[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 175 (Wednesday, September 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47695-47696]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-23995]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-348]
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., et al.; 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.
NPF-2, issued to the Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., et al.
(the licensee) for operation of the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant,
Unit 1, located in Houston County, Alabama.
The proposed amendment would allow a reduction in the number of
required available movable detector thimbles (flux map paths) for Cycle
15. Currently, Farley Unit 1 Technical Specification 3.3.3.2, requires
at least 75 percent of the 50 movable detector thimbles (38 flux map
paths) available with two per quadrant. The proposed change would allow
a reduction in the available paths to a minimum of 25 with three per
quadrant.
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. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
No. The movable detector thimble reduction does not
significantly increase the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated in the FSAR [Final Safety Analysis
Report]. This modification does not directly initiate an accident.
The consequences of accidents previously evaluated in the FSAR are
unaffected by this proposed change because no change to any
equipment response or accident mitigation scenario has resulted.
There are no additional challenges to fission product barrier
integrity.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
No. The movable detector thimble reduction does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident than any accident
already evaluated in the FSAR. No new accident scenarios, failure
mechanisms, or limiting single failures are introduced as a result
of this proposed change. The proposed Technical Specification
modification does not challenge the performance or integrity of any
safety-related systems. Therefore, the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident is not created.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety.
No. The proposed change to the technical specifications does not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The margin of
safety associated with the acceptance criteria for any accident is
unchanged.
The movable thimble reduction will have no affect on the
availability, operability or performance of the safety-related
systems and components. The movable detector thimble number
reduction does require a change to the Technical Specifications but
does not reduce the number or frequency of inspections or
surveillances required by the Technical Specifications. Therefore,
the movable detector thimble reduction will not reduce the margin of
safety, as described in the Bases to any Technical Specification.
The Bases of the Technical Specifications are founded on the
ability of the regulatory criteria being satisfied assuming the
limiting conditions for operation for various systems. Conformance
to the regulatory criteria for operation with the movable detector
thimble reduction is demonstrated, and the regulatory limits are not
exceeded, the margin of safety as defined in the Technical
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 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 Freedom of Information and Publications
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 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.
[[Page 47696]]
By October 10, 1997, 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 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 35201, 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 3, 1997, 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 Houston-Love Memorial Library, 212
W. Burdeshaw Street, Post Office Box 1369, Dothan, Alabama.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day of September 1997.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Jacob I. Zimmerman,
Project Manager, Project Directorate II-2, Division of Reactor
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 97-23995 Filed 9-9-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-U
