[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 150 (Friday, August 4, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39976-39978]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-19200]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281]


Virginia Electric and Power 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 Nos. 
DPR-32 and DPR-37 issued to the Virginia Electric and Power Company 
(the licensee) for operation of the Surry Power Station, Units 1 and 2 
located in Surry County, Virginia.
    The proposed amendment would incorporate revised pressure/
temperature (P/T) limits and an associated Low Temperature Overpressure 
System (LTOPS) setpoint that will be valid to the end-of-license (28.8 
and 29.4 effective full power years for Units 1 and 2, respectively). 
The proposed change also incorporates analytical and operational 
features into the Surry design basis on the P/T operating margin. The 
request also updates the unirradiated reactor vessel material toughness 
data presented in the Technical Specifications to reflect the data 
previously provided to the NRC in the licensee's response to Generic 
Letter 92-01, Revision 1, ``Reactor Vessel Structural Integrity.''
    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:
    Specifically, operation of Surry Power Station in accordance with 
the Technical Specification changes will not:

    1. Involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The safety 
analysis demonstrates that the proposed reactor vessel protection 
philosophy, and the associated pressure/temperature limits, LTOPS 
setpoint, and component operability requirements, ensure that 
reactor vessel integrity will be maintained during normal operation 
and design basis accident conditions. Specifically, adherence to the 
heatup/cooldown rate-dependent pressure/temperature operating limits 
ensures that the assumed design basis flaw will not propagate during 
normal operation. Below the LTOPS enabling temperature, automatic 
actuation of the PORVs ensures that the assumed design basis flaw 
will not propagate under design basis low-temperature 
overpressurization accident conditions. Above the enabling 
temperature, two pressurizer safety valves are sufficient to relieve 
the overpressurization due to the inadvertent startup of two 
charging pumps at water solid conditions without propagation of the 
assumed design basis flaw.
    2. Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident 
from any accident previously evaluated. The proposed Technical 
Specifications modify pressure/temperature operating limits, LTOPS 
setpoint and enabling temperature, and component operability 
requirements. The revised pressure/temperature operating limits and 
LTOPS setpoint are only slightly different than those currently in 
the Technical Specifications. The LTOPS enabling temperature remains 
unchanged. No operating limits or setpoints are added or deleted by 
the proposed changes. Therefore, it may be concluded that the 
operating limits and setpoint changes do not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident. With regard to component 
operability requirements, restrictions on the number of charging 
pumps which may be operable, the number of PORVs which must be 
operable, and the allowable temperature difference between the steam 
generator primary and secondary remain unchanged. Only the setpoint 
temperature at which these restrictions apply have been modified. 
The proposed changes are entirely consistent with the reactor vessel 
integrity protection philosophy which ensures that the design basis 
reactor vessel flaw will not propagate under normal operation or 
postulated accident conditions. Further, the proposed changes do not 
invalidate . . . any component design criteria or the assumptions of 
any UFSAR Chapter 14 accident analysis.
    3. Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. As 
described above, the reactor vessel integrity protection philosophy 
ensures that the design basis assumed flaw will not propagate under 
normal operation or design basis accident conditions. Adherence to 
the Technical Specification pressure/temperature operating limits 
ensures that the margin to vessel fracture provided by the ASME 
Section XI methodology is maintained. With regard to LTOPS 
protection, the safety analysis demonstrates that the proposed LTOPS 
design ensures margins consistent with those provided by ASME 
Section XI Appendix G methods as amended by ASME Code Case N-514. 
Utilization of ASME Code Case N-514 technically results in a 
reduction in the margin of safety, since a less restrictive LTOPS 
analysis design limit (i.e., 110% of the isothermal limit curve) is 
employed. However, the proposed design has been demonstrated to 
provide an acceptable margin of safety. Both industry experience and 
engineering evaluation support the conclusion that LTOPS design 
basis events may be expected to occur at essentially isothermal 
conditions. An engineering evaluation demonstrates that any 
reduction in allowable pressure due to thermal stresses which may be 
expected to exist during an LTOPS design basis event is 
insignificant when compared to margins provided by the ASME Section 
XI Appendix G methods for calculating pressure/temperature operating 
limits. This design maximizes the operating margin above the minimum 
RCS pressure for 

[[Page 39977]]
reactor coolant pump (RCP) operation, thereby minimizing the 
probability of undesired PORV lifts during RCP startup.

    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 request 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 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 September 5, 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 Swem Library, College of William and Mary, 
Williamsburg, Virginia 23185. 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 a 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. 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 David 

[[Page 39978]]
B. Matthews: 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 Michael W. Maupin, Esq., Hunton and 
Williams, Riverfront Plaza, East Tower, 951 E. Byrd Street, Richmond, 
Virginia 23219, 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 June 8, 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 Swem Library, College of William and Mary, 
Williamsburg, Virginia 23185.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day of July 1995.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
David B. Matthews,
Director, Project Directorate II-I, Division of Reactor Projects-I/II, 
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 95-19200 Filed 8-3-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M