[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 193 (Wednesday, October 6, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59969-59971]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-22402]



[[Page 59969]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-499]


STP Nuclear Operating 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 (NRC, the Commission) is 
considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. 
NPF-80, issued to STP Nuclear Operating Company (the licensee), for 
operation of South Texas Project (STP), Unit 2 located in Matagorda 
County, Texas.
    The proposed amendment would change Technical Specification 4.4.4.2 
to not require block valve testing should the block valve be required 
to be closed in accordance with the required actions of the associated 
limiting condition for operation.
    Elevated temperatures were observed on the pressurizer discharge 
header due to minor power operated relief valve (PORV) 655A leakage 
during startup from 2RE10. Following valve reseating attempts, 
temperatures were elevated (compared to historical values), but 
remained below the alarm setpoint. When the alarm setpoint was reached 
on September 7, 2004, the PORV block valves were closed in accordance 
with plant procedures and troubleshooting efforts were initiated to 
determine the cause. Subsequent testing and investigation confirmed 
that PORV 655A was leaking-by, and as a result of the leak-by PORV 655A 
momentarily lifted when its associated block valve was re-opened. It 
should be noted that due to the PORV design (pilot-assisted) and the 
fact that the PORV leak-by had allowed the piping between the block 
valve and the PORV to depressurize during the troubleshooting time 
period, the momentary lift of the PORV was not an unexpected 
occurrence. Further engineering evaluation was initiated to determine 
whether PORV 655A continued to remain Operable. This engineering 
analysis concluded that PORV 655A was operable, however if the PORV 
block valve were to remain open and the PORV to continue to leak-by, 
the resulting elevated temperatures would degrade the Equipment 
Qualification of the PORVs solenoid and switch cover gaskets before the 
projected end of the current Unit 2 operating cycle. Therefore, the 
decision was made on September 9, 2004, to declare PORV 655A inoperable 
due to excessive seat leakage, and to close the associated block valve 
in accordance with TS 3.4.4 Action a.
    The quarterly surveillance test for the PORV 655A block valve, 
performed in accordance with SR 4.4.4.2, requires operating the block 
valve through one complete cycle of full travel. Because PORV 655A is a 
pilot-assisted valve, it is expected that the PORV will lift 
momentarily during the block valve stroke. Although the PORV is 
expected to reseat, performance of this surveillance represents an 
unnecessary challenge to the RCS pressure boundary. The SR 4.4.4.2 
surveillance test for the PORV 655A block valve is due to be performed 
on September 28, 2004, and the associated grace period expires on 
October 21, 2004.
    Entry into the required action of TS 3.4.4 could not have been 
reasonably foreseen or anticipated. Therefore, STPNOC requests approval 
of this license amendment application on an exigent basis by October 
21, 2004 (the block valve surveillance due date, including grace 
period) in order to avoid unnecessary operation of the PORV.
    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 50.91(a)(6) of Title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (10 CFR) 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 proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The block valve for the pressurizer power operated relief valve 
is not a potential accident initiator. Therefore, not requiring a 
surveillance of the block valve while it is being used to isolate 
its associated power operated relief valve will not increase the 
probability of an accident previously evaluated. Not requiring the 
surveillance of the block valve may slightly reduce the probability 
of a loss of coolant accident from a stuck open power operated 
relief valve since it will eliminate the challenge to the power 
operated relief valve from the pressure transient that results from 
cycling the block valve.
    If pressurizer spray is not available or is not effective, 
either one of the two pressurizer power operated relief valves may 
be manually actuated to depressurize the reactor coolant system to 
mitigate the consequences of a steam generator tube rupture. Not 
performing the surveillance on the block valve is not relevant to 
the primary system for depressurizing the reactor coolant system 
(pressurizer spray). The block valves have been demonstrated by 
operating experience to be reliable and are also subject to the 
motor-operated valve testing program. Consequently, the proposed 
change does not significantly reduce the confidence that the block 
valve can be opened to permit manual actuation of the power operated 
relief valve to depressurize the reactor coolant system to mitigate 
an accident. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a 
significant increase in the consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change only affects the performance of the 
surveillance test for the block valve and does not introduce any 
operating configurations not previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the STPNOC concludes the proposed change does not 
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from 
any accident previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change to the surveillance requirement for the 
block valve for the pressurizer power operated relief valve does not 
affect the assumptions in any accident analyses. There are no 
changes in plant performance parameters associated with the proposed 
change to the surveillance requirement for the block valve.
    Therefore, the STPNOC concludes the proposed change does not 
involve a significant reduction in the 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.

[[Page 59970]]

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 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 
(PDR), 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.
    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, 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 2.309, which is available at the 
Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 
01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. 
Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide 
Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic 
Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition 
for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or a 
presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief 
Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, 
will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the 
Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 
will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order.
    As required by 10 CFR 2.309, 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 general requirements: (1) The name, address and telephone 
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the 
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the 
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's 
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the 
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the 
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must 
also identify the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor 
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
    Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue 
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the 
petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for 
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/requestor must also provide references to those specific 
sources and documents of which the petitioner/requestor is aware and on 
which the petitioner/requestor intends to rely to establish those facts 
or expert opinion. The petitioner/requestor 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/
requestor to relief. A petitioner/requestor who fails to satisfy 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.
    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.
    Non-timely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be 
entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the presiding 
officer of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition, 
request and/or the contentions should be granted based on a balancing 
of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(a)(1)(i)-(viii).
    A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must 
be filed by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the 
Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications 
Staff; (2) courier, express mail, and expedited delivery services: 
Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and 
Adjudications Staff; (3) e-mail addressed to the Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f39b9692819a9d94979c90989687b39d8190dd949c85"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="96fef3f7e4fff8f1f2f9f5fdf3e2d6f8e4f5b8f1f9e0">[email protected]</span></a>; 
or (4) facsimile transmission addressed to the Office of the Secretary, 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Attention: 
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff at (301) 415-1101, verification 
number is (301) 415-1966. A copy of the request for hearing and 
petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to the Office of 
the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001, and it is requested that copies be transmitted either by 
means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725 or by e-mail to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#773830343a161e1b3412190312053719051459101801"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="94dbd3d7d9f5fdf8d7f1fae0f1e6d4fae6f7baf3fbe2">[email protected]</span></a>. A copy of the request for hearing and petition 
for leave to intervene should also be sent to Mr. John E. Matthews, 
Morgan, Lewis & Bokius, LLP, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, 
DC 20004, attorney for the licensee.

[[Page 59971]]

    For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment dated September 30, 2004, which is available 
for public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One White 
Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first 
floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be 
accessible electronically from the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room 
on the Internet at the NRC Web site http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html. 
Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in 
accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR 
Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-
mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#33435741735d41501d545c45"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0e7e6a7c4e607c6d20696178">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 30th day of September 2004.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Mohan C. Thadani,
Senior Project Manager, Section 1, Project Directorate IV, Division of 
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 04-22402 Filed 10-5-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>