[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 165 (Friday, August 26, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-21214]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: August 26, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-321]
Georgia Power Co. 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.
DPR-57 issued to the Georgia Power Company, Oglethorpe Power
Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, City of Dalton,
Georgia (the licensee) for operation of the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear
Plant, Unit 1, located in Appling County, Georgia.
The proposed amendment would make a one-time change to Technical
Specification (TS) 3.9.C for Hatch Unit 1 regarding the emergency
diesel generator (DG) operability requirements during reactor shutdown
conditions. Current TS 3.9.C requires two DGs be operable during
reactor shutdown when a core or containment cooling system is required
to be operable. The proposed amendment would revise the current
requirement such that only one emergency DG is required to be aligned
to its associated core or containment cooling system during a specific
time of the outage. During this time period the decay heat removal
(DHR) system will be in service. The DHR system, which is completely
independent of the existing shutdown cooling system, is powered by the
Baxley substation and has it own DG as a backup power supply.
The licensee is requesting this one-time change for the fall 1994
Unit 1 refueling/maintenance outage to perform local rate testing on
the residual heat removal system loops and maintenance on DG 1A. Other
limitations are: (1) the other DG will be aligned to its corresponding
core or containment cooling system, (2) the reactor cavity is flooded,
and (3) the fuel pool gates are removed.
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 does not involve a significant hazards
consideration because it does not:
1. Involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Although the proposed change slightly increases the probability
of a loss of RHR [Residual Heat Removal] shutdown cooling, the
probability of the total loss of decay heat removal for the core is
not increased. Upon an LOSP [Loss-of-Offsite Power], coupled with
the failure of one DG, RHR shutdown cooling (with two RHR pumps and
their respective DGs available) will still be available. One diesel
out of service, as will be the case on outage days 5 and 6, an LOSP,
coupled with a diesel failure, will render RHR shutdown cooling
unavailable. However, on outage days 5 and 6, the DHR system is also
affected by the LOSP, its backup diesel can be manually placed into
service. Furthermore, the RHR shutdown cooling system is susceptible
to a single failure on loss of suction path (inadvertent closure of
either value E11-F008 or F009 even without an LOSP).
However, on outage days 5 and 6, the RHR and DHR systems will be
available for decay heat removal; thus, the unit will not be
susceptible to either single failure with respect to core decay heat
removal.
This proposal does not involve any changes to the secondary
containment, secondary containment ventilation systems, the standby
gas treatment system or any other radiological release control
systems. Therefore, the consequences of a loss of decay heat removal
event are not increased.
This evolution is being performed in the refueling mode of
operation, outside the realm of FSAR [Final Safety Analysis Report]
assumed accidents, except for a refueling accident. Since this
proposal does not involve changes to any fuel handling mechanisms,
the probability of a refueling accident is not increased.
Furthermore, this proposal does not involve any changes to the
operation or maintenance of any safety-related component designed to
prevent or mitigate the consequences of previously analyzed events.
Therefore, based on this discussion, the proposed Technical
Specifications change does not increase the probability or
consequences of any previously analyzed accident or transient.
2. Create the possibility of a new or different event from any
previously analyzed.
This proposed change does not introduce any new modes of
operation. All affected system; i.e., the RHR systems, DGs, and the
DHR system, will be operated within their design specifications.
Although the nonsafety-related DHR is a relatively new system, it
was installed, successfully tested, and used for decay heat removal
during the Spring 1994 Unit 2 outage. Therefore, no failure modes
that have not been previously considered are introduced by this
proposed change.
3. Significantly reduce the margin of safety.
The proposed decay heat removal configuration, which will be in
use during outage days 5 and 6, uses the DHR system as the primary
decay heat removal mechanism, with RHR loop A as a backup. Although
the DHR system is not designed as a safety-related system, it is
conservatively designed with sufficient heat removal capacity and
redundancy to provide full heat removal capacity in a variety of
conditions. In fact, testing during the Unit 2 Spring 1994 outage
showed that even early in the outage (approximately day 3) the DHR
system is fully capable of handling the decay heat load of the
reactor and the spent fuel pool. Additionally, even though the DHR
system takes a suction from, and discharges to, the spent fuel pool,
adequate natural circulation is firmly established between the pool
and the reactor vessel such that adequate decay heat removal is
taking place for both the pool and the reactor. This was
demonstrated via special test performed during the Spring Unit 2
refueling outage. In addition, duplicates of major components are
provided so that loss of any one component does not result in loss
of system function. Therefore, as far as decay heat removal
capability is concerned, the margin of safety is not reduced.
As discussed previously, if an LOSP occurs, failure of DG 1C
will result in a total loss of RHR shutdown cooling capacity, since
RHR loop 1B will be out of service for LLRT. However, a loss of
decay heat removal will not occur, since the DHR system is in
service and is supplied power for the Baxley, Georgia, substation.
However, if the Baxley power supply should fail, the DHR system has
its own backup diesel that can be placed in service manually within
4-hour period. Therefore, the margin of safety associated with an
LOSP is not reduced as a result of this proposal.
Furthermore, the configuration of decay heat removal systems on
days 5 and 6 in is compliance with the existing Unit 2
Specifications, which only require one RHR pump and one DG in
Condition 5 (Specifications 3.9.12 and 3.8.1.2, respectively). Thus,
the margin of safety, with respect to the exiting Unit 2
Specifications, is not reduced.
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, and 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
20555.
The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to
intervene is discussed below.
By September 26, 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 the Appling County Public Library, 301
City Hall Drive, Baxley, Georgia 31513. 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 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 Herbert N. Berkow: petitioner's name and
telephone number, date petition was mailed, Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear
Plant, Unit No. 1, and publication date and page number of this Federal
Register notice. A copy of the petition should also be sent to the
Office of General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555, and to Ernest L. Blake, Jr., 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 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 August 16, 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 Appling County Public Library, 301 City
Hall Drive, Baxley, Georgia 31513.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Kahtan N. Jabbour,
Project Manager, Project Directorate II-3, Division of Reactor
Projects-I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 94-21214 Filed 8-25-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
