determination that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
The Commission is seeking public comment 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. The Commission will not normally make a final determination unless it receives a request for a hearing.
o.
l 4
Written coments may be submitted by mail to the Regulatory Publications Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and Publications Services, Offke of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, D.C. 20555, and should cite the publication date and page number of this FEDERAL REGISTER notice.
Written coments may also be delivered to Room P.223, Phillips Building, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m.
Copies of written coments received may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to intervene is discussed below.
By March 8, 1991
, the licensee nay file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of tht amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person whot
"" cest may be aff,ected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written petition for leave to intervene.
Request-for a hearing and petitions for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Comission's " Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings" in 10 CFR Part 2.
Interested persoris should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.714 which is available at the Comission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20555 and at the Local Public Document Room located at Government Publications'Section, State Library of Pennsylvania, (REGIONAL DEPOSITORY) Education Building, Walnut Street and Comonwealth 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 Comission 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
o.
.. 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 possib5. 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 fifteen (15) days prior to the first prehearing conference scheduled in the prcceeding, but such an amended petition must satisfy the specificity requirements described above.
Not later than fifteen (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 contentiens 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
.e.
- o
.. 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 P
contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties t'o' 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 cetermination is that the request for amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment.
If a final determination is that the amendment involves a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment.
. ]g Normally, the Comission 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 Comission 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 M
comments received.
Should the Comission take this action, it will publish a
- M notice of issuance and provide for opportunity for a hearing after issuance.
M' The Comnission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently.
A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be filed with the Secretary of the Comission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, D.C. 20555, Attention:
Docketing and Services Branch, or may be delivered to the Comission's Peblic Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., by the above data. Where petitions are filed during the last ten (10) days of the notice period, it is requested that the petitioner prompt'iy so f atorm the Comission by a toll-free telephone call to Western Union at 1-(800) 325-6000 (in Missouri 1-(800)342-6700).
The Western Union operator should be given Datagram Identification Number 3737 and the following message addressed to Walter R. Butler, Director, Project Directorate I-2, Division of Reactor Projects - I/II:
(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 l
s.
4 Comission,' Washington, D.C. 20555, and to Conner and Wetterhahn,1747
' Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20006, 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 Comission, the presiding officer or the 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)(1)-(v) and 2.714(d).
For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated December 17, 1990, as amended and supplemented on January 22, 1991, which is available for public in'sbection at the Comission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20555 and'at the local Public Document Room located at Government Publications Section, State Library of Pennsylvania, (REGIONAL DEPOSITORY)
Education Building, Walnut Street and Comonwealth Avenue, Box 1601, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 31st day of January-1991.
-FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Walter R. Butler, Director Project-Directorate I-2 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
January 31, 1991 Docket Nos. 50-?77 DISTRIBUTION:
and 50-278 Docket File =
RClark NKC & Local POR OGC Mr. George J. Beck P01-2 Reading DHaqan Director. Licensing, MC 5.?A-5 SVarga ACRS(10)
Philadelphia Electric Company EGreenman GPA/PA Nuclear Group Headouarters WButler RBlough, RGN-1 Correspondence Control Desk M0'Brien (2)
LDoerflein, RGN-I P.O. Box No. 195 GSuh Wayne, Pennsylvania 19087 0195
Dear Mr. Beck:
SUBJECT:
NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE OF AMLNDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE AND PROPOSED NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION DETERMINATION AND OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING FOR PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION, UNIT N05. 2 AND 3 (TAC NOS. 79325 AND 79326)
The Conrnission has requested the Office of the Federal Register to publish the enclosed " Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License and Proposed No Sionificant Hazards Consideration Determination and Opportunity for Hearing." This notice relates to your application for amendment dated December 17, 1990, as supplemented on January 22, 1991, which would revise the Peach Bottom Unit 2 and 3 Techni ul Specifications to revise Minimum Critical Power Ratio Safety Limits and to include miscellaneous administrative changes.
Sincerely,
/S/
Gene Y. Suh, Project Manager Project Directorate 1 2 Division of Reactor Projects. I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
Notice cc w/ enclosure:
See next page n
UFC
- PDI-2/ A
- PDI.2/PM
- PDI-2/D i, L :
.:...........rp.:..............:..............
NAME iM 8
f)1 GSUHitle WBUTLER 4 *:
..........:..............:.........('.p}..:..............:..............
/Q91
- l/]l/91
- l/.g/91 DATE
^
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY Document Name:
(TAC NOS 79325/326) 3Fo1 060018 q,