Duke Power Company Llc, et al., Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing, 51644-51646 [E6-14406]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
51644
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 30, 2006 / Notices
Multimedia, Raytheon Polar Service
Company, 7400 S. Tucson Way,
Centennial, CO 80112.
Activity for Which Permit Is Requested
Enter Antarctic Specially Protected
Areas. The RPSC Multimedia team is
often tasked with taking video and still
footage of scientific activities and
general scenery. Request for such
coverage is expected to increase during
the International Polar Year. The
applicant requests to enter the Antarctic
Specially Protected Areas in the
McMurdo Sound/Ross Sea region when
tasked to film scientific activities
occurring at any of the sites. Access to
the sites will be limited to due to
operational and scientific constraints.
Location
Sabrina Island (ASPA 104), Beaufort
Island (ASPA 105), Cape Hallett (ASPA
106). Cape Bird (ASPA 116), Mt.
Melbourne (ASPA 118), Cape Royds
(ASPA 121), Arrival Heights (ASPA
122), Barwick Valley (ASPA 123), Cape
Crozier (ASPA 124), Tramway Ridge
(ASPA 130), Canada Glacier (ASPA
131), Northwest White Island (ASPA
137), Linneaus Terrace (ASPA 138),
Botany Bay (ASPA 154), Cape Evans
(ASPA 155), Lewis Bay (ASPA 156),
Backdoor Bay (ASPA 157), Hut Point
(ASPA 158), Cape Adare (ASPA 150),
Terra Nova Bay (ASPA 161).
Dates
October 1, 2006 to February 14, 2009.
Nadene G. Kennedy,
Permit Officer, Office of Polar Programs.
[FR Doc. 06–7256 Filed 8–29–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555–01–M
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50–413, 50–414, 50–369 and
50–370]
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Duke Power Company Llc, et al.,
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. NPF–
35, NPF–52, NPF–9 and NPF–11, issued
to Duke Power Company, LLC, et al., for
operation of the Catawba Nuclear
Station, Units 1 and 2, located in York
County, South Carolina, and McGuire
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, located
in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:39 Aug 29, 2006
Jkt 208001
The proposed amendments would
revise technical specification (TS)
3.4.15, ‘‘RCS [Reactor Coolant System]
Leakage Detection Instrumentation’’.
The proposed changes address the
incore instrument room sump level
instrumentation and containment
atmosphere radioactivity monitors and
their compliance with Regulatory Guide
1.45.
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), Part 50, Section 50.92, this means
that operation of the facility in
accordance with the proposed
amendment would not (1) involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from
any accident previously evaluated; or
(3) involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR
50.91(a), the licensee has provided its
analysis of the issue of no significant
hazards consideration, which is
presented below. This analysis is from
the May 4, 2006, submittal and
supercedes the analysis from the
licensee’s July 27, 2005, submittal:
1. Would implementation of the changes
proposed in this LAR involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences
of an accident previously evaluated?
No. The changes contained in this LAR
(license amendment request) have been
evaluated and determined to not increase the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated. The proposed changes
do not make any hardware changes and do
not alter the configuration of any plant
structure, system, or component. The
proposed LAR: (1) Removes the containment
atmosphere gaseous radioactivity monitor as
an option for meeting the operability
requirements of TS 3.4.15 and replaces it
with the containment atmosphere particulate
radioactivity monitor, (2) clarifies the
applicability of the TS to the containment
atmosphere particulate radioactivity monitor,
(3) adds the incore instrument sump and its
level instrumentation to the McGuire and
Catawba licensing basis contained in the TS,
the Bases, and the Updated Final Safety
Analysis Reports, and (4) makes other low
risk changes to TS 3.4.15. None of the
containment Reactor Coolant System (RCS)
leakage detection instrumentation systems
are initiators of any accident; therefore, the
probability of occurrence of an accident is
not increased. The McGuire and Catawba
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
licensing bases will continue to require
diverse means of detecting reactor coolant
system (RCS) leakage, thus ensuring that
leakage due to cracks would continue to be
identified prior to breakage and the plant
would be shutdown accordingly. Therefore
the consequences of an accident are not
increased.
2. Would implementation of the changes
proposed in this LAR create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any
accident previously evaluated?
No. The changes proposed in this LAR do
not involve the use or installation of any
equipment that is less conservative than that
already installed and in use. No new or
different system interactions are created and
no new processes are introduced. The
proposed changes will not introduce any new
failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or
accident initiators not already considered in
the design and licensing basis. The proposed
changes do not affect any structure, system,
or component associated with an accident
initiator. Based on these considerations, the
proposed changes do not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Would implementation of the changes
proposed in this LAR involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety?
No. The changes proposed in this LAR do
not make any alteration to any RCS leakage
detection components. The proposed changes
only remove the containment atmosphere
gaseous radioactivity monitors as an option
for meeting the operability requirements for
TS 3.4.15 and replace it with the more
responsive containment atmosphere
particulate radioactivity monitor. Since the
level of radioactivity in the McGuire and
Catawba reactor coolant has become much
lower than what was assumed in the original
licensing bases, the gaseous channel can no
longer detect a small RCS leak consistent
with the plants’ leak-before-break (LBB)
analyses. A conservative addition is being
made to TS 3.4.15 in order to include
controls for the incore instrument sump level
instrumentation. The changes contained in
the LAR are not risk significant since the RCS
leakage detection instrumentation is not
credited in the McGuire and Catawba
probabilistic risk assessments. The proposed
amendment continues to require diverse
means of leakage detection equipment with
the capability to promptly detect RCS leakage
well within the margin of the LBB analyses.
Based on this evaluation, the proposed
changes do not involve a significant
reduction in a 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
E:\FR\FM\30AUN1.SGM
30AUN1
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 30, 2006 / Notices
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 60day 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, 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:39 Aug 29, 2006
Jkt 208001
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
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
51645
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
E:\FR\FM\30AUN1.SGM
30AUN1
51646
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 30, 2006 / Notices
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 email to OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. A copy
of the request for hearing and petition
for leave to intervene should also be
sent to the , attorney for the licensee,
Ms. Lisa F. Vaughn, Legal Department,
Duke Power Company LLC, 526 South
Church St., P. O. Box 1006, Mail Code
EC07H, Charlotte, NC 28201–1006.
For further details with respect to this
action, see the application for
amendment dated July 27, 2005, as
supplemented by letters dated May 4,
2006, and August 8, 2006, which are
available for public inspection at the
Commission’s PDR, located at One
White Flint North, Public File 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 25th day
of August 2006.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
John F. Stang,
Sr. Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch
II–1, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E6–14406 Filed 8–29–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50–285]
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Omaha Public Power Company; 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 No. DPR–
40 issued to Omaha Public Power
Company (the licensee) for operation of
the Fort Calhoun Station, Unit No. 1,
located in Washington County,
Nebraska.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:39 Aug 29, 2006
Jkt 208001
The proposed amendment would
revise the technical specifications to
allow the use of Sodium Tetraborate
instead of Trisodium Phosphate.
Before issuance of the proposed
license amendment, the Commission
will have made findings required by the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended
(the Act), and the Commission’s
regulations.
The Commission has made a
proposed determination that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration. Under
the Commission’s regulations in Title 10
of the Code of Federal Regulations (10
CFR), Section 50.92, this means that
operation of the facility in accordance
with the proposed amendment would
not (1) Involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated; or (2)
create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any
accident previously evaluated; or (3)
involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR
50.91(a), the licensee has provided its
analysis of the issue of no significant
hazards consideration, which is
presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
There are no changes to the design or
operation of the plant that could affect
system, component, or accident functions as
a result of replacing trisodium phosphate
(TSP) with sodium tetraborate (NaTB).
Similarly, there are no changes to the design
or operation of the plant affecting system,
component or accident functions as a result
of revising the volume of buffering agent
required during Operating Modes 1 and 2
with an amount dependent upon hot zero
power (HZP) critical boron concentration
(CBC) to make it consistent with the use of
NaTB.
All systems and components function as
designed and the performance requirements
have been evaluated and found to be
acceptable. NaTB will maintain pH ≥7.0 in
the recirculation water following a loss-ofcoolant accident (LOCA). This function is
maintained with the proposed change.
Allowing the required volume of NaTB to
decrease over the operating cycle (as a result
of densification) as HZP CBC decreases still
ensures that the pH of the containment sump
is ≥7.0.
Further, replacing TSP with NaTB will not
increase the probability or consequences of
an accident previously evaluated. Other than
the Long Term Core Cooling evaluation that
establishes the Hot Leg Switchover (HLSO)
time, no other safety analysis methodology
(LOCA or non-LOCA) specifically models the
containment sump buffering agent. As a
result, the consequences of any accident
(other than determination of the HLSO time)
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
are unaffected by the proposed change to the
containment sump buffering agent. The
analysis to determine the HLSO time
specifically addressed the use of NaTB to
assure it would preclude boron precipitation
in the core and, therefore, preclude any
increase in the consequences of a LOCA.
Analysis demonstrates that a NaTB
buffering agent ensures the post LOCA
containment sump mixture will have a pH
≥7.0. Replacing TSP with NaTB, which
achieves the same pH buffering requirements,
will not increase the probability of a LOCA.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
No new accident scenarios, failure
mechanisms, or single failures are introduced
as a result of the proposed change. All
structures, systems, and components (SSCs)
previously required for mitigation of an event
remain capable of fulfilling their intended
design function with this change to the
Technical Specifications (TS). The proposed
change has no adverse effects on any safetyrelated system or component and does not
challenge the performance or integrity of any
safety related system. The proposed change
has evaluated the replacement buffering
agent and no new accident scenarios or
single failures are introduced.
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 reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
Changing the containment sump buffering
agent requirement from TSP to NaTB and
revising the required volume of NaTB to
decrease (as a result of densification) as HZP
CBC decreases still ensures containment
sump pH ≥7.0. NaTB will maintain pH ≥7.0
in the recirculation water following a LOCA.
Therefore, this change does not involve a
significant reduction in the margin of safety.
Evaluations were made that indicate that the
margin for pH control is not altered by the
proposed changes. A NaTB volume that is
dependent on HZP CBC has been evaluated
with respect to neutralization of all borated
water and acid sources. These evaluations
concluded that there would be no impact on
pH control, and hence no reduction in the
margin of safety related to post LOCA
conditions.
Although NaTB is less effective than TSP
at raising the boric acid solubility limit,
implementation of a more conservative HLSO
time and higher recirculation flow
requirements for the hot and cold leg
recirculation flows ensures that the margin of
safety to preclude boron precipitation, and
ultimately assurance of core cooling ability,
is not compromised.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
E:\FR\FM\30AUN1.SGM
30AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 168 (Wednesday, August 30, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51644-51646]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-14406]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-413, 50-414, 50-369 and 50-370]
Duke Power Company Llc, et al., Notice of Consideration of
Issuance of 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.
NPF-35, NPF-52, NPF-9 and NPF-11, issued to Duke Power Company, LLC, et
al., for operation of the Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2,
located in York County, South Carolina, and McGuire Nuclear Station,
Units 1 and 2, located in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. The
proposed amendments would revise technical specification (TS) 3.4.15,
``RCS [Reactor Coolant System] Leakage Detection Instrumentation''. The
proposed changes address the incore instrument room sump level
instrumentation and containment atmosphere radioactivity monitors and
their compliance with Regulatory Guide 1.45.
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), Part 50, Section 50.92, this means that operation of the
facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1)
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated;
or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. As
required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of
the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented
below. This analysis is from the May 4, 2006, submittal and supercedes
the analysis from the licensee's July 27, 2005, submittal:
1. Would implementation of the changes proposed in this LAR
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of
an accident previously evaluated?
No. The changes contained in this LAR (license amendment
request) have been evaluated and determined to not increase the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The
proposed changes do not make any hardware changes and do not alter
the configuration of any plant structure, system, or component. The
proposed LAR: (1) Removes the containment atmosphere gaseous
radioactivity monitor as an option for meeting the operability
requirements of TS 3.4.15 and replaces it with the containment
atmosphere particulate radioactivity monitor, (2) clarifies the
applicability of the TS to the containment atmosphere particulate
radioactivity monitor, (3) adds the incore instrument sump and its
level instrumentation to the McGuire and Catawba licensing basis
contained in the TS, the Bases, and the Updated Final Safety
Analysis Reports, and (4) makes other low risk changes to TS 3.4.15.
None of the containment Reactor Coolant System (RCS) leakage
detection instrumentation systems are initiators of any accident;
therefore, the probability of occurrence of an accident is not
increased. The McGuire and Catawba licensing bases will continue to
require diverse means of detecting reactor coolant system (RCS)
leakage, thus ensuring that leakage due to cracks would continue to
be identified prior to breakage and the plant would be shutdown
accordingly. Therefore the consequences of an accident are not
increased.
2. Would implementation of the changes proposed in this LAR
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from
any accident previously evaluated?
No. The changes proposed in this LAR do not involve the use or
installation of any equipment that is less conservative than that
already installed and in use. No new or different system
interactions are created and no new processes are introduced. The
proposed changes will not introduce any new failure mechanisms,
malfunctions, or accident initiators not already considered in the
design and licensing basis. The proposed changes do not affect any
structure, system, or component associated with an accident
initiator. Based on these considerations, the proposed changes do
not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident
from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Would implementation of the changes proposed in this LAR
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
No. The changes proposed in this LAR do not make any alteration
to any RCS leakage detection components. The proposed changes only
remove the containment atmosphere gaseous radioactivity monitors as
an option for meeting the operability requirements for TS 3.4.15 and
replace it with the more responsive containment atmosphere
particulate radioactivity monitor. Since the level of radioactivity
in the McGuire and Catawba reactor coolant has become much lower
than what was assumed in the original licensing bases, the gaseous
channel can no longer detect a small RCS leak consistent with the
plants' leak-before-break (LBB) analyses. A conservative addition is
being made to TS 3.4.15 in order to include controls for the incore
instrument sump level instrumentation. The changes contained in the
LAR are not risk significant since the RCS leakage detection
instrumentation is not credited in the McGuire and Catawba
probabilistic risk assessments. The proposed amendment continues to
require diverse means of leakage detection equipment with the
capability to promptly detect RCS leakage well within the margin of
the LBB analyses. Based on this evaluation, the proposed changes do
not involve a significant reduction in a 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
[[Page 51645]]
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, 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 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.
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
[[Page 51646]]
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 the , attorney for the
licensee, Ms. Lisa F. Vaughn, Legal Department, Duke Power Company LLC,
526 South Church St., P. O. Box 1006, Mail Code EC07H, Charlotte, NC
28201-1006.
For further details with respect to this action, see the
application for amendment dated July 27, 2005, as supplemented by
letters dated May 4, 2006, and August 8, 2006, which are available for
public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint
North, Public File 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 25th day of August 2006.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
John F. Stang,
Sr. Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch II-1, Division of Operating
Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E6-14406 Filed 8-29-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
