[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 120 (Tuesday, June 23, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34200-34202]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16652]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-388]


Pennsylvania Power and 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 No. 
NPF-22 issued to Pennsylvania Power and Light Company for operation of 
the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station (SSES), Unit 2 located in 
Luzerne County, Pennsylvania.
    The proposed amendment would amend the Susquehanna Steam Electric 
Station's Technical Specifications (TSs) to add notations to TSs 
3.3.7.5, 4.3.7.5, 3.4.2, and 4.4.2 that the acoustic monitor for safety 
relief valve (SRV) ``J'' may be inoperable beginning June 15, 1998, 
until the next unit shutdown of sufficient duration to allow for 
containment entry, not to exceed the ninth refueling and inspection 
outage (spring 1999).

[[Page 34201]]

    SSES Unit 2 is currently operating in Operation Condition 1 at 100% 
power. On June 13, 1998, at 1239 hours, the SSES Unit 2 control room 
personnel determined that the ``J'' SRV acoustic monitor was 
inoperable. They also determined that repair of this acoustic monitor 
would require unit shutdown and containment entry. The applicable TS 
action statements require this monitor to be restored to operable 
status or an initiation of a unit shutdown within 48 hours. The 
licensee sought and received, at 1145 hours on June 15, 1998, NRC's 
agreement to exercise its discretion to not enforce compliance with 
these TS shutdown requirements until this amendment could be processed. 
The licensee submitted this proposed license amendment on June 17, 
1998. Therefore, the NRC staff has concluded that the licensee has made 
its best effort to make a timely application for this amendment and has 
not taken advantage of the exigent provisions of 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6).
    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. This proposal does not involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    This proposal does not involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The 
acoustic monitors do not affect the operation of the safety/relief 
valves. The SRV safety-valve function (TS 3.4.2), safety-related ADS 
[automatic depressurization system] function (six selected valves--
TS 3.5.1) and non-safety related automatic and manual relief 
functions are independent of the acoustic monitoring function. No 
failure or misoperation of the acoustic monitoring system can affect 
the ability of these valves to perform their design functions.
    Failure of the acoustic monitoring system to actuate in the 
event of an actual valve actuation does not affect the consequences 
of that action. The consequences of an undetected SRV failure to 
close or to remain closed when desired or required are unacceptable; 
the purpose of the monitoring system is to increase the probability 
that a failure of the valve actuation mechanism is detected.
    Operation without this detection system will not significantly 
increase vulnerability to an undetected, open SRV event. Operation 
without this detection system would also not create any condition 
where the reliability of the valve is reduced.
    The SSES IPE [Individual Plant Examination] assigns a 
conservative 1% probability to the stuck open safety relief valve 
event. Susquehanna utilizes Crosby SRVs. This valve is specifically 
designed and specified for the intended function, and is operated 
and maintained in accordance with the requirements of the design. It 
is not experienced reliability problems that have occurred with 
other SRV designs. The lack of position monitoring will not affect 
the valve's ability to perform its intended operational and safety 
function.
    Operation without the SRV acoustic monitor will not affect the 
plant response to the stuck open relief valve at power or hot 
shutdown conditions. The stuck open SRV transient as analyzed in the 
Design Assessment Report (DAR) indicates that the maximum pool 
transient temperature (185 deg.F) does not approach the NUREG 0783 
accepted limit (208 deg.F bulk pool temperature). This is assured by 
using temperature data from SPOTMOS in accordance with off-normal 
procedure ON-283-001.
    SRV tail pipe temperature rise above the alarm setpoint is a 
true indication of SRV actuation and a reliable indication of 
closure. Alarms generated by this sensor will alert the operator to 
the open SRV. The Suppression Pool Temperature Elements located 
closest to the ``J'' SRV discharge quencher will also indicate heat 
input to the pool from that line. Other indications can be used to 
infer an open relief valve and to confirm a closed valve (i.e. by 
demonstrating pressure integrity).
    The probability of a Stuck Open SRV Event is not affected by the 
lack of position indication for the SRV. The ability to detect the 
stuck open SRV condition is adequately covered by the tail pipe 
temperature indication and secondary reactor vessel and steam cycle 
parameter indications, and will not result in an increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. This proposal does not create the possibility of a new or 
different type of accident from any previously evaluated.
    This proposal does not create the possibility of a new or 
different type of accident from any previously evaluated. The SRV 
Acoustic Monitor performs no control or active protective function 
other than indication. Failure or misoperation of this device will 
not cause an unanalyzed failure or misoperation of an engineered 
safety feature. Because of the diverse and redundant indication 
system described above, misoperation of this system will not cause 
the operator to take unanalyzed actions, nor will it cause the 
operator to commit errors of commission or omission, and as such 
will not create the possibility of a new or different type of 
accident.
    3. This change does not involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety.
    This change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin 
of safety. Operating without the ``J'' SRV position indication does 
not reduce the design or operating basis margin of safety. Primary 
Containment controls are in place that can effectively deal with the 
operating condition. In the unlikely event that the ``J'' SRV should 
cycle open and fail to fully close, sufficient indication would be 
available to identify and mitigate the occurrence. Thus, the 
proposed change does 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 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

[[Page 34202]]

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 July 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 Osterhout Free Library, Reference 
Department, 71 South Franklin Street, Wilkes-Barre, PA 18701. 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 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, or 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 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 June 17, 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 Osterhout Free Library, Reference 
Department, 71 South Franklin Street, Wilkes-Barre, PA 18701.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day of June 1998.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Victor Nerses,
Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate I-2, Division of Reactor 
Projects, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 98-16652 Filed 6-22-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P