[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 74 (Thursday, April 17, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18824-18826]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-9911]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-387 and 50-388]


Pennsylvania Power & Light Company; Notice of Consideration of 
Issuance of Amendments 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. 
NPF-14 and NPF-22, issued to Pennsylvania Power & Light Company (PP&L) 
(the licensee) for operation of the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station 
Units 1 and 2, located in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania.
    The proposed amendment would clarify the scope of the surveillance 
requirements for response time testing of instrumentation in the 
reactor protection system, isolation actuation system, and emergency 
core cooling system in the Technical Specifications (TSs) for each unit 
(Sections 4.3.1.3, 4.3.2.3, and 4.3.3.3).
    PP&L's request for a license amendment for each unit under exigent 
circumstances resulted from its recent discovery that the wording of 
the TS surveillance was not reconciled with the initiative to eliminate 
selected response time testing from the TSs. Accordingly, the licensee 
determined that this condition was a TS noncompliance and that prompt 
action to correct this situation was necessary because failure to 
satisfy TS surveillance requirements for response time requires that 
the various instruments and systems be declared inoperable, resulting 
in the TS required entry into cold shutdown for Unit 1 (shutdown from 
100% power) and the prevention of fuel movement and the imposition of 
additional restrictions for Unit 2 currently in a refueling outage. The 
staff finds that it would be more prudent to permit the licensee to 
rely upon the existing response time testing for Unit 1 in lieu of 
testing at power, and forcing an unnecessary plant challenge by 
shutting down this plant, and also in lieu of restricting refueling and 
other activities at Unit 2. Further the staff finds the above 
sufficient justification for the licensee's exigent request for the 
license amendments.
    Before issuance of the proposed license amendments, 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. The proposed change does not involve a significant increase 
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    This proposal does not involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The 
proposed change only reconciles the scope of response time testing 
described in the surveillance requirements with the elimination of 
selected response time testing, performed in accordance with the 
NRC-approved methodology delineated in the BWROG [Boiling Water 
Reactor Owners Group] Licensing Topical Report (LTR) NEDO-32291, 
'System Analyses for Elimination of Selected Response Time Testing 
Requirements,' dated January 1994. Implementation of the LTR (i.e., 
elimination of response time testing for selected instrumentation in 
the Reactor Protection System, Isolation Actuation System and 
Emergency Core Cooling System) does not increase the probability or 
consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to 
safety as previously evaluated in the FSAR.
    All SSES component model numbers were analyzed for the failure 
mode of a sluggish response. As documented in the LTR, each 
component's sluggish response can be detected by other Technical 
Specification required tests (functional tests, calibrations and 
logic system functional tests). This supports the contention that 
the use of such ``qualitative'' testing does not affect the 
capability of the associated systems to perform their intended 
function within their required response time.
    Based upon the analysis presented above, PP&L concludes that the 
proposed action does not involve a significant increase in the 
probability or 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.
    This proposal does not create the probability of a new or 
different type of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 
The proposed change only reconciles the scope of response time 
testing described in the surveillance requirements with the 
elimination of selected response time testing, performed in 
accordance with the NRC-approved methodology delineated in the LTR.
    Implementation of the LTR methodology for eliminating selected 
response time testing also does not create the probability of a new 
or different type of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated. A review of the failure modes of the affected plant 
equipment indicates that sluggish response of the instruments and 
relays can be detected by other Technical Specification 
surveillances. A review of SSES response time testing history 
revealed one response time test failure. This failure would have 
been detectable by the logic system functional test for this 
channel. Redundancy and diversity of the affected channels provide 
additional assurance that all affected functions will operate within 
the acceptance limits assumed in the plant safety analyses.
    PP&L's adherence to the conditions listed in the NRC SER [Safety 
Evaluation Report] for the LTR provides additional assurance that 
sluggish response of instruments and relays will be detected by the 
other required Technical Specification tests. A review of various 
safety analyses performed as part of PP&L's 10 CFR 50.59 safety 
evaluation revealed that the five-second delay did not adversely 
affect the assumptions in the respective analyses.
    Therefore, the proposed change does 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 the margin of safety.
    The change does not involve a significant reduction in the 
margin of safety. The proposed change only reconciles the scope of 
response time testing described in the surveillance requirements 
with the elimination of selected response time testing, performed in 
accordance with the NRC-approved methodology delineated in the LTR.
    Implementation of the LTR methodology for eliminating selected 
response time testing also does not involve a significant reduction 
in the margin of safety. The current response times are based on the 
maximum allowable values assumed in the plant safety analyses. The 
analyses conservatively establish the margin of safety. As described 
above, the elimination of selected response time testing does not 
affect the capability of the associated systems to perform their 
intended function within the allowed response time used as the basis 
for the plant safety analyses. Plant and system response to an 
initiating

[[Page 18825]]

event will remain in compliance within the assumptions of the safety 
analyses, and therefore the margin of safety is not affected. This 
is based upon the sluggish response of an instrument or relay being 
detected by the other required Technical Specification tests, 
component reliability, and redundancy and diversity of the affected 
functions. A review of the five-second delay of each function 
confirms that margin exists in the design basis for the technician 
to detect a sluggish response within five seconds. PP&L's adherence 
to the conditions listed in the NRC SER for the LTR provides 
additional assurance that sluggish response of instruments and 
relays will be detected by the other required Technical 
Specification tests. As described above, a review of various safety 
analyses performed as part of PP&L's 10 CFR 50.59 safety evaluation 
revealed that the five-second delay did not adversely affect the 
assumptions in the respective analyses.
    Thus, PP&L concludes that the proposed change does not 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 14 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 14-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 14-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 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 May 19, 1997, 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 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 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 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 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

[[Page 18826]]

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, Director, Project 
Directorate I-2: 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 April 4, 1997, 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 11th day of April 1997.

    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. 97-9911 Filed 4-16-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P