[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 85 (Tuesday, May 4, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23877-23879]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-11113]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366]


Southern Nuclear Operating 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. 
DPR-57 and NFP-5 issued to Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., 
(the licensee) for operation of the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 
1 and 2, located in Appling County, Georgia.
    The proposed amendments would allow an increase of 168 fuel 
assemblies in the storage capacity of Unit 1's Spent Fuel Pool and an 
increase of 88 fuel assemblies in the storage capacity of Unit 2's 
Spent Fuel Pool.

[[Page 23878]]

    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 changes do not involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    The analyses performed by SNC in support of the rack addition 
effort demonstrate its acceptability from a variety of different 
perspectives. Regarding criticality, keff will remain 
less than or equal to the current Technical Specification 
requirement of 0.95 for all normal and abnormal operating 
conditions. This determination accounts for uncertainties at a 95%/
95% probability/confidence level. A fuel assembly drop will not 
distort the racks in such a manner that it would impair their 
functionality. Accordingly, the radiological consequences of a fuel 
handling accident remain within previously established limits for 
demonstrating compliance with 10 CFR 100 and GDC 19 limits. 
Additionally, the structural integrity of the Spent Fuel Pool (SFP), 
the storage racks, and the stored spent fuel will be maintained 
during a postulated accident or seismic event.
    SFP cooling capability will continue to be available to maintain 
bulk pool temperatures less than 150 deg.F for normal, refueling, 
and full core discharge conditions. In the event a loss of normal 
spent fuel cooling should occur, there will be time to take 
appropriate action to arrange an alternate source to preclude pool 
boiling. If pool boiling is postulated to occur, the impact on the 
radiological consequences previously evaluated for this event is 
minimal and remains acceptable.
    2. The proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
    The new racks will not require their movement over any stored 
spent fuel during installation. Rack movements will be conducted 
using the single failure proof Hatch 1 reactor building crane. 
During the SFP expansion effort, all heavy load movements will be 
performed in accordance with SNC's commitments to NUREG-0612 to 
preclude any damage to fuel assemblies stored in the SFPs, and to 
preclude any damage to safe shutdown equipment. Crane operator 
training and load handling instructions in concert with defined safe 
load travel paths will be provided together with proper crane 
inspection, maintenance, and testing to ensure reliable heavy load 
handling operations.
    As with the existing spent fuel storage racks, no special 
storage configurations will need to be imposed on the new racks, 
even with the closer spacing between fuel assemblies. Therefore, 
spent fuel will continue to be allowed to be placed in any storage 
cell location while maintaining a keff less than or equal to 0.95. 
Also, the spent fuel storage expansion does not involve any rod 
consolidation or double-tiering of the spent fuel racks.
    No new or unproven technology is utilized in either the 
construction process or the analytical techniques necessary to 
justify SFP storage expansion at Plant Hatch. Additionally, the rack 
vendor construction process and analytical techniques are 
substantially the same as those used for other recently completed 
storage expansion projects which have been accepted by the NRC.
    3. The proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety.
    The proposed small increase in storage capacity of the SFPs at 
Plant Hatch does not represent a significant challenge to the 
performance of existing plant systems and structures. As 
demonstrated in Enclosures 5 and 6, this license amendment request 
has been evaluated in accordance with the NRC acceptance criteria 
contained in ``OT Position for Review and Acceptance of Spent Fuel 
Storage and Handling Applications' dated April 14, 1978, as amended 
on January 18, 1979, and shown to be acceptable for normal and 
abnormal conditions relative to the criticality, thermal-hydraulic, 
radiological, seismic, structural, material, and heavy load 
requirements contained therein.

    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 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 June 1, 1999, 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 Appling County Public Library, 301 City 
Hall Drive, Baxley, Georgia. 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

[[Page 23879]]

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 Ernest L. Blake, Jr., Esquire, Shaw, 
Pittman, Pott and Trowbridge, 2300 N Street, NW., Washington, DC, 
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).
    The Commission hereby provides such notice that this is a 
proceeding on an application for a license amendment falling within the 
scope of section 134 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA), 42 
U.S.C. 10154. Under section 134 of the NWPA, the Commission, at the 
request of any party to the proceeding, must use hybrid hearing 
procedures with respect to ``any matter which the Commission determines 
to be in controversy among the parties.'' The hybrid procedures in 
section 134 provide for oral argument on matters in controversy, 
preceded by discovery under the Commission's rules and the designation, 
following argument of only those factual issues that involve a genuine 
and substantial dispute, together with any remaining questions of law, 
to be resolved in an adjudicatory hearing. Actual adjudicatory hearings 
are to be held on only those issues found to meet the criteria of 
section 134 and set for hearing after oral argument.
    The Commission's rules implementing section 134 of the NWPA are 
found in 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart K, ``Hybrid Hearing Procedures for 
Expansion of Spent Fuel Storage Capacity at Civilian Nuclear Power 
Reactors'' (published at 50 FR 41662 dated October 15, 1985). Under 
those rules, any party to the proceeding may invoke the hybrid hearing 
procedures by filing with the presiding officer a written request for 
oral argument under 10 CFR 2.1109. To be timely, the request must be 
filed within ten (10) days of an order granting a request for hearing 
or petition to intervene. The presiding officer must grant a timely 
request for oral argument. The presiding officer may grant an untimely 
request for oral argument only upon a showing of good cause by the 
requesting party for the failure to file on time and after providing 
the other parties an opportunity to respond to the untimely request. If 
the presiding officer grants a request for oral argument, any hearing 
held on the application must be conducted in accordance with the hybrid 
hearing procedures. In essence, those procedures limit the time 
available for discovery and require that an oral argument be held to 
determine whether any contentions must be resolved in an adjudicatory 
hearing. If no party to the proceeding timely requests oral argument, 
and if all untimely requests for oral argument are denied, then the 
usual procedures in 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart G apply.
    For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment dated April 6, 1999, 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 Appling County Public Library, 301 City 
Hall Drive, Baxley, Georgia.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day of April 1999.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Leonard N. Olshan,
Project Manager, Section 1, Project Directorate II, Division of 
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 99-11113 Filed 5-3-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P