[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 20, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33111-33113]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15474]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-334 and 50-412]


Firstenergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC), 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 Nos. 
DPR-66 and NPF-73 issued to FENOC, et al. (the licensee) for operation 
of the Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (BVPS-1 and 2), 
located in Shippingport, Pennsylvania.
    The proposed amendment would revise the BVPS-1 and 2 Technical 
Specifications (TSs) to implement improvements endorsed in the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) Final Policy Statement on Technical 
Specification Improvements for Nuclear Power Reactors (58 FR 39132) 
which was published in the Federal Register on July 22, 1993. The major 
change proposed in this request involves the application of the TS 
screening criteria from the policy statement (codified in 10 CFR 50.36) 
to evaluate the content of the BVPS TS.
    Consistent with the policy statement guidance, the TS that do not 
meet the criteria of 10 CFR 50.36 are proposed for relocation to 
documents controlled by BVPS. The proposed locations for the relocated 
TS requirements are the Licensing Requirements Manual (LRM) and Offsite 
Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM). The LRM and ODCM are referenced in the 
BVPS-1 and 2 Updated Final Safety Analysis Reports (UFSARs). Changes to 
documents referenced in the UFSAR are required to be made in accordance 
with 10 CFR 50.59. As such, changes to the relocated TS requirements 
will be in accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59 and prior NRC 
review and approval of changes will be requested if required by 10 CFR 
50.59.
    In order to support the relocation of certain TS, this license 
amendment request also proposes changes to retained TS and Bases. In 
addition, this request proposes the addition of a TS Bases control 
program consistent with the improved standard TS. These changes are 
administrative in nature and are made to support the relocation of TS 
and provide clarifications and enhancements that serve to make the 
existing TS more consistent with the content of the Improved Standard 
Technical Specifications (ISTS) for Westinghouse Plants contained in 
NUREG-1431.
    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.
    The Commission has made a proposed determination 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 amendment does not involve a significant increase 
in the probability of an accident previously evaluated because no 
changes are being made to any event initiator. Nor is any analyzed 
accident scenario being revised. The initiating conditions and 
assumptions for accidents described in the UFSAR [Updated Final 
Safety Analysis Report] remain as previously analyzed.
    The proposed amendment also does not involve a significant 
increase in the consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 
The amendment does not reduce the current operability requirements

[[Page 33112]]

contained in the TS proposed for relocation. The proposed relocation 
of TS requirements only affects the level of regulatory control 
involved in future changes to the requirements. Additionally, the TS 
proposed for relocation do not meet the 10 CFR 50.36 criteria for 
retention in the TS.
    The additional changes proposed to retained TS in the LAR 
[license amendment request], including the addition of the TS Bases 
Control Program, are either enhancements, clarifications, or 
administrative in nature, and are made to support the relocation of 
TS and to be more consistent with the ISTS and plant specific safety 
analyses. The changes to retained TS have no adverse effect on the 
safety analyses for design basis accidents described in the UFSAR. 
The initiating conditions and assumptions for accidents described in 
the UFSAR remain as previously analyzed.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the changes create the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    The proposed amendment does not involve any physical changes to 
the plant or the modes of plant operation defined in the TS. The 
proposed amendment does not involve the addition or modification of 
plant equipment nor does it alter the design or operation of any 
plant systems. No new accident scenarios, transient precursors, 
failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures are introduced as a 
result of these changes.
    There are no changes in this amendment that would cause the 
malfunction of safety-related equipment assumed to be operable in 
accident analyses. No new mode of failure has been created and no 
new equipment performance requirements are imposed. The proposed 
amendment has no effect on any previously evaluated accident.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does 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?
    The margin of safety depends on the maintenance of specific 
operating parameters and systems within design requirements and 
safety analysis assumptions.
    The proposed amendment does not involve revisions to any safety 
limits or safety system setting that would adversely impact plant 
safety. The proposed amendment does not alter the functional 
capabilities assumed in a safety analysis for any system, structure, 
or component important to the mitigation and control of design bases 
accident conditions within the facility. Nor does this amendment 
revise any parameters or operating restrictions that are assumptions 
of a design basis accident. In addition, the proposed amendment does 
not affect the ability of safety systems to ensure that the facility 
can be placed and maintained in a shutdown condition for extended 
periods of time.
    The relocation of TS does not reduce the effectiveness of the 
requirements being relocated. Rather, the relocation of the TS 
results in a change in the regulatory control required for future 
changes made to the requirements. Additionally, the technical 
specifications proposed for relocation do not meet the 10 CFR 50.36 
criteria for retention in the technical specifications.
    The requirements contained within the affected TS will continue 
to be implemented by the appropriate plant procedures (e.g., 
operating and maintenance procedures) in the same manner as before. 
However, future changes to the relocated requirements will be 
controlled in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59 instead of a license 
amendment pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90. The provisions of 10 CFR 50.59 
establish adequate controls over requirements removed from the TS 
and assure future changes to these requirements will be consistent 
with safe plant operation.
    The additional changes proposed to retained TS in this LAR, 
including the addition of the TS Bases Control Program, are either 
enhancements, clarifications, or administrative in nature, and are 
made to support the relocation of TS and to be more consistent with 
the ISTS and plant specific safety analyses. These changes do not 
alter any operating parameters or design requirements assumed in a 
safety analysis for systems or components important to the 
mitigation and control of design bases accident conditions within 
the facility. Nor do these changes alter safety limits or safety 
system settings required for safe operation of the plant or the 
assumptions of any safety analysis.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment 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 30 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 30-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 30-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 and provide for opportunity for a hearing 
after 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, 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.
    By July 20, 2001, 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, located at One 
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 
Maryland, or electronically on the Internet at the NRC Web site http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/CFR/index.html. If there are problems in accessing the 
document, contact the Public Document Room Reference staff at 1-800-
397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4b3b2f390b253928652c243d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="45352137052b37266b222a33">[email protected]</span></a>. 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

[[Page 33113]]

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 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.
    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, located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike 
(first floor), Rockville, Maryland, 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 Mary 
O'Reilly, Attorney, FirstEnergy Legal Department, FirstEnergy 
Corporation, 76 S. Main Street, Akron, OH 44308, 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 28, 2001 (Agencywide Documents 
Access and Management Systems (ADAMS) Accession No. ML010950383), as 
supplemented on May 1, 2001 (ADAMS Accession No. ML011290073), which is 
available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document 
Room, located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first 
floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be 
accessible from the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room on the 
Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html. 
If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in 
accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public 
Document Room Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by e-
mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#81f1e5f3c1eff3e2afe6eef7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="79091d0b39170b1a571e160f">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day of June, 2001.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Lawrence J. Burkhart,
Project Manager, Section 1, Project Directorate I, Division of 
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 01-15474 Filed 6-19-01; 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>