[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 177 (Tuesday, September 12, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55056-55058]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-23358]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-412]


Pennsylvania Power Company, Ohio Edison Company, the Cleveland 
Electric Illuminating Company, the Toledo Edison Company, FirstEnergy 
Nuclear Operating Company, Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 2; 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-73 issued to FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (the licensee) 
for operation of the Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 2, located in 
Beaver County, Pennsylvania.
    The proposed amendment would revise certain 18-month surveillance 
requirements in the technical specifications by eliminating the 
condition that testing be conducted during shutdown, or during cold 
shutdown or refueling mode. The systems that would be affected are the 
emergency core cooling system (ECCS), containment depressurization and 
cooling system, chemical addition system, and containment isolation 
valve system. The proposed amendment would not change the current type 
and frequency of the 18-month surveillances for these systems.

[[Page 55057]]

    Allowing testing to be performed either at shutdown or crediting 
testing performed at power maintains the safety analysis conclusions 
and allows shutdown activities to be planned which will reduce the 
shutdown risk.
    In addition, the proposed amendment would make administrative, 
editorial, and format changes that have no impact on plant safety.
    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. Does the change involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    The proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase 
in the probability of an accident previously evaluated because no 
changes are being made to any event initiator. The proposed 
amendment involves changes to accident mitigation system 
surveillance requirements. No analyzed accident scenario is being 
revised. The initiating conditions and assumptions for accidents 
described in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) remain 
as previously analyzed.
    Certain safety related components can be tested only during 
plant shutdown in order to avoid a plant transient during power 
operation. The 18-month surveillances associated with this license 
amendment request also involve testing of components (e.g., relays) 
that are coupled with safety related systems and components which 
interface with core cooling systems used during shutdown conditions. 
Performance of this testing during shutdown conditions increases the 
shutdown risk. Elimination of the requirement to test associated 
components during shutdown conditions will minimize overall plant 
risk by allowing credit for components that are tested at power when 
the testing is consistent with safe operation of the plant. Other 
surveillance testing on the identified systems and components is 
already required to be performed periodically at power which 
duplicates a portion of the identified 18-month surveillance tests. 
By allowing credit to be taken for testing accomplished while at 
power to meet the 18-month surveillance requirement, eliminating 
redundant testing, and performing that portion of the associated 
tests that need to be performed at shutdown, plant safety is not 
adversely affected and shutdown risk can be minimized.
    Beaver Valley Power Station (BVPS) is actively managing 
operational risk using insights from the site-specific probabilistic 
risk assessment. Through active risk management, BVPS assesses the 
effect of scheduled maintenance and surveillance activities on core 
damage frequency. Adjustments to scheduled activities are made, when 
possible, to lower operational risk.
    These accident mitigation systems will be demonstrated to be 
able to function as required on a periodic basis. Thus, the 
performance of the affected surveillance requirements will continue 
to ensure that these systems are capable of mitigating a design 
basis accident. Therefore, the consequence of an accident previously 
evaluated is not significantly increased as a result of this license 
amendment request.
    The proposed administrative, editorial, and format changes have 
no impact on plant safety.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
increase in 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 amendment does not involve any physical changes to 
the plant or the modes of plant operation defined in the plant 
Technical Specifications. The proposed amendment does not involve 
the addition or modification of plant equipment nor does it alter 
the design or operation of any plant systems. No new accident 
scenarios, transient precursors, failure mechanisms, or limiting 
single failures are introduced as a result of these changes.
    There are no changes in this amendment that would cause the 
malfunction of safety-related equipment assumed to be operable in 
accident analyses. No new mode of failure has been created and no 
new equipment performance requirements are imposed. The proposed 
amendment has no effect on any previously evaluated accident.
    This license amendment request does not alter the surveillance 
type or frequency of the affected 18 month surveillance requirements 
for the ECCS, Containment Depressurization and Cooling System, 
Chemical Addition System, and Containment Isolation Valves. The 
license amendment request only proposes the removal of the 
requirement to perform the associated surveillances during shutdown 
conditions. Elimination of the requirement to test associated 
components during shutdown conditions will minimize overall plant 
risk by allowing credit for components that tested at power when the 
testing is consistent with safe operation of the plant.
    Therefore, 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?
    The proposed amendment does not involve revisions to any safety 
limits or safety system setting that would adversely impact plant 
safety. The proposed amendment does not affect the ability of 
systems, structures or components important to the mitigation and 
control of design basis accident conditions within the facility to 
perform their safety related functions. In addition, the proposed 
amendment does not affect the ability of the safety systems to 
ensure that the facility can be maintained in a shutdown or 
refueling condition for extended periods of time.
    The proposed amendment does not change the current surveillance 
type and frequency of the affected 18 month surveillance 
requirements for the ECCS, Containment Depressurization and Cooling 
System, Chemical Addition System, and Containment Isolation Valves. 
The proposed amendment removes only the requirement to perform this 
testing during shutdown conditions. Allowing this testing to be 
performed either during shutdown or at power when plant conditions 
do not adversely affect plant safety maintains the safety analysis 
conclusions and allows shutdown activities to be planned which will 
reduce the shutdown risk.
    The proposed administrative, editorial, and format changes have 
no impact on plant safety.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does 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 
requested amendment 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

[[Page 55058]]

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 October 12, 2000 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 accessible 
electronically through the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room link at 
the NRC Web site (http://www.nrc.gov). 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 Mary O'Reilly, FirstEnergy Nuclear 
Operating Company, First Energy Corporation, 76 South Main Street, 
Akron, OH 44308, 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 September 1, 2000, which is available 
for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the 
Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and accessible 
electronically through the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room link at 
the NRC Web site (http://www.nrc.gov).

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day of September 2000.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Peter S. Tam,
Senior Project Manager, Section 1, Project Directorate I, Division of 
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
[FR Doc. 00-23358 Filed 9-11-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P