[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 142 (Wednesday, July 23, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42834-42837]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-16908]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Georgia Power Company, 
Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of 
Georgia; City of Dalton, GA

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


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. 
DPR-57 and NPF-5 issued to the licensee for operation of the Edwin I. 
Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, (HNP) located in Appling 
County, Georgia. The proposed amendment includes two actions, as 
follows.
    First, the proposed amendment would respond to existing license 
condition 2.C(8), ``Design Bases Accident Radiological Consequences 
Analyses,'' by revising the licensing and design basis, including the 
Technical Specifications (TS), for four design basis accidents (DBAs): 
the loss-of-coolant, main steamline break, control rod drop and fuel 
handling accidents. The radiological consequences of these DBAs are 
reanalyzed using an alternative source term (AST) methodology, pursuant 
to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 50.67, 
``Accident Source Term,'' (10 CFR 50.67) and allowing credit in the 
analyses for the function of certain systems such as the turbine 
building ventilation system, standby liquid control system, the main 
steam isolation valve alternate leakage treatment (ALT) path, and 
residual heat removal drywell spray system. The licensee states that 
the AST analyses include determination of the on-site radiological 
doses, specifically the main control room, technical support center and 
off-site radiological doses resulting from the DBA analyses. The 
licensee states that the analyses demonstrate that, using AST 
methodologies, the post-accident onsite and offsite doses remain within 
regulatory acceptance limits. Notice of this action was previously 
published in the Federal Register on May 6, 2008 (73 FR 25046). This 
renoticing of this action is provided to include further supplements to 
the licensee's August 29, 2006 application, that are dated April 1, May 
5, June 25 and July 14, 2008, that were submitted subsequent to the 
Federal Register Notice of May 6, 2008. This renotice replaces and 
supersedes the Federal Register Notice of May 6, 2008, in its entirety. 
The second action would be modification of license condition 2.C(8) to 
extend the implementation date of May 31, 2010 until May 31, 2012 for 
HNP unit 1 and until May 31, 2011 for HNP unit 2, as discussed in the 
licensee's letter of July 2, 2008.
    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. Based on the 
following information as provided in the licensee's submittals for the 
first action identified above, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 
staff proposes to determine the following with respect to the three 
criteria above:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Adoption of the AST methodology and allowing credit in the 
accident analyses for those plant systems affected by implementing 
AST are not expected to initiate DBAs. The revised accident source 
term is an input to the radiological consequence analyses. The 
implementation of the AST and changed TS have been incorporated in 
the analyses for the limiting DBAs at HNP. The structures, systems, 
and components affected by the proposed change are mitigative in 
nature and would be relied upon after an accident has

[[Page 42835]]

been initiated. Based on the revised analyses, the proposed changes 
to the TS (including revised leakage limits) impose certain 
performance criteria on existing systems that do not increase 
accident initiation probability. The proposed changes do not involve 
a revision to the parameters or conditions that could contribute to 
the initiation of a DBA as discussed in Chapter 15 of the Unit 2 
Final Safety Analysis Report. Therefore, the proposed change does 
not result in an increase in the probability of an accident 
previously identified. Plant specific AST radiological analyses have 
been performed and, based on the results of these analyses, the 
licensee has demonstrated that the dose consequences of the limiting 
events considered in the analyses are within the regulatory guidance 
provided by the NRC for use with the AST as provided in 10 CFR 
50.67, Regulatory Guide 1.183, Alternative Radiological Source Terms 
for Evaluating Design Basis Accidents at Nuclear Power Reactors 
(ML003716792) and Standard Review Plan, Section 15.0.1. Therefore, 
the proposed changes do 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?
    The use of AST methodology and the implementation of limited 
changes to structures, systems or components (SSC) to support that 
methodology, does not alter or involve any design basis accident 
initiators. No major SSCs are added to or removed from the HNP 
design. The limited changes in the design of existing SSCs needed to 
enable crediting their function in currently postulated DBAs and the 
addition of further TS are intended to enhance the assurance that 
these SSCs will perform their mitigative function in the event of a 
DBA. Since the operation of the SSCs will not be significantly 
changed after the AST implementation, no new failure modes are 
created by this proposed change. 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?
    The principal changes in the licensing and design bases for this 
amendment are associated with demonstrating that the radiological 
consequences of DBAs meet applicable NRC regulatory criteria, as 
discussed in criterion 1 above. The licensee states that the 
analyzed events have been carefully selected, and the analyses 
supporting these changes have been performed using approved 
methodologies and conservative inputs to ensure that analyzed events 
are bounding and safety margin has been retained. The licensee also 
states that the dose consequences of these limiting events are 
within the acceptance criteria presented in 10 CFR 50.67, Regulatory 
Guide 1.183, and Standard Review Plan 15.0.1 and that, because the 
proposed changes continue to result in dose consequences within the 
applicable regulatory limits, the changes are considered to not 
result in a significant reduction in the margin of safety.

    As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), for the second issue identified 
above, the licensee has provided, in its letter dated July 2, 2008, 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 [potassium 
iodide] KI for an extended period in the DBA radiological 
consequences analyses to address the impact of [main control room] 
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 does not introduce any additional method of 
mitigating the thyroid dose to MCR occupants in the event of a loss-
of-coolant accident (LOCA) since the existing license condition has 
already introduced this method as part of the licensing basis for an 
interim period of time. The updated LOCA MCR radiological dose, 
considering 110 [cubic feet per minute] 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 inleakage 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 
extended 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. 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 
extended 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 extends the 
use of an additional method of mitigating the thyroid dose to MCR 
occupants in the event of a LOCA until May 31, 2012. 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 inleakage 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 finds that, on the basis discussed above, 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

[[Page 42836]]

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 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 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.
    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 
ten (10) 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

[[Page 42837]]

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 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://www.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 August 29, 2006, 
as supplemented November 6, November 27, 2006, January 30, June 22, 
July 16, August 13, October 18, December 11, 2007, January 24, February 
4, February 25 (two letters, nos. 1389 and 0175), February 27, March 
13, April 1, May 5, June 25, July 2, and July 14, 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 14th day of July 2008.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
R. E. Martin,
Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch II-1, Division of 
Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
 [FR Doc. E8-16908 Filed 7-22-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P