[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 175 (Monday, September 9, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47529-47530]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-22924]



[[Page 47529]]

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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-387]


Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Unit 1; 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-14 issued to Pennsylvania Power and Light Company (the licensee) 
for operation of the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Unit 1, 
located in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania.
    The proposed amendment would revise the Minimum Critical Power 
Ratio safety limit values, adding two references to reflect the use of 
the ANF-B Critical Power Ratio Correlation and to reflect the use of 
the ABB Combustion Engineering licensing methodology, with a 
modification to the associated Bases.
    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. The proposed change does not involve a significant increase 
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    The change to the ANFB correlation and corresponding MCPR Safety 
Limits does not physically change the plant systems, structures, or 
components. Thus, the probability of occurrence of an event 
evaluated in the SAR [Safety Analysis Report] is not increased. The 
acceptance criterion for the MCPR Safety Limit (i.e., 99.9% of the 
fuel rods expected to avoid boiling transition) is not changed. Only 
the methodology used to demonstrate compliance is changed. 
Therefore, the consequences of anticipated operational occurrence 
(which must show the Safety Limit is not violated) are not changed.
    Adding the reference of CENPD-300-P, ``Reference Safety Report 
for Boiling Water Reactor Reload Fuel,'' to the list of references 
in Unit 1 Technical Specifications will allow the use of the ABB 
methodology to calculate the operating limits for the four Lead Use 
Assemblies which are of different mechanical design from the Siemens 
9x9-2 fuel. The use of this ABB methodology will ensure that the 
applicable safety limits of the safety analysis are met for the four 
LUAs [Lead Use Assemblies]. Results of incorporating this change 
will not significantly increase the probability or the consequences 
of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    As stated above, this methodology change does not impact the 
acceptance criterion for the MCPR Safety Limits and does not 
physically change the plant safety, structures, or components. Since 
no changes to the physical plant are being made, this change does 
not create the possibility of a new event not previously evaluated 
in the SAR.
    The incorporation of this change will allow the use of the ABB 
methodology to be referenced as the methodology to show that all 
applicable limits of the safety analysis are met by the four ABB 
LUAs. Therefore, the incorporation of this change will not create 
the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any 
accident previously evaluated.
    3. The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety.
    A cycle specific MCPR Safety Limit analysis was performed by SPC 
[Siemens Power Corporation]. The analysis used NRC approved methods 
described in the SPC report: ANF-524(P)(A), Revision 2 and 
Supplement 1, Revision 2. The MCPR Safety Limit value is calculated 
such that at least 99.9% of the fuel rods are expect to avoid 
boiling transition during normal operation or anticipated 
operational occurrences. Both the existing analysis using XN-3 and 
the new analysis using ANFB utilize NRC approved methods to 
accomplish this same objective. Therefore, the change to ANFB based 
Safety Limit does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of 
safety.
    The use of the ABB methodology will not result in a change in 
safety margin, but will ensure that the safety margin is maintained 
with the insertion of the four ABB LUAs in the Unit 1 Cycle 10 core. 
Therefore, the incorporation of these changes will have no impact on 
current safety margins, nor will they involve a significant 
reduction in the 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 
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 Chief, Rules 
Review and Directives Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and 
Publications 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 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 October 9, 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 
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

[[Page 47530]]

Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the local public 
document room located at the Osterhout Free Library, Reference 
Department, 71 South Franklin Street, Wilkes-Barre, PA 18701. 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: 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 20555-0001, and to Jay 
Silberg, Esquire, Shaw, Pittman, Potts and 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 May 28, 1996, as supplemented by letter 
dated July 25, 1996, 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 Osterhout Free Library, Reference Department, 71 South Franklin 
Street, Wilkes-Barre, PA 18701.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of September 1996.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Chester Poslusny,
Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate I-2, Division of Reactor 
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 96-22924 Filed 9-6-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P