[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 177 (Tuesday, September 12, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55056-55058]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-23358]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-412]
Pennsylvania Power Company, Ohio Edison Company, the Cleveland
Electric Illuminating Company, the Toledo Edison Company, FirstEnergy
Nuclear Operating Company, Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 2; 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 No.
NPF-73 issued to FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (the licensee)
for operation of the Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 2, located in
Beaver County, Pennsylvania.
The proposed amendment would revise certain 18-month surveillance
requirements in the technical specifications by eliminating the
condition that testing be conducted during shutdown, or during cold
shutdown or refueling mode. The systems that would be affected are the
emergency core cooling system (ECCS), containment depressurization and
cooling system, chemical addition system, and containment isolation
valve system. The proposed amendment would not change the current type
and frequency of the 18-month surveillances for these systems.
[[Page 55057]]
Allowing testing to be performed either at shutdown or crediting
testing performed at power maintains the safety analysis conclusions
and allows shutdown activities to be planned which will reduce the
shutdown risk.
In addition, the proposed amendment would make administrative,
editorial, and format changes that have no impact on plant safety.
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.
The Commission has made a proposed determination 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?
The proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase
in the probability of an accident previously evaluated because no
changes are being made to any event initiator. The proposed
amendment involves changes to accident mitigation system
surveillance requirements. No analyzed accident scenario is being
revised. The initiating conditions and assumptions for accidents
described in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) remain
as previously analyzed.
Certain safety related components can be tested only during
plant shutdown in order to avoid a plant transient during power
operation. The 18-month surveillances associated with this license
amendment request also involve testing of components (e.g., relays)
that are coupled with safety related systems and components which
interface with core cooling systems used during shutdown conditions.
Performance of this testing during shutdown conditions increases the
shutdown risk. Elimination of the requirement to test associated
components during shutdown conditions will minimize overall plant
risk by allowing credit for components that are tested at power when
the testing is consistent with safe operation of the plant. Other
surveillance testing on the identified systems and components is
already required to be performed periodically at power which
duplicates a portion of the identified 18-month surveillance tests.
By allowing credit to be taken for testing accomplished while at
power to meet the 18-month surveillance requirement, eliminating
redundant testing, and performing that portion of the associated
tests that need to be performed at shutdown, plant safety is not
adversely affected and shutdown risk can be minimized.
Beaver Valley Power Station (BVPS) is actively managing
operational risk using insights from the site-specific probabilistic
risk assessment. Through active risk management, BVPS assesses the
effect of scheduled maintenance and surveillance activities on core
damage frequency. Adjustments to scheduled activities are made, when
possible, to lower operational risk.
These accident mitigation systems will be demonstrated to be
able to function as required on a periodic basis. Thus, the
performance of the affected surveillance requirements will continue
to ensure that these systems are capable of mitigating a design
basis accident. Therefore, the consequence of an accident previously
evaluated is not significantly increased as a result of this license
amendment request.
The proposed administrative, editorial, and format changes have
no impact on plant safety.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does 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?
The proposed amendment does not involve any physical changes to
the plant or the modes of plant operation defined in the plant
Technical Specifications. The proposed amendment does not involve
the addition or modification of plant equipment nor does it alter
the design or operation of any plant systems. No new accident
scenarios, transient precursors, failure mechanisms, or limiting
single failures are introduced as a result of these changes.
There are no changes in this amendment that would cause the
malfunction of safety-related equipment assumed to be operable in
accident analyses. No new mode of failure has been created and no
new equipment performance requirements are imposed. The proposed
amendment has no effect on any previously evaluated accident.
This license amendment request does not alter the surveillance
type or frequency of the affected 18 month surveillance requirements
for the ECCS, Containment Depressurization and Cooling System,
Chemical Addition System, and Containment Isolation Valves. The
license amendment request only proposes the removal of the
requirement to perform the associated surveillances during shutdown
conditions. Elimination of the requirement to test associated
components during shutdown conditions will minimize overall plant
risk by allowing credit for components that tested at power when the
testing is consistent with safe operation of the plant.
Therefore, the proposed amendment will not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the change involve a significant reduction in a margin
of safety?
The proposed amendment does not involve revisions to any safety
limits or safety system setting that would adversely impact plant
safety. The proposed amendment does not affect the ability of
systems, structures or components important to the mitigation and
control of design basis accident conditions within the facility to
perform their safety related functions. In addition, the proposed
amendment does not affect the ability of the safety systems to
ensure that the facility can be maintained in a shutdown or
refueling condition for extended periods of time.
The proposed amendment does not change the current surveillance
type and frequency of the affected 18 month surveillance
requirements for the ECCS, Containment Depressurization and Cooling
System, Chemical Addition System, and Containment Isolation Valves.
The proposed amendment removes only the requirement to perform this
testing during shutdown conditions. Allowing this testing to be
performed either during shutdown or at power when plant conditions
do not adversely affect plant safety maintains the safety analysis
conclusions and allows shutdown activities to be planned which will
reduce the shutdown risk.
The proposed administrative, editorial, and format changes have
no impact on plant safety.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does 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
requested amendment involves no significant hazards consideration.
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 Commission 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 comments received.
Should the Commission take this action, it will publish in the Federal
Register a notice of issuance and provide for opportunity for a hearing
after issuance. The
[[Page 55058]]
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, U.S. 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 October 12, 2000 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
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 accessible
electronically through the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room link at
the NRC Web site (http://www.nrc.gov). 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 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 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 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 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 20555-0001, 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, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001, and to Mary O'Reilly, FirstEnergy Nuclear
Operating Company, First Energy Corporation, 76 South Main Street,
Akron, OH 44308, 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 amendment dated September 1, 2000, which is available
for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the
Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and accessible
electronically through the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room link at
the NRC Web site (http://www.nrc.gov).
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day of September 2000.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Peter S. Tam,
Senior Project Manager, Section 1, Project Directorate I, Division of
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
[FR Doc. 00-23358 Filed 9-11-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P