[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 228 (Tuesday, November 28, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58690-58692]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-28977]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414]
Duke Power Company, et al.; Notice of Consideration of Issuance
of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses, Proposed No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is
considering issuance of amendments to Facility Operating License Nos.
NPF-35 and NPF-52 issued to Duke Power Company, et al. (the licensee)
for operation of the Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, located in
York County, South Carolina.
The proposed amendments would change the Updated Final Safety
Analysis Report. The Catawba Updated Final Safety Analysis Report
(UFSAR), Section 5.2.5, and the Safety Evaluation Report (SER) (NUREG-
0954), related to the application for an operating license for Catawba
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Section 5.2.5, ``Detection of Leakage
Through Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary,'' includes a review of the
various Catawba reactor coolant leakage detection systems. The
operability requirements for the Reactor Coolant Leakage Detection
Systems are in Technical Specification 3.4.6.1 that requires that the
following combination of systems be operable: (1) the Containment
Atmosphere Gaseous Radioactivity Monitoring System (EMF39(L)), (2) the
Containment Floor and Equipment Sump Level and Flow Monitoring
Subsystems, and (3) either the Containment Atmosphere Particulate
Radioactivity Monitoring System (EMF38(L)) or the Containment
Ventilation Unit Condensate Drain Tank (VUCDT) Level Monitoring
Subsystem.
The FSAR and SER state that EMF38(L) is seismic Category I. A
licensee engineering review has determined that documentation does not
exist to show that EMF38(L) is designed to withstand a Safe Shutdown
Earthquake (SSE). The licensee's review relative to the necessity of
seismic qualification for these monitors and analysis, performed
pursuant to 10 CFR
[[Page 58691]]
50.59, form the basis for a licensee proposal to delete the seismic
qualification requirement from the UFSAR. The licensee requests that
the NRC approve this change to the UFSAR through an amendment to the
operating licenses.
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:
This proposed change has been evaluated against the standards in
10 CFR 50.92 and has been determined to involve no significant
hazards considerations, in that operation of the facility in
accordance with the proposed amendment would not:
1. [I]nvolve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or
EMF38(L) is not used directly for any phase of power generation
or conversion or transmission, normal decay heat removal, fuel
handling, or the processing of radioactive fluids. As such, it is
not an ``accident initiator''. No ``accident initiator'' is affected
by the change to the UFSAR. Thus, the probability of accidents
evaluated in Sections 6, 9.1, and 15 of the FSAR is not affected by
the change. It is determined that sufficient ability to determine
conditions inside containment remain available for any earthquake up
to and including the SSE. Furthermore, should it be determined that
either EMF38(L) or EMF39(L) are not capable of fulfilling its
intended function following any earthquake, including those smaller
than the OBE [Operating Basis Earthquake], the associated unit will
be taken to Cold Shutdown, a mode for which neither the Emergency
Core Cooling System nor the containment safeguards are required.
Finally, no equipment provided to mitigate any accident is affected
adversely... by the change. For these reasons, the proposed change
will not involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated in the SAR [safety
analysis report].
2. [C]reate the possibility of a new or different type of
accident from any accident previously evaluated; or
As stated above, no equipment used in direct support of power
generation or conversion or transmission, normal decay heat removal,
fuel handling, or the processing of radioactive fluids is affected
with the update. No new failure modes are identified with the
change. The upper bound to an undetected leak in the Reactor Coolant
System is a Loss of Coolant Accident [LOCA]. As noted above, no
equipment provided to mitigate a LOCA is affected by the change. For
these reasons, the change will not create a new or different type of
accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. [I]nvolve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
It has been determined that sufficient means remain at the
disposal to the operators to assess conditions within the
containment following any earthquake up to and including the SSE. In
particular, the ability to determine leakage with the sensitivity
comparable to that of EMF38(L) can be established. This meets the
intent of the latter part of Regulatory Position of RG [Regulatory
Guide] 1.45. In addition, should it be determined that either
EMF38(L) or EMF39(L) is not functional following any earthquake, the
associated unit(s) will be brought to Cold Shutdown even if it
(they) have remained on line following that earthquake. This brings
the unit(s) to a mode in which TS 3.4.6.1 does not apply. It ensures
that at least the minimum required Reactor Coolant System leakage
detection systems will be functional before power operations are
continued following a postulated earthquake smaller than the OBE
(cf. Reference 3). It ensures protection of the reactor coolant
pressure boundary, one of the fission product barriers. No other
fission product barrier is affected by the change. Therefore, the
margin of safety is not reduced.
Therefore, based on the information contained in this submittal,
it is determined that no significant hazard is associated with the
proposed change to the UFSAR.
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
amendments requested involve 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 amendments 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 Rules Review and
Directives Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and Publications
Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555, 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 December 28, 1995, 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 York County Library, 138 East Black
Street, Rock Hill, South Carolina. 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.
[[Page 58692]]
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 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, 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 Herbert N. Berkow: 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, and to Mr. Albert Carr,
Duke Power Company, 422 South Church Street, Charlotte, North Carolina,
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 September 5, 1995, 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 York County Library, 138 East Black
Street, Rock Hill, South Carolina.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this day of 20th day of November
1995.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Robert E. Martin,
Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate II-2, Division of Reactor
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation .
[FR Doc. 95-28977 Filed 11-27-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
