[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 25, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28218-28220]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-13219]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-364]
Southern Nuclear Operating Company; Notice of Consideration of
Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Opportunity
for a Hearing
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is
considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License Nos.
NPF-2 and NPF-8 issued to the Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC
or the licensee) for operation of the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant,
Unit 1 and 2, located in Houston County, Alabama.
The proposed amendments, requested by the licensee in a letter
dated March 12, 1998, as supplemented by letters dated April 24, August
20, October 20, and November 20, 1998, and two letters dated April 30,
1999, would represent a full conversion from the current Technical
Specifications (CTSs) to a set of TSs based on NUREG-1431, Revision 1,
``Standard Technical Specifications--Westinghouse Plants,'' dated April
1995. NUREG-1431 has been developed through working groups composed of
both NRC staff members and industry representative and has been
endorsed by the staff as part of an industry-wide initiative to
standardize and improve TSs. As part of this submittal, the licensee
has applied the criteria contained in the Commission's ``Final Policy
Statement on Technical Specification Improvements for Nuclear Power
Reactors (Final Policy Statement),'' published in the Federal Register
on July 22, 1993 (58 FR 39132), to the current Farley TS and developed
a proposed set of improved TSs for Farley using NUREG-1431 as a basis.
The criteria in the final policy statement were subsequently added to
10 CFR 50.36, ``Technical Specifications,'' in a rule change which was
published in the Federal Register on July 19, 1995 (60 FR 36953) and
became effective on August 18, 1995.
The licensee has categorized the proposed changes to the CTSs into
six general groupings. These groupings are characterized as
administrative changes, relocated changes, more restrictive changes,
removed detailed changes, allowance to use a simulated or actual
actuation signal, and less restrictive changes.
Administrative changes are editorial in nature, involve the
movement of requirements within the CTS without affecting the technical
content, simply reformat a requirement, or clarify the TS (such as
deleting a footnote no longer applicable due to a technical change to a
requirement). It also includes non-technical changes such as
reformatting and rewording the remaining requirements in order to
conform with the format and style of the standard technical
specification (STS).
Relocated changes are those requirements and surveillances for
structures, systems, components or variables that do not meet the
screening criteria for inclusion in the TSs. Relocated changes are
those current TS requirements which do not satisfy or fall within any
of the four criteria specified in the Commission's policy statement and
may thus be relocated to appropriate licensee-controlled documents. The
licensee's application of the screening criteria is described in its
March 12, 1998, submittal. The affected structures, systems components
or variables are not initiators of analyzed events and are not assumed
to mitigate accident or transients. These requirements and
surveillances will be relocated from the TS to administratively
controlled documents such as the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report
(UFSAR), the TS Bases document, or plant procedures. Future changes
made by the licensee to these documents will be pursuant to 10 CFR
50.59 or other appropriate control mechanisms.
More restrictive changes are those involving more stringent
requirements for operation of the facility or eliminate existing
flexibility. These more stringent requirements do not result in
operation that will alter assumptions relative to mitigation of an
accident or transient event. The more restrictive requirements will not
alter the assessment of process variables and operation of structures,
systems, and components described in the safety analyses. For each
requirement in the current Farley TSs that is more restrictive than the
[[Page 28219]]
corresponding requirement in NUREG-1431 which SNC proposes to retain in
the improved Technical Specifications (ITSs), SNC has provided an
explanation of why it has concluded that retaining the more restrictive
requirement is desirable to ensure safe operation of the facilities
because of the specific design features of the plant.
Removed detail changes move details from the current TS to a
licensee-controlled document. The details being removed from the
current TS are not initiators of any analyzed event and are not assumed
to mitigate accidents or transients. Therefore, the removed details do
not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences
of an accident previously evaluated. Removal of details to a licensee-
controlled document will not involve a significant change in design or
operation of the plant, and no hardware is being added to the plant as
part of the proposed changes to the current TS. The changes will not
alter assumptions made in the safety analysis and licensing basis.
Therefore, the changes will not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. The
changes do not reduce the margin of safety since they have no impact on
any safety analysis assumptions. In addition, the details to be moved
from the current TS to a licensee-controlled document are the same as
the existing TSs.
Allowance to use a simulated or actual actuation signal applies to
those changes that provide the allowance to utilize a simulated or
actual signal to verify the automatic actuation of specific components
in the Surveillance test requirements of the TSs. This type of change
is considered less restrictive as it provides an alternate method to
satisfy surveillance requirements that verify automatic equipment/
system actuation. This change allows satisfactory automatic actuations
(required equipment/system operations is verified) that occur due to an
actual automatic actuation to fulfill the surveillance requirement.
Operability is adequately demonstrated in either case as the affected
equipment or system cannot discriminate between an actual or simulated
(test) signal.
Less restrictive changes involve revision to existing requirements
such that more restoration time is provided, fewer compensatory
measures are needed, or fewer or less restrictive surveillance
requirements are required. This would also include requirements which
are deleted from the TS (not relocated to other documents) and other
technical changes that do not fit a generic category. The more
significant ``less restrictive'' requirements are justified on a case-
by-case basis. When requirements have been shown to provide little or
no safety benefit, their removal from the TSs may be appropriate. In
most cases, relaxations previously granted to individual plants on a
plant-specific basis were the result of (a) generic NRC actions, (b)
new NRC staff positions that have evolved from technological
advancements and operating experience, or (c) resolution of the Owners
Groups' comments on the ITSs. Generic relaxations contained in NUREG-
1431 were reviewed by the staff and found to be acceptable because they
are consistent with current licensing practices and NRC regulations.
The licensee's design will be reviewed to determine if the specific
design basis and licensing basis are consistent with the technical
basis for the model requirements in NUREG-1431 and thus provides a
basis for these revised TSs or if relaxation of the requirements in the
current TSs is warranted based on the justification provided by the
licensee.
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.
By June 24, 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 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
[[Page 28220]]
participate fully in the conduct of the hearing, including the
opportunity to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses.
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.
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).
If a request for a hearing is received, the Commission's staff may
issue the amendment after it completes its technical review and prior
to the completion of any required hearing if it publishes a further
notice for public comment of its proposed finding of no significant
hazards consideration in accordance with 10 CFR 50.91 and 50.92.
For further details with respect to this action, see the
application for amendments dated March 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 Houston-Love Memorial Library, 212 W.
Burdeshaw Street, Post Office Box 1369, Dothan, Alabama.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day of May 1999.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Jacob I. Zimmerman,
Project Manager, Section 1, Project Directorate II-1, Division of
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 99-13219 Filed 5-24-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P