98-7651. 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  

  • [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
    
    
    

Document Information

Published:
03/24/1998
Department:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Entry Type:
Notice
Document Number:
98-7651
Pages:
14142-14144 (3 pages)
Docket Numbers:
Docket Nos. 50-334 and 50-412
PDF File:
98-7651.pdf