50630 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 187 / Friday, September 26, 1997 / Notices

Board will issue a notice of hearing or

an appropriate order.

As required by 10 CFR 2.714, a

petition for leave to intervene shall set

forth with particularity the interest of

the petitioner in the proceeding, and

how that interest may be affected by the

results of the proceeding. The petition

should specifically explain the reasons

why intervention should be permitted

with particular reference to the

following factors: (1) The nature of the

petitioner’s right under the Act to be

made party to the proceeding; (2) the

nature and extent of the petitioner’s

property, financial, or other interest in

the proceeding; and (3) the possible

effect of any order which may be

entered in the proceeding on the

petitioner’s interest. The petition should

also identify the specific aspect(s) of the

subject matter of the proceeding as to

which petitioner wishes to intervene.

Any person who has filed a petition for

leave to intervene or who has been

admitted as a party may amend the

petition without requesting leave of the

Board up to 15 days prior to the first

prehearing conference scheduled in the

proceeding, but such an amended

petition must satisfy the specificity

requirements described above.

Not later than 15 days prior to the first

prehearing conference scheduled in the

proceeding, a petitioner shall file a

supplement to the petition to intervene

which must include a list of the

contentions which are sought to be

litigated in the matter. Each contention

must consist of a specific statement of

the issue of law or fact to be raised or

controverted. In addition, the petitioner

shall provide a brief explanation of the

bases of 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 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. Petitioner

must provide 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 transfer

approval or amendment under

consideration. The contention must be

one which, if proven, would entitle the

petitioner to relief. A petitioner who

fails to file such a supplement which

satisfies these requirements with respect

to at least one contention will not be

permitted to participate as party.

Those permitted to intervene become

parties to the proceeding, subject to any

limitations in the order granting leave to

intervene, and have the opportunity to

participate fully in the conduct of the

hearing, including the opportunity to

present evidence and cross examine

witnesses.

If a hearing is requested with respect

to the proposed amendment, 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 a 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 such amendment.

A request for a hearing or a petition

for leave to intervene must be filed with

the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention:

Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, or

may be delivered to the Commission’s

Public Document Room, the Gelman

Building, 2120 L Street, NW.,

Washington, DC, by the above date. A

copy of the petition should also be sent

to the Office of the General Counsel,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001, and to

Lisa A. Campagna, Assistant General

Counsel, Law Department,

Westinghouse Electric Corporation, P.0.

Box 355, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

15230, attorney for the licensee.

Nontimely filings of petitions for

leave to intervene, amended petitions,

supplemental petitions and/or requests

for hearing will not be entertained

absent a determination by the

Commission, the presiding officer or the

presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing

Board that the petition and/or request

should be granted based upon a

balancing of the factors specified in 10

CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i)–(v) and 2.714(d).

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application dated August

18, 1997, regarding the transfer of

license and amendment, and the letter

dated August 15, 1997, from the

licensee which are available for public

inspection at the Commission’s Public

Document Room, the Gelman Building,

2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day

of September 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Seymour H. Weiss,

Director, Non-Power Reactors and

Decommissioning Project Directorate,

Division of Reactor Program Management,

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–25629 Filed 9–25–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Docket No. 50–390

Tennessee Valley Authority; Watts Bar

Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, Environmental

Assessment and Finding of No

Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of an exemption

from certain requirements of its

regulations for amendment to Facility

Operating License No. NPF–90, issued

to Tennessee Valley Authority, (TVA),

for operation of the Watts Bar Nuclear

Plant (WBN), Unit 1, located in Rhea

County, Tennessee.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of Proposed Action

The proposed action would allow the

licensee to utilize the American Society

of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and

Pressure Vessel Code (ASME Code) Case

N–514, ‘‘Low Temperature Overpressure

Protection’’ to determine its low

temperature overpressure protection

(LTOP) setpoints and is in accordance

with the licensee’s application for

exemption dated June 20, 1997. The

proposed action requests an exemption

from certain requirements of 10 CFR

50.60, ‘‘Acceptance Criteria for Fracture

Prevention Measures for Lightwater

Nuclear Power Reactors for Normal

Operation,’’ to allow application of an

alternate methodology to determine the

LTOP setpoints for the Watts Bar

Nuclear Plant.

Appendix G of the ASME Code

requires that the P/T limits be

calculated: (a) Using a safety factor of

two on the principal membrane

(pressure) stresses, (b) assuming a flaw

at the surface with a depth of one

quarter (1⁄4) of the vessel wall thickness

and a length of six (6) times its depth,

and (c) using a conservative fracture

toughness curve that is based on the

lower bound of static, dynamic, and

crack arrest fracture toughness tests on

material similar to the Watts Bar reactor

vessel material.

In determining the PORV setpoint for

LTOP events, the licensee proposed the

use of safety margins based on an
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 187 / Friday, September 26, 1997 / Notices 50631

alternate methodology consistent with

the proposed ASME Code Case N–514

guidelines. ASME Code Case N–514

allows determination of the setpoint for

LTOP events such that the maximum

pressure in the vessel will not exceed

110% of the P/T limits of the existing

ASME Appendix G. This results in a

safety factor of 1.8 on the principal

membrane stresses. All other factors,

including assumed flaw size and

fracture toughness, remain the same.

Although this methodology would

reduce the safety factor on the principal

membrane stresses, use of the proposed

criteria will provide adequate margins

of safety to the reactor vessel during

LTOP transients.

The proposed alternate to the

methodology of Appendix G is

consistent with guidelines developed by

the ASME Working Group on Operating

Plant Criteria (WGOPC) to define

pressure limits during LTOP events that

avoid certain unnecessary operational

restrictions, provide adequate margins

against failure of the reactor pressure

vessel, and reduce the potential for

unnecessary activation of pressure

relieving devices used for LTOP. These

guidelines have been incorporated into

Code Case N–514, ‘‘Low Temperature

Overpressure Protection,’’ which has

been incorporated into Appendix G of

Section XI of the ASME Code and

published in the 1993 Addenda to

Section XI. However, 10 CFR 50.55a,

‘‘Codes and Standards,’’ and Regulatory

Guide 1.147, ‘‘Inservice Inspection Code

Case Acceptability’’ have not been

updated to reflect the acceptability of

Code Case N–514.

The philosophy used to develop Code

Case N–514 guidelines is to ensure that

the LTOP limits are still below the

pressure/temperature (P/T) limits for

normal operation, but allow the

pressure that may occur with activation

of pressure relieving devices to exceed

the P/T limits, provided acceptable

margins are maintained during these

events. This philosophy protects the

pressure vessel from LTOP events, and

still maintains the Technical

Specifications P/T limits applicable for

normal heatup and cooldown in

accordance with 10 CFR Part 50,

Appendix G and Sections III and XI of

the ASME Code.

The Need for the Proposed Action

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.60, all

lightwater nuclear power reactors must

meet the fracture toughness

requirements for the reactor coolant

pressure boundary as set forth in 10 CFR

Part 50, Appendix G. Appendix G of 10

CFR Part 50 defines P/T limits during

any condition of normal operation

including anticipated operational

occurrences and system hydrostatic

tests, to which the pressure boundary

may be subjected over its service

lifetime. It is specified in 10 CFR

50.60(b) that alternatives to the

described requirements in 10 CFR Part

50, Appendix G, may be used when an

exemption is granted by the

Commission under 10 CFR 50.12.

To prevent transients that would

produce excursions exceeding the 10

CFR Part 50, Appendix G, P/T limits

while the reactor is operating at low

temperatures, the licensee installed an

LTOP system. The LTOP system

includes pressure relieving devices in

the form of power-operated relief valves

(PORVs) that are set at a pressure below

the LTOP enabling temperature that

would prevent the pressure in the

reactor vessel from exceeding the P/T

limits of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G.

To prevent these valves from lifting as

a result of normal operating pressure

surges (e.g., reactor coolant pump (RCP)

starting and shifting operating charging

pumps) with the reactor coolant system

in a solid water condition, the operating

pressure must be maintained below the

PORV setpoint.

In addition, to prevent damage to RCP

seals, the operator must maintain a

minimum differential pressure across

the RCP seals. Hence, the licensee must

operate the plant in a pressure window

that is defined as the difference between

the minimum required pressure to start

an RCP and the operating margin to

prevent lifting of the PORVs due to

normal operating pressure surges. 10

CFR Part 50, Appendix G, safety margin

adds instrument uncertainty in the

LTOP setpoint. The licensee’s current

LTOP analysis indicates that using this

10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G, safety

margin to determine the PORV setpoint

would result in an operating window

between the LTOP setpoint and the

minimum pressure required for RCP

seals which is significantly restricted

when physical conditions such as PORV

overshoot, RCP Delta Ps, and static head

corrections are taken into account in

setpoint determination. Operating with

these limits could result in the lifting of

the PORVs or damage to the RCP seals

during normal operation. Using Code

Case N–514 would allow the licensee to

recapture most of the operating margin

that is lost by factoring in the

instrument uncertainties in the

determination of the LTOP setpoint. The

net effect of using Code Case N–514 is

that the setpoint will not change

significantly with the next setpoint

analysis. Therefore, the licensee

proposed that in determining the

setpoint for LTOP events for Watts Bar,

the allowable pressure be determined

using the safety margins developed in

an alternate methodology in lieu of the

safety margins required by 10 CFR Part

50, Appendix G. The alternate

methodology is consistent with the

ASME Code Case N–514. The content of

this Code Case had been incorporated

into Appendix G of Section XI of the

ASME Code and published in the 1993

Addenda to Section XI.

An exemption from 10 CFR 50.60 is

required to use the alternate

methodology for calculating the

maximum allowable pressure for LTOP

considerations. By application dated

June 20, 1997, the licensee requested an

exemption from 10 CFR 50.60 to allow

it to utilize the alternate methodology of

Code Case N–514 to compute its LTOP

setpoints.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The proposed action will not increase

the probability or consequences of

accidents, no changes are being made in

the types of any effluents that may be

released offsite, and there is no

significant increase in the allowable

individual or cumulative occupational

radiation exposure. Accordingly, the

Commission concludes that there are no

significant radiological environmental

impacts associated with the proposed

action.

With regard to potential

nonradiological impacts, the proposed

action involves features located entirely

within the restricted area, as defined in

10 CFR Part 20. It does not affect

nonradiological plant effluents and has

no other environmental impact.

Accordingly, the Commission concludes

that there are no significant

nonradiological environmental impacts

associated with the proposed action.

Accordingly, the Commission

concludes that there is no significant

environmental impact associated with

this action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

Since the Commission has concluded

there is no significant environmental

impact associated with the proposed

action, any alternatives with equal or

greater environmental impact need not

be evaluated. As an alternative to the

proposed action, the staff considered

denial of the proposed action. Denial of

the application would result in no

change in current environmental

impacts. The environmental impacts of

the proposed action and the alternative

action are similar.
50632 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 187 / Friday, September 26, 1997 / Notices

1 In his e-mail dated March 26, 1997,

supplementing his Petition, the Petitioner also

requested removal of ‘‘all spent fuel out of the

southern California seismic zone.’’

2By letter dated June 26, 1997, the NRC staff

advised the Petitioner that his e-mail dated April

25, 1997, concerning the ability of the SONGS

steam generators to withstand a major seismic

event, would be treated as a separate 10 CFR 2.206

Petition.

3See 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, Criterion 2 and

10 CFR 50.34(a)(1)(i); see also 10 CFR Part 100,

Appendix A, V.(a) which provides, in part, that

‘‘the design of each nuclear power plant shall take

into account the potential effects of vibratory

ground motion caused by earthquakes.’’ The

investigative obligations of 10 CFR Part 100,

Appendix A, which are only imposed explicitly on

applicants for construction permits, were effective

December 13, 1973 (38 FR 31279, November 13,

1973). The Licensing Board issued its decision

regarding the SONGS Units 2 and 3 construction

permits on October 15, 1973. However, the SONGS

site was reviewed against the Appendix A criteria

during the construction permit licensing review

which was updated at the operating license review

stage.

4The SSE is defined, in part, as ‘‘that earthquake

which is based upon an evaluation of the maximum

earthquake potential considering the regional and

local geology and seismology and specific

characteristics of local subsurface material. It is that

earthquake which produces the maximum vibratory

ground motion for which certain structures,

systems, and components are designed to remain

functional.’’ See 10 CFR Part 100, Appendix A.

III.(c).

Alternative Use of Resources

This action does not involve the use

of any resources not previously

considered in the Final Environmental

Statement, Supplement No 1, for WBN

Units 1 and 2, dated April 1995.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on August 21, 1997 the staff consulted

with the Tennessee State official, Mr. J.

Graves of the Division of Radiological

Health, regarding the environmental

impact of the proposed action. The State

official had no comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

Based upon this environmental

assessment, the Commission concludes

that the proposed action will not have

a significant effect on the quality of the

human environment. Accordingly, the

Commission has determined not to

prepare an environmental impact

statement for the proposed action.

For further details with respect to the

proposed action, see the licensee’s letter

dated June 20, 1997, which is available

for public inspection at the

Commission’s Public Document Room,

the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street,

NW., Washington, DC, and at the local

public document room located at the

Chattanooga-Hamilton County Library,

1001 Broad Street, Chattanooga,

Tennessee.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd

day of September 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Frederick J. Hebdon,

Director, Project Directorate II–3, Division of

Reactor Projects—I/II.

[FR Doc. 97–25631 Filed 9–25–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–361 and 50–362]

Southern California Edison Company,

Et Al., San Onofre Nuclear Generating

Station, Units 2 and 3; Issuance of

Director’s Decision Under 10 CFR

2.206

Notice is hereby given that the

Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation, has acted on a Petition for

action under 10 CFR 2.206 received

from Mr. Stephen Dwyer dated

September 22, 1996, as supplemented

by letter dated December 10, 1996, two

e-mails of March 26, 1997, and an email of May 28, 1997, for the San Onofre

Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS),

Units 2 and 3.

The Petition requests that the

Commission shut down the San Onofre

Nuclear Generating Station pending a

complete review of the ‘‘new seismic

risk.’’ As a basis for the request, the

Petitioner asserts that a design criterion

for the plant, which was ‘‘0.75 G’s

acceleration,’’ is ‘‘fatally flawed’’ on the

basis of the new information gathered at

the Landers and Northridge quakes. The

Petitioner asserts (1) that the

accelerations recorded at Northridge

exceeded ‘‘1.8 G’s and it was only a

Richter 7+ quake,’’ (2) that there were

horizontal offsets of up to 20 feet in the

Landers quake, and (3) that the

Northridge fault was a ‘‘Blind Thrust

and not mapped or assessed.’’

The Director of the Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation has determined that

the request should be denied for the

reasons stated in the ‘‘Director’s

Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206’’ (DD–97–

23), the complete text of which follows

this notice and which is available for

public inspection at the Commission’s

Public Document Room, the Gelman

Building, 2120 L Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20555, and at the

Local Public Document Room located at

the Main Library, University of

California, P. O. Box 19557, Irvine,

California 92713.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day

of September 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Samuel J. Collins,

Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

Director’s Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206

I. Introduction

By Petition dated September 22, 1996,

Stephen Dwyer (Petitioner) requested

that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC) take action with regard to San

Onofre Nuclear Generating Station

(SONGS). The Petitioner requested that

the NRC shut down the SONGS facility

‘‘as soon as possible’’ pending a

complete review of the ‘‘new seismic

risk.’’ 1 The Petitioner asserted as a basis

for this request that a design criterion

for the plant, which was ‘‘0.75 G’s

acceleration,’’ is ‘‘fatally flawed’’ on the

basis of new information gathered at the

Landers and Northridge earthquakes.

The Petitioner asserted (1) That the

accelerations recorded at Northridge

exceeded ‘‘1.8G’s and it was only a

Richter 7+ quake,’’ (2) that there were

horizontal offsets of up to 20 feet in the

Landers quake, and (3) that the

Northridge fault was a ‘‘Blind Thrust

and not mapped or assessed.’’ On

November 22, 1996, the NRC staff

acknowledged receipt of the Petition as

a request pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 and

informed the Petitioner that there was

insufficient evidence to conclude that

the requested immediate action was

warranted. Notice of the receipt of the

Petition indicating that a final decision

with respect to the requested action

would be forthcoming at a later date was

published in the Federal Register on

November 29, 1996 (61 FR 60734).

The Petitioner provided supplemental

information in support of his Petition in

a letter dated December 10, 1996, two emails dated March 26, 1997, and an email dated May 28, 1997.2 My Decision

in this matter follows.

II. Discussion

A. Regulatory Requirements Associated

With Potential Earthquake Motion and

the Licensing Basis for SONGS

The design bases for each nuclear

power plant must take into account the

potential effects of earthquake ground

motion.3 The seismic design basis,

called the safe-shutdown earthquake

(SSE), defines the maximum ground

motion that certain structures, systems,

and components necessary for safe

shutdown are designed to withstand.4

SONGS Units 2 and 3 seismic design

basis is consistent with the siting

criteria set forth in Title 10 of the Code

of Federal Regulations, Part 100,

Appendix A, ‘‘Seismic and Geologic

Siting Criteria for Nuclear Power

Plants.’’ Appendix A describes the

nature of the investigations required to