[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 37 (Friday, February 23, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11334-11336]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-4475]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339]


Virginia Electric and Power Company; Notice of Consideration of 
Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses, Proposed No 
Significant Hazards Consideration, Determination, and Opportunity for a 
Hearing

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is 
considering issuance of amendments to Facility Operating License Nos. 
NPF-4 and NPF-7 issued to Virginia Electric and Power Company for 
operation of the North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2, located in 
Louisa County, Virginia.
    The proposed amendments would revise Technical Specifications (TS) 
Figures 3.4-2 and 3.4-3, and associated Bases, by modifying the reactor 
coolant system (RCS) pressure/temperature (P/T) limit curves. In 
addition, these amendments would extend the cumulative core burnup 
applicability limits for the existing Low Temperature Overpressure 
Protection System (LTOPS) setpoints and LTOPS enable temperature 
values, and implement American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) 
Section XI, Code Cases N-514 and N-640. Code Case N-640 utilizes the 
ASME Section XI, Appendix A critical initiation stress intensity curve 
instead of the ASME Section XI, Appendix G critical arrest stress 
intensity curve. Code Case N-514 allows the resetting of the LTOPS 
power-operated relief valve lift setpoints.
    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.
    The Commission has made a proposed determination that the amendment 
requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under the 
Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of 
the facilities in accordance with the proposed amendments 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 changes modify the North Anna Units 1 and 2 RCS P/T 
limit curves and extend the cumulative core burnup applicability 
limits for the existing LTOPS setpoints and Tenable 
values. The allowable operating pressures and temperatures under the 
proposed RCS P/T limit curves are not significantly different from 
those allowed under the existing Technical Specification P/T limits. 
No changes to plant systems, structures, or components are proposed, 
and no new allowable operating modes are established. The P/T 
limits, LTOPS setpoints, and Tenable values do not 
contribute to the probability of occurrence or consequences of 
accidents previously analyzed. The revised licensing basis analyses 
utilize acceptable analytical methods, and continue to demonstrate 
that established accident analysis acceptance criteria are met. 
Therefore, there is no increase in the probability or consequences 
of any 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 changes modify the North Anna Units 1 and 2 RCS P/T 
limit curves, and extend the cumulative core burnup applicability of 
the existing LTOPS setpoints and Tenable values. No 
changes to plant systems, structures, or components are proposed, 
and no new allowable operating modes are established. Therefore, the 
proposed changes do not create the possibility of any accident or 
malfunction of a different type previously evaluated.
    3. Does the change involve a significant reduction in the margin 
of safety[?]
    The proposed revised RCS P/T limit curves, and revised LTOPS 
setpoint and Tenable analysis bases do not involve a 
significant reduction in the margin of safety for these parameters. 
The proposed revised RCS P/T limit curves use the ASME Section XI 
Code Case N-640 K1c stress intensity formulation. The 
proposed revised LTOPS Tenable analysis bases use a 
plant-specific application of the analysis methodology that supports 
ASME Section XI Code Case N-514. These analysis features are less 
restrictive than those associated with the existing analyses, but 
are conservative with respect to requirements established by ASME 
Section XI. The effects of RCS pressure and temperature measurement 
uncertainty are considered in the supporting analyses. The proposed 
revised RCS P/T limit curves are valid to cumulative core burnups of 
32.3 EFPY [effective full-power years] and 34.3 EFPY for North Anna 
Units 1 and 2, respectively. The proposed revised LTOPS setpoint and 
Tenable analyses support continued use of the existing 
North Anna Units 1 and 2 Technical Specification LTOPS setpoints and 
LTOPS enable temperatures to these same cumulative core burnup 
limits. The analyses demonstrate that established analysis 
acceptance criteria continue to be met. Specifically, the existing 
P/T limit curves, LTOPS setpoints, and LTOPS Tenable 
values provide acceptable margin to vessel fracture under both 
normal operation and LTOPS design basis (mass addition and heat 
addition) accident conditions. Therefore, the proposed changes do 
not result in 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 requests involve 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 amendments 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

[[Page 11335]]

amendments before the expiration of the 30-day notice period, provided 
that its final determination is that the amendments involve 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 
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. Documents may 
be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document 
Room, located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first 
floor), Rockville, Maryland.
    The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to 
intervene is discussed below.
    By March 26, 2001, the licensee may file a request for a hearing 
with respect to issuance of the amendments to the subject facility 
operating licenses 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, located at One 
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 
Maryland, 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 amendments 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 requests involve 
no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the 
amendments and make them immediately effective, notwithstanding the 
request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance 
of the amendments.
    If the final determination is that the amendment requests involve a 
significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place 
before the issuance of any amendments.
    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, located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike 
(first floor), Rockville, Maryland, 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 Mr. 
Donald P. Irwin, Esq., Hunton and Williams, Riverfront Plaza, East 
Tower, 951 E. Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219, 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 amendments dated June 22, 2000, and supplemental letter 
dated January 4, 2001, which are available for public inspection at the 
Commission's Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North, 
11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, and accessible 
electronically through the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room link at 
the NRC Web site (http://www.nrc.gov).


[[Page 11336]]


    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day of February 2001.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Stephen R. Monarque,
 Project Manager, Section 1, Project Directorate II, Division of 
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 01-4475 Filed 2-22-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P