[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 215 (Tuesday, November 8, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27610]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 8, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-395]
South Carolina Electric & Gas Co.; South Carolina Public Service
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 License No.
50-395 issued to South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (the licensee)
for operation of the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1,
located in Fairfield County, South Carolina.
The proposed amendment would relocate the Seismic Monitoring
Instrumentation (SMI) Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO),
Surveillance Requirements (SRs), and associated tables and bases
contained in Technical Specifications (TS) section 3/4.3.3.3 to the
Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) or an equivalent controlled
document. The change would also delete the requirement for a special
report when a seismic instrument is inoperable for more than 30 days.
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. The proposed Technical Specification (TS) change does not
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
The function of the SMI system is to record the motion and effect
of a seismic event. SMI can not initiate or mitigate a previously
evaluated accident. Furthermore, the proposed TS change to relocate the
SMI requirements from TS to the FSAR or equivalent controlled document
is in accordance with the criteria (specifically Criterion 1) for
determining those requirements that may be relocated from TS as defined
by the NRC in its policy statement, ``Final Policy Statement on
Technical Specification Improvements for Nuclear Power Reactors,''
dated July 22, 1993. The SMI LCO, SRs, and associated tables and bases
proposed for relocation from TS will continue to be implemented by
administrative controls that will satisfy the requirements of TS
section 6 ``Administrative Controls.'' These requirements include a
review of changes to plant systems and equipment and to the applicable
administrative controls in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59.
Criterion 2 of the July 22, 1993, NRC policy statement states, ``A
process variable, design feature, or operating restriction that is an
initial condition of a Design Basis Accident or Transient analysis that
either assumes the failure of or presents a challenge to the integrity
of a fission product barrier.'' The SMI system does not monitor a
process variable that is an initial condition for accident or transient
analysis. Also, the SMI is not a design feature or an operating
restriction that is an initial condition since it only provides
information regarding the motion of and the plant structure/equipment
response to an earthquake. Therefore, the current VCSNS SMI TS
requirements do not meet Criterion 2 of the July 22, 1993, NRC policy
statement.
Criterion 3 of the NRC policy statement states, ``A structure,
system, or component that is part of the primary success path and which
functions or actuates to mitigate a Design Basis Accident or Transient
that either assumes the failure of or presents a challenge to the
integrity of a fission product barrier.'' The VCSNS SMI system does not
function or actuate in order to mitigate the consequences of a Design
Basis Accident or Transient. Therefore, the current VCSNS SMI TS
requirements do not meet Criterion 3 of the July 22, 1993, NRC policy
statement.
Criterion 4 of the NRC policy statement states, ``A structure,
system, or component which operating experience or probabilistic safety
assessment has shown to be significant to public health and safety.''
Operating experience has shown that the VCSNS SMI system has no impact
on public health and safety as defined by the NRC policy statement.
Furthermore, VCSNS specific probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) does
not credit the SMI system as a part of the plant response to an
accident. Therefore, the current VCSNS SMI TS requirements do not meet
Criterion 4 of the July 22, 1993, NRC policy statement for determining
those requirements that should remain in TS.
The proposed TS change will maintain the current operation,
maintenance, testing, and system operability controls for the SMI
system. Furthermore, any future changes to the SMI system will be
evaluated for the effect of those changes on system reliability and
function as required by 10 CFR 50.59. The SMI system performance will
not decrease due to the proposed TS change and the system will continue
to be administratively controlled in accordance with TS section 6
(including the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59) thereby precluding a
future decrease in SMI system performance/requirements.
The current TS Section 3.3.3.3, does not require plant shutdown if
any SMI is inoperable and the provisions of TS Section 3.0.3 (i.e.
plant shutdown) are not applicable. Therefore, the inoperability of
this system and the consequences of an accident while this system is
inoperable, were previously considered as not significant enough to
require a change to the plant operating conditions.
Since the SMI system does not meet the criteria for instrumentation
required in TS and since it will continue to be administratively
controlled (including the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59), the proposed
TS change will not involve an increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. The proposed TS change does not create the possibility of a new
and different kind of accident previously evaluated.
The function of the SMI system is to record the motion and effect
of a seismic event. The proposed TS change to relocate the SMI
requirements from TS to the FSAR or equivalent controlled document is
in accordance with the criteria for determining TS candidates for
relocation as defined by the NRC in the policy statement, dated July
22, 1993. The SMI system does not monitor a process variable that is an
initial condition for an accident or transient analysis. The SMI is
also not a design feature or an operating restriction that is an
initial condition of a Design Basis Accident or Transient analysis
since it only provides information regarding the motion of and the
plant structure/equipment response to an earthquake.
The proposed TS change to relocate the TS requirements will not
alter the operation of the plant, or the manner in which the SMI system
will perform its function. Any future changes will continue to be
administratively controlled in accordance with TS section 6, including
the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59.
The proposed TS change will not impose new conditions or result in
new types of equipment malfunctions which have not been previously
evaluated. Therefore, the proposed TS change does not create the
possibility of a new or different type of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. The proposed TS change does not involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety.
The proposed TS change to relocate the SMI requirements from TS is
in accordance with the criteria for determining TS candidates for
relocation as defined by the NRC in its policy statement, dated July
22, 1993.
Criterion 1 of the NRC final policy statement states, ``Installed
instrumentation that is used to detect, and indicate in the control
room, a significant abnormal degradation of the reactor coolant
pressure boundary.'' The NRC policy statement explains that ``. . .
This criterion is intended to ensure that Technical Specifications
control those instruments specifically installed to detect excessive
reactor coolant leakage. This criterion should not, however, be
interpreted to include instrumentation to detect precursors to reactor
coolant pressure boundary leakage or instrumentation to identify the
source of actual leakage (e.g. loose parts monitor, seismic
instrumentation, valve position indicators).'' Based on this NRC
guidance, the VCSNS FSAR, and TS bases 3/4.3.3.3, the SMI does not
``detect and indicate in the control room, a significant abnormal
degradation of the reactor coolant pressure boundary.'' Therefore, the
current VCSNS SMI TS requirements do not meet Criterion 1. Operating
experience has shown that the VCSNS SMI system has no impact on public
health and safety as defined by the NRC policy statement. In addition,
the VCSNS PRA does not credit the SMI system as a part of the plant
response to accidents.
The SMI LCO, SRs, and associated tables and bases proposed for
relocation to the FSAR or equivalent controlled document will continue
to be covered by administrative controls that will satisfy the
requirements of TS section 6 ``Administrative Controls.'' Those
requirements include a review of future changes to the system and
applicable administrative controls in accordance with the provisions of
10 CFR 50.59.
Accordingly, based on NRC specific guidance, operating experience,
and continued imposition of administrative controls, the proposed TS
change does not involve a 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 comment 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, MD, 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 20555.
The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to
intervene is discussed below.
By December 8, 1994, 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 20555 and at the local
public document room located at Fairfield County Library, Garden and
Washington Streets, Winnsboro, South Carolina 29180. 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 expalin 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 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 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 20555, 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 William H. Bateman: 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 Randolph R. Mahan, attorney for the licensee, South Carolina
Electric & Gas Company, Post Office Box 764, Columbia, South Carolina
29218.
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)(l)(i)-(v) and 2.714(d).
For further details with respect to this action, see the
application for amendment dated October 17, 1994, which is available
for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the
Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20555 and at the
local public document room located at Fairfield County Library, Garden
and Washington Streets, Winnsboro, South Carolina 29180.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day of November, 1994.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
George F. Wunder,
Project Manager, Project Directorate II-I, Division of Reactor
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 94-27610 Filed 11-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
