[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 22, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-15267]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: June 22, 1994]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-348]

 

Southern Nuclear Operating Co.; 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 Southern Nuclear Operating Company (the licensee) for 
operation of the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, located in 
Houston County, Alabama.
    The proposed amendment would change Technical Specification 3/4.2.3 
to change the nuclear enthalpy rise hot channel factor (F delta H) from 
equal to or less than 1.65 [1 plus .3(1-P)] to equal to or less than 
1.70 [1 plus .3(1-P)] where P is a fraction of rated power. The 
amendment would also revise the action statement to reflect guidance 
contained in the improved standard technical specifications.
    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. Will the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    The proposed increase in [F delta H] for Vantage 5 fuel does not 
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of 
an accident previously evaluated in the Farley Final Safety Analysis 
Report. No changes in the mechanical design of the fuel are 
necessary for this [F delta H] increase. No new performance 
requirements are being imposed on the fuel or any system or 
component because of this change. Vantage 5 fuel contains several 
features that provide increased margin to core limits. The proposed 
increase in [F delta H] is utilization of this margin with no 
violation of any acceptance criteria. Subsequently, overall plant 
integrity is not reduced. [F delta H] is not an accident initiator. 
Therefore, the probability of an accident has not significantly 
increased.
    The radiological consequences of all accidents, including the 
fuel handling accident, remain within the previous appropriate 
acceptance limits as well as those included in 10CFR100. Therefore, 
the radiological consequences to the public resulting from any 
accident previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report 
has not significantly increased.
    2. Will the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    The proposed specification change to the [F delta H] limit does 
not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident 
from any previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report. 
No new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting single 
failures are introduced as a result of the increase in [F delta H]. 
Any accident using the revised analytical assumption has been 
evaluated or reanalyzed and it has been determined that there is no 
adverse effect on, or do not challenge the performance of, any 
safety-related system. Therefore, the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident, is not created.
    3. Will the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    The Vantage 5 technical specification change for increasing [F 
delta H] does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of 
safety. The margin of safety for the Vantage 5 fuel parameters are 
defined by the accident analyses that are performed to 
conservatively bound the operating conditions defined by the 
technical specifications and to demonstrate that the regulatory 
acceptance limits are met. Performance of analyses (including the 
LBLOCA [large break loss-of-coolant accident]) and evaluations for 
the proposed inclusion of an increased [F delta H] for Vantage 5 
fuel type confirmed that the operating envelope defined by the 
technical specifications continues to be bounded by the revised 
analytical basis, which in no case exceeds the acceptance limits. 
Therefore, the margin of safety provided by the analyses in 
accordance with these acceptance limits is maintained and is not 
significantly 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 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, 11555 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 July 22, 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 Houston-Love Memorial Library, 212 W. 
Burdeshaw Street, Post Office Box 1369, Dothan Alabama 36302. 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 William H. Bateman: petitioner's name 
and telephone number, date petition was mailed, plant name, and 
publication date and page number of this Federal Register notice. A 
copy of the petition should also be sent to the Office of the General 
Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and 
to James H. Miller, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555, and to James H. Miller, III, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 
P.O. Box 1295, 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 June 17, 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 Houston-Love Memorial Library, 212 W. 
Burdeshaw Street, Post Office Box 1369, Dothan Alabama 36302.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day of June 1994.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
William H. Bateman,
Director, Project Directorate II-I, Division of Reactor Projects I/II, 
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 94-15267 Filed 6-21-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M