[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