[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 215 (Tuesday, November 8, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27610]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: November 8, 1994]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-395]

 

South Carolina Electric & Gas Co.; South Carolina Public Service 
Authority; 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. 
50-395 issued to South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (the licensee) 
for operation of the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1, 
located in Fairfield County, South Carolina.
    The proposed amendment would relocate the Seismic Monitoring 
Instrumentation (SMI) Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO), 
Surveillance Requirements (SRs), and associated tables and bases 
contained in Technical Specifications (TS) section 3/4.3.3.3 to the 
Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) or an equivalent controlled 
document. The change would also delete the requirement for a special 
report when a seismic instrument is inoperable for more than 30 days.
    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 Technical Specification (TS) change does not 
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    The function of the SMI system is to record the motion and effect 
of a seismic event. SMI can not initiate or mitigate a previously 
evaluated accident. Furthermore, the proposed TS change to relocate the 
SMI requirements from TS to the FSAR or equivalent controlled document 
is in accordance with the criteria (specifically Criterion 1) for 
determining those requirements that may be relocated from TS as defined 
by the NRC in its policy statement, ``Final Policy Statement on 
Technical Specification Improvements for Nuclear Power Reactors,'' 
dated July 22, 1993. The SMI LCO, SRs, and associated tables and bases 
proposed for relocation from TS will continue to be implemented by 
administrative controls that will satisfy the requirements of TS 
section 6 ``Administrative Controls.'' These requirements include a 
review of changes to plant systems and equipment and to the applicable 
administrative controls in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59.
    Criterion 2 of the July 22, 1993, NRC policy statement states, ``A 
process variable, design feature, or operating restriction that is an 
initial condition of a Design Basis Accident or Transient analysis that 
either assumes the failure of or presents a challenge to the integrity 
of a fission product barrier.'' The SMI system does not monitor a 
process variable that is an initial condition for accident or transient 
analysis. Also, the SMI is not a design feature or an operating 
restriction that is an initial condition since it only provides 
information regarding the motion of and the plant structure/equipment 
response to an earthquake. Therefore, the current VCSNS SMI TS 
requirements do not meet Criterion 2 of the July 22, 1993, NRC policy 
statement.
    Criterion 3 of the NRC policy statement states, ``A structure, 
system, or component that is part of the primary success path and which 
functions or actuates to mitigate a Design Basis Accident or Transient 
that either assumes the failure of or presents a challenge to the 
integrity of a fission product barrier.'' The VCSNS SMI system does not 
function or actuate in order to mitigate the consequences of a Design 
Basis Accident or Transient. Therefore, the current VCSNS SMI TS 
requirements do not meet Criterion 3 of the July 22, 1993, NRC policy 
statement.
    Criterion 4 of the NRC policy statement states, ``A structure, 
system, or component which operating experience or probabilistic safety 
assessment has shown to be significant to public health and safety.'' 
Operating experience has shown that the VCSNS SMI system has no impact 
on public health and safety as defined by the NRC policy statement. 
Furthermore, VCSNS specific probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) does 
not credit the SMI system as a part of the plant response to an 
accident. Therefore, the current VCSNS SMI TS requirements do not meet 
Criterion 4 of the July 22, 1993, NRC policy statement for determining 
those requirements that should remain in TS.
    The proposed TS change will maintain the current operation, 
maintenance, testing, and system operability controls for the SMI 
system. Furthermore, any future changes to the SMI system will be 
evaluated for the effect of those changes on system reliability and 
function as required by 10 CFR 50.59. The SMI system performance will 
not decrease due to the proposed TS change and the system will continue 
to be administratively controlled in accordance with TS section 6 
(including the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59) thereby precluding a 
future decrease in SMI system performance/requirements.
    The current TS Section 3.3.3.3, does not require plant shutdown if 
any SMI is inoperable and the provisions of TS Section 3.0.3 (i.e. 
plant shutdown) are not applicable. Therefore, the inoperability of 
this system and the consequences of an accident while this system is 
inoperable, were previously considered as not significant enough to 
require a change to the plant operating conditions.
    Since the SMI system does not meet the criteria for instrumentation 
required in TS and since it will continue to be administratively 
controlled (including the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59), the proposed 
TS change will not involve an increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. The proposed TS change does not create the possibility of a new 
and different kind of accident previously evaluated.
    The function of the SMI system is to record the motion and effect 
of a seismic event. The proposed TS change to relocate the SMI 
requirements from TS to the FSAR or equivalent controlled document is 
in accordance with the criteria for determining TS candidates for 
relocation as defined by the NRC in the policy statement, dated July 
22, 1993. The SMI system does not monitor a process variable that is an 
initial condition for an accident or transient analysis. The SMI is 
also not a design feature or an operating restriction that is an 
initial condition of a Design Basis Accident or Transient analysis 
since it only provides information regarding the motion of and the 
plant structure/equipment response to an earthquake.
    The proposed TS change to relocate the TS requirements will not 
alter the operation of the plant, or the manner in which the SMI system 
will perform its function. Any future changes will continue to be 
administratively controlled in accordance with TS section 6, including 
the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59.
    The proposed TS change will not impose new conditions or result in 
new types of equipment malfunctions which have not been previously 
evaluated. Therefore, the proposed TS change does not create the 
possibility of a new or different type of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. The proposed TS change does not involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety.
    The proposed TS change to relocate the SMI requirements from TS is 
in accordance with the criteria for determining TS candidates for 
relocation as defined by the NRC in its policy statement, dated July 
22, 1993.
    Criterion 1 of the NRC final policy statement states, ``Installed 
instrumentation that is used to detect, and indicate in the control 
room, a significant abnormal degradation of the reactor coolant 
pressure boundary.'' The NRC policy statement explains that ``. . . 
This criterion is intended to ensure that Technical Specifications 
control those instruments specifically installed to detect excessive 
reactor coolant leakage. This criterion should not, however, be 
interpreted to include instrumentation to detect precursors to reactor 
coolant pressure boundary leakage or instrumentation to identify the 
source of actual leakage (e.g. loose parts monitor, seismic 
instrumentation, valve position indicators).'' Based on this NRC 
guidance, the VCSNS FSAR, and TS bases 3/4.3.3.3, the SMI does not 
``detect and indicate in the control room, a significant abnormal 
degradation of the reactor coolant pressure boundary.'' Therefore, the 
current VCSNS SMI TS requirements do not meet Criterion 1. Operating 
experience has shown that the VCSNS SMI system has no impact on public 
health and safety as defined by the NRC policy statement. In addition, 
the VCSNS PRA does not credit the SMI system as a part of the plant 
response to accidents.
    The SMI LCO, SRs, and associated tables and bases proposed for 
relocation to the FSAR or equivalent controlled document will continue 
to be covered by administrative controls that will satisfy the 
requirements of TS section 6 ``Administrative Controls.'' Those 
requirements include a review of future changes to the system and 
applicable administrative controls in accordance with the provisions of 
10 CFR 50.59.
    Accordingly, based on NRC specific guidance, operating experience, 
and continued imposition of administrative controls, the proposed TS 
change does not involve a 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 comment 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, 11545 Rockville Pike, 
Rockville, MD, 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 December 8, 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 Fairfield County Library, Garden and 
Washington Streets, Winnsboro, South Carolina 29180. 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 expalin 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 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 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 Randolph R. Mahan, attorney for the licensee, South Carolina 
Electric & Gas Company, Post Office Box 764, Columbia, South Carolina 
29218.
    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)(l)(i)-(v) and 2.714(d).
    For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment dated October 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 Fairfield County Library, Garden 
and Washington Streets, Winnsboro, South Carolina 29180.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day of November, 1994.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
George F. Wunder,
Project Manager, Project Directorate II-I, Division of Reactor 
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 94-27610 Filed 11-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M