[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 222 (Tuesday, November 18, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65090-65092]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-28751]
[[Page 65090]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-413, 50-414, 50-369 and 50-370]
Duke Energy Corporation, et al., Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1
and 2, McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2; 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-9 and NPF-17, issued to Duke Power Company (the licensee), for
operation of the McGuire Nuclear Station (McGuire), Units 1 and 2,
located in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina and to Facility Operating
License Nos. NPF-35 and NPF-52, issued to Duke Power Company, et al,
(the licensee), for operation of the Catawba Nuclear Station (CNS),
Units 1 and 2, located in York County, South Carolina.
The proposed amendments, requested by the licensee in a letter
dated March 24, 2003, as supplemented by letters dated June 25, 2003,
and October 15, 2003, would revise the Technical Specifications (TSs)
to relocate reactor coolant system cycle specific parameter limits from
the TS to the core operating limits reports for the Catawba and the
McGuire Nuclear Stations. The proposed amendments would also revise the
required minimum measured reactor coolant system flow rate from 390,000
gallons per minute (gpm) to 388,000 gpm for McGuire, Units 1 and 2 and
Catawba, Unit 1. Associated changes have also been proposed for the TS
Bases section.
Before issuance of the proposed license amendments, 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 Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(10 CFR), Section 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.
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a)(1), this analysis is provided to
demonstrate that the proposed license amendment does not involve a
significant hazard.
Conformance of the proposed amendment to the standards for a
determination of no significant hazards, as defined in 10 CFR 50.92,
is shown in the following:
(1) Does the proposed license amendment involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated?
No. The reduction in McGuire Units 1 and 2, and Catawba Unit 1
[reactor coolant system] RCS minimum measured flow (MMF) from
390,000 gpm [gallons per minute] to 388,000 gpm will not change the
probability of actuation of any Engineering Safeguard Feature or any
other device. The consequences of previously analyzed accidents have
been found to be insignificantly different when this reduced flow
rate is assumed. The system transient response is not affected by
the initial RCS flow assumption unless the initial assumption is so
low as to impair the steady-state core cooling capability or the
steam generator heat transfer capability. This is clearly not the
case with a 0.5% reduction in RCS flow.
The relocation of Reactor Coolant System (RCS) related cycle-
specific parameter limits from the Technical Specifications (TS) to
the Core Operating Limits Reports (COLR) proposed by this amendment
request does not result in the alteration of the design, material,
or construction standards that were applicable prior to the change.
The proposed change will not result in the modification of any
system interface that would increase the likelihood of an accident
since these events are independent of the proposed change. The
proposed amendment will not change, degrade, or prevent actions, or
alter any assumptions previously made in evaluating the radiological
consequences of an accident described in the UFSAR. Therefore, the
proposed amendment does not result in the increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
(2) Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
No. This change does not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
No new accident causal mechanisms are created as a result of NRC
approval of this amendment request. No changes are being made to the
facility which should introduce any new accident causal mechanisms.
This amendment request does not impact any plant systems that are
accident initiators.
(3) Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in
margin of safety?
No. Implementation of this amendment would not involve a
significant reduction in the margin of safety. The decrease in
McGuire Units 1 and 2, and Catawba Unit 1 RCS MMF has been analyzed
and found to have an insignificant effect on the applicable
transient analyses found in the UFSAR. Previously approved
methodologies will continue to be used in the determination of
cycle-specific core operating limits appearing in the COLRs.
Additionally, the RCS minimum total flow rates for McGuire and
Catawba are retained in their respective TS so as to assure that
lower flow rates will not be used without prior NRC approval.
Consequently, no safety margins will be impacted.
Based on the above, it is concluded that the proposed license
amendment request does not result in a reduction in margin with
respect to plant 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 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. Documents may
be examined, and/or
[[Page 65091]]
copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room, located at One
White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first
floor), Rockville, Maryland.
The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to
intervene is discussed below.
By December 18, 2003, 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, located at One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,
Maryland, or electronically on the Internet at the NRC Web site http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If there are problems in
accessing the document, contact the Public Document Room Reference
staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to [email protected]. 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 (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area
O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, by the
above date. Because of the continuing disruptions in delivery of mail
to United States Government offices, it is requested that petitions for
leave to intervene and requests for hearing be transmitted to the
Secretary of the Commission either by means of facsimile transmission
to 301-415-1101 or by e-mail to [email protected]. A copy of the
petition for leave to intervene and request for hearing should also be
sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and because of continuing
disruptions in delivery of mail to United States Government offices, it
is requested that copies be transmitted either by means of facsimile
transmission to 301-415-3725 or by e-mail to [email protected]. A
copy of the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene
should also be sent to Ms. Lisa F. Vaughn, Legal Department (ECIIX),
Duke Energy Corporation, 422 South Church Street, Charlotte, North
Carolina 28201-1006, 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 March 24, 2003, as supplemented by
letters dated June 25, 2003, and October 15, 2003, which is available
for public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One White
Flint North, File Public Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first
floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be
accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's
(ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web
site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have
access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents
located in
[[Page 65092]]
ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-
800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to [email protected].
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day of November, 2003.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Robert E. Martin, Sr.
Project Manager, Section 1, Project Directorate II, Division of
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 03-28751 Filed 11-17-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P