[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 38 (Wednesday, February 26, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8783-8785]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4703]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Toledo Edison Company Centerior Service Company; and the
Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company; Davis-Besse Nuclear Power
Station, Unit No. 1 Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to
Facility Operating License, Proposed no Significant Hazards
Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing
[Docket No. 50-346]
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is
considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No.
NPF-3, issued to the Toledo Edison Company, Centerior Service Company,
and The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (the licensee), for
operation of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 1 located
in Ottawa County, Ohio.
The proposed amendment would revise Technical Specification (TS)
Section 3/4.5.2, ``Emergency Core Cooling Systems, ECCS Subsystems--
Tavg 280 deg.F.'' Surveillance requirement (SR)
4.5.2.f would be modified to state that opening and closing of the
inspection port on the watertight enclosure for the decay heat valve
pit would not require this surveillance procedure to be performed. The
applicable TS bases would also be changed.
The licensee's submittal is being processed as an exigent TS
amendment request pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6), as a followup to the
Notice of Enforcement Discretion (NOED) issued by the Commission on
February 12, 1997.
[[Page 8784]]
The NOED was issued under Criteria 1(a) of NUREG-1600, to avoid
undesirable transients as a result of forcing compliance with a license
condition and, thus, to minimize potential safety consequences and
operational risks.
The licensee discovered that SR 4.5.2.f could be interpreted to
require a leak test after opening and subsequent closing of the valve
pit inspection port, and that the port had been opened since the last
time that the SR had been performed. Because the SR had been missed,
the licensee entered TS 3.0.3, which requires that the plant be shut
down, and TS 4.0.3, which allows a 24-hour delay in the shutdown so
that the missed SR can be performed. The licensee determined that the
SR could not be performed at power, and initiated a plant shutdown in
accordance with TS 3.0.3. The licensee then requested the Commission to
exercise enforcement discretion, and, consistent with Commission
policy, submitted the subject TS amendment request 2 days later.
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:
Toledo Edison had reviewed the proposed change and determined that
a significant hazards consideration does not exist because operation of
the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station (DBNPS), Unit 1 in accordance
with these changes would:
1a. Not involve a significant increase in the probability of an
accident previously evaluated because the initiators regarding the
large break Loss-of-Coolant Accident (LOCA) are not affected by the
proposed change. Revising Surveillance Requirement 4.5.2.f has no
bearing on initiating an accident previously evaluated. The flow
path through the decay heat drop line also is not an accident
initiator.
1b. Not involve a significant increase in the consequences of an
accident previously evaluated because the proposed change does not
alter the source term, containment isolation, allowable radiological
releases, or invalidate the assumptions used in evaluating
radiological releases. Therefore, the radiological consequences of
all accidents presented in the DBNPS Updated Safety Analysis Report
(USAR) are unchanged.
2. Not create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously evaluated because the
operability requirements of Decay Heat Removal (DHR) System
isolation valves DH-11 and DH-12 will continue to be adequately
addressed by Surveillance Requirement 4.5.2.f. The plant will be
operated in the same way as before, and no different accident
initiators or failure mechanism are introduced by the proposed
change. The inspection port's Kamlok coupling is included as part of
the watertight enclosure vacuum leakage rate test to ensure its leak
tightness. In addition, the proposed change adds a new stipulation
to Surveillance Requirement 4.5.2.f that after its use, the
inspection port must be verified as closed in its correct position.
Thus, the change does not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety
because the proposed change does not involve any new changes to the
initial conditions contributing to accident severity or
consequences. The inspection port's Kamlok coupling is included as
part of the watertight enclosure vacuum leakage rate test to ensure
its leak tightness. In addition, the proposed change adds a new
stipulation to Surveillance Requirement 4.5.2.f that after its use,
the inspection port must be verified as closed in its correct
position. The design of the Kamlok coupling provides for quick and
easy access to the inspection port, and quick and easy closure of
the inspection port upon completion of inspection activities.
Consequently there are no reductions 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 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 March 28, 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 University of Toledo, William Carlson
Library, Government Documents Collection, 2801 West Bancroft Avenue,
Toledo, Ohio 43606. 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
[[Page 8785]]
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: 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 the Director, Project Directorate III-3,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001:
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 E. 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 February 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 University of Toledo, William
Carlson Library, Government Documents Collection, 2801 West Bancroft
Avenue, Toledo, Ohio 43606.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day of February 1997.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Allen G. Hansen,
Project Manager, Project Directorate III-3, Division of Reactor
Projects--III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 97-4703 Filed 2-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
