Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing, 70104-70107 [E5-6395]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 223 (Monday, November 21, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70104-70107]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-6395]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414]


Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2; 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. 
NFP-35 and NFP-52 issued to Duke Energy Corporation (the licensee) for 
operation of the Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 located in York 
County, South Carolina.
    The proposed amendment would revise Technical Specifications (TS) 
Sections 3.7.16, ``Spent Fuel Assembly Storage,'' and 4.3, ``Design 
Features: Fuel Storage.'' This License Amendment Request (LAR) presents 
revised storage criteria for low-enriched uranium fuel stored at 
Catawba. This is accomplished by taking partial credit for soluble 
boron in the Catawba spent fuel pools (SFPs), in accordance with the 
regulatory requirements of 10 CFR 50.68(b). The TS bases for 3.3.15 and 
TS 4.3.3 would also be revised to change the number of usable storage 
cells in each of the Catawba SFPs from 1418 to 1421.
    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

[[Page 70105]]

the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or 
(2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from 
any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 
licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant 
hazards consideration, which is presented below:

First Standard

    Does operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed 
amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The addition of the amount of soluble boron specified by 
Specification 4.3 has no impact on the probability or consequences 
of any previously evaluated accident. This addition of soluble boron 
requirements is not considered to be an initiator of any accidents, 
nor does it influence how previously evaluated accidents are 
mitigated.
    The increase in the number of usable storage cells in each of 
the Catawba SFPs [spent fuel pools] from 1418 to 1421 has no impact 
on the probability or consequences of any previously evaluated 
accident. This change makes the TS accurate based on the discussion 
in Reference 2. This correction in usable storage cells is not 
considered to be an initiator of any accidents, nor does it 
influence how previously evaluated accidents are mitigated.
    There is no increase in the probability of a fuel assembly drop 
accident in the spent fuel pools when allowing for credit to be 
taken for soluble boron to maintain an acceptable margin of 
subcriticality in the spent fuel pool. The method of handling fuel 
assemblies in the spent fuel pool is not affected by the changes 
made to the criticality analysis for the spent fuel pool or by the 
proposed TS [technical specification] changes. The handling of fuel 
assemblies during normal operation is unchanged, since the same 
equipment and procedures will be used.
    The radiological consequences of a fuel assembly drop accident 
will not be adversely impacted due to taking credit for soluble 
boron for criticality control in the spent fuel pool in the 
criticality analysis. The criticality analysis showed that the 
consequences of a fuel assembly drop accident in the spent fuel 
pools are not affected when allowing for credit to be taken for 
soluble boron to maintain an acceptable margin of subcriticality in 
the spent fuel pool. As discussed in section 4.0 [ADAMS Accession 
No. ML052590247], the radiological consequences of a weir gate drop 
accident will not be adversely impacted due to the proposed TS 
changes.
    There is no increase in the probability or consequences of the 
accidental misloading of fuel assemblies into the spent fuel pool 
racks when allowing for credit to be taken for soluble boron to 
maintain an acceptable margin of subcriticality in the spent fuel 
pool. Fuel assembly placement and storage will continue to be 
controlled pursuant to approved fuel handling procedures and other 
approved processes to ensure compliance with the Technical 
Specification requirements. These procedures and processes will be 
revised as needed to comply with the revised requirements which 
would be imposed by the proposed Technical Specification changes.
    Therefore, it is concluded that operation of Catawba Units 1 and 
2 in accordance with these proposed changes does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability of occurrence or 
consequences of an accident previously analyzed.

Second Standard

    Does operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed 
amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    Criticality and other related accidents within the spent fuel 
pool are not new or different types of accidents. They have been 
analyzed in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report and in 
criticality analysis reports associated with specific licensing 
amendments. Specific accidents considered and evaluated include fuel 
assembly drop, accidental misloading of fuel assemblies into the 
spent fuel pool racks, significant changes in spent fuel pool water 
temperature, and a heavy load (weir gate) drop onto the spent fuel 
racks. The accident analysis in the Updated Final Safety Analysis 
Report remains binding.
    For the proposed amendment, the spent fuel pool dilution 
evaluation demonstrates that a dilution of the boron concentration 
in the spent fuel pool water which could increase the rack 
keff to greater than 0.95 continues to be a non-credible 
event. The proposed amendment regarding fuel storage requirements, 
number of usable storage cells, and amount of soluble boron in the 
spent fuel pool water specified by Specification 4.3 will have no 
effect on normal pool operations and maintenance. There are no 
changes in equipment design or in plant configuration. The Technical 
Specification changes will not result in the installation of any new 
equipment or modification of any existing equipment. Therefore, the 
proposed amendment will not result in the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident.

Third Standard

    Does operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed 
amendment involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed Technical Specification changes and the resulting 
spent fuel storage operating limits will provide adequate safety 
margin to ensure that the stored fuel assembly array will always 
remain subcritical. Those limits are based on a plant specific 
criticality analysis (Attachment 4 [ADAMS Accession No. 
ML052590247]) . This methodology takes partial credit for soluble 
boron in the spent fuel pool and requires conformance with the 
following NRC acceptance criteria for preventing criticality outside 
the reactor:
    1. keff shall be less than 1.0 if fully flooded with 
unborated water, which includes an allowance for uncertainties at a 
95% probability, 95% confidence (95/95) level; and
    2. keff shall be less than or equal to 0.95 if 
flooded with borated water, which includes an allowance for 
uncertainties at a 95/95 level.
    The criticality analysis utilized partial credit for soluble 
boron (200 ppm) to ensure the maximum 95/95 keff will be 
less than or equal to 0.95 under normal circumstances, and storage 
configurations have been defined using a 95/95 keff 
calculation to ensure that the spent fuel rack keff will 
be less than 1.0 with no soluble boron. The loss of substantial 
amounts of soluble boron from the spent fuel pool which could lead 
to exceeding a keff of 0.95 has been evaluated and shown 
to be not credible. Therefore, it is concluded that this change does 
not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
    The increase in the number of usable storage cells in each of 
the Catawba SFPs from 1418 to 1421 has no impact on the margin of 
safety. This change just makes the TS accurate based on the 
discussion in Reference 2. This correction in usable storage cells 
does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed 
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of 
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final 
determination.
    Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the 
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The 
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment 
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the 
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day 
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, 
for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the 
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment 
period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a 
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant 
Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after

[[Page 70106]]

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, Rules and 
Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of 
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page number of 
this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also be delivered to 
Room 6D59, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 
Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. Documents may 
be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room 
(PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
    The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to 
intervene is discussed below.
    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the 
licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of 
the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person 
whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to 
participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request 
for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a 
hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in 
accordance with the Commission's ``Rules of Practice for Domestic 
Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested persons should 
consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the 
Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 
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, https://www.nrc.gov/
reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition 
for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or a 
presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief 
Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, 
will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the 
Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 
will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order.
    As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene 
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in 
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of 
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons 
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the 
following general requirements: (1) The name, address and telephone 
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the 
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the 
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's 
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the 
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the 
proceeding on the requestors/petitioner's interest. The petition must 
also identify the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor 
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
    Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue 
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the 
petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for 
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert 
opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner 
intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The 
petitioner/requestor must also provide references to those specific 
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the 
petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. 
The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine 
dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact 
and that the issue raised in the contention is material to the findings 
the NRC must make to support the action that is involved in the 
proceeding. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of 
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if 
proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner/requestor 
who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one 
contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
    Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, 
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the 
hearing.
    If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final 
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The 
final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If 
the final determination is that the amendment request involves no 
significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the 
amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the 
request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance 
of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment 
request involves a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held 
would take place before the issuance of any amendment.
    Nontimely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be 
entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the presiding 
officer of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition, 
request and/or the contentions should be granted based on a balancing 
of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii).
    A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must 
be filed by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the 
Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications 
Staff; (2) courier, express mail, and expedited delivery services: 
Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and 
Adjudications Staff; (3) e-mail addressed to the Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, HEARINGDOCKET@NRC.GOV; 
or (4) facsimile transmission addressed to the Office of the Secretary, 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Attention: 
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff at (301) 415-1101, verification 
number is (301) 415-1966. A copy of the request for hearing and 
petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to the Office of 
the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001, and it is requested that copies be transmitted either by 
means of facsimile transmission to (301) 415-3725 or by e-mail to 
OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. A copy of the request for hearing and petition 
for leave to intervene should also be sent to Ms. Lisa F. Vaughn, Legal 
Department (PB05E), Duke Energy Corporation, 422 South Church Street, 
Charlotte, North Carolina 28201-1006, attorney for the licensee.
    The Commission hereby provides notice that this is a proceeding on 
an application for a license amendment falling within the scope of 
section 134 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA), 42 U.S.C. 
10154. Under section 134 of the NWPA, the Commission, at the request of 
any party to the proceeding, must use hybrid hearing procedures with 
respect to ``any matter which the Commission

[[Page 70107]]

determines to be in controversy among the parties.''
    The hybrid procedures in section 134 provide for oral argument on 
matters in controversy, preceded by discovery under the Commission's 
rules and the designation, following argument of only those factual 
issues that involve a genuine and substantial dispute, together with 
any remaining questions of law, to be resolved in an adjudicatory 
hearing. Actual adjudicatory hearings are to be held on only those 
issues found to meet the criteria of section 134 and set for hearing 
after oral argument.
    The Commission's rules implementing section 134 of the NWPA are 
found in 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart K, ``Hybrid Hearing Procedures for 
Expansion of Spent Fuel Storage Capacity at Civilian Nuclear Power 
Reactors.'' Under those rules, any party to the proceeding may invoke 
the hybrid hearing procedures by filing with the presiding officer a 
written request for oral argument under 10 CFR 2.1109. To be timely, 
the request must be filed together with a request for hearing/petition 
to intervene, filed in accordance with 10 CFR 2.309. If it is 
determined a hearing will be held, the presiding officer must grant a 
timely request for oral argument. The presiding officer may grant an 
untimely request for oral argument only upon a showing of good cause by 
the requesting party for the failure to file on time and after 
providing the other parties an opportunity to respond to the untimely 
request. If the presiding officer grants a request for oral argument, 
any hearing held on the application must be conducted in accordance 
with the hybrid hearing procedures. In essence, those procedures limit 
the time available for discovery and require that an oral argument be 
held to determine whether any contentions must be resolved in an 
adjudicatory hearing. If no party to the proceeding timely requests 
oral argument, and if all untimely requests for oral argument are 
denied, then the usual procedures in 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart L apply.
    For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment dated September 13, 2005, 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 from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's 
(ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web 
site, https://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 
pdr@nrc.gov.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day of November 2005.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Farideh E. Saba,
Project Manager, Section 1, Project Directorate II, Division of 
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E5-6395 Filed 11-18-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P