ML20127C031
| ML20127C031 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Hatch |
| Issue date: | 08/30/1984 |
| From: | Rivenbark G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Gilliland J NRC Office of Inspection & Enforcement (IE Region II) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20127A737 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-84-794 NUDOCS 8409070226 | |
| Download: ML20127C031 (4) | |
Text
!
/
UNITED STATES 8
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
6 I
wAsenmarow, o. c.2oses A...../
August 30, 1984 Docket No. 50-366 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Joe Gilliland Public Affairs Officer Region II FROM:
George W. Rivenbark, Acting Chief Operating Reactors Branch No. 4 Division of Licensing
SUBJECT:
PROPOSED PRESS RELEASE Enclosed is a proposed press release relating to an application for an amendment to the operating license for the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit No. 2, dated August 27, 1984.
Because of exigent circumstances, time does not allow for normal publication in the Federal Register.
It is requested that this announcement be released as soon as possible to the media in the area of the facility and that a copy be sent to the State official and licensee.
W wh eorge W. Rivenbark, Acting Chief Operating Reactors Branch No. 4 Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
Press release cc w/ enclosure:-
K. Clark G. Lainas G. Rivenbark D. Eisenhut OELD
-~~
$9 @ D
.t PROPOSED PRESS RELEASE The Nuclear Regulatory Conunission staff has received an application dated August 27,-1984 from Georgia Power Company (the licensee) for an amendment to the operating license for the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit No. 2, located in Appling County, Georgia.
If approved, the amendment would change the overcurrent trip setpoints for four circuit breakers listed in Technical Specification Table 3.8.2.6-1,
" Primary Containment Penetration Conductor Overcurrent Protective Devices".
These four circuit breakers protect the primary containment penetration conductors for the following four motor operated valves (MOVs) against failure due to overcurrent:
HPCI Steam Line Inboard Isolation MOV Main Steam Line Drain MOV Loop A Pump Discharge MOV Loop B Pump Discharge MOV The motor operators for these four valves were replaced during the recent refueling modification outage in order to meet the environmental qualification requirements of 10 CFR 50.49. The previous motor operators did not meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.49. The new motor operators are different in size from the previous motor operators.
The overcurrent trip setpoints for the circuit breakers are being changed to reflect the new motor operators.
The licensee has requested NRC action on its request as soon as possible.
Following an initial review of this application, the NRC staff has made aproposed(preliminary)determinationthattherequestedamendmentinvolves no significant hazards consideration. Under NRC regulations, this means that the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the
i m-I "
probability or consequences of an accident, would not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident, or involve a significant reduction in a safety margin.
The NRC has provided guidance for the application of these criteria by providing examples of amendments that are considered not likely to involve significant hazards considerations (48 FR 14870). One of the examples of actions -involving no significant hazards considerations relates to a change to make a license conform with changes in the regulations where the license change results in very minor changes to facility operations, clearly in keeping with the regulations.
The licensee replaced the motor operators.for the four subject valves in order to provide environmentally qualified valves in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.49. The setpoint changes are necessary in order to reflect the appropriate setpoints for the new motors. The overcurrent trip setting is only a few percent of the rated amperage of the associated electrical penetrations, and the change is insignificant with respect to the
. rated amperage.
Therefore, based on these considerations and the three criteria given above, the NRC staff has made a proposed determination that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
The NRC has determined that due to exigent circumstances, there is no time to publish for public conenent before issuance its usual notice in the Federal Register of the proposed action.
The exigent circumstances result from the licensee's late recognition that the Technical Specification change was necessary in order to provide the new overcurrent trip setpoints. While the plant can be started up and operated without this change, extended
'b "
operation without this change is undesirable because it requires deenergizing the main steam line drain valve motor.
If the proposed determination becomes final, the NRC staff will issue the amendment without first offering an opportunity for a public hearing. An opportunity for a hearing will be published in the Federal Register at a later date and any hearing request will not delay the effective date of the amendment.
If the NRC decides in its final determination that the amendment does involve a significant hazards consideration, a notice of opportunity for a prior hearing will be published in the Federal Register and, if a hearing is granted, it will be held before the amendment is issued.
Comments on the proposed determination may be telephoned to John F. Stolz, Chief of Operating Reactors Branch No. 4, by collect call to (301) 492-8960.
All comments received by September 18, 1984, will be considered in reaching a final determination. A copy of the application may be examined at the NRC's local public document room located at the Appling County Public Library, 301 City Hall Drive, Baxley, Georgia.
D
p, i
7590-01 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY Co MISSION DUKE PO E R COW ANY DOCKET NO. 50-269 NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE OF AENDENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE AND PROPOSED NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION DETERMINATION AND OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (tne Commission) is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. DPR-38, issued to Duke Power Company (the Ticensee),. for operation of the Oconee Nuclear Station, Unit No.1 (tt e facility) located in Oconee County, South Carolina.
In accordance with the licensee's application for amendment dated May 19, 1983, the amendment relates to the Cycle 8 reload and involves numerical changes to the core protection safety limits, the protective system maximum allowable setpoints, and the rod position limits. These limits take into account the~
incorporation of:
(1) four Mark BZ demonstration fuel assemblies for a second cycle of irradiation; and (2) five gadolinia lead test assemblies as part of the batch of fresh fuel used in the reload.
Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission will have made findings required by the Atomi' Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act) and the Commission's regulations.
-$ 3[ 7Md EI
e.-
o 7590-01
, The Commission has made a proposed detemination that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Under the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendeent 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.
The Commission has provided guidance concerning the application of these standards by providing certain examples (48 FR 14870).
Example 111 of the types of amendments not likely to involve significant hazards considerations applies in this case as the reload is for a nuclear power reactor.
The licensee has provided an evaluation of the amendment requested against the standards of 10 CFR 50.92 to demonstrate the Commission's Example fit fits the case of l
this amendment request.. The reload does not involve fuel assemblies significantly different from those found previously acceptable to the NRC.
No significant changes are being made to the acceptance criteria for the Technical Specifications.
The analytical method used to demonstrate confomance with the Technical Specifications and regulations is not significantly changed, and the NRC has previously found the method acceptable.
In this reload, out of a total of 177 fuel assemblies to be inserted into the core, five of the fresh batch fuel assemblies are different from the remaining assemblies. These assemblies
. ~ _. _ _.
.. ~
- e 7590-01 7
i are gadolinia lead test assemblies which are part of a joint Duke Power / Babcock i
i and Wilcox/ Department of Energy program to develop and demonstrate. an advanced fuel assembly design for extended burnup in pressurized water reactors. This program was initiated during earlier reload cycles. The gado11nia fuel assemblies are to be loaded in such a manner as to ensure that there will be no significant effect on the core physics parameters. The fresh batch fuel containing the gadolinia demonstration assemblies has different fuel perfomance characteristics than the non-gadolinia fuel, but these perfomance characteristics are 1
~
not more limiting than the remainder of the core.
In addition, four Mark BZ demonstration assemblies containing Zircaloy-4 intemediate spacer grids will be reinserted for a second cycle of irradiation. The Cometssion proposes to detemine that the application does not involve a significant hazards consideration since it appears that the standards of'10 CFR 50.92 are met.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed detemination.
Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final detemination. The Commission will not nomally make a final detemination unless it receives a request for a hearing.
Comments should be addressed to the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
20555, Attn:
Docketing and Service Branch.
i.--- - _. - _, - -
7590-01 4
By 1983
, the licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amenennt 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 petition for leave to intervene.
Request for a hearing and petitions for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's " Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings in 10 CR Part 2.
If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, designated by the Commission or by the Chaiman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition and the Secretary or the designated Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of hearing or an appropriate order.
As required by 10 CR 52.714, 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 pemitted with particular reference to the following factors:
(1) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (2) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (3) the possible effect of any order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
The petition should also identify the specific aspect (s) of the subject matter of the proceeding as to which petitioner wishes to intervene.
Any person who has
v
]
7590-01 I filed a petition for leave to intervene or who has been admitted as a party may amend the petition without requesting leave of the Board up to fifteen (15) days prior to the first prehearing conference scheduled in the proceeding, but such an amended petition must satisfy the specificity requirements described above.
Not later than fifteen (15) days prior to the first prehearing conference scheduled in the proceeding, a petitioner shall file a supplement to the petition j
to intervene which must include a list of the contentions which are sought to be litigated in the matter, and the bases for each contention set forth with reasonable specificity. Contentions shall be Ifmited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. A petitioner who fails to file such a supplement which satisfies these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be pemitted to pa'rticipate as a party.
Those pemitted to intervene became 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, including the opportunity tio present evidence and cross-examine witnesses.
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final detemination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration.
The final detemina-tion will serve to decide when the hearing is held.
1
~
,,.y
-l
-o 7590-01 If the final detemination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and aske it effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment.
If the final datamination is that the amendment involves a significant hazards consideration.,any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment.
Nomally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expir-ation of the 30-day notice period. However, should circumstances change during the notice period such that failure to act in a ' timely way would
~
result, for example, in dorating or shutdown of the facility, the Commission may issue the license amendment before the expiration of the 30-day notice period, provided that its final detemination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration.
The final detemination will consider all public and State comments received.
Should the Commission take this action, it will publish a notice of issuance and provide for opportunity for a hearing after issuance.
The Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently.
I i
w
k'*
.'_ s I
6 7590-01
, 1 A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be filed with the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, i
Washington, D.C. 20555, Attention: Docketing and Service Branch, or may be
/
delivered to the Commission's Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N.W.
1 Washington, D.C., by the above date.
Where petitions are filed during the last ten (10) days of the notice period, it is requested that the petitioner promptly so infom the Commission by a toll-free telephone call to Western l
Union at (800) 325-6000 (in Missouri (800) 342-6700). The Western Union operator should be given Datagram Identification Number 3737 and the following message addressed to John F. Stolz:
petitioner's name and telephone number; I
data petition was mailed; plant name; and publication date and page number of'this FEDERAL REGISTER notice A copy of the petition should also be sent j
to the Executive Legal Director, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, l
0.C.
20555, and to J. Michael McGarry, III, De6evoise & Libeman,1200 17th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20036, attorney for the licensee.
Nontimely filings of petitions for leave to intervene, amended petitions, supplemental petitions and/or requests for hearing will not be entertained absent a detemination by the Commission, the presiding officer or the Atomic l
Safety and Licensing Board designated to rule on the petition and/or request, that the petitioner has made a substantial showing of good cause for the granting of a late petition and/or request. That detamination will be based 1
upon a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i)-(v) and l
2.714(d).
ll
4 7590-01
. For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection at the Comunission's Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., and at the Oconee County Library, 501 West Southbroad Street, Walhalla, South Carolina.
1 Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this27th day of June 1983.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION J hm F. Stolz, Chie6 perating Reactors Branch M Division of Licensing f*
.e (7590-01) 4.-
h UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DUKE POWER COMPANY 00CKET NO. 50-287 NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE OF AMEN 0 MENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE AND PROPOSED NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION DETERMINATION AND OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission (the Comission) is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. OPR-55, issued to Duke Power Company (the licensee), for operation of the Oconee Nuclear Station, Unit No. 3 (the facility) loc ted in Oconee County, South Carolina.
In accordance with the licensee's application for amendment dated March 10,1983, the amendment would permit the expansion of the spent fuel storage capacity for Oconee Unit No. 3.
This expansion would be accomplished by reracking the existing spent fuel storage pool with neutron absorbing (poison) spent fuel racks. Reracking the spent fuel pool would increase the Oconee Unit No. 3 pool storage capacity from 474 to 825 spaces.
Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Comission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act) and the Comission's regulations.
The Comission has made a proposed determination that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the Comission's regulations in 10 CFR 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 evalu-ated; 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.
hLg r2 r
~
_ Y
i 7590-01 s.,
2-The Commission has provided guidance concerning the application of these standards by providing certain examples (48 FR 14870). Spent fuel pool reracking was specifically excluded from either set of examples because "[for reracking]...a significant hazards consideration finding is a technical matter which has been assigned to the Commission..." and the Commission "...will make a finding...for each reracking application, on a case-by-case basis..." (48 FR 14869).
In this instance, the licensee's submittal of March 10,1983 (hereafter referred to as the submittal) included a discussion of the proposed action with respect to the no significant hazards consideration. This discussion has been reviewed and the Commission finds it acceptable.
Each of the three standards is discussed below.
First Standard The analysis of the proposed reracking has been accomplished using current NRC Staff accepted Codes and Standards as specified in Section 2.1.2 of Attachment 2 of the submitta'1. The results of the analysis meet the specified acceptance criteria set forth in these standards.
In addition, Duke has reviewed NRC Staff Safety Evaluation Reports for prior PWR rarackings involving poison racks to ensure that there are no identified concerns not fully addressed in their submittal.
From,its analyses and SER reviews Duke has identified the following potential accident scenarios:
(1) sp'ent fuel cask drop; (2) loss of spent fuel pool forced cooling; (3) seismic event; (4) spent fuel assembly drop; and (5) construction accident. The probability of any of the first four accidents is not affected by the racks themselves; thus, reracking cannot increase the probability of these accidents. As for the construction a
7590-01 e.
3 accident, the proposed Oconee 3 pool reracking will not involve an increase in probability of any previously evaluated construction accident as accepted construction standards and procedures will be employed as described,in Sections 4.0 and 6.1 of Attachment 2 of the submittal.
Since there will be I
no fuel assemblies in the fuel pool during rack installation, the probability of some types of postulated construction accidents has actually decreased.
The consequences of the (1) spent fuel cask drop accident have been evaluated as described in Section 6.2 of Attachment 2 of the submittal.
By limiting the age of fuel stored in the first 31 rows to not less than 70 days prior to any cask movement, Duke indicates that the consequences of this type accident would be less than with the present racks as described in the Oconee FSAR Section 15.11.2.2.
Thus, the consequences of this type accident would not be significantly increased from previous accident analyser.
The consequences of the (2) loss of spent fuel pool forced coc;ing accident have been evaluated and are described in Section 6.3 cf Atte.chment 2 of the submittal. As indicated by Duke in Tables 6.3-1 and 6.3-2, there is ample time to effect repairs to the cooling system or to establish a makeup flow, and since the required makeup flow is less than the 70 gpm rate accepted by 'he NRC Staff for the Oconee 1 and 2 pool, the consequences of this type accident would not be significantly increased from previously evaluated accidents by this proposed reracking.
The consequences of a (3) seismic event have been evaluated and are described in Section 2.3.1 of Attachment 2 of the submittal. The racks were evaluated against the appropriate NRC Standard described in Section 2.1.2.
Duke indicates th'at the results of the seismic and structural analysis show
__1_.
I 7590-01
'4 -
that the proposed racks meet all of the NRC structural acceptance criteria and are consistent with results found acceptable by the NRC Staff in all previous poison rarack SERs including Oconee 1 and 2.
Thus, the consequences of seismic events would not significantly increase from previously evaluated seismic events.
t The consequences of a (4) spent fuel assembly drop accident are described in Section 2.3.1.5 of Attachment 2 of the submittal. The radio-logical consequences of this type accident are bounded by the cask drop accident and Duke indicates that X,ff is shown to be always less than the NRC acceptance criteria of 0.95 and not significantly differert from the margin to criticality found in the December 22, 1975 SER for the previous Oconee 3 rerack. Thus, the consequences of this type accident would not be significantly increased from previously evaluated spent fuel assembly drop accidents.
The consequences of a (5) construction accident are described in Section 6.1 of Attachment 2 of the submittal.
Since there will be no fuel assemblies in the fuel pool during rack installation, there would be no radiological consequences of any construction accident. Thus, using accepted construction practices as described in Section 4.0 of Attachment 2 of the submittal the consequences of a construction accident would be less than construction l
accidents previously evaluated by the NRC Staff.
l l
Based on the information provided with the application, the proposed l
Oconee 3 spent fuel pool rerack would not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
j I
7590-01
. Second Standard Duke has evaluated the proposed reracking in accordance with the "NRC Position for Review and Acceptance of Spent Fuel Storage and Handling Applications," appropriate NRC Regulatory Guides, appropriate NRC Standard Review Plans, and appropriate Industry Codes and Standards as described in Section 2.1.2 of Attachment 2 of the submittal.
In addition, Duke has reviewed previous NRC Safety Evaluation Reports for poison rerack appli-cations.
In Duke's analysis and review of NRC evaluations and Industry Standards and Codes, Duke finds that the p:oposed reracking does not in any way create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated including those on the Oconee 3 Docket.
Third Standard The issue of margin of safety when applied to a reracking modificatior, will need to address the following areas (as established by the NRC Staff Safety Evaluation review process):
1.
Nuclear criticality considerations 2.
Themal-hydraulic considerations 3.
Mechanical, material, and structural considerations The margin of safety that has been established for nuclear criticality considerations is that the neutron multiplication factor in the spent fuel pool is to be less than or equal to 0.95, including all uncertainties, under.
all conditions.
For the proposed modification, the criticality analysis, as discussed in Section 2.3.2 of Attachment 2 of the submittal is exactly.
E 7590-01
-C-the same as that which was approved by the NRC Staff (SER issued December 24, 1980) for the Unit I and 2 shared pool reracking modification. The exact same codes, techniques, and assumptions were made. All aspects of the bases of the SER conclusions are covered in the identical manner.
The methods utilized in the analysis confom with ANSI N18.2-1973,
" Nuclear Safety Criteria for the Design of Stationary Pressurized Water Reactor Plants," Section 5.7, Fuel Handling System; ANSI N21L-1976, " Design Objectives for LWR Spent Fuel Storage Facilities at Nuclear Power Stations,"
Section 5.1.12; ANSI N16.9 *.975, " Validation of Calculational Methods for Nuclear Criticality Safety," NRC Standard Review Plan, Section 9.1.2, " Spent Fuel Storage;" and the NRC guidance, "NRC Position for Review and Acceptance of Spent Fuel Storage and Handling Applications."
The results of Duke's analysis indicate that K,.ff is always less than 0.95 including uncertainties at a 95/95 probability / confidence level.
Thus meeting the acceptance criteria for criticality, the proposed rerack does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety for nuclear cri ticality.
From a themal-hydraulic consideration the areas of concern when evaluating if there is a significant reduction in margin of safety are:
l (1) ma).imum fuel temperature, and (2) the increase in temperature of the water in the pool. The themal-hydraulic evaluation is described in Section 2.3.3 of Attachment 2 of the submittal. Results of these analyses by Duke show that fuel cladding temperatures under abnomal conditions are sufficiently low to preclude structural failure and that boiling does not occur in the water channels between the fuel assemblies nor within the L
7590-01 s
storage cells. However, the proposed raracking will allow an increase in the heat load in the Oconee 3 spent,' fuel pooh The evaluation in Section 3 of of the submittal shows th6t a third spent fuel cooling train will be added prior to puttfr.g more'then thecurrently authorized 474 Fuel Assemblies in the spent fuel pool. ' The-adiijion of the third cooling train is intended to ensure that the pool temperature margins c0 safety of 150*F and 205'F described in Section 9.1.3 of the Oconee FSAR are maintained.
Thus, there would be no significant reduction in the. margin of safety from a thermal-hydraulic standpoint or from a spent 5uel cooling standpoint.
The mechanical, materiai, and structural, consideraticns of the proposed rerack are described in Sections 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 of Attachment 2 of the submittal. As described by Duke in Sectidn 2.1, the racks are designed in accordance with the "NRC Position for Review and Acceptance of Spent Fuel-Storage and Handling Applications" dated Apri'. 14, 1978 and revised January 18, 1979. The racks are designed to Seismic Category I requirements and are classified as ANS Safety Class 3 and ASME Code Class 3 Component Support Structures.
In addition, the racks are desN1 red to withstand the loads which
~
may result from fuel handling accidents and fr'om the maximum uplift force of the fuel handling crane. Duke indicates that the materials utilized are described in Sections 2.2 and 2.3.4. int are compat'ible with the spent fuel pool and the spent fuel assemblies. The structural considerations of the racks are described in Section 2.3 and show that the margin of safety against tilting is greater than 100, that the. racks do not impact 'each other nor impact the pool walls, and that sufficient cleararce is provided to prevent the racks from sliding into pool floor obstructio's. Thus, the n
margin of-safety would not be significantly reduced by the proposed rerack.'
I
7590-01
. Because the submittal by the licensee appears to demonstrate that the standards specified in 10 CFR 50.92 are met, and because the reracking technology in this instance has been well developed and demonstrated, the Commission proposes to detemine that the appitcation does not involve a significant hazard consideracion.
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 detamination. The Commission will not nomally make a final detemination unless it receives a request for a hearing.
Comments should be addressed to the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
20555, ATTN:
Docketing and Service Branch.
By September 15, 1983, the licensoe nay 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 petition for leave to intervene. Request for a hearing and petitions 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.
If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, designated by the Commission or by the Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition and the Secretary or the designated Atomic Safety and Licensing Board wif1 issue a notice of hearing or an appropriate order.
1 7590-01
_9_
As-required by 10 CFR 52.714, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceed-ing, 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 factors:
(1) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (2) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (3) the possible effect of any order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest. The petition should also identify the specific aspect (s) of the subject matter of the proceeding as to which petitioner wishes to intervene. Any person who has filed a petition for leave to intervene or who has been admitted as a party may amend the petition without requesting leave.of the Board up to fifteen (15) days prior to the first prehearing conference scheduled in the proceeding, but such an amended petition must satisfy the specificity requirements described above.
Not later than fifteen (15) days prior to the first prehearing conference scheduled,in the proceeding, a petitioner shall file a supplement to he petition to intervene which must include a list of the contentions which are sought to be litigated in the matter, and the bases for each contention set forth with reasonable specificity.
Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration.
A petitioner who fails to file such a supplement which satisfies these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be pennitted to participate as a party.
9
7590-01
- l'O -
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, including
~ the opportunity to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses.
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 detemination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment.
If the final detemination is that the amendment involves a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment.
Nomally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the I
expiration of the 30-day notice period. However, should circumstances change i
l during the notice period such that failure to act in a timely way would
. result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility, the Commission may issue the license amendment before the expiration of the 30-day notice l
l period, provided that its final detemination is that the amendment involves l'
l no significant hazards' consideration. The final detemination will consider t
all public and State comments received.
Should the Commission take this actio1, it will publish a notice of issuance and provide for opportunity for a hearing after issuance. The Commission expects that the"need to take this
~
action will occur very infrequently.
o 7590-01 A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene Hust be filed with the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555, Attention: Docketing and Service Branch, or may be delivered to the Commission's Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C., by the above date.
Where petitions are filed during the last ten (10) days of the notice period, it is requested that the petitioner promptly, so inform the Commission by a toll-free telephone : ail to Western Union at (800) 325-6000 (in Missouri (800) 3a2-6700). The.iestern Union operator should be given Datagram Identification Number 373' and the following message addressed to John F. Stolz:
petitioner's name anc telephone number; date. petition was mailed; plant name; and publication date and page number of this FEDERAL REGISTER notice.
A copy of the petition snould also be sent to the Executive Legal Director, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
20555, and to J. Michael McGarry, III, DeBeveise & Liberman,1200 17th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20036, attorney' for the licensee.
Nontimely filings of petitions for leave to intervene, amended petitions, supplemental petitions and/or requests for hearing will not De entertained absent a determination by the Commissign, the presiding officer or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board designated to rule on the petition and/or request, that the petitioner has made a substantial showing of good cause for the granting of a late petition and/or request. That detemination will be cased i
upon a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.71 (a)(1)(i)-(v) and
- 2. 714( d).
9
7590-01
- T2 -
For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., and at the Oconee County Library, 501 West Southbroad Street, Walhalla, South Carolina.
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, thisllthday of August 1983.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 0
/
J An F. Stolz, Chie O erating Reactors Branch #4 ivision of Licensing
=
e c
5 7590-01 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION DUKE POWER C079ANY DOCKET NO. 50-270 NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE AND PROPOSED NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION DETERMINATION AND OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. DPR-47, issued to
- E
" Duke P~ower Company (the licensee), for operation of the Oconee Nuclear Station, Unit No. 2 (the facility), located in Oconee County, South Carolina.
The amendment would authorize proposed changes to the Oconee Nuclear Station (ONS) common Technical Specifications which are required to support the operation of Oconee Unit 2 at full rated power during Cycle 7.
The proposed changes to
-the core protection safety limits, the protective system maximum allowable setpoints, and the rod position limits are in accordance with the licensee's application for amend-i ment dated September 1,1983, as supplemented by correspondence dated September 14, 1983.
Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission will i
have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended-(the Act) and the Commission's regulations.
^
43 t i 6 tov 6%
7590-01 2-t The Commission has made a proposed determination that the amendment request' involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operat, ion of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (l') 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.
The Commission has provided guidance concerning the application of these
. standards by providing certain examples (48 FR 14870). Example 111 of the types of amendments not likely to involve significant hazards considerations applies in this case as the reload is for a nuclear power reactor. The licensee has provided an evaluation of the amendment requested'against the standards of I
10 CFR 50.92 to demonstrate the Commission's Example iii fits the case of this amendment request. The reload does not involve fuel assemblies significantly different from those found previously acceptable to the NRC. No significant changes are being made to the acceptance criteria for the Technical Specifications.
The analytical method used to demonstrate confonnance with the Technical l
Specifications and regulations is not significantly changed, and the NRC has previously found the method acceptable.
In this reload, out of a total of 177-fuel assemblies to be inserted into the core, only one assembly is slightly l-different. This Advanced Cladding Pathfinder (ACP) assembly, contained in the fresh batch assembly, Batch 9, is a reconstitutable design with 12 special advanced cladding rods. The ACP fuel rod design is identical to the. standard MK-B design.
~.
1
7590-01 Six zirconium lined tubes and six beta quenched tubes will be used for 12 test rods. These tube modifications are expected to provide improved resistance to water-side corrosion and/or pellet-cladding interaction. The ACP assembly is designed to be reconstitutable to allow future removal of selected rods for examination. The assembly reconstitutable features are designed so that reactor safety and performance are not adversely affected.
The Commission proposes to determine that the application does not involve a significant hazards consideration since it appears that the standards of 10 CFR 50.92 are met.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed detennination.
Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination. The Commission will not nonna11y make a final detennination unless it receives a request for a hearing.
Comments should be addressed to the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
20555, Attn: Docketing and Service Branch.
By November h 1983, 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 petition for leave to intervene. Request for a hearing and petitions for t
leave to int,.vene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's " Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings" in 10 CFR Part 2.
If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the i
+
7590-01 above date, the Connission or an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, designated by the Comission or by the Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition and the Secretary or the designated Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of hearing or an appropriate order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.714, 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 factors:
(1) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (2) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (3) the possible effect of'any order which l
l may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
The petition should also identify the specific aspect (s) of the subject matter of the proceeding as to which petitioner wishes to intervene.
Any person who has filed a petition for leave to intervene or who has been admitted as a party may amend the petition without requesting leave of the Board up to fifteen (15) days prior to the first prehearing conference scheduled in the proceeding, but such an amended petition must satisfy the specificity requirements described j
above.
Not later than fifteen (15) days prior to the first prehearing conference scheduled in the proceeding, a petitioner shall file a supplement to the petition to intervene which must include a list of the contentions which are sought
4 7590-01 !
to be litigated in the matter, and the bases for each contention set forth with reasonable specificity. ' Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. A petitioner who fails to file such a supplement which satisfies 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, including 1
the opportunity to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses.
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration.
The final determina-tion 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 effective, notwithstanding the request fo'r a hearing.
Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment.
If the final determination is that the amendment involves a significant hazards consideration, any -hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expir-ation of the 30-day notice period. However, should circumstances change during the notice period such that failure to act in a timely way would
a e
7590-01,
-result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility, the Commission may issue the license amendment before the expiration of the 30-day notice period, provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration.
The final determination will consider all public and State comments received.
Should the Commission take this action, it will publish a notice of issuance and provide for opportunity
. for a hearing after issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently.
A request for a hearing or a petition for. leave to intervene must be filed with the Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555, Attention: Docketing and Service Branch, or may be delivered to the Commission's Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C., by the above date.
Where petitions are filed during the last ten (10) days of the notice period, it is requested that the petitioner promptly so inform the Commission by a toll-free telephone call to Western l
l Union at (800) 325-6000 (in Missouri (800) 342-6700).
The Western Union operator should te given Datagram Identification Number 3737 and the following j
message addressed to John F. Stolz: petitioner's name and telephone number; l
l date petition was mailed; plant name; and publication date and page number j
of this FEDERAL REGISTER notice. A copy of the petition should also be sent to the Executive Legal Director, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
20555, and to J. Michael McGarry, III, De Bevoise and Liberman, 1200 - 17th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036, ~ attorney for the licensee.
I l
l l
[.
.. l - - -
m.'
m, -
h
~
7590-01 7-Nontimely filings of petitions for leave to intervene, amended petitions, supplemental petitions and/or requests for hearing will not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding officer or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board designated to rule on the petition and/or request, that the petitioner has made a substantial showing of good cause for the granting of a late petition and/or request.
That determination will be based upon a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1)(1)-(v) and 2.714(d).
For further details with respect. to this action, see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
and at the Oconee County Library, 501 West Southbroad Street, Walhalla, South Carolina.
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this12th day of October 1983 FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~
r Joitr-F. Stolz, Chief rating Reactors ranch #4 vision of Licensing i
y
_--,em-
T-6
-i 7590-01 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DUKE POWER COMPANY DOCKETS NOS. 50-269, 50-270, 50-287 NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENTS TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSES AND PROPOSED NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION DETERMINATION AND OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Comission) is considering issuance of amendments to Facility Operating Licenses Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47 and DPR-55, issued to Duke Power Company (the licensee), for operation of the Oconee Nuclear Station, Units Nos.1, 2 and 3 (the facilities) located in Oconee; County, South Carolina.
The amendments would authorize changes to the Ctenon Technical Specifi-p cations for Units Nos.1, 2, and 3 at the Oconee Nuclear Station in accordance
- with the licensee's application for amendment dated February 9,1983, as supplemented by submittals dated February 28, 1983 (Generic Offsite Dose Cal-i culation Manual) and April-28, 1983 (Plant Specific Offsite Dose Calculation Manual). The amendments would permit operation after approval of changes.to the Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications that bring them into compliance with Appendix I of 10 CFR Part 50.
The amendments would specifically deal with such changes as indicating shared instrumentation among the three operating units at the Station. They would provide new Technical: Specification sections defining
(
limiting conditions for operation and surveillance requirements for radioactive u_1 4
ll?
i~"
E
.r 7590-01 liquid and gaseous effluent monitoring; concentration, dose and treatment of liquid,' gaseous and solid wastes; total dose; radiological' environmental moni-toring that consists of a monitoring program, land use census, and interlaboratory comparison program. These changes also incorporate into the Technical Specifi-cations the bases that support the operation and surveillance requirements.
In addition, some changes would be made' in administrative controls, specifically dealing with the process control program and the offsite dose calculation manual.
Before issuance of the proposed license amendments, the Comission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act) and the Comission's regulations.
The Comission has made a proposed determination that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the Comission's regula-tions in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the facilities in accordance with the proposed amendments 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.
The Comission has provided guidance concerning the application of these standards by providing certain examples (48 FR 14870). One of the examples (ii) of actions not likely to involve a significant hazards consideration relates to changes that constitute additional restrictions or controls not presently included in the Technical Specifications.
)
7590-01
] The Commission, in a revision to Appendix I,10 CFR Part 50, required licensees to improve and modify their radiological effluent systems in a manner that would keep releases of radioactive material to unrestricted areas during normal operation as low as is reasonably achievable.
In com-plying with this requirement it became necessary to add additional restrictions and controls to the Technical Specifications to ' assure compliance. This caused the addition of Technical Specifications described above. The Commission proposes to determine that the application does not involve a significant hazards consideration since the change constitutes additional restrictions and controls that are not currently included in the Technical Specifications in order to meet the Commission mandated release of "as low as is reasonably achiev-able".
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. The Commission will not normally make a final' determination unless it receives a request for a hearing.
Comments should be addressed to the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D. C.
20555, ATTN: _ Docketing and Service Branch.
By November 28, 1983
, the licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendments to the subject facility operating licenses and any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and
i 7590-01,
who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written petition for leave to intervene.
Request for a hearing and petitions for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Comission's " Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings" in 10 CFR Part 2.
If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Comission or an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, designated by the Comission or by the Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition and the Secretary or~the designated Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of hearing or an appropriate order.
As required by 10 CFR 52.714, 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 peti-tion should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following factors:, (1) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (2) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (3) the possible effect of any order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest. The petition should also identify the specific aspect (s) of the subject matter of the proceeding as to which petitioner wishes to intervene. Any person who has filed a petition for leave to interevene or who has been admitted as a party may amend the petition with-out requesting leave of the Board up to fifteen (15) days prior to the first prehearing conference scheduled in the proceeding, but such an amended petition must satisfy the specificity requirements described above.
7590-01 Not later than ' fifteen (15) days prior to the first prehearing conference scheduled in the proceeding, a petitioner shall file a supplement to the peti-tion to intervene which must include a list of the contentions which are sought to be litigated in the matter, and the bases for each contention set forth with reasonable specificity.
Contentions shall be limited to matters withi the scope of the amendments under consideration. A petitioner who fails to file such a supplement which satisfies these requirements with respect to at least
[
one contention will not be pennitted 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 oppor-tunity to participate feily in the conduct of the hearing, including the oppor-tunity to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses.
. If a hearing is requested, the Cennission 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 amendments and make them effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendments.
j.
If the final determination is that the amendments involve a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the issuance of the amendments.
. -.. i.
v t
7590-01 6-Normally, the Comission wfll not issue the amendments until the expiration of the 30-day notice period.~ However, should circumstances change during the notice period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facilities, the Comission may issue the I
license amendments before the expiration of the 30-day notice period, provided that its final determination is that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will consider all public.and State coments received. Should the Comission take this action, it will publish a notice of issuance and provide for opportunity for a hearing after issuance. The Comission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently.
A rec,uest for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be filed with the Secretary of the Comission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, D. C.
20555, Attention: Docketing and Service Branch, or may be delivered to the Comission's Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N.W.,
Washington, D. C., by the above'date. Where petitions are filed during the last ten (10) days of the notice period, it is requested that the petitioner promptly so inform the Comission by a toll-free telephone call to Western Union at (800) 325-6000 (in Missouri (800)-342-6700). The Western Union operator should be given Datagram Identification Number 3737 and the following message addressed to John F. Stolz: petitioner's name and telephone number; date petition was mailed; plant name; and publication date and page number of l
[
this FEDERAL REGISTER notice. A copy of the petition should also be sent to i
, ~ -
- -. ~ - -,. - -. - - - - - - -.
i 7590-01 the Executive Legal Director, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
20555, and to J. Michael McGarry, III, DeBevoise and Liberman, 1200 17th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20036, attorney for the licensee.
Nontimely filings of petitions for llave to intervene, amended petitions, supplemental petitions and/or requests for hearing will not be entertained absent a determination by the Connission, the presiding officer or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board designated to rule on the petition and/or request, that the petitioner has made a substantial showing of good cause for the granting of a late petition and/or request. That determination will be based upon a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1)(1)-(v) and 2.714(d).
For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection at the Consnission's Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., and at the Oconee County Library, 501 West Southbroad Street, Walhalla, South Carolina.
Dated at.Bethesda, Maryland, this 24th day of 0ctober 1983.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION hn *F. Stolz, Chief per ting Reactors Bra /
- 4 i
sion of Licensing
.