ML20108E048
| ML20108E048 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 05/03/1996 |
| From: | Rinaldi F NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20108E053 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9605090212 | |
| Download: ML20108E048 (9) | |
Text
.
7590-01 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY DOCKET NOS.50-352 AND 50-353 HQllCE OF CONSIDER <, TION OF ISSUANCE OF AMENOMENT 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 Licenses Nos. NPF-39 and NPF-85 issued to Philadelphia Electric Company (the licensee) for operation of the Limerick Generating Station (LGS), Units 1 and 2, located in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania.
The proposed amendment would relocate the Technical Specifications (TSs)
Traversing In-Core Probe (TIP) System Limiting Condition For Operation (LCO) 3/4.3.7.7, and its Bases 3/4.3.7.7, to LGS Technical Requirements Manual (TRM) and modify Note (f) of TS Table 4.3.1.1-1, " Reactor Protection System Instrumentation Surveillance Requireme;)ts," to remove its reference to the TIP System in accordance with NRC NUREG-1433, " Standard Technical Specifications, General Electric Plants, BWR/4."
Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission will have mada findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act) and the Commission's regulations.
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's l
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 i
9605090212 960503 PDR ADOCK 05000352 P
PDR l
l
I 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 eccident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a signif.eant 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.
The proposed TS changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed changes will relocate requirements from TS to a licensee controlled document (i.e., TRM) and delete surveillance details pertaining to the TIP system which are already contained in licensee controlled documents. The relocated requirements will be retained in licensee controlled documents which will be maintained under the requirements of TS Administrative Controls Section 6.0 and the provisions of 10CFR50.59.
Since any changes to licensee controlled documents are required to be evaluated per 10CFR50.59, no increase (:,ignificant or insignificant) in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated will be allowed.
In addition, these proposed changes will not affect any equipment important to safety, in structure or operation. These changes will not alter operation of process variables, strectures, systems, or components as described in the safety analysis report and licensing basis. The changes will not increase the probability or consequences of occurrence of a malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the SAR
[ Safety Analysis Report).
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 will not alter the plant configuration or change the methods governing normal plant operation.
The changes will not impose different operating requirements and adequate control of information will be retained. The char.ges will not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis report and licensing basis.
Since the proposed changes cannot cause an accident, and the plant response to the design basis events is unchanged, the changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
l l
lc
. 3.
The proposed TS changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The proposed changes to relocate requirements from TS to a licensee controlled document and modify surveillance details pertaining to the TIP system which are already contained in other licensee controlled documents have been performed under the guidance of NRC NUREG-1433, and the NRC Final Policy Statement noticed in the Federal Register on July 22,1993 " Final Policy Statement on Technical Specifications Improvements for Nuclear Power Reactors." PECO Energy has concluded that the TIP LCO and surveillance details do not meet any of the four criteria delineated in the NRC's Policy Statement and therefore, may be removed from TS. The relocated requirements will be retained in licensee controlled documents which will be maintained under the requirements of TS Administrative Controls Section 6.0 and the provisions of 10CFR50.59.
l The existing requirements for NRC review and approval of revisions (in accordance with 10 CFR 50.90), pertaining to the detafis and requirements proposed for relocation, do not have a specific margin of safety upon which to evaluate. However, since the proposed changes are consistent with the BWR Improved Standard Technical Specifications (NUREG-1433, approved by the NRC Staff) and the change controls for proposed relocated requirements provide an equivalent level of regulatory authority, revising the TS to reflect the approved level of detail and requirements ensures no reduction in the margin of safety.
These changes will not reduce the margin of safety since they have i
no impact on any safety analysis assumptions. Since any future changes to the removed TIP System requirements will be evaluated under the requirements of 10CFR50.59, no reduction (significant or insignificant) in a margin of safety will be allowed.
Therefore, the proposed TS changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
i The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it ap" ears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied.
l Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
i 4
6
. The Commission is seeking public comments 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.
Normally, the Commission 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 is:oe 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 comments received. Should the Comission take this action, it will publish in the FEDERAL REGISTER a notice of issuance anci provide for opportunity for a hearing after issuance.
The Comission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently.
Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rules Review and Directives Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and Publications Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page number of this FEDERAL REGISTER notice. Written coments may also be delivered to Room 6022, 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 June 7, 1996
, 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.
Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's " Rules of Practice fer Domestic Licensing Proceedings" in 10 CFR Part 2.
Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.71a 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 Pottst'yn Pubiic Library, 500 High Street, Pottstown, Pennsylvania 19464.
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.
l i
=
l
a 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 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 j
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 conferer.ce 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
w
, 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 contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
[
t 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 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 determination is that the Smendment request involves no significant hazards considerationi the Commission may issue the amendment and make it inusediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment.
1
~
. 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 Secrotary of the Commission, U.S, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Docketing and Services Branch, or may be delivered to the Comission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Buiiding, 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 prongtly so inform the Comission by a toll-free telephone call to Western Union at 1-(800) 248-5100 (in Missouri 1-(800) 3424 6700). The Western Union operator should be given Datagram Identification Number a 023 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 Comission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, 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 Comission, the presiding officer or the presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition and/or
4 4 g L
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 April 25, 1996, which is available for public inspection at the Commissicn's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the local public document room located at the Pottstown Public Library, 500 High Street, Pottstown, Pennsylvania 19464.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of May 1996.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION k
7 Qn &C fwN" j
Frank Rinaldi, Project Manager Project Directorate I-2 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation E
m
(
l
_ _ _. _ _.