[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 204 (Wednesday, October 22, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54859-54861]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-28005]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

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


Duke Energy Corporation; 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 Energy Corporation (the licensee) for 
operation of the McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, located in 
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.
    The proposed amendments would revise Technical Specification Table 
3.3-4, ``Engineered Safety Features [ESF] Actuation System Instrument 
Trip Setpoints.'' Specifically, the amendments would support the 
replacement of the three safety-related wide range level instruments. 
The ESF trip setpoint for the refueling water automatic switch over to 
recirculation would be revised to account for the difference in 
instrument uncertainty associated with wide range level instruments and 
provide additional operator response time margin.
    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:

First Standard

    Operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed 
amendment will not involve a significant increase in the probability 
or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

Probability

    The FWST [Refueling Water Storage Tank] and its associated 
instrumentation are not considered accident initiators. The 
instrumentation change is from a narrow range type instrument to a 
wide range type instrument. A failure of either type of instrument 
could result in an undesired switch over or failure to switchover. 
However, the failure could not initiate any subsequent accident 
sequences.

Consequences

    With the switchover to recirculation setpoint change, the system 
design will still provide enough injected water to ensure that the 
reactor remains shut down, as well as provide sufficient water depth 
within the containment sump to ensure adequate net positive suction 
head (NPSH) for the ECCS [emergency core cooling system] pumps and 
protect against vortexing. Also, adequate time is provided to ensure 
the completion of all operator actions necessary for switchover to 
cold leg recirculation prior to the loss of all usable FWST 
inventory and loss of suction to the ECCS pumps.
    The change in the FWST LOW level setpoint reduces the FWST 
volume that is delivered to the primary system in the injection 
phase of a LOCA [loss-of-coolant accident]. Thus, this volume 
reduction affects the containment pressure response during a LOCA. A 
reanalysis of the containment pressure response using the NRC-
approved methodology of DPC-NE-3004 demonstrates that the peak 
containment pressure remains below the design limit for the proposed 
FWST LOW level setpoint.
    The LOCA blowdown, refill, and reflood phases of the analysis 
are not affected by the change in switchover setpoint. Therefore, 
the fuel clad integrity will not be impacted as a result of this 
change. The containment response was analyzed and found to be within 
acceptable limits. Therefore, the fission product barriers are 
unaffected by this change in setpoint.
    The radiological calculations include assumptions regarding the 
start of ECCS recirculation which could be impacted by

[[Page 54860]]

this change. The impact of the setpoint changes is to shorten the 
time that is assumed for ECCS recirculation to begin. This would 
tend to increase the calculated dose from this potential leak path 
but the impact is so small that the currently reported results 
remained unchanged (calculation results are the same within 
roundoff, such that reported results do not change). The change does 
not significantly impact the radiological consequences of the design 
basis LOCA.
    An analysis was performed at the FWST reduced borated water 
volume delivered to the primary system during a LOCA. The resulting 
primary system boron concentrations were compared to boron 
concentrations required to keep the core subcritical and found to be 
acceptable.
    Therefore, there is no increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

Second Standard

    The amendment would not create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any kind of accident previously 
evaluated.
    The failure modes of the new level transmitters remain the same. 
The instrumentation interacts with the same equipment and provides 
the same function. Therefore, failure of the new instrumentation 
[cannot] produce a new or different kind of accident previously 
evaluated. However, some failure modes will be more readily 
detectable because of the change to wide range instrumentation.

Third Standard

    The amendment would not involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety.
    The change to the FWST instrumentation does not involve a 
reduction in the margin of safety. Although increased instrument 
uncertainty is being introduced, the FWST low level setpoint is 
being adjusted to compensate for this change. The overall analysis 
results continue to be bounded such that there is no loss of suction 
from the FWST prior to ECCS pump switchover to the containment sump. 
There is adequate FWST inventory injected to maintain the reactor 
shutdown. There is sufficient water depth within the containment 
sump to satisfy NPSH and vortex concerns. In addition, the peak 
containment pressure remains below the design limit for the proposed 
FWST LOW level setpoint.
    The rate of injection and back pressure of the FWST is not 
affected by the setpoint change. Analysis shows that the peak 
cladding temperature occurs prior to ECCS pump switchover to the 
containment sump, and thus is unaffected by this change.
    Therefore, the new instrumentation and revised setpoints do not 
cause a reduction in the margin of safety associated with 
containment pressure or fuel cladding integrity.

    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 Freedom of Information and Publications 
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 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.
    The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to 
intervene is discussed below.
    By November 21, 1997 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, and at the local public 
document room located at the J. Murrey Atkins Library, University of 
North Carolina at Charlotte, 9201 University City Boulevard, 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 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

[[Page 54861]]

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, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, 
by the above date. A copy of the petition should also be sent to the 
Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001, and to Mr. Albert Carr, Duke Energy 
Corporation, 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 amendment dated October 13, 1997, which is 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 J. Murrey Atkins Library, 
University of North Carolina at Charlotte, 9201 University City 
Boulevard, North Carolina.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day of October 1997.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Victor Nerses,
Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate II-2, Division of Reactor 
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 97-28005 Filed 10-21-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-U