[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 58 (Monday, March 27, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15223-15225]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-4372]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366]


Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Georgia Power 
Company,Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2; Notice of 
Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses, 
Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and 
Opportunity for a Hearing

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is 
considering issuance of amendments to Facility Operating License Nos. 
DPR-57 and NPF-5, issued to Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. 
(SNC, the licensee), for operation of the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, 
Unit Nos. 1 and 2, located in Appling County, Georgia.
    The proposed amendment would add a license condition to Section 2.C 
of the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Operating 
Licenses. This license condition will authorize the licensee to credit 
administering potassium iodide (KI) to reduce the 30-day post-accident 
thyroid radiological dose to the operators in the main control room 
(MCR) for an interim period of approximately 4 years. In addition, the 
design-basis accident (DBA) analysis section of the Updated Final 
Safety Analysis Reports will be updated to reflect crediting of KI.
    Before issuance of the proposed license amendments, the Commission 
will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended

[[Page 15224]]

(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), Sec.  50.92, this means that operation of the facility in 
accordance with the proposed amendments 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. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    This proposed change will authorize SNC to credit KI for an 
interim period in the DBA radiological consequences analyses to 
address the impact of MCR unfiltered inleakage. This proposed change 
does not result in any functional or operational change to any 
systems, structures, or components and has no impact on any assumed 
initiator of any analyzed accident. Therefore, the proposed change 
does not result in an increase in the probability of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    This proposed change introduces an additional method of 
mitigating the thyroid dose to MCR occupants in the event of a loss-
of-coolant accident (LOCA). The updated LOCA MCR radiological dose, 
considering 110 [cubic feet/minute] cfm unfiltered inleakage and 
crediting KI, continues to meet [General Design Criterion] GDC 19 
acceptance limits. In the context of the current licensing basis 
with MCR unfiltered inleakage considered, LOCA continues to be the 
limiting event for radiological exposures to the operators in the 
MCR. Radiological doses to MCR occupants are within the regulatory 
limits of GDC 19 with MCR unfiltered inleakages of up to 1000 cfm 
without the crediting of KI for the main steam line break accident 
(MSLB), control rod drop accident (CRDA), and fuel handling accident 
(FHA). Therefore, the proposed change does not result in a 
significant increase in the consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
    This proposed change will authorize SNC to credit KI for an 
interim period in the [Design Basis Accident] DBA radiological 
consequences analyses to address the impact of MCR unfiltered 
inleakage. This proposed change does not result in any functional or 
operational change to any systems, structures, or components. 
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a 
new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant decrease in 
the margin of safety?
    This proposed change will authorize SNC to credit KI for an 
interim period in the DBA radiological consequences analyses to 
address the impact of MCR unfiltered inleakage. This proposed change 
does not result in any functional or operational change to any 
systems, structures, or components. This proposed change introduces 
an additional method of mitigating the thyroid dose to MCR occupants 
in the event of a LOCA. The updated LOCA MCR radiological dose, 
considering 110 cfm unfiltered inleakage and crediting KI, continues 
to meet GDC 19 acceptance limits. In the context of the current 
licensing basis with MCR unfiltered inleakage considered, LOCA 
continues to be the limiting event for radiological exposures to the 
operators in the MCR. Radiological doses to MCR occupants are within 
the regulatory limits of GDC 19 with MCR unfiltered inleakages of up 
to 1000 cfm without the crediting of KI for the main steam line 
break accident (MSLB), control rod drop accident (CRDA), and fuel 
handling accident (FHA). Therefore, the proposed change does not 
involve a significant decrease 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 
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

[[Page 15225]]

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. 
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 Ernest L. Blake, Jr., 
Esquire, Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge, 2300 N Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20037, attorney for the licensee.
    For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment dated March 17, 2006, which is available for 
public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint 
North, Public File 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 22nd day of March, 2006.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Robert E. Martin,
Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch II-1, Division of 
Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E6-4372 Filed 3-24-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P