[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 45 (Wednesday, March 6, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8982-8984]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-5206]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-440]
The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, et al.; 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-58, issued to The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, et al.
(the licensee), for operation of the Perry Nuclear Power Plan, Unit 1,
located in Lake County, Ohio.
The proposed amendment would revise the licensing basis as
described in the Updated Safety Analysis Report to allow the drywell
personnel airlock shield doors to be opened during plant startup and
shutdown (Operational Conditions 1, 2, and 3) until the end of
Operating Cycle 6.
The licensee has requested that the review be handled as an exigent
amendment to support restart following the end of the current fifth
refueling outage. On February 9, 1996, the licensee determined that
opening the shield doors at power was a condition outside the original
design basis of the facility.
The licensee met with the staff on February 15, 1996, completed
engineering analyses, and prepared the request for license amendment in
a timely fashion and submitted the request on February 27, 1996. Review
of this amendment request will ensure that processing of the amendment
will not be the sole item restraining plan restart from the current
refueling outage, which is currently scheduled for March 25, 1996. Such
a restraint would result in a costly extension to the outage with no
corresponding benefit to 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.
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. The proposed change does not involve a significant increase
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
An assessment was made of functionality given occurrence of the
loads imposed on the shield doors. This assessment involves the
620'-6'' steel platform, the monorail suspension structure and the
shield doors themselves. Although certain structural members of the
620'-6'' platform exceed the design basis acceptance criteria, these
members were found to be acceptable when reviewed for functionality
using alternate acceptance criteria. This demonstrates that the
various supported systems and components that are important to
safety will remain OPERABLE (for Technical Specification systems) or
functional (for non-Technical Specification systems, structures and
components). Even if the 3/4 inch tie rod (which provides lateral
stability) and the left support bracket (a vertical load bearing
member) were assumed to be failed, the shield doors would remain in
a upright position and not fall. The monorail suspension structure
and shield doors do not provide support to other systems. There are
no interferences, and opening the shield doors has no effect on
other systems. Therefore, there will be no increase in the
probability of an accident due to the monorail suspension structure
or shield doors, with the doors placed in the open position during
Operational Conditions 1, 2, and 3.
The primary purpose of the shield doors is to mitigate radiation
streaming from the Drywell through the Personnel Airlock into the
adjacent areas of the Containment, to maintain doses to personnel
working inside containment ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable).
Opening the doors during power operation will have no effect on the
postulated accident source term, and the shield doors do not provide
a barrier against fission products. Therefore, allowing the shield
doors to be opened during plant startup and shutdown while in
Operational Conditions 1, 2, or 3 will also not increase the
consequences of an accident previously evaluated in the USAR.
Based on the above, the proposed changes do not significantly
increase the probability or the consequences of any accident
previously evaluated.
2. The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
The proposed changes do not involve physical modifications to
the plant. There are no interferences with piping or other system
components when the doors are placed in the open position during
Operational Conditions 1, 2, or 3. Given the initiating events
postulated for the various load combinations, non result in a new
type of accident. The increase in radiation levels in the immediate
vicinity of the open shield doors with the plant at power was
verified to have no effect on the qualification and operation of
systems, structures, or components important to safety. Since the
platform and the monorail suspension structure will continue to
provide support for the shield doors, i.e., the doors will not fall
from the support structure, no new initiators of accidents are
introduced.
The 620'-6'' platform will continue to function with the shield
doors open. The equipment supported by the platform will continue to
perform their safety related design functions. Although components
of the platform and the monorail suspension structure exceed design
basis acceptance criteria, analyses have shown that, based on a
functional assessment, the monorail suspension structure will
continue to function and the doors will remain upright. With no
additional loads imposed on other equipment and the continued
functioning of the monorail suspension structure, there will be no
``different'' accidents, since there will be no change, degradation,
or prevention of actions described or assumed in any analyzed
accident. The radiological consequences and the fission product
barriers are not affected.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety.
The NRC has accepted the Perry structural steel design (Safety
Evaluation Report,
[[Page 8983]]
NUREG-0887) based on the Structural Acceptance Criteria in Standard
Review Plan Section 3.8.3. Analyses were subsequently performed
considering the shield doors to be in the open position during plant
operation. Several members and connections of the 620'-6'' platform
and monorail suspension structure exceed the allowable stresses
based on those acceptance criteria, and therefore a determination
was made under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59 that there was a
slight reduction in the margin of safety. However, as described
below, the proposed change has been reviewed and determined not to
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety, as discussed
in 10 CFR 50.92.
Those members which had exceeded the design basis allowables
were found to meet the Functional Evaluation acceptance criteria.
This demonstrated functionality of the platform and the monorail
structure; i.e., the platform would continue to support systems,
structures, and components (SSCs) important to safety, the SSCs
would remain functional, and the shield doors would not fall down.
Analytical conservatisms within the Functional Evaluations remain to
provide adequate assurance of continued function of the affected
SSCs.
Placing the shield doors in the open position during Operational
Conditions 1, 2, or 3 is not inconsistent with the guidelines of the
Technical Specifications for High Radiation Areas and the Radiation
Protection Program. The open shield doors will not affect
radiological limiting conditions or action limits for plant
effluents as described in the Technical Specifications or Operating
License. It does not affect the radiological bases as described in
the Technical Specifications or Operating License. It does not
affect the margin of radiological safety. The offsite radiation
doses to members of the public are not increased.
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 15 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 15-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 15-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 Rules Review and
Directives Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and Publications
Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555, 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 18, 1996, 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 Perry Public Library, 3753 Main Street,
Perry, Ohio. 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
[[Page 8984]]
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, 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 petitioners 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)
284-5100 (in Missouri 1-(800) 342-6700). The Western Union operator
should be given Datagram Identification Number N1023 and the following
message addressed to Gail H. Marcus: 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, and to Jay E. Silberg,
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 February 27, 1996, 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 Perry Public Library, 3753 Main
Street, Perry, Ohio.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day of February 1996.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Linda L. Gundrum,
Project Manager, Project Directorate III-3, Division of Reactor
Projects--III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 96-5206 Filed 3-5-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
