[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 140 (Thursday, July 20, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45113-45115]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-18421]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-327 and 50-328]


Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 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. 
DPR-77 and DPR-79, issued to the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA or the 
licensee), for operation of the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant (SQN), Units 1 
and 2 located in Soddy-Daisy, Tennessee.
    The proposed amendments would change Technical Specification 
3.7.5.c to allow an increase in the average essential raw cooling water 
(ERCW) supply header temperature from 84.5 deg.F to 87 deg.F until 
September 30, 2000.
    Exigent circumstances arose due to significant increases in the 
average water temperature of the Tennessee River (Chickamauga 
Reservoir), which serves as the ultimate heat sink (UHS) for the 
Sequoyah Nuclear Plant (SQN), Units 1 and 2. This temperature, as 
measured at SQN's ERCW header, has increased as the result of drought-
induced low flow conditions and on July 12, 2000, had reached 
81.4 deg.F. TVA estimates that continuing weather conditions could 
cause the average temperature to reach the Technical Specification 
(TSs) limit of 84.5 deg.F as early as July 22, 2000. SQN TSs Section 
3.7.5.c currently limits ERCW supply header temperature to less than or 
equal to 84.5 deg.F when the Chickamauga Reservoir water level is above 
elevation 680 feet mean sea level.

[[Page 45114]]

    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.
    Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6) for amendments to be granted under 
exigent circumstances, the NRC staff must determine 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:

    A. The proposed amendment does not involve involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    The probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident 
are not increased as presently analyzed in the safety analysis since 
the objective of the event mitigation is not changed. No changes in 
event classification as discussed in Final Safety Analysis Report 
Chapter 15 will occur due to the increased river water temperature 
(with respect to both containment integrity and safety-system heat 
removal). Therefore, the probability of an accident or malfunction 
of equipment presently evaluated in the safety analyses will not be 
increased. The containment design pressure is not challenged by 
allowing an increase in the river water temperature above that 
allowed by the TSs, thereby ensuring that the potential for 
increasing offsite dose limits above those presently analyzed at the 
containment design pressure of 12.0 pounds per square inch is not a 
concern. In addition, SQN's essential raw cooling water (ERCW) and 
component cooling system (CCS) piping, pipe supports remain 
qualified to the design basis and code allowables. Therefore, the 
proposed variance to TS 3.7.5.c will not significantly increase the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    B. The proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a 
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    The possibility of a new or different accident situation 
occurring as a result of this condition is not created. The ERCW 
system is not an initiator of any accident and only serves as a heat 
sink for normal and upset plant conditions. By allowing this change 
in operating temperatures, only the assumptions in the containment 
pressure analysis are changed. The variance in the ERCW temperature 
results in minimal increase in peak containment accident pressure. 
As for the net positive suction head requirements relative to the 
essential core cooling system and containment spray system, it has 
been demonstrated that this operational variance will not challenge 
the present design requirements. In addition, increased river 
temperatures will not significantly affect the design basis analysis 
of ERCW or CCS piping, pipe supports, and components. Therefore, the 
potential for creating a new or unanalyzed condition is not created.
    C. The proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.
    The margin of safety as reported in the basis for the TSs is 
also not reduced. The design pressure for the containment and all 
supporting equipment and components for worse-case accident 
condition is 12.0 pounds per square inch gauge (psig). This variance 
in river water temperature will not challenge the design condition 
of containment. Further, 12.0 psig design limit is not the failure 
point of containment, which would lead to the loss of containment 
integrity. In addition, analysis of the margins associated with ERCW 
and CCS piping, pipe supports, and components indicate these remain 
enveloped by the proposed increase in river temperature. Therefore, 
a significant reduction in the margin to safety is not created by 
this variance.

    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 14 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 14-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 14-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. 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 August 21, 2000, 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 accessible 
electronically through the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room link at 
the NRC Web site (http://www.nrc.gov). 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 a 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

[[Page 45115]]

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 the amendment is issued before the expiration of the 30-day 
hearing period, the Commission will make a final determination on the 
issue of no significant hazards consideration. If a hearing is 
requested, 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 General Council, Tennessee Valley 
Authority, ET 11H, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, Knoxville, Tennessee, 
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 July 13, 2000, which is available for 
public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman 
Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and accessible 
electronically through the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room link at 
the NRC Web site (http://www.nrc.gov).

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day of July 2000.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Ronald W. Hernan,
Senior Project Manager, Section 2, Project Directorate II, Division of 
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 00-18421 Filed 7-19-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P