[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