[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 88 (Monday, May 8, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22590-22591]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11220]



[[Page 22590]]

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370]


Duke Power Company; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of 
Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses, Proposed No Significant 
Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is 
considering issuance of amendments to Facility Operating License Nos. 
NPF-9 and NPF-17 issued to Duke Power Company (the licensee) for 
operation of the McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, located in 
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.
    The proposed amendments would revise the Technical Specifications 
(TS) to (1) change the surveillance requirement for boron concentration 
in the spent fuel pool (SFP) from once per 31 days to once per 7 days 
in consistency with the Standard Technical Specifications, (2) remove 
the option to use alternate storage configurations in the SFP and 
replace it with footnotes to allow specific analysis on alternate fuel 
types, (3) add information contained in the Bases to the footnotes to 
Figures 3.9-1 to 3.9-3 of Specification 3/4.9.13, and (4) change the 
Bases to discuss the option to use specific analyses on alternate fuel.
    The licensee's request of June 13, 1994, as supplemented August 15, 
1994, March 23 and April 18, 1995, was previously noticed in the 
Federal Register on February 15, 1995 (60 FR 8746). The additional 
information provided in letters dated August 15, 1994, and April 18, 
1995, did not modify the licensee's initial no significant hazards 
determination analysis. However, the additional information provided in 
the March 23, 1995, submittal was new information that did modify the 
licensee's initial no significant hazards determination analysis. This 
new information is being noticed for public comment.
    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 licensee 
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 amendments 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 changes do not involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    There is no increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident in the new fuel vault since the only credible accidents for 
this area are criticality accidents and it has been shown that 
calculated, worst case Keff for this area is [less than or 
equal to] 0.95 for fully flooded conditions and Keff [less than 
or equal to] 0.98 under optimum moderation conditions. This is in 
accordance with current licensing criteria. Likewise, there is no 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident in the 
Spent Fuel Pool since, for criticality accidents, analyses have 
shown that Keff [less than or equal to] 0.95 under all 
conditions is being maintained.
    There is also no increase in the probability or consequences of 
a fuel drop accident in the Spent Fuel Storage Pool. Since the mass 
of an assembly will not be affected by the increase in fuel 
enrichment, the probability of an accident is not increased, and 
since the fission product inventory of individual fuel assemblies 
will not change significantly as a result of increased enrichment, 
the consequences of a fuel rupture accident remain unchanged.
    The likelihood of other accidents, previously evaluated and 
described in Section 9.1.2 of the FSAR [Final Safety Analysis 
Report], is also not affected by the proposed changes. In fact, it 
could be postulated that since the increase in fuel enrichment will 
allow for extended fuel cycles, there will be a decrease in fuel 
movement and the probability of an accident may likewise be 
decreased.
    2. The proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    The proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident since fuel handling accidents (fuel drop 
and misplacement) are not new or different kinds of accidents. Fuel 
handling accidents are already discussed in the FSAR for fuel with 
enrichments up to 4.0 weight %. * * * [A]dditional analyses have 
been performed for fuel with enrichment up to 5.00 weight %. Worst 
case misloading accidents associated with the new loading patterns 
were evaluated. It was shown that the negative reactivity provided 
by soluble boron maintains keff [less than or equal to] 0.95 
under all conditions.
    3. The proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction 
in the margin of safety.
    The proposed [changes do] not involve a significant reduction in 
the margin of safety since, a keff [less than or equal to] 0.95 
is being maintained for fully flooded conditions and keff [less 
than or equal to] 0.98 under optimum moderation conditions. The 
specification of keff [less than or equal to] 0.98, for optimum 
moderation conditions in the new fuel vault, is an addition to the 
existing specification requirements of keff [less than or equal 
to] 0.95 for fully flooded conditions. Although previous analyses 
have been performed to demonstrate that this requirement could be 
met, there was no licensing requirement to do so. Addition of this 
specification brings the specification more in line with current STS 
[standard technical specification] requirements and, in fact, may 
increase the margin of safety since, compliance with this 
requirement was not previously required.

    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 
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 amendments 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 amendments before the expiration 
of the 30-day notice period, provided that its final determination is 
that the amendments involve 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, 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 [[Page 22591]] Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., 
Washington, DC.
    The filing of requests of hearing and petitions for leave to 
intervene is discussed below.
    By June 7, 1995, the licensee may file a request for a hearing with 
respect to issuance of the amendments to the subject facility operating 
licenses 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 Practices 
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 Atkins Library, University of North 
Carolina, Charlotte (UNCC Station), North Carolina. 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 specific 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 amendments 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 request involves no 
significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the 
amendments and make them immediately effective, notwithstanding the 
request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance 
of the amendments.
    If the final determination is that the request involves a 
significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place 
before the issuance of any amendments.
    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, 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, 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 Mr. Albert Carr, 
Duke Power Company, 422 South Church Street, Charlotte, North Carolina 
28242, 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 amendments dated June 13, 1994, as supplemented by 
letters dated August 15, 1994, March 23 and April 18, 1995, which are 
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 Atkins Library, 
University of North Carolina, Charlotte (UNCC Station), North Carolina.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of May 1995.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Victor Nerses,

Project Manager, Project Directorate II-2, Division of Reactor 
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95-11220 Filed 5-5-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-M