[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 40 (Wednesday, February 28, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12818-12820]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-4858]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-260]


Tennessee Valley Authority; 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 Licenses No. 
DPR-52, issued to the Tennessee Valley Authority (the licensee), for 
operation of the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Unit 2, located in 
Limestone County, Alabama.
    The proposed amendment would approve a change to the licensee's 
schedule for withdrawal of the reactor pressure vessel material 
surveillance capsules. The change would permit the second capsule to 
remain in the vessel for an operating additional cycle.
    The licensee's request cites exigent circumstances for this 
request. BWRVIP-86, BWR Integrated Surveillance Program Implementation 
Plan, Final Report was submitted to NRC on December 22, 2000. The 
December 2000 issuance of BWRVIP-86 revised the Integrated Surveillance 
Program test program to designate the second Browns Ferry Unit 2 RPV 
surveillance capsule as a representative capsule. The revised test 
schedule proposed withdrawal in 2007 to allow for increased fluence 
which is expected to provide better shift data. Approval of this 
request prior to March 18, 2001, the beginning of the Unit 2, Cycle 11 
refueling outage, is needed to prevent the withdrawal and analysis of 
the second capsule at an accumulated fluence which is not expected to 
yield useful results.
    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:

    A. The proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    Pressure-temperature (P/T) limits are imposed on the reactor 
coolant system to ensure that adequate safety margins against 
nonductile or rapidly propagating failure exist during normal 
operation, anticipated operational occurrences, and system 
hydrostatic tests. The P/T limits are related to the nil-ductility 
reference temperature, RT<INF>ndt</INF>. Changes in the fracture 
toughness properties of Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV) beltline 
materials, resulting from the neutron irradiation and the thermal 
environment, are monitored by a surveillance program in compliance 
with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix H. The effect of 
neutron fluence on the shift in the nil-ductility reference 
temperature of pressure vessel steel is predicted by methods given 
in Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.99, Revision 2. The Browns Ferry Unit 2 
current P/T limits were established based on adjusted reference 
temperatures developed in accordance with the procedures prescribed 
in RG 1.99, Revision 2. Calculation of adjusted reference 
temperature by these procedures includes a margin term to ensure 
upper-bound values

[[Page 12819]]

are used for the calculation of the P/T limits. Revision of the 
second capsule withdrawal schedule will not affect the P/T limits, 
because they will continue to be established in accordance with RG 
1.99, Revision 2. This change is not related to any accidents 
previously evaluated. The proposed change will not affect reactor 
pressure vessel performance because no physical changes are involved 
and the RPV vessel P/T limits will remain in accordance with RG 
1.99, Revision 2 requirements. The proposed change will not cause 
the reactor pressure vessel or interfacing safety systems to be 
operated outside of their design or testing limits. Also, the 
proposed change will not alter any assumptions previously made in 
evaluating the radiological consequences of accidents. Therefore, 
the probability or consequences of accidents previously evaluated 
will not be increased by the proposed change.
    B. The proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a 
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    The proposed change defers the second RPV material surveillance 
capsule withdrawal for one fuel cycle. This proposed change does not 
involve a modification of the design of plant structures, systems, 
or components. The proposed change will not impact the manner in 
which the plant is operated as plant operating and testing 
procedures will not be affected by the change. The proposed change 
will not degrade the reliability of structures, systems, or 
components important-to-safety because equipment protection features 
will not be deleted or modified, equipment redundancy or 
independence will not be reduced, supporting system performance will 
not be downgraded, the frequency of operation of equipment 
important-to-safety will not be increased, and more severe testing 
of equipment important-to-safety will not be imposed. No new 
accident types or failure modes will be introduced as a result of 
the proposed change. Therefore, the proposed change does not create 
the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from that 
previously evaluated.
    C. The proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.
    Appendices G to 10 CFR 50 describes the conditions that require 
P/T limits and provide the general bases for these limits. Until the 
results from the reactor vessel surveillance program become 
available, RG 1.99, Revision 2 is used to predict the amount of 
neutron irradiation damage. The use of operating limits based on 
these criteria, as defined by applicable regulations, codes, and 
standards, provide reasonable assurance that nonductile or rapidly 
propagating failure will not occur. The P/T limits are not derived 
from Design Basis Accident (DBA) analyses. They are prescribed 
during normal operation to avoid encountering pressure, temperature, 
and temperature rate of change conditions that might cause 
undetected flaws to propagate and cause nonductile failure of the 
reactor coolant pressure boundary (RCPB). Since the P/T limits are 
not derived from any DBA, there are no acceptance limits related to 
the P/T limits. Rather, the P/T limits are acceptance limits 
themselves since they preclude operation in an unanalyzed condition. 
The proposed change will not affect any safety limits, limiting 
safety system settings, or limiting conditions of operation. The 
proposed change does not represent a change in initial conditions, 
or in a system response time, or in any other parameter affecting 
the course of an accident analysis supporting the Bases of any 
Technical Specification. The proposed change does not involve 
revision of the P/T limits, but rather a revision of the withdrawal 
time for the second surveillance capsule. The current P/T limits 
were established based on adjusted reference temperatures for vessel 
beltline materials calculated in accordance with RG 1.99, Revision 
2. P/T limits will continue to be revised, as necessary, for changes 
in adjusted reference temperature due to changes in fluence when two 
or more credible surveillance data sets become available. When two 
or more credible surveillance data sets become available, P/T limits 
will be revised as prescribed by RG 1.99, Revision 2, or other NRC-
approved guidance. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a 
significant reduction in any margins 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 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 30, 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, and accessible electronically through the ADAMS Public 
Electronic Reading Room link at the NRC Web site 
(http://www.nrc.gov). 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

[[Page 12820]]

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, 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 
General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill 
Drive, ET IOH, Knoxville, Tennessee 3790, 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 5, 2001, which is available 
for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the 
Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and accessible 
electronically through the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room link at 
the NRC Web site 
(http://www.nrc.gov).

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd day of February 2001.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
William O. Long,
Project Manager, Section 2, Project Directorate II, Division of 
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 01-4858 Filed 2-27-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P