[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 56 (Tuesday, March 24, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14142-14144]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-7651]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-334 and 50-412]


Duquesne Light 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-66 and NPF-73, issued to Duquesne Light Company, et al. (the 
licensee), for operation of the Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit Nos. 
1 and 2 (BVPS-1 and BVPS-2) located in Beaver County, Pennsylvania.
    The proposed amendment would add a new Limiting Condition for 
Operation (LCO) 3.0.6 to technical specification (TS) Section 3/4.0, 
``APPLICABILITY.'' The new LCO 3.0.6 would provide specific guidance 
for returning equipment to service under administrative control for the 
sole purpose of performing testing to demonstrate OPERABILITY.

[[Page 14143]]

    The proposed amendment is requested to be processed as an exigent 
TS change in accordance with 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6). Exigent processing is 
being requested for both BVPS-1 and BVPS-2. Both units are currently in 
cold shutdown (Mode 5) and cannot be restarted until the proposed 
amendments have been issued.
    Action statements within the TSs provide guidance for compensatory 
actions and other restrictions to be taken when the requirements of an 
LCO cannot be met. When equipment has been out of service it is 
necessary to demonstrate that it can perform its required function 
before it can be returned to an OPERABLE condition. Some action 
statements require that components be placed in a condition which 
prohibits the functional testing necessary to return components and/or 
associated systems to OPERABLE status. In these cases, the proposed 
change provides guidance for returning equipment to service for the 
sole purpose of demonstrating OPERABILITY. Two examples are provided 
below.
    As a prudent measure, a decision was made to repair all three BVPS-
2 Power-Operated Relief Valves (PORVs), 2RCS-PCV455C, 455D, and 456, 
which were leaking, prior to startup from the current BVPS-2 outage. 
When the repair work was completed, a Temporary Operating Procedure 
(TOP) was written to ensure all administrative controls would be in 
place before pressurizing the plant for a post maintenance test. For 
this test, the PORVs must have pressure in order to be stroke tested. 
During the review of the TOP, the Onsite Safety Committee (OSC) 
identified that TS 3.0.1 did not allow the Reactor Coolant System (RCS) 
to be repressurized with all three PORVs inoperable (i.e., without 
normal overpressure protection system operable). The current TS creates 
a dilemma in that BVPS-2 cannot be pressurized without the PORVs 
operable and the PORVs cannot be tested to demonstrate operability 
without pressurizing the plant. The current TS (unlike the Improved 
Standard Technical Specifications of NUREG-1431, Revision 1) does not 
allow changing plant conditions under administrative control to support 
returning equipment to service.
    A second example of this problem with TS 3.0.1 is TS 3.1.3.3, 
``Position Indication System--Shutdown.'' TS 3.1.3.3 requires that the 
group demand position indicators be OPERABLE and capable of determining 
within 2 steps, the demand position for each shutdown or 
control rod not fully inserted. This specification is applicable in 
MODES 3, 4, and 5 when the reactor trip system breakers are in the 
closed position. The action statement requires opening of the reactor 
trip system breakers. TS 4.1.3.3 requires that at least once per 31 
days, certain control rods be moved at least 10 steps in any one 
direction when the reactor coolant system pressure is greater than 400 
psig.
    If TS 4.1.3.3 has not been completed within the last 31 days due to 
an extended plant shutdown, plant startup will not be possible since 
the ACTION statement of TS 3.1.3.3 will not permit closing of the 
reactor trip breakers to perform the necessary testing to demonstrate 
equipment operability. Therefore, the application of TS 3.0.6 is 
necessary in this situation to allow the required testing of the group 
demand position indicators to support plant restart. BSPS-1 is in this 
condition at the present time.
    It was only during an extensive review of the TS surveillance 
requirements during the current outages that the licensee recognized 
that the current TSs do not allow changing plant conditions under 
administrative control to permit testing necessary to demonstrate 
equipment operability. When it was recognized that a TS change was 
necessary to resolve this issue, a license amendment request was 
prepared in a timely manner.
    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.
    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. Does the change involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    The proposed change does not affect the operation or design of 
the plant in any way. Operation of plant equipment under this change 
will not differ in any way from its normal operational mode. The 
normal operation of plant equipment is not a precursor to any 
accident. The purpose of tests performed using this change is to 
demonstrate that required automatic actions are carried out. 
Equipment will be operated under administrative control for only a 
short period of time. If it should be required, personnel will be 
immediately available to take appropriate manual action. Therefore, 
operation of equipment under this change is not expected to increase 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    The proposed testing allowance will not change the physical 
plant or the modes of plant operation defined in the operating 
license. The change does not involve the addition or modification of 
equipment nor does it alter the design or operation of plant 
systems. Therefore, operation of the facility in accordance with the 
proposed amendment will not create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    3. Does the change involve a significant reduction in a margin 
of safety?
    Equipment will be operated under administrative control for only 
a short period of time. If it should be required, personnel will be 
immediately available to take appropriate manual action. The purpose 
of the testing is to restore required equipment to an OPERABLE state 
which increases the automatic protection available and reduces the 
reliance on the compensatory measures provided by ACTION statements. 
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in a 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

[[Page 14144]]

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 and 
Directives Branch, Division of Administrative 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 6D59, 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 April 23, 1998, 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 B. F. Jones Memorial Library, 663 Franklin 
Avenue, Aliquippa, Pennsylvania 15001. 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 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, 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 E. Silberg, Esquire, 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 March 16, 1998, 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 B. F. Jones Memorial Library, 663 
Franklin Avenue, Aliquippa, Pennsylvania 15001.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day of March 1998.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Donald S. Brinkman,
Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate I-2, Division of Reactor 
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 98-7651 Filed 3-23-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P