[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 169 (Wednesday, September 1, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47870-47872]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-22766]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

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


Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.; Notice of Consideration 
of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License, Proposed No 
Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, 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 Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. 
(SNC, or the licensee) for operation of the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear 
Plant, Units 1 and 2, located in Houston County, Alabama.
    The proposed amendments, requested by SNC in letters dated February 
22, 1999, supplemented by letters dated March 19 and June 30, 1999, 
would revise the technical specifications (TS) to clarify surveillance 
requirements for the control room emergency filtration system, 
penetration room filtration system, storage pool ventilation, and 
radiation monitoring instrumentation. SNC also proposes to delete the 
containment purge exhaust filter.
    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 proposed changes to convert from ANSI N510-1980 to ASME 
N510-1989 for specific [Farley Nuclear Plant] FNP filtration 
surveillance testing requirements and related changes do not affect 
the probability of any accident occurring. The consequences of any 
accident will not be affected since the proposed changes will 
continue to ensure that appropriate and required surveillance 
testing for FNP filtration systems will be performed consistent with 
the revised accident analyses. The results of the fuel handling 
accident remain well within the guidelines of 10 CFR Part 100 and 
the doses due to a [loss-of-coolant-accident] LOCA, including 
[emergency core cooling system] ECCS recirculation loop leakage, 
remain within the guidelines of 10 CFR Part 100 and General Design 
Criterion [GDC] 19 of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50. Relocating 
specific testing requirements to the FNP [Final safety Analysis 
Report] FSAR has no effect on the probability or consequences of any 
accident previously evaluated since required testing will continue 
to be performed.
    Therefore, the proposed TS 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.
    Testing differences between ANSI N510-1980 and ASME N510-1989 
have been evaluated by SNC and none of the proposed changes have the 
potential to create an accident at FNP. ASME N510-1989 is referenced 
by the NRC in NUREG 1431. Testing the additional channels of 
radiation monitoring and verification of penetration room boundary 
integrity do not require the affected systems to be placed in 
configurations different from design. Thus, no new system design or 
testing configuration is required for the changes being proposed 
that could create the possibility of any new or different kind of 
accident from any accident previously evaluated. Relocating specific 
testing requirements to the FSAR has no effect on the possibility of 
creating a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated since it is an administrative change in nature.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. The proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety.
    Conversion from the testing requirements of ANSI N510-1980 
sections 10, 12, and 13 to ASME N510-1989 sections 10, 11, and 15

[[Page 47871]]

has been previously approved by the NRC at other nuclear facilities. 
ASME N510-1989 has been approved and endorsed by the NRC in NUREG 
1431. The safety factor associated with the conservative charcoal 
adsorber laboratory test methods and dose calculations ensures that 
doses will continue to meet the guidelines of 10 CFR Part 100 and 
GDC 19 of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50. The enhanced testing of 
radiation monitoring instrumentation and the penetration room 
boundary integrity provide additional assurance that the acceptance 
criteria of the safety analyses and the resultant margins of safety 
are not reduced. Relocating specific testing requirements to the 
FSAR has no effect on the margin of plant safety since required 
testing will continue to be performed. Clarifying the 10[-]hour run 
with heaters on is consistent with the Improved TS language and 
accomplishes the purpose for the surveillance. Changing the heater 
capacity and flow rates has been factored into the dose calculations 
and are within the design capacities of the systems involved.
    Therefore, SNC concludes based on the above, that the proposed 
changes do not result in a significant reduction of margin with 
respect to plant safety as defined in the Final Safety Analysis 
Report or the bases of the FNP technical specifications.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    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 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 October 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 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

[[Page 47872]]

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, 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 February 22, 1999, supplemented by 
letters dated March 19 and June 30, 1999, which are 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 26th day of August 1999.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
L. Mark Padovan,
Project Manager, Project Directorate II, Division of Licensing Project 
Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 99-22766 Filed 8-31-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P