[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 179 (Tuesday, September 16, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48674-48676]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-24558]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-440]
Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, et al.; 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-58 issued to Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (CEICO),
Centerior Service Company, Duquesne Light Company, Ohio Edison Company,
OES Nuclear, Inc., Pennsylvania Power Company, and Toledo Edison
Company (the licensees) for operation of the Perry Nuclear Power Plant
(PNPP), Unit No. 1, located in Lake County, Ohio.
The proposed amendment would change the PNPP design basis as
described in the Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR). The change will
add a description of the methodology utilized for determining the
systems and components that are considered to require protection from
tornado missiles.
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; (2) create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from
[[Page 48675]]
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 proposed amendment is requesting NRC review and approval of
changes to the Perry Nuclear Power Plant (PNPP) Updated Safety Analysis
Report (USAR) to incorporate use of an NRC approved methodology to
assess the need for additional positive (physical) tornado missile
protection of specific features at PNPP. The USAR changes will reflect
use of the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) Topical Report
``Tornado Missile Risk Evaluation Methodology'' (EPRI NP-2005), Volumes
I and II. As noted in the NRC Safety Evaluation dated October 26, 1983
on this report, ``the current licensing criteria governing tornado
missile protection are contained in Standard Review Plan (SRP) Sections
3.5.1.4 and 3.5.2. These criteria generally specify that safety-related
systems be provided positive tornado missile protection (barriers) from
the maximum credible tornado threat. However, SRP Section 3.5.1.4
includes acceptance criteria permitting relaxation of the above
deterministic guidance, if it can be demonstrated that the probability
of damage to unprotected essential safety-related features is
sufficiently small.
``Certain Operating License (OL) applicants and operating reactor
licensees have chosen to demonstrate compliance with tornado missile
protection criteria for certain portions of the plant * * * by
providing a probabilistic analysis which is intended to show a
sufficiently low risk associated with tornado missiles. Some * * * have
utilized the tornado missile probabilistic risk assessment (PRA)
methodology developed by'' EPRI in the Topical Report listed above. The
NRC noted that this report ``can be utilized when assessing the need
for positive tornado missile protection for specific safety-related
plant features.'' The methodology has subsequently been utilized in
nuclear power plant licensing actions.
As permitted in NRC Standard Review Plan (NUREG-0800) sections, the
total probability will be maintained below an allowable level, i.e., an
acceptance criteria threshold, which reflects an extremely low
probability of occurrence. The PNPP approach assumes that if the
probability calculation result for the total plant identifies that the
total probability of tornado missiles striking a portion of an
``important'' system or component is greater than or equal to
10-6, then unique missile barriers would need to be
installed to lower the total probability below the acceptance criteria
of 10-6.
With respect to the probability of occurrence or the consequences
of an accident previously evaluated in the USAR, the possibility of a
tornado reaching the Perry Nuclear Power Plant site and causing damage
to plant structures, systems and components is a design basis event
considered in the Updated Safety Analysis Report. The changes being
proposed herein do not affect the probability that the natural
phenomena (a tornado) will reach the plant, but they do, from a
licensing basis perspective, affect the probability that missiles
generated by the winds of the tornado might strike certain plant
systems or components. As recently determined, there are a limited
number of safety-related components that could theoretically be struck
by a tornado generated missile. The probability of tornado generated
missile strikes on ``important'' systems and components (as discussed
in Regulatory Guide 1.117) is what is to be analyzed using the
probability methods discussed above. The total (cumulative) probability
of strikes will be maintained below an extremely low acceptance
criteria to ensure overall plant safety. The proposed change is not
considered to constitute a significant increase in the probability of
occurrence or the consequences of an accident, due to the extremely low
total probability of a tornado missile strike and thus an extremely low
probability of a radiological release.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of previously evaluated
accidents.
2. The proposed change would not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
The possibility of a tornado reaching the Perry Nuclear Power Plant
site is a design basis event considered in the Updated Safety Analysis
Report. This change involves recognition of the acceptability of
performing tornado missile probability calculations in accordance with
established regulatory guidance. The change therefore deals with an
established design basis event (the tornado). Therefore, the proposed
change would not contribute to the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from those previously analyzed. The probability and
consequences of such a design basis event are addressed in Question 1
above.
Based on the above discussions, the proposed change would not
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident than
those previously evaluated.
3. The proposed change will not involve a significant reduction in
the margin of safety.
This request does not involve a significant reduction in the margin
of safety. The existing licensing basis for PNPP with respect to the
design basis event of a tornado reaching the plant, generating missiles
and directing them toward safety related systems and components is to
provide positive missile barriers for all safety related systems and
components. With the change, it will be recognized that there is an
extremely low probability, below an established acceptance limit, that
a limited subset of the ``important'' systems and components could be
struck. The change from ``protecting all safety related systems and
components'' to ``an extremely low probability of occurrence of tornado
generated missile strikes on portions of important systems and
components'' is not considered to constitute a significant decrease in
the margin of safety due to that extremely low probability.
Therefore, the changes associated with the license amendment
request do 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 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
[[Page 48676]]
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, MD, 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 16, 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 Perry Public Library, 3753 Main Street,
Perry, OH 44081. 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: Rulemakings and
Adjudications Staff, or may be delivered to the Commission's Public
Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC,
by the above date. 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, Esq., 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 August 14, 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 Perry Public Library, 3753 Main Street,
Perry, OH 44081.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day of September 1997.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Douglas V. Pickett,
Project Manager, Project Directorate III-3, Division of Reactor
Projects III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 97-24558 Filed 9-15-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P