[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