[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 168 (Wednesday, August 30, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51644-51646]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-14406]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-413, 50-414, 50-369 and 50-370]


Duke Power Company Llc, et al., 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-35, NPF-52, NPF-9 and NPF-11, issued to Duke Power Company, LLC, et 
al., for operation of the Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, 
located in York County, South Carolina, and McGuire Nuclear Station, 
Units 1 and 2, located in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. The 
proposed amendments would revise technical specification (TS) 3.4.15, 
``RCS [Reactor Coolant System] Leakage Detection Instrumentation''. The 
proposed changes address the incore instrument room sump level 
instrumentation and containment atmosphere radioactivity monitors and 
their compliance with Regulatory Guide 1.45.
    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), Part 50, Section 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. This analysis is from the May 4, 2006, submittal and supercedes 
the analysis from the licensee's July 27, 2005, submittal:

    1. Would implementation of the changes proposed in this LAR 
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of 
an accident previously evaluated?
    No. The changes contained in this LAR (license amendment 
request) have been evaluated and determined to not increase the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The 
proposed changes do not make any hardware changes and do not alter 
the configuration of any plant structure, system, or component. The 
proposed LAR: (1) Removes the containment atmosphere gaseous 
radioactivity monitor as an option for meeting the operability 
requirements of TS 3.4.15 and replaces it with the containment 
atmosphere particulate radioactivity monitor, (2) clarifies the 
applicability of the TS to the containment atmosphere particulate 
radioactivity monitor, (3) adds the incore instrument sump and its 
level instrumentation to the McGuire and Catawba licensing basis 
contained in the TS, the Bases, and the Updated Final Safety 
Analysis Reports, and (4) makes other low risk changes to TS 3.4.15. 
None of the containment Reactor Coolant System (RCS) leakage 
detection instrumentation systems are initiators of any accident; 
therefore, the probability of occurrence of an accident is not 
increased. The McGuire and Catawba licensing bases will continue to 
require diverse means of detecting reactor coolant system (RCS) 
leakage, thus ensuring that leakage due to cracks would continue to 
be identified prior to breakage and the plant would be shutdown 
accordingly. Therefore the consequences of an accident are not 
increased.
    2. Would implementation of the changes proposed in this LAR 
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from 
any accident previously evaluated?
    No. The changes proposed in this LAR do not involve the use or 
installation of any equipment that is less conservative than that 
already installed and in use. No new or different system 
interactions are created and no new processes are introduced. The 
proposed changes will not introduce any new failure mechanisms, 
malfunctions, or accident initiators not already considered in the 
design and licensing basis. The proposed changes do not affect any 
structure, system, or component associated with an accident 
initiator. Based on these considerations, the proposed changes do 
not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident 
from any accident previously evaluated.
    3. Would implementation of the changes proposed in this LAR 
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
    No. The changes proposed in this LAR do not make any alteration 
to any RCS leakage detection components. The proposed changes only 
remove the containment atmosphere gaseous radioactivity monitors as 
an option for meeting the operability requirements for TS 3.4.15 and 
replace it with the more responsive containment atmosphere 
particulate radioactivity monitor. Since the level of radioactivity 
in the McGuire and Catawba reactor coolant has become much lower 
than what was assumed in the original licensing bases, the gaseous 
channel can no longer detect a small RCS leak consistent with the 
plants' leak-before-break (LBB) analyses. A conservative addition is 
being made to TS 3.4.15 in order to include controls for the incore 
instrument sump level instrumentation. The changes contained in the 
LAR are not risk significant since the RCS leakage detection 
instrumentation is not credited in the McGuire and Catawba 
probabilistic risk assessments. The proposed amendment continues to 
require diverse means of leakage detection equipment with the 
capability to promptly detect RCS leakage well within the margin of 
the LBB analyses. Based on this evaluation, 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

[[Page 51645]]

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 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 requestor's/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

[[Page 51646]]

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 the , attorney for the 
licensee, Ms. Lisa F. Vaughn, Legal Department, Duke Power Company LLC, 
526 South Church St., P. O. Box 1006, Mail Code EC07H, Charlotte, NC 
28201-1006.
    For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment dated July 27, 2005, as supplemented by 
letters dated May 4, 2006, and August 8, 2006, which are 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 25th day of August 2006.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
John F. Stang,
Sr. Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch II-1, Division of Operating 
Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
 [FR Doc. E6-14406 Filed 8-29-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P