[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