Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing, 8273-8276 [E9-3896]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 24, 2009 / Notices
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
addressed to: Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs of OMB, Attention:
Desk Officer for National Science
Foundation, 725–17th Street, NW.,
Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503,
and to Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports
Clearance Officer, National Science
Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard,
Suite 295, Arlington, Virginia 22230 or
send e-mail to splimpto@nsf.gov.
Comments regarding these information
collections are best assured of having
their full effect if received within 30
days of this notification. Copies of the
submission(s) may be obtained by
calling 703–292–7556.
NSF may not conduct or sponsor a
collection of information unless the
collection of information displays a
currently valid OMB control number
and the agency informs potential
persons who are to respond to the
collection of information that such
persons are not required to respond to
the collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control
number.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Title: Grantee Reporting Requirements
for Science and Technology Centers
(STC): Integrative Partnerships
OMB Control Number: 3145–0194.
Abstract:
Proposed Project
The Science and Technology Centers
(STC): Integrative Partnerships Program
supports innovation in the integrative
conduct of research, education and
knowledge transfer. Science and
Technology Centers build intellectual
and physical infrastructure within and
between disciplines, weaving together
knowledge creation, knowledge
integration, and knowledge transfer.
STCs conduct world-class research
through partnerships of academic
institutions, national laboratories,
industrial organizations, and/or other
public/private entities. New knowledge
thus created is meaningfully linked to
society.
STCs enable and foster excellent
education, integrate research and
education, and create bonds between
learning and inquiry so that discovery
and creativity more fully support the
learning process. STCs capitalize on
diversity through participation in center
activities and demonstrate leadership in
the involvement of groups
underrepresented in science and
engineering.
Centers selected will be required to
submit annual reports on progress and
plans, which will be used as a basis for
performance review and determining
the level of continued funding. To
support this review and the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:23 Feb 23, 2009
Jkt 217001
management of a Center, STCs will be
required to develop a set of management
and performance indicators for
submission annually to NSF via an NSF
evaluation technical assistance
contractor. These indicators are both
quantitative and descriptive and may
include, for example, the characteristics
of center personnel and students;
sources of financial support and in-kind
support; expenditures by operational
component; characteristics of industrial
and/or other sector participation;
research activities; education activities;
knowledge transfer activities; patents,
licenses; publications; degrees granted
to students involved in Center activities;
descriptions of significant advances and
other outcomes of the STC effort. Part of
this reporting will take the form of a
database which will be owned by the
institution and eventually made
available to an evaluation contractor.
This database will capture specific
information to demonstrate progress
towards achieving the goals of the
program. Such reporting requirements
will be included in the cooperative
agreement which is binding between the
academic institution and the NSF.
Each Center’s annual report will
address the following categories of
activities: (1) Research, (2) education, (3)
knowledge transfer, (4) partnerships, (5)
diversity, (6) management and (7)
budget issues.
For each of the categories the report
will describe overall objectives for the
year, problems the Center has
encountered in making progress towards
goals, anticipated problems in the
following year, and specific outputs and
outcomes.
Use of the Information: NSF will use
the information to continue funding of
the Centers, and to evaluate the progress
of the program.
Estimate of Burden: 100 hours per
center for seventeen centers for a total
of 1700 hours.
Respondents: Non-profit institutions;
federal government.
Estimated Number of Responses per
Report: One from each of the seventeen
centers.
Comments: Comments are invited on
(a) whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the
Agency, including whether the
information shall have practical utility;
(b) the accuracy of the Agency’s
estimate of the burden of the proposed
collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity
of the information on respondents,
including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of
information technology; and (d) ways to
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
8273
minimize the burden of the collection of
information on those who are to
respond, including through the use of
appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological
collection techniques or other forms of
information technology.
Dated: February 18, 2009.
Suzanne H. Plimpton,
Reports Clearance Officer, National Science
Foundation.
[FR Doc. E9–3846 Filed 2–23–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No 50–414; NRC–2009–0074]
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC; Notice of
Consideration of Issuance of
Amendments 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 amendment to
Facility Operating License No. NPF–52
issued to Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC
(the licensee), for operation of the
Catawba Nuclear Station, Unit 2, located
in York County, South Carolina.
The proposed amendment requested
to update the Leak-Before-Break
evaluation for Catawba Nuclear Station,
Unit 2. This request is being submitted
in conjunction with Duke Energy
Carolinas LLC’s proposal to apply full
structural weld overlays to the reactor
vessel hot leg nozzle-to-safe end welds
in the upcoming spring 2009 refueling
outage.
Before issuance of the proposed
license amendments, 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
E:\FR\FM\24FEN1.SGM
24FEN1
8274
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 24, 2009 / Notices
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
its analysis of the issue of no significant
hazards consideration, which is
presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The applicable accident is a Large Break
Loss of Coolant Accident (LBLOCA). Since
the application of FSWOLs [full structural
weld overlays] will enhance the integrity of
the reactor coolant system, the probability of
a previously evaluated accident is not
increased. The consequences of a LBLOCA
have been previously evaluated and found to
be acceptable. Application of FSWOLs to the
welds will cause no change to the dose
analysis associated with a LBLOCA, and
therefore, does not affect the consequences.
For the above reasons, the proposed
amendment does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences
of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create
the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment will allow
application of FSWOLs to mitigate potential
PWSCC [Primary Water Stress Corrosion
Cracking] of the welds. These welds provide
a primary pressure boundary function. This
amendment request does not change the
function of the welds, or the way the plant
is operated; it allows the application of
FSWOLs that will enhance the ability of the
welds to perform the pressure boundary
function. Therefore, the proposed
amendment does not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any
accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
Margin of safety is related to the ability of
the fission product barriers to perform their
design functions during and following
accident conditions. These barriers include
the fuel cladding, the reactor coolant system,
and the containment. This amendment
request does not involve a change to the fuel
cladding or the containment. This
amendment request updates the LBB [Leak
Before Break] evaluation to account for the
application of FSWOLs to the reactor vessel
hot leg nozzle-to-safe end welds for Catawba
Unit 2.
The effect of applying a weld overlay
repair has been evaluated with respect to the
LBB evaluation at this location. This
evaluation addresses mitigation of PWSCC in
these welds. This evaluation allows the
application of a PWSCC resistant overlay that
has the added benefit of producing
compressive stresses on the inner portion of
the welds. Crack growth evaluations
performed as part of the evaluation indicate
that no PWSCC is expected after the
application of the overlay and fatigue crack
growth is minimal. The effect of the adverse
morphology due to PWSCC cracking was also
evaluated. When considering the combined
effects of flaw size, increased thickness, and
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:23 Feb 23, 2009
Jkt 217001
adverse morphology, the leakage was shown
to be largely unaffected due to the offsetting
effects of these factors.
The evaluation described above shows that
these welds will perform as originally
intended and that the adverse effects of
PWSCC will be mitigated. Therefore, the
proposed amendment does 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
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, Rulemaking,
Directives and Editing Branch, TWB–
05–B01M, 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. 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.
Within 60 days after the date of
publication of this notice, any person(s)
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
whose interest may be affected by this
action may file a request for a hearing
and a petition to intervene with respect
to issuance of the amendment to the
subject facility operating license.
Requests for a hearing and a petition for
leave to intervene shall be filed in
accordance with the Commission’s
‘‘Rules of Practice for Domestic
Licensing Proceedings’’ in 10 CFR Part
2. Interested person(s) should consult a
current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is
available at the Commission’s PDR,
located at One White Flint North, Public
File Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike
(first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
Publicly available records will be
accessible from the Agencywide
Documents Access and Management
System’s (ADAMS) Public Electronic
Reading Room on the Internet at the
NRC Web site, 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
E:\FR\FM\24FEN1.SGM
24FEN1
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 24, 2009 / Notices
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.
All documents filed in NRC
adjudicatory proceedings, including a
request for hearing, a petition for leave
to intervene, any motion or other
document filed in the proceeding prior
to the submission of a request for
hearing or petition to intervene, and
documents filed by interested
governmental entities participating
under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in
accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule,
which the NRC promulgated on August
28, 2007 (72 FR 49139). The E-Filing
process requires participants to submit
and serve all adjudicatory documents
over the internet, or in some cases to
mail copies on electronic storage media.
Participants may not submit paper
copies of their filings unless they seek
a waiver in accordance with the
procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural
requirements of E-Filing, at least ten
(10) days prior to the filing deadline, the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:23 Feb 23, 2009
Jkt 217001
petitioner/ requestor must contact the
Office of the Secretary by e-mail at
hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by calling
(301) 415–1677, to request (1) a digital
ID certificate, which allows the
participant (or its counsel or
representative) to digitally sign
documents and access the E-Submittal
server for any proceeding in which it is
participating; and/or (2) creation of an
electronic docket for the proceeding
(even in instances in which the
petitioner/requestor (or its counsel or
representative) already holds an NRCissued digital ID certificate). Each
petitioner/requestor will need to
download the Workplace Forms
ViewerTM to access the Electronic
Information Exchange (EIE), a
component of the E-Filing system. The
Workplace Forms ViewerTM is free and
is available at https://www.nrc.gov/sitehelp/e-submittals/install-viewer.html.
Information about applying for a digital
ID certificate is available on NRC’s
public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/
site-help/e-submittals/applycertificates.html.
Once a petitioner/requestor has
obtained a digital ID certificate, had a
docket created, and downloaded the EIE
viewer, it can then submit a request for
hearing or petition for leave to
intervene. Submissions should be in
Portable Document Format (PDF) in
accordance with NRC guidance
available on the NRC public Web site at
https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html. A filing is considered
complete at the time the filer submits its
documents through EIE. To be timely,
an electronic filing must be submitted to
the EIE system no later than 11:59 p.m.
Eastern Time on the due date. Upon
receipt of a transmission, the E-Filing
system time-stamps the document and
sends the submitter an e-mail notice
confirming receipt of the document. The
EIE system also distributes an e-mail
notice that provides access to the
document to the NRC Office of the
General Counsel and any others who
have advised the Office of the Secretary
that they wish to participate in the
proceeding, so that the filer need not
serve the documents on those
participants separately. Therefore,
applicants and other participants (or
their counsel or representative) must
apply for and receive a digital ID
certificate before a hearing request/
petition to intervene is filed so that they
can obtain access to the document via
the E-Filing system.
A person filing electronically may
seek assistance through the ‘‘Contact
Us’’ link located on the NRC Web site
at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html or by calling the NRC
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
8275
electronic filing Help Desk, which is
available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m.,
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday
excluding government holidays. The
electronic filing Help Desk can be
contacted by telephone at 1–866–672–
7640 or by e-mail at
MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov.
Participants who believe that they
have a good cause for not submitting
documents electronically must file a
motion, in accordance with 10 CFR
2.302(g), with their initial paper filing
requesting authorization to continue to
submit documents in paper format.
Such filings must be submitted by: (1)
First class mail addressed to the Office
of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or
(2) courier, express mail, or expedited
delivery service to the Office of the
Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White
Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff.
Participants filing a document in this
manner are responsible for serving the
document on all other participants.
Filing is considered complete by firstclass mail as of the time of deposit in
the mail, or by courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service upon
depositing the document with the
provider of the service.
Non-timely requests and/or petitions
and contentions will not be entertained
absent a determination by the
Commission or the presiding officer of
the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
that the petition and/or request should
be granted and/or the contentions
should be admitted, based on a
balancing of the factors specified in 10
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)–(viii).
Documents submitted in adjudicatory
proceedings will appear in NRC’s
electronic hearing docket which is
available to the public at https://
ehd.nrc.gov/ehd_proceeding/home.asp,
unless excluded pursuant to an order of
the Commission, an Atomic Safety and
Licensing Board, or a Presiding Officer.
Participants are requested not to include
personal privacy information, such as
social security numbers, home
addresses, or home phone numbers in
their filings, unless an NRC regulation
or other law requires submission of such
information. With respect to
copyrighted works, except for limited
excerpts that serve the purpose of the
adjudicatory filings and would
constitute a Fair Use application,
Participants are requested not to include
copyrighted materials in their
submissions.
E:\FR\FM\24FEN1.SGM
24FEN1
8276
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 24, 2009 / Notices
For further details with respect to this
license amendment application, see the
application for amendment dated
November 20, 2008, which is available
for public inspection at the
Commission’s PDR, located at One
White Flint North, File Public Area O1
F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),
Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available
records will be accessible electronically
from the Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System’s
(ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading
Room on the Internet at the NRC Web
site, 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.resource@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day
of February 2009.
For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Robert Martin,
Acting Chief, Plant Licensing Branch II–1,
Division of Operating Reactor Licensing,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E9–3896 Filed 2–23–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50–413 and 50–414; NRC–
2009–0073]
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Notice of
Consideration of Issuance of
Amendments 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 amendments to
Facility Operating License No. NPF–35
and Facility Operating License No.
NPF–52 issued to Duke Energy
Carolinas, LLC (the licensee), for
operation of the Catawba Nuclear
Station, Units 1 and 2, located in York
County, South Carolina.
The proposed amendments revise the
Technical Specifications (TSs) to change
the logic configuration of TS Table
3.3.2–1, ‘‘Engineered Safety Feature
Actuation System Instrumentation,’’
Function 5.b.(5), ‘‘Turbine Trip and
Feedwater Isolation, Feedwater
Isolation, Doghouse Water Level—High
High.’’ The existing one-out-of-one (1/1)
logic per train per doghouse is being
modified to a two-out-of-three (2⁄3) logic
per train per doghouse. The proposed
change will improve the overall
reliability of this function and will
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:23 Feb 23, 2009
Jkt 217001
reduce the potential for spurious
actuations.
Before issuance of the proposed
license amendments, 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:
Criterion 1:
Does the proposed amendment involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The doghouse water level instrumentation
is considered accident mitigation equipment.
As such, changes in the logic configuration
for this instrumentation cannot have an
impact on the probability of an accident.
The instrumentation will continue to
comply with all applicable regulatory
requirements and design criteria following
approval of the proposed changes (e.g., train
separation, redundancy, and single failure).
The instrumentation will actually be made
more reliable as a result of the proposed
modifications. Therefore, since the
instrumentation will continue to function as
designed, all plant parameters will remain
within their design limits. As a result, the
proposed changes will not increase the
consequences of an accident.
Based on this discussion, the proposed
amendments do not significantly increase the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
Criterion 2:
Does the proposed amendment create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed modification to the logic
configuration for the doghouse water level
instrumentation will result in it being better
enabled to fulfill its design function in
response to accident conditions. The
instrumentation will continue to meet its
seismic and equipment qualification
requirements. The proposed modifications do
not involve a change in the methods
governing normal plant operation. The
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
change does not alter assumptions made in
the safety analysis (this instrumentation is
not credited in the safety analysis).
Therefore, the proposed change does
not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any
previously evaluated.
Criterion 3:
Does the proposed amendment
involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
Margin of safety is related to the
confidence in the ability of the fission
product barriers to perform their
accident mitigation functions. These
barriers include the fuel and fuel
cladding, the reactor coolant system,
and the containment and containment
related systems. The proposed
modifications will not impact the
reliability of these barriers to function.
The proposed modifications will
actually enhance the reliability of the
doghouse water level instrumentation in
responding to a feedwater line break in
a doghouse. Radiological doses to plant
operators or to the public will not be
impacted as a result of the proposed
change. The affected instrumentation is
not credited in the UFSAR [Update
Final Safety Analysis Report] Chapter
15 accident analyses, nor is it
Maintenance Rule High Safety
significant.
Therefore, the proposed change does
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
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,
E:\FR\FM\24FEN1.SGM
24FEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 35 (Tuesday, February 24, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8273-8276]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-3896]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No 50-414; NRC-2009-0074]
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC; Notice of Consideration of Issuance
of Amendments 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 amendment to Facility Operating License No.
NPF-52 issued to Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (the licensee), for
operation of the Catawba Nuclear Station, Unit 2, located in York
County, South Carolina.
The proposed amendment requested to update the Leak-Before-Break
evaluation for Catawba Nuclear Station, Unit 2. This request is being
submitted in conjunction with Duke Energy Carolinas LLC's proposal to
apply full structural weld overlays to the reactor vessel hot leg
nozzle-to-safe end welds in the upcoming spring 2009 refueling outage.
Before issuance of the proposed license amendments, 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
[[Page 8274]]
its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration,
which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The applicable accident is a Large Break Loss of Coolant
Accident (LBLOCA). Since the application of FSWOLs [full structural
weld overlays] will enhance the integrity of the reactor coolant
system, the probability of a previously evaluated accident is not
increased. The consequences of a LBLOCA have been previously
evaluated and found to be acceptable. Application of FSWOLs to the
welds will cause no change to the dose analysis associated with a
LBLOCA, and therefore, does not affect the consequences.
For the above reasons, the proposed amendment does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment will allow application of FSWOLs to
mitigate potential PWSCC [Primary Water Stress Corrosion Cracking]
of the welds. These welds provide a primary pressure boundary
function. This amendment request does not change the function of the
welds, or the way the plant is operated; it allows the application
of FSWOLs that will enhance the ability of the welds to perform the
pressure boundary function. Therefore, the proposed amendment does
not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident
from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
Margin of safety is related to the ability of the fission
product barriers to perform their design functions during and
following accident conditions. These barriers include the fuel
cladding, the reactor coolant system, and the containment. This
amendment request does not involve a change to the fuel cladding or
the containment. This amendment request updates the LBB [Leak Before
Break] evaluation to account for the application of FSWOLs to the
reactor vessel hot leg nozzle-to-safe end welds for Catawba Unit 2.
The effect of applying a weld overlay repair has been evaluated
with respect to the LBB evaluation at this location. This evaluation
addresses mitigation of PWSCC in these welds. This evaluation allows
the application of a PWSCC resistant overlay that has the added
benefit of producing compressive stresses on the inner portion of
the welds. Crack growth evaluations performed as part of the
evaluation indicate that no PWSCC is expected after the application
of the overlay and fatigue crack growth is minimal. The effect of
the adverse morphology due to PWSCC cracking was also evaluated.
When considering the combined effects of flaw size, increased
thickness, and adverse morphology, the leakage was shown to be
largely unaffected due to the offsetting effects of these factors.
The evaluation described above shows that these welds will
perform as originally intended and that the adverse effects of PWSCC
will be mitigated. Therefore, the proposed amendment does 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
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result,
for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment
period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will
occur very infrequently.
Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rulemaking,
Directives and Editing Branch, TWB-05-B01M, 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. 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.
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any
person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a
request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to
issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license.
Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be
filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Rules of Practice for
Domestic Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested person(s)
should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at
the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File
Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide
Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic
Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, 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
[[Page 8275]]
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.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a
request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a
request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by
interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c),
must be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule, which the NRC
promulgated on August 28, 2007 (72 FR 49139). The E-Filing process
requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents
over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic
storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of their
filings unless they seek a waiver in accordance with the procedures
described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least
ten (10) days prior to the filing deadline, the petitioner/ requestor
must contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at
hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by calling (301) 415-1677, to request (1) a
digital ID certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or
representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal
server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and/or (2)
creation of an electronic docket for the proceeding (even in instances
in which the petitioner/requestor (or its counsel or representative)
already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Each petitioner/
requestor will need to download the Workplace Forms ViewerTM
to access the Electronic Information Exchange (EIE), a component of the
E-Filing system. The Workplace Forms ViewerTM is free and is
available at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/install-
viewer.html. Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is
available on NRC's public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-
submittals/apply-certificates.html.
Once a petitioner/requestor has obtained a digital ID certificate,
had a docket created, and downloaded the EIE viewer, it can then submit
a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions
should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC
guidance available on the NRC public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/
site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the
time the filer submits its documents through EIE. To be timely, an
electronic filing must be submitted to the EIE system no later than
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of a
transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends
the submitter an e-mail notice confirming receipt of the document. The
EIE system also distributes an e-mail notice that provides access to
the document to the NRC Office of the General Counsel and any others
who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the
documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for
and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition
to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document
via the E-Filing system.
A person filing electronically may seek assistance through the
``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/
site-help/e-submittals.html or by calling the NRC electronic filing
Help Desk, which is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time,
Monday through Friday excluding government holidays. The electronic
filing Help Desk can be contacted by telephone at 1-866-672-7640 or by
e-mail at MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov.
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not
submitting documents electronically must file a motion, in accordance
with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting
authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such
filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the
Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and
Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited
delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852,
Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a
document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all
other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail
as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the
provider of the service.
Non-timely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be
entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the presiding
officer of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition and/
or request should be granted and/or the contentions should be admitted,
based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-
(viii).
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
https://ehd.nrc.gov/ehd_proceeding/home.asp, unless excluded pursuant
to an order of the Commission, an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, or
a Presiding Officer. Participants are requested not to include personal
privacy information, such as social security numbers, home addresses,
or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or
other law requires submission of such information. With respect to
copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose
of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use
application, Participants are requested not to include copyrighted
materials in their submissions.
[[Page 8276]]
For further details with respect to this license amendment
application, see the application for amendment dated November 20, 2008,
which is available for public inspection at the Commission's PDR,
located at One White Flint North, File Public Area O1 F21, 11555
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available
records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room
on the Internet at the NRC Web site, 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.resource@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day of February 2009.
For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Robert Martin,
Acting Chief, Plant Licensing Branch II-1, Division of Operating
Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E9-3896 Filed 2-23-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P