[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 223 (Monday, November 21, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70104-70107]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-6395]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414]
Catawba Nuclear Station, 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.
NFP-35 and NFP-52 issued to Duke Energy Corporation (the licensee) for
operation of the Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 located in York
County, South Carolina.
The proposed amendment would revise Technical Specifications (TS)
Sections 3.7.16, ``Spent Fuel Assembly Storage,'' and 4.3, ``Design
Features: Fuel Storage.'' This License Amendment Request (LAR) presents
revised storage criteria for low-enriched uranium fuel stored at
Catawba. This is accomplished by taking partial credit for soluble
boron in the Catawba spent fuel pools (SFPs), in accordance with the
regulatory requirements of 10 CFR 50.68(b). The TS bases for 3.3.15 and
TS 4.3.3 would also be revised to change the number of usable storage
cells in each of the Catawba SFPs from 1418 to 1421.
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 Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(10 CFR), Section 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in
accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) Involve a
significant increase in
[[Page 70105]]
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:
First Standard
Does operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed
amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The addition of the amount of soluble boron specified by
Specification 4.3 has no impact on the probability or consequences
of any previously evaluated accident. This addition of soluble boron
requirements is not considered to be an initiator of any accidents,
nor does it influence how previously evaluated accidents are
mitigated.
The increase in the number of usable storage cells in each of
the Catawba SFPs [spent fuel pools] from 1418 to 1421 has no impact
on the probability or consequences of any previously evaluated
accident. This change makes the TS accurate based on the discussion
in Reference 2. This correction in usable storage cells is not
considered to be an initiator of any accidents, nor does it
influence how previously evaluated accidents are mitigated.
There is no increase in the probability of a fuel assembly drop
accident in the spent fuel pools when allowing for credit to be
taken for soluble boron to maintain an acceptable margin of
subcriticality in the spent fuel pool. The method of handling fuel
assemblies in the spent fuel pool is not affected by the changes
made to the criticality analysis for the spent fuel pool or by the
proposed TS [technical specification] changes. The handling of fuel
assemblies during normal operation is unchanged, since the same
equipment and procedures will be used.
The radiological consequences of a fuel assembly drop accident
will not be adversely impacted due to taking credit for soluble
boron for criticality control in the spent fuel pool in the
criticality analysis. The criticality analysis showed that the
consequences of a fuel assembly drop accident in the spent fuel
pools are not affected when allowing for credit to be taken for
soluble boron to maintain an acceptable margin of subcriticality in
the spent fuel pool. As discussed in section 4.0 [ADAMS Accession
No. ML052590247], the radiological consequences of a weir gate drop
accident will not be adversely impacted due to the proposed TS
changes.
There is no increase in the probability or consequences of the
accidental misloading of fuel assemblies into the spent fuel pool
racks when allowing for credit to be taken for soluble boron to
maintain an acceptable margin of subcriticality in the spent fuel
pool. Fuel assembly placement and storage will continue to be
controlled pursuant to approved fuel handling procedures and other
approved processes to ensure compliance with the Technical
Specification requirements. These procedures and processes will be
revised as needed to comply with the revised requirements which
would be imposed by the proposed Technical Specification changes.
Therefore, it is concluded that operation of Catawba Units 1 and
2 in accordance with these proposed changes does not involve a
significant increase in the probability of occurrence or
consequences of an accident previously analyzed.
Second Standard
Does operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed
amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
Criticality and other related accidents within the spent fuel
pool are not new or different types of accidents. They have been
analyzed in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report and in
criticality analysis reports associated with specific licensing
amendments. Specific accidents considered and evaluated include fuel
assembly drop, accidental misloading of fuel assemblies into the
spent fuel pool racks, significant changes in spent fuel pool water
temperature, and a heavy load (weir gate) drop onto the spent fuel
racks. The accident analysis in the Updated Final Safety Analysis
Report remains binding.
For the proposed amendment, the spent fuel pool dilution
evaluation demonstrates that a dilution of the boron concentration
in the spent fuel pool water which could increase the rack
keff to greater than 0.95 continues to be a non-credible
event. The proposed amendment regarding fuel storage requirements,
number of usable storage cells, and amount of soluble boron in the
spent fuel pool water specified by Specification 4.3 will have no
effect on normal pool operations and maintenance. There are no
changes in equipment design or in plant configuration. The Technical
Specification changes will not result in the installation of any new
equipment or modification of any existing equipment. Therefore, the
proposed amendment will not result in the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident.
Third Standard
Does operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed
amendment involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed Technical Specification changes and the resulting
spent fuel storage operating limits will provide adequate safety
margin to ensure that the stored fuel assembly array will always
remain subcritical. Those limits are based on a plant specific
criticality analysis (Attachment 4 [ADAMS Accession No.
ML052590247]) . This methodology takes partial credit for soluble
boron in the spent fuel pool and requires conformance with the
following NRC acceptance criteria for preventing criticality outside
the reactor:
1. keff shall be less than 1.0 if fully flooded with
unborated water, which includes an allowance for uncertainties at a
95% probability, 95% confidence (95/95) level; and
2. keff shall be less than or equal to 0.95 if
flooded with borated water, which includes an allowance for
uncertainties at a 95/95 level.
The criticality analysis utilized partial credit for soluble
boron (200 ppm) to ensure the maximum 95/95 keff will be
less than or equal to 0.95 under normal circumstances, and storage
configurations have been defined using a 95/95 keff
calculation to ensure that the spent fuel rack keff will
be less than 1.0 with no soluble boron. The loss of substantial
amounts of soluble boron from the spent fuel pool which could lead
to exceeding a keff of 0.95 has been evaluated and shown
to be not credible. Therefore, it is concluded that this change does
not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
The increase in the number of usable storage cells in each of
the Catawba SFPs from 1418 to 1421 has no impact on the margin of
safety. This change just makes the TS accurate based on the
discussion in Reference 2. This correction in usable storage cells
does not involve a significant reduction in the 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 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result,
for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment
period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after
[[Page 70106]]
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. Documents may
be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room
(PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to
intervene is discussed below.
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, 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 2.309, which is available at the
Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area
O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide
Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic
Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/
reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition
for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or a
presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief
Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel,
will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the
Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, 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 general requirements: (1) The name, address and telephone
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the
proceeding on the requestors/petitioner's interest. The petition must
also identify the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the
petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for
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/requestor 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.
The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine
dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact
and that the issue raised in the contention is material to the findings
the NRC must make to support the action that is involved in the
proceeding. 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/requestor
who fails to satisfy 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.
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.
Nontimely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be
entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the presiding
officer of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition,
request and/or the contentions should be granted based on a balancing
of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii).
A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must
be filed by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the
Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications
Staff; (2) courier, express mail, and expedited delivery services:
Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and
Adjudications Staff; (3) e-mail addressed to the Office of the
Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, [email protected];
or (4) facsimile transmission addressed to the Office of the Secretary,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Attention:
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff at (301) 415-1101, verification
number is (301) 415-1966. A copy of the request for hearing and
petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to the Office of
the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001, and it is requested that copies be transmitted either by
means of facsimile transmission to (301) 415-3725 or by e-mail to
[email protected]. A copy of the request for hearing and petition
for leave to intervene should also be sent to Ms. Lisa F. Vaughn, Legal
Department (PB05E), Duke Energy Corporation, 422 South Church Street,
Charlotte, North Carolina 28201-1006, attorney for the licensee.
The Commission hereby provides 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
[[Page 70107]]
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.'' 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 together with a request for hearing/petition
to intervene, filed in accordance with 10 CFR 2.309. If it is
determined a hearing will be held, 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 L apply.
For further details with respect to this action, see the
application for amendment dated September 13, 2005, which is available
for public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One White
Flint North, File Public Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first
floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be
accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's
(ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web
site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have
access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents
located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by
telephone at 1-800-397-4209, (301) 415-4737, or by e-mail to
[email protected].
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day of November 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Farideh E. Saba,
Project Manager, Section 1, Project Directorate II, Division of
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E5-6395 Filed 11-18-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P