[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 169 (Wednesday, September 1, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47870-47872]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-22766]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-364]
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.; 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 Nos.
NPF-2 and NPF-8 issued to Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.
(SNC, or the licensee) for operation of the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear
Plant, Units 1 and 2, located in Houston County, Alabama.
The proposed amendments, requested by SNC in letters dated February
22, 1999, supplemented by letters dated March 19 and June 30, 1999,
would revise the technical specifications (TS) to clarify surveillance
requirements for the control room emergency filtration system,
penetration room filtration system, storage pool ventilation, and
radiation monitoring instrumentation. SNC also proposes to delete the
containment purge exhaust filter.
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 changes do not involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed changes to convert from ANSI N510-1980 to ASME
N510-1989 for specific [Farley Nuclear Plant] FNP filtration
surveillance testing requirements and related changes do not affect
the probability of any accident occurring. The consequences of any
accident will not be affected since the proposed changes will
continue to ensure that appropriate and required surveillance
testing for FNP filtration systems will be performed consistent with
the revised accident analyses. The results of the fuel handling
accident remain well within the guidelines of 10 CFR Part 100 and
the doses due to a [loss-of-coolant-accident] LOCA, including
[emergency core cooling system] ECCS recirculation loop leakage,
remain within the guidelines of 10 CFR Part 100 and General Design
Criterion [GDC] 19 of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50. Relocating
specific testing requirements to the FNP [Final safety Analysis
Report] FSAR has no effect on the probability or consequences of any
accident previously evaluated since required testing will continue
to be performed.
Therefore, the proposed TS changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. The proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
Testing differences between ANSI N510-1980 and ASME N510-1989
have been evaluated by SNC and none of the proposed changes have the
potential to create an accident at FNP. ASME N510-1989 is referenced
by the NRC in NUREG 1431. Testing the additional channels of
radiation monitoring and verification of penetration room boundary
integrity do not require the affected systems to be placed in
configurations different from design. Thus, no new system design or
testing configuration is required for the changes being proposed
that could create the possibility of any new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously evaluated. Relocating specific
testing requirements to the FSAR has no effect on the possibility of
creating a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated since it is an administrative change in nature.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. The proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety.
Conversion from the testing requirements of ANSI N510-1980
sections 10, 12, and 13 to ASME N510-1989 sections 10, 11, and 15
[[Page 47871]]
has been previously approved by the NRC at other nuclear facilities.
ASME N510-1989 has been approved and endorsed by the NRC in NUREG
1431. The safety factor associated with the conservative charcoal
adsorber laboratory test methods and dose calculations ensures that
doses will continue to meet the guidelines of 10 CFR Part 100 and
GDC 19 of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50. The enhanced testing of
radiation monitoring instrumentation and the penetration room
boundary integrity provide additional assurance that the acceptance
criteria of the safety analyses and the resultant margins of safety
are not reduced. Relocating specific testing requirements to the
FSAR has no effect on the margin of plant safety since required
testing will continue to be performed. Clarifying the 10[-]hour run
with heaters on is consistent with the Improved TS language and
accomplishes the purpose for the surveillance. Changing the heater
capacity and flow rates has been factored into the dose calculations
and are within the design capacities of the systems involved.
Therefore, SNC concludes based on the above, that the proposed
changes do not result in a significant reduction of margin with
respect to plant safety as defined in the Final Safety Analysis
Report or the bases of the FNP technical specifications.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
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 comments received.
Should the Commission take this action, it will publish in the Federal
Register 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 October 1, 1999, 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 Houston-Love Memorial Library, 212 W.
Burdeshaw Street, Post Office Box 1369, Dothan, Alabama. 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
[[Page 47872]]
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 20555-0001, 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 M. Stanford Blanton, Esq., Balch and
Bingham, Post Office Box 306, 1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham,
Alabama, 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 February 22, 1999, supplemented by
letters dated March 19 and June 30, 1999, which are 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 Houston-Love Memorial Library, 212 W.
Burdeshaw Street, Post Office Box 1369, Dothan, Alabama.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day of August 1999.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
L. Mark Padovan,
Project Manager, Project Directorate II, Division of Licensing Project
Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 99-22766 Filed 8-31-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
