[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 35 (Monday, February 23, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9020-9023]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-4486]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., et al.

[Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-364]


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-2 and NPF-8, issued to the Southern Nuclear Operating Company 
(SNC), Inc., et al. (the licensee) for operation of the Joseph M. 
Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, located in Houston County, 
Alabama.
    The proposed amendments would revise the Technical Specifications 
(TSs) by relocating the reactor coolant system (RCS) pressure and 
temperature limits from the TSs to the proposed Pressure Temperature 
Limits Report in accordance with the guidance provided by Generic 
Letter 96-03, ``Relocation of the Pressure Temperature Limit Curves and 
Low Temperature Overpressure Protection System Limits.'' TS 3.4.10.3 
would be revised to require that two residual heat removal system 
suction relief valves be operable or that the RCS be vented at RCS 
indicated cold leg temperatures less than or equal to 325 ``F. In 
addition, a new TS would be added to limit the operation of more than 
one reactor coolant pump below 110 ``F.
    The July 23, 1997, application was previously noticed in the 
Federal Register on September 10, 1997 (62 FR 47699). In addition, the 
December 18, 1997, supplement provided additional information that 
revised the original licensee's evaluation of the no significant 
hazards consideration and, therefore, was noticed in the Federal 
Register on January 14, 1998 (63 FR 2281). The February 12, 1998, 
supplement provided additional information that revised the licensee's 
evaluation of the no significant hazards consideration. Therefore, 
renotification of the Commission's proposed determination of no 
significant hazards consideration is necessary.
    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 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 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.
    The proposed removal of the Reactor Coolant System (RCS) pressure 
temperature (P-T) limits from the Technical Specifications (TSs) and 
relocation to the proposed Pressure Temperature Limits Report (PTLR) in 
accordance with the guidance provided by Generic Letter (GL) 96-03 is 
administrative in that the requirements for the P-T limits are 
unchanged. The P-T limits proposed for inclusion in the PTLR are based 
on the fluence associated with 2775 MW thermal power and operation 
through 21.9 effective full power years (EFPY) for Unit 1 and 33.8 EFPY 
for Unit 2. GL 96-

[[Page 9021]]

 03 requires that the P-T limits be generated in accordance with the 
requirements of 10 CFR [part] 50, Appendices G and H, and be documented 
in an NRC-approved methodology incorporated by reference in the TSs. 
Accordingly, the proposed curves have been generated using the NRC-
approved methods described in WCAP-14040-NP-A, Revision 2, as modified 
at the direction of the NRC Staff, and meet the requirements of 10 CFR 
[part] 50, Appendices G and H. TS 3.4.10.1 will continue to require 
that the RCS pressure and temperature be limited in accordance with the 
limits specified in the PTLR. The NRC-approval document will be 
specified in TS 6.9.1.15, and NRC approval will be required in the form 
of a TS Amendment prior to changing the methodology. Use of P-T limit 
curves generated using the NRC-approved methods will provide additional 
protection for the integrity of the reactor vessel, thereby assuring 
that the reactor vessel is capable of providing its function as a 
radiological barrier.
    TS 3.4.10.3 for Farley Nuclear Plant (FNP) Unit 1 and Unit 2 
provides the operability requirements for RCS low temperature 
overpressure protection (LTOP). Specifically, TS 3.4.10.3 will be 
revised to require that two residual heat removal (RHR) system suction 
relief valves (RHRRVs) be operable or that the RCS be vented at RCS 
indicated cold leg temperatures less than or equal to 325 deg.F. The 
higher temperature requirement for LTOP will provide additional 
assurance that overpressure protection will be available at low 
temperatures. Consistent with GL 96-03, the Farley Unit 1 and Unit 2 
requirements for LTOP will be retained in TS 3.4.10.3 and will be 
evaluated in accordance with the proposed methodology.
    Based on the above evaluation, the proposed changes do not involve 
a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    2. The proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    As stated above, the proposed changes to remove the RCS P-T limits 
from the TSs and relocate them to the proposed PTLR are administrative 
in nature. Consistent with the guidance provided by GL 96-03, the 
proposed P-T limits contained in the proposed PTLR meet the 
requirements of 10 CFR [part] 50, Appendices G and H, and were 
generated using the NRC-approved methods described in WCAP-14040-NP-A, 
Revision 2, as modified at the direction of the NRC Staff. The proposed 
changes do not result in a physical change to the plant or add any new 
or different operating requirements on plant systems, structures, or 
components with the exception of limiting the number of operating RCPs 
at RCS temperatures below 110 deg.F, increasing the temperature 
requirement at which the RHR relief valves are required to be 
operational, and establishing a higher minimum boltup temperature. 
Limiting the number of operating RCPs below 110 deg.F results in a 
reduction in the [D]P between the reactor vessel beltline and the 
RHRRVs, thereby providing additional margin to limits of Appendix G. 
Provisions are made to allow the start of a second RCP at temperatures 
below 110 deg.F in order to secure the pump that was originally 
operating without interrupting RCS flow. The LTOP enable temperature 
will be increased and will exceed the minimum LTOP enable temperature 
determined as described in WCAP-14040-NP-A, Rev. 2, thereby providing 
additional assurance that the LTOP system will be available to protect 
the RCS in the event of an overpressure transient at RCS temperatures 
at or below 325 deg.F.
    As stated in the above response, implementation of the proposed 
changes do not result in a significant increase in the probability of a 
new or different accident (i.e., loss of reactor vessel integrity). The 
RCS P-T limits will continue to meet the requirements of 10 CFR [part] 
50, Appendices G and H, and will be generated in accordance with the 
NRC approved methodology described in WCAP-14040-NP-A, Revision 2, as 
modified at the direction of the NRC Staff. Therefore, the proposed 
changes do not result in a significant increase in the possibility of a 
new or different accident from any previously evaluated.
    3. The proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety.
    The margin of safety is not affected by the removal of the RCS P-T 
limits from the TSs and relocating them to the proposed PTLR. The RCS 
P-T limits will continue to meet the requirements of 10 CFR [part] 50, 
Appendices G and H. To provide additional assurance that the P-T limits 
continue to meet the requirements of Appendices G and H, TS 6.9.1.15 
will require the use of the NRC-approved methodology to generate P-T 
limits. The RCS LTOP requirements will be retained in TS 3.4.10.3 due 
to use of the RHRRVs for LTOP, consistent with the guidance provided by 
GL 96-03, and will be verified to provide adequate protection of the 
reactor coolant system against the limits of Appendix G. The LTOP 
enable temperature will be increased to 325 deg.F and will exceed the 
LTOP enable temperature determined in accordance with the NRC-approved 
methodology, thus protecting the RCS in the event of a low temperature 
overpressure transient over a broader range of temperatures than 
required by WCAP-14040-NP-A, Rev. 2. Administrative procedures will 
preclude operation of the RCS at temperatures below the minimum boltup 
temperature for the reactor vessel head, thus precluding the 
possibility of tensioning the reactor vessel head at RCS temperatures 
below the minimum boltup temperature. Operation of the plant in 
accordance with the RCS P-T limits specified in the PTLR and continued 
operation of the LTOP system in accordance with TS 3.4.10.3 will 
continue to meet the requirements of 10 CFR [part] 50, Appendices G and 
H, and will, therefore, assure that a margin of safety is not 
significantly decreased as the result of the proposed changes.
    Based on the preceding analysis, SNC has determined that removal of 
the RCS P-T limits from the TS and relocation to the proposed PTLR will 
not significantly increase the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated, create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated, or 
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. SNC therefore 
concludes that the proposed changes meet the requirements of 10 CFR 
50.92(c) and does not involve a significant hazards consideration.
    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

[[Page 9022]]

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 Administrative 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 6D59, 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 March 25, 1998, 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 Houston-Love Memorial Library, 212 W. 
Burdeshaw Street, Post Office Box 1369, Dothan, Alabama. 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 20555-0001, 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 M. Stanford Blanton, Esq., Balch and 
Bingham, Post Office Box 306, 1710 Sixth Avenue North, 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 amendments dated February 12, 1998, 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 Houston-Love Memorial Library, 212 
W. Burdeshaw Street, Post Office Box 1369, Dothan, Alabama.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day of February 1998.


[[Page 9023]]


    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Jacob I. Zimmerman,
Project Manager, Project Directorate II-2, Division of Reactor 
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 98-4486 Filed 2-20-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P