[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 38 (Tuesday, February 26, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10302-10305]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-3588]


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

 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 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 an amendment to Facility Operating License Nos. 
NPF-35 and NPF-52 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 Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-9 
and NPF-17 for operation of the McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, 
located in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.
    The proposed amendment would revise the Catawba Nuclear Station, 
Units 1 and 2, and the McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Updated 
Final Safety Analysis Reports by requiring an inspection of each ice 
condenser within 24 hours of experiencing a seismic event greater than 
or equal to an operating basis earthquake within the five (5) week 
period after ice basket replenishment has been completed to confirm 
that adverse ice fallout has not occurred.
    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 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.
    The analyzed accidents of consideration in regard to changes 
potentially affecting the ice condenser are a loss of coolant 
accident and a steam or feedwater line break inside Containment. The 
ice condenser is an accident mitigator and is not postulated as 
being the initiator of a LOCA [loss-coolant-accident] or HELB [high-
energy line break]. The ice condenser is structurally designed to 
withstand a Safe Shutdown Earthquake plus a Design Basis Accident 
and does not interconnect or interact with any systems that 
interconnect or interact with the Reactor Coolant, Main Steam or 
Feedwater systems. Because the proposed changes do not result in, or 
require any physical change to the ice condenser that could 
introduce an interaction with the Reactor Coolant, Main Steam or 
Feedwater systems, there can be no change in the probability of an 
accident previously evaluated.

[[Page 10303]]

    Under the current licensing basis, the ice condenser ice baskets 
would be considered fully fused prior to power ascension and the ice 
condenser would perform its accident mitigation function even if a 
safe shutdown seismic event occurred coincident with or just 
preceding the accident. Under the proposed change, there is some 
finite probability that, within 24 hours following a seismic 
disturbance, a LOCA or HELB in Containment could occur within five 
weeks of the completion of ice basket replenishment. However, 
several factors provide defense-in-depth and tend to mitigate the 
potential consequences of the proposed change.
    Design basis accidents are not assumed to occur simultaneously 
with a seismic event. Therefore, the coincident occurrence of a LOCA 
or HELB with a seismic event is strictly a function of the combined 
probability of the occurrence of independent events, which in this 
case is very low. Based on the Probabilistic Risk Assessment model 
and seismic hazard analysis, the combined probability of occurrence 
of a seismic disturbance greater than or equal to an OBE during the 
5 week period following ice replenishment coincident with or 
subsequently followed by a LOCA or HELB during the time required to 
perform the proposed inspection (24 hours) and if required by 
Technical Specifications, complete Unit shutdown (37 hours), is less 
than 2.2E-09 for McGuire and Catawba. This probability is well below 
the threshold that is typically considered credible.
    Even if ice were to fall from ice baskets during a seismic event 
occurring coincident with or subsequently followed by an accident, 
the ice condenser would be expected to perform its intended safety 
function. The design of the lower inlet doors is such that complete 
blockage of flow into the ice condenser is not credible during a 
LOCA or HELB. The inherent redundancy of flow paths into the ice 
condenser provide reasonable assurance that it would perform its 
function even if some lower inlet doors were blocked closed.
    Based on the above, the proposed changes do not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated. The ice condenser is expected to 
perform its intended safety function under all circumstances 
following a LOCA or HELB in Containment.
    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 change affects the assumed timing of a postulated 
seismic and design basis accident applied to the ice condenser and 
provides an alternate methodology to confirm the ice condenser lower 
inlet doors are capable of opening. As previously discussed, the ice 
condenser is not postulated as an initiator of any design basis 
accident. The proposed change does not impact any plant system, 
structure or component that is an accident initiator. The proposed 
change does not involve any hardware changes to the ice condenser or 
other changes that could create new accident mechanisms. Therefore, 
there can be no new or different accidents created from those 
previously identified and 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 and the Reactor Coolant 
system will not be impacted by the proposed change.
    The requirement to inspect the ice condensers within 24 hours of 
experiencing seismic activity greater than or equal to an OBE during 
the five (5) week period following the completion of ice basket 
replenishment will confirm that the ice condenser lower inlet doors 
are capable of opening. This inspection will confirm that the ice 
condenser doors remain fully capable of performing their intended 
safety function under credible circumstances.
    The inherent redundancy of flow paths into the ice condenser 
provides reasonable assurance that it would perform its function 
even if some lower inlet doors were blocked closed. As such, the ice 
condenser has reasonable assurance of performing its intended 
function during the highly unlikely scenario in which a postulated 
accident (LOCA or HELB) occurs coincident with or subsequently 
following a seismic event.
    The proposed change affects the assumed timing of a postulated 
seismic and design basis accident applied to the ice condenser and 
provides an alternate methodology in confirming the ice condenser 
lower inlet doors are capable of opening. As previously discussed, 
the combined probability of occurrence of a LOCA or HELB and a 
seismic disturbance greater than or equal to an OBE [operating basis 
earthquake] during the ``period of potential exposure'' is less than 
2.2E-09 for McGuire and Catawba. This probability is well below the 
threshold that is considered credible.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in the margin of safety. The McGuire and Catawba ice 
condensers will perform their intended safety function under 
credible circumstances.
    The changes proposed in this LAR do not make any physical 
alteration to the ice condensers, nor does it affect the required 
functional capability of the ice condenser in any way. The intent of 
the proposed change to the UFSARs is to eliminate an overly 
restrictive waiting period prior to Unit ascent to power operations 
following the completion of ice basket replenishment. The required 
inspection of the ice condenser following a seismic event greater 
than or equal to an OBE will confirm that the ice condenser lower 
inlet doors will continue to fully perform their safety function as 
assumed in the McGuire and Catawba safety analyses.
    Thus, it can be concluded that the proposed change 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 
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 
person(s) may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of 
the amendment to

[[Page 10304]]

the subject facility operating license and any person(s) whose interest 
may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a 
party in the proceeding must file a written request via electronic 
submission through the NRC E-filing system 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 person(s) 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. 
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.
    A request for hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be 
filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule, which the NRC 
promulgated on August 28, 2007 (72 FR 49139). The E-Filing process 
requires participants to submit and serve documents over the internet 
or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. 
Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they 
seek a waiver in accordance with the procedures described below.
    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 
five (5) days prior to the filing deadline, the petitioner/requestor 
must contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at 
[email protected], or by calling (301) 415-1677, to request (1) a 
digital ID certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or 
representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal 
server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and/or (2) 
creation of an electronic docket for the proceeding (even in instances 
in which the petitioner/requestor (or its counsel or representative) 
already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Each petitioner/
requestor will need to download the Workplace Forms Viewer\TM\ to 
access the Electronic Information Exchange (EIE), a component of the E-
Filing system.
    The Workplace Forms Viewer\TM\ is free and is available at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/install-viewer.html. Information 
about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on NRC's 
public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/apply-certificates.html. Once a petitioner/requestor has obtained a digital 
ID certificate, had a docket created, and downloaded the EIE viewer, it 
can then submit a request for hearing or petition for leave to 
intervene. Submissions should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in 
accordance with NRC guidance available on the NRC public Web site at 
http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered 
complete at the time the filer submits its documents through EIE. To be 
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the EIE system no 
later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of a 
transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends 
the submitter an e-mail notice confirming receipt of the document. The 
EIE system also distributes an e-mail notice that provides access to 
the document to the NRC Office of the General Counsel and any others 
who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to 
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the 
documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and 
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for 
and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition 
to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document 
via the E-Filing system.
    A person filing electronically may seek assistance through the 
``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html or by calling the NRC technical help line, 
which is available between 8:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m., Eastern Time, 
Monday through Friday. The help line number is (800) 397-4209 or 
locally, (301) 415-4737. Participants

[[Page 10305]]

who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents 
electronically must file a motion, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), 
with their initial paper filing requesting authorization to continue to 
submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted 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; or (2) courier, 
express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the 
Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville, 
Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and 
Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this manner are 
responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing 
is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in 
the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service 
upon depositing the document with the provider of the service.
    Non-timely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be 
entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding 
officer, or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition 
and/or request should be granted and/or the contentions should be 
admitted, based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 
2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii). To be timely, filings must be submitted no later 
than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date.
    Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in 
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at 
http://ehd.nrc.gov/EHD_Proceeding/home.asp, unless excluded pursuant 
to an order of the Commission, an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, or 
a Presiding Officer. Participants are requested not to include personal 
privacy information, such as social security numbers, home addresses, 
or home phone numbers in their filings. With respect to copyrighted 
works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the 
adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, 
Participants are requested not to include copyrighted materials in 
their submissions.
    For further details with respect to this license amendment 
application, see the application for amendment dated February 15, 2008, 
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 electronically 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 20th day of February 2008.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

John F. Stang,
Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch II-1, Division of Operating 
Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E8-3588 Filed 2-25-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P