[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 216 (Monday, November 9, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60412-60414]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-29919]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-361 and 50-362]
Southern California Edison Company; 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-10 and NPF-15 issued to Southern California Edison Company (the
licensee) for operation of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station,
Unit Nos. 2 and 3 located in San Diego County, California.
The proposed amendments would revise the turbine missile protection
calculation methodology in the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station,
Unit Nos. 2 and 3 (SONGS) licensing basis.
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 change does not involve a significant increase
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
This change is in support of a planned replacement of the
existing shrunk-on disc turbines with welded-rotor turbines for
Units 2 and 3. The new design is believed to be superior to the
existing design in terms of the probability of generation of
missiles. However, because a new missile strike-and-damage analysis
has not been performed, and due to differences in the method of
calculation of missile generation probability--for instance,
inclusion of stress corrosion cracking as a potential failure
mechanism--it is difficult to quantify the change in probability of
damage to safety-related equipment due to turbine missile strikes.
However, in order to characterize the effect of the proposed
change, a comparison can be made using the current turbine missile
methodology for the current design and the proposed methodology for
the proposed design. Using the methodology currently approved for
San Onofre Units 2 and 3 for the current shrunk-on disc rotor
design, the overall probability of damage to safety-related systems,
structures, and components is 0.9 x 10-7.
Using the methodology proposed by this change for the new welded
rotor design, the overall probability of damage to safety-related
systems, structures, and components is calculated to be 1.7 x
10-8 per year.
Ultimately, the proposed change is acceptable because the
overall probability of damage to safety-related systems, structures,
and components will be less than or equal to the acceptance criteria
of 1 x 10-7 per year stated in Regulatory Guide (RG)
1.115. The difference between the calculated value of 1.7 x
10-8 and the acceptance criteria of 1 x 10-7
is considered margin that is available to account for any future
changes to the turbine missile generation analysis.
Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
2. The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
[[Page 60413]]
Damage to safety-related systems, structures, and components
from turbine missiles is currently evaluated in Section 3.5.1.3 of
the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). This proposed
change merely provides an alternative method to demonstrate that the
overall probability of damage to safety-related systems, structures,
and components from turbine missiles will remain less than or equal
to the acceptance criterion of 1 x 10-7 per year, which
is the current acceptance criterion.
Therefore, this proposed change will not create a new or
different kind of accident from any accident that has been
previously evaluated.
3. The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety.
There is no change to the method of operation of the turbine for
Units 2 and 3 as a result of this change. Turbine overspeed
protection is unaffected, and provides assurance that the turbine
will operate within design limits.
Therefore, there will be no significant reduction in a margin of
safety as a result of this change.
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. 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 9, 1998, 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 Main Library, University of California,
Irvine, California 92713. 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 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
[[Page 60414]]
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, 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 Douglas K. Porter, Esquire, Southern
California Edison Company, P.O. Box 800, Rosemead, California 91770,
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 June 12, 1998, as supplemented by
letter dated October 29, 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 Main Library, University of
California, Irvine, California 92713.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of November 1998.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
James W. Clifford,
Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate IV-2, Division of Reactor
Projects III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 98-29919 Filed 11-6-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
