[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