ML17159A274
| ML17159A274 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 04/21/1998 |
| From: | Buckley B NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17159A275 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9804280002 | |
| Download: ML17159A274 (7) | |
Text
7590-01-P 1
I UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORYCOMMISSION PENNSYLVANIAPOWER AND LIGHTCOMPANY DOCKET NOS. 50-387 AND 50-388 NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENTSTO FACILITYOPERATING LICENSES PROPOSED NO SIGNIFICANTHAZARDS CONSIDERATION DETERMINATION AND OPPORTUNITY FOR A HEAR NG The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-14 and NPF-22 issued to Pennsylvania Power and Light Company (the licensee) for operation of the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station (SSES), Units 1 and 2, located in Luzeme County, Pennsylvania.
~
(4.q.) The proposed amendment would relocate the main steam line radiation monitor reactor protection system and isolation trips from the Technical Specifications (TSs) to the plant-controlled Technical Requirements Manual ~
Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission willhave 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 facilityin 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:
'7804280002 98042i PDR ADQCK 05000387 P
Does the change involve a'signiflioant increase ln the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed changes relocate requirements or surveillances for structures, systems, components or variables that do not meet any of the four criteria in the NRC Policy Statement used for defining the scope ofTechnical Specification.
These relocated requirements are not deleted or changed.
Therefore, these changes willnot result in any changes to the requirements specified In the SSES CTS (current TS), but willreduce the level of regulatory control on the identiflied requirements.
The level of regulatory control has no impact on the probability or the consequences of an accident previously evaluated, therefore, these changes have no impact on the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2.
Does the change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
3.
The proposed changes willnot involve any physical changes to plant systems, structures, or components (SSC), or the manner in which these SSC are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected.
The changes in normal plant operation are consistent with the current safety analysis assumptions.
The proposed changes willnot impose or eliminate any requirements.
Therefore, these changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
Does this change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The margin of safety as defined in the bases of any Technical Specification is not reduced.
This conclusion is supported by the conclusion that the relocated requirements are those existing SSES Technical Specifications that failed to meet any of the four criteria in the NRC Policy Statement used for defining the scope of Technical Specifications.
In addition, the relocated requirements and surveillances for the affected structures, systems, components or variables remain the same as stated in the existing Technical Specifications.
Therefore, no reduction in a margin of safety willbe permitted.
Removal of these items from Technical, Specifications eliminates the requirement for NRC review and approval of revisions in accordance with 10 CFR 50.92.
Elimination of this administrative process does not have a margin of safety that can be evaluated.
However, the proposed changes are consistent with the BWR Standard Technical Specification, NUREG-1433, Rev 1, which was approved by the NRC. Revising the Technical Specifications to reflect the approved level of detail ensures no 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.
i$
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination, Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication ofthis notice willbe considered in making any final determination.
Normally, the Commission willnot issue the amendment until the expiration ofthe 30-day notice period. However, should circumstances change during the notice period such that failure to act in a timelyway 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 riotlce
'period,'rovided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration.
The final determination willconsider all public and State comments received.
Should the Commission take this action, itwillpublish 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 willoccur very infrequently.
Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division ofAdministrative Services, Office ofAdministration, 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 Rockyille 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 filingof requests for hearing and petitions for leave to intervene is discussed below.
By May 27, 1998, the licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of, the amendment to the subject facilityoperating 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 tn intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's "Rules of
Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings" ln 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 Gefman 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. Ifa request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or an Atomic Safety and Ucenslng Board, designated by the Commission 'or by the Chairman of the Ato'mic Safety and Ucensing Board Panel; willrule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the designated Atomic Safety and Licensing Board willissue 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 h
5 I
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 ofwhich 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, Ifproven, would entitle the h
petitioner to relief. A petitioner who fails to file such a supplement which satisfies these requirements with respect to at least one contention willnot be permitted to paNcipate 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 fullyin the conduct of the hearing, including the opportunity to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses.
Ifa hearing is requested, the Commission willmake a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration.
The final determination willserve to decide when the hearing is held.
Ifthe 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.
Ifthe 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, Atterition: 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 willnot 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)(l)-(v) and 2.714(d).
For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated August 6, 1996, as supplemented March 2, 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 21st day of April 1998 FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORYCOMMISSION Bartholomew C. Buckley, Acting Director Project Directorate l-2 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation