[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 155 (Monday, August 13, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45274-45276]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-15767]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414]


Duke Power Company, LLC.; 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. 
NPF-35 and NPF-52 issued to Duke Power Company LLC (the licensee) for 
operation of the Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, respectively, 
located in York County, South Carolina.
    The proposed amendment would revise the Catawba Nuclear Station, 
Units 1 and 2, Technical Specification Section 3.5.2.8, and the 
associated Bases and authorize changes to the Updated Final Safety 
Analysis Report concerning modifications to the emergency core cooling 
system sumps.
    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:

    A. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    Implementation of the proposed amendment does not significantly 
increase the probability or the consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated. The containment sump strainer structures 
function to mitigate the consequences of an accident. As stated in 
Generic Letter 2004-02, ``Potential Impact of Debris Blockage on 
Emergency Recirculation During Design Basis Accidents at 
Pressurized-Water Reactors,'' the current 50% screen blockage 
assumption identified in Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.82, Rev. 0, ``Sumps 
for Emergency Core Cooling and Containment Spray Systems,'' should 
be replaced with a more comprehensive means of assessing debris 
effects on a plant-specific basis. The 50% screen blockage 
assumption did not require a plant-specific evaluation of the 
debris-blockage potential and usually results in a non-conservative 
analysis for screen blockage effects.
    As stated in Duke's [the licensee's] letters of March 1 and 
September 1, 2005, Catawba confirmed the Emergency Core Cooling 
System (ECCS) and Containment Spray System (CSS) recirculation 
functions under debris loading conditions would be in compliance 
with the regulatory positions listed in the Regulatory Requirements 
Section of Generic Letter 2004-02. The design of the modified 
containment sump structure will accommodate the effects of debris 
loading as determined by a baseline and refined evaluations specific 
to Catawba. These evaluations use the guidance of NEI [Nuclear 
Energy Institute] 04-07, ``Pressurized Water Reactor Sump 
Performance Evaluation Methodology, Revision 0,'' dated December 
2004, as amended by the NRC's [Nuclear Regulatory Commission's] 
Safety Evaluation Report. Removal of the implied licensing basis 
requirement to physically separate the containment sump into two 
halves or provide ECCS train separation within the same containment 
sump will not impact the assumptions made in Chapter 15 of the 
Catawba UFSAR [Updated Final Safety Analysis Report]. There are no 
changes in any failure mode or effects analysis associated with this 
change. Since there are no credible failures which could result in 
the introduction of unfiltered debris within the strainer assembly 
beyond the design limits, the need to maintain this physical 
separation is not warranted.
    Although the configurations of the existing containment sump 
trash racks and screen and the replacement sump strainer assemblies 
are different, they serve the same fundamental purpose of passively 
removing debris from the sump's suction supply of the supported 
system pumps. Removal of trash

[[Page 45275]]

racks does not impact the adequacy of the pump NPSH [net positive 
suction head] assumed in the safety analysis. Likewise, the change 
does not reduce the reliability of any supported systems or 
introduce any new system interactions. The greatly increased surface 
area of the new strainer is designed to reduce head loss and reduce 
the approach velocity at the strainer face significantly, decreasing 
the risk of impact from large debris entrained in the sump flow 
stream.
    Thus, based on the above, the proposed change does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    B. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed licensing basis changes will not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident. The ECCS 
containment sump serves as a portion of the ECCS accident mitigation 
system. It is, therefore, not an accident initiator. Duke's 
evaluation concludes that there are no credible failures which could 
result in the introduction of debris within the strainer assembly 
and clog downstream components. Accordingly, there is no change in 
the consequences of an accident previously evaluated in the UFSARs.
    Catawba is replacing the ECCS sump trash racks and screens with 
strainer assemblies in support of the response to Generic Letter 
2004-02. These strainer assemblies are passive components in standby 
safety systems used for accident mitigation. As such, they cannot be 
accident initiators.
    A change to Catawba Technical Specification Surveillance 
Requirement 3.5.2.8 does not alter the nature of events postulated 
in the Safety Analysis Report nor do they introduce any unique 
precursor mechanisms.
    Therefore, the proposed changes will not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    C. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in the margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    Margin of safety is related to the confidence in the ability of 
the fission product barriers to perform their design functions 
during and following an accident situation. These barriers include 
the fuel cladding, the reactor coolant system, and the containment 
system. The performance of the fuel cladding, the reactor coolant 
system, and the containment system will not be impacted by the 
proposed change.
    Nuclear safety is greatly enhanced by the proposed licensing 
basis changes by ensuring consistent interpretation and 
implementation of their requirements.
    As previously stated, Duke's evaluation concludes that there are 
no credible failure mechanisms which could result in the 
introduction of debris above design limits within the strainer 
assembly and clog downstream components. The partitioning of the 
containment sump into two halves is therefore unnecessary and does 
not result in any increase in safety or protection.
    The proposed change to Technical Specification SR [Surveillance 
Requirement] 3.5.2.8 will have no effect on the manner in which 
safety limits, limiting safety system settings, or limiting 
conditions for operation are determined nor will there be any effect 
on those plant systems necessary to assure the accomplishment of 
protective functions. The proposed change does not adversely affect 
the fuel, fuel cladding, Reactor Coolant System, or containment 
integrity.
    Thus, it is concluded that the proposed changes do 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 
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, Rulemaking, 
Directives and Editing 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 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/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

[[Page 45276]]

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 Ms. Lisa F. Vaughn, 
Associate General Counsel and Managing Attorney, Duke Energy Carolinas, 
LLC, 526 South Church Street, EC07H, Charlotte, North Carolina 28202, 
attorney for the licensee.
    For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment dated March 29, 2007 (ADAMS Accession No. 
ML071020044), 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 6th day of August 2007.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John F. Stang,
Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch II-1, Division of 
Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
 [FR Doc. E7-15767 Filed 8-10-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P