[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--
T<INF>avg <gr-thn-eq> 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