[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 74 (Tuesday, April 18, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19417-19419]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9505]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-412]


Duquesne Light Company; Ohio Edison Company; The Cleveland 
Electric Illuminating Company; The Toledo Edison Company; 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 Duquesne Light Company, et al., (the licensee), for 
operation of the Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 2 (BVPS-2), located 
in Beaver County, Pennsylvania.
    The proposed amendment would revise Technical Specification (TS) 
4.6.2.2.d to delete the reference to the specific test acceptance 
criteria for the Containment Recirculation Spray Pumps and replace the 
specific test acceptance criteria with reference to the requirements of 
the Inservice Testing (IST) Program. In addition, the 18-month test 
frequency would be replaced with the test frequency requirements 
specified in the IST Program. The current footnote (1) pertaining to 
the performance of recirculation spray pump 2RSS*P21A would be deleted.
    This proposed amendment is requested to be processed as an exigent 
TS change in accordance with 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6). Exigent processing is 
being requested because BVPS-2 entered Mode 5 for the purpose of 
performing its fifth refueling outage on March 25, 1995, and upon 
completion of testing of Recirculation Spray Pump 2RSS*P21A, the 
licensee concluded that this pump failed to satisfy the specific test 
acceptance criteria in TS 4.6.2.2.d. Pump disassembly for inspection 
and repairs commenced on April 5, 1995. The pump is scheduled to be 
reassembled and flow tested by April 12, 1995. BVPS-2 is currently 
scheduled to enter Mode 4 on May 4, 1995, at which time pump 2RSS*P21A 
is required to be operable. If the pump does not meet the specific test 
acceptance criteria currently in TS 4.6.2.2d at that time, BVPS-2 will 
be prohibited from entry into Mode 4. With the proposed revision to TS 
4.6.2.2.d, the actual performance of pump 2RSS*P21A could then be 
evaluated against accident analysis assumptions and the pump's 
acceptance criteria could then be revised under the provisions of 10 
CFR 50.59 to establish IST Program requirements that would continue to 
maintain the plant within the accident analysis assumptions. The 
licensee could not have foreseen this event since the pump's 
performance could not be tested until the plant entered Mode 5 on March 
25, 1995.
    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.
    Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6) for amendments to be granted under 
exigent circumstances, the NRC staff must determine 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 change does not result in a modification to plant equipment 
nor does it affect the manner in which the plant is operated. The 
Recirculation Spray System (RSS) pumps are normally in a standby 
condition and only operate during accident mitigation. Since the 
physical plant equipment and operating practices are not changed, as 
noted above, there is no change in the probability of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    The proposed change will not lower the pump performance 
operability criteria for the RSS pumps. The required values for 
developed pump head and flow will continue to satisfy accident 
mitigation requirements and will be maintained and controlled in the 
Beaver Valley Power Station (BVPS) Unit No. 2 Inservice Testing 
(IST) Program.
    Since the proposed change does not lower the RSS pump 
performance acceptance criteria, the containment depressurization 
system will continue to meet its design basis requirements. The 
proposed change will not impose additional challenges to the 
containment structure in terms of peak pressure. The calculated 
offsite dose consequences of a design basis accident (DBA) will 
remain unchanged since the one hour release duration remains 
unchanged. The ability of the RSS pumps to provide sufficient long 
term core cooling also remains unchanged. The proposed change in the 
RSS pump surveillance interval from 18 months [[Page 19418]] to 
every refueling, will not affect the ability of the pumps to perform 
as assumed in the Safety Analysis. Therefore, the proposed change 
does not involve a significant increase in the consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    Based on the above discussion, it is concluded that this change 
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 change does not alter the method of operating the 
plant. The recirculation spray system is an accident mitigation 
system and is normally in standby. System operation would be 
initiated following a containment pressure increase resulting from a 
DBA. The RSS pumps will continue to provide sufficient flow to 
mitigate the consequences of a DBA. RSS operation continues to 
fulfill the safety function for which it was designed and no changes 
to plant equipment will occur. As a result, an accident which is new 
or different than any already evaluated in the Updated Final Safety 
Analysis Report will not be created due to this change.
    Therefore, the proposed change does 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 surveillance requirements for demonstrating that the RSS 
pumps are operable will continue to assure the ability of the system 
to satisfy its design function. Therefore, the proposed change will 
not affect the ability of the RSS to perform its safety function.
    The containment spray system design requirement to restore the 
containment to subatmospheric condition within one hour will still 
be satisfied. This proposed change does not have any affect on the 
containment peak pressure since the containment peak pressure occurs 
prior to the initiation of any of the two containment spray systems.
    There is no resultant change in dose consequences since the 
containment will continue to reach a subatmospheric pressure within 
the first hour following a DBA.
    The ability of the RSS pumps to provide sufficient long term 
core cooling remains unchanged since the pump performance 
requirements will continue to be controlled in a manner to ensure 
safety analysis assumptions are met.
    The proposed deletion of footnote (1) is administrative in 
nature and therefore does not involve a reduction in a margin of 
safety.
    Therefore, based on the above discussion, it can be concluded 
that the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in 
a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has requested and in a letter dated April 12, 1995, 
the licensee agreed to modify proposed TS 4.6.2.2.d to delete 
references to IST program acceptance criteria. This change will ensure 
that pump performance acceptance criteria be related to the containment 
safety analysis. On this basis, the NRC staff proposes to determine 
that the amendment request, as modified, involves no significant 
hazards consideration.
    The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed 
determination. Any comments received within 15 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 15-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 15-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. The Commission expects that the need to 
take this action will occur very infrequently.
    Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Rules Review and 
Directives Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and Publications 
Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555, and should cite the publication date and page 
number of this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also be 
delivered to Room 6D22, 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 May 18, 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. 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 B.F. Jones Memorial Library, 663 Franklin 
Avenue, Aliquippa, Pennsylvania 15001. 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 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 [[Page 19419]] 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 the amendment is 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 request involves 
no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the 
amendment and made 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, 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: 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 Gerald Charnoff, 
Esquire, Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge, 2300 N Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20037, 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 April 10, 1995, as supplemented April 
12, 1995, 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 
B. F. Jones Memorial Library, 663 Franklin Avenue, Aliquippa, 
Pennsylvania, 20037.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day of April 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Leonard N. Olshan,

Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate I-2, Division of Reactor 
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95-9505 Filed 4-17-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M