22590 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Notices

[Docket Nos. 50–369 and 50–370]

Duke Power Company; Notice of

Consideration of Issuance of

Amendments to Facility Operating

Licenses, 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 Nos. NPF–9

and NPF–17 issued to Duke Power

Company (the licensee) for operation of

the McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1

and 2, located in Mecklenburg County,

North Carolina.

The proposed amendments would

revise the Technical Specifications (TS)

to (1) change the surveillance

requirement for boron concentration in

the spent fuel pool (SFP) from once per

31 days to once per 7 days in

consistency with the Standard

Technical Specifications, (2) remove the

option to use alternate storage

configurations in the SFP and replace it

with footnotes to allow specific analysis

on alternate fuel types, (3) add

information contained in the Bases to

the footnotes to Figures 3.9–1 to 3.9–3

of Specification 3/4.9.13, and (4) change

the Bases to discuss the option to use

specific analyses on alternate fuel.

The licensee’s request of June 13,

1994, as supplemented August 15, 1994,

March 23 and April 18, 1995, was

previously noticed in the Federal

Register on February 15, 1995 (60 FR

8746). The additional information

provided in letters dated August 15,

1994, and April 18, 1995, did not

modify the licensee’s initial no

significant hazards determination

analysis. However, the additional

information provided in the March 23,

1995, submittal was new information

that did modify the licensee’s initial no

significant hazards determination

analysis. This new information is being

noticed for public comment.

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

licensee request involves no significant

hazards consideration. Under the

Commission’s regulations in 10 CFR

50.92, this means that operation of the

facility in accordance with the proposed

amendments would not (1) involve a

significant increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of

a new or different kind of accident from

any accident previously evaluated; or

(3) involve a significant reduction in a

margin of safety. 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. The proposed changes do not involve a

significant increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated.

There is no increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident in the new fuel

vault since the only credible accidents for

this area are criticality accidents and it has

been shown that calculated, worst case Keff

for this area is [less than or equal to] 0.95 for

fully flooded conditions and Keff [less than or

equal to] 0.98 under optimum moderation

conditions. This is in accordance with

current licensing criteria. Likewise, there is

no increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident in the Spent

Fuel Pool since, for criticality accidents,

analyses have shown that Keff [less than or

equal to] 0.95 under all conditions is being

maintained.

There is also no increase in the probability

or consequences of a fuel drop accident in

the Spent Fuel Storage Pool. Since the mass

of an assembly will not be affected by the

increase in fuel enrichment, the probability

of an accident is not increased, and since the

fission product inventory of individual fuel

assemblies will not change significantly as a

result of increased enrichment, the

consequences of a fuel rupture accident

remain unchanged.

The likelihood of other accidents,

previously evaluated and described in

Section 9.1.2 of the FSAR [Final Safety

Analysis Report], is also not affected by the

proposed changes. In fact, it could be

postulated that since the increase in fuel

enrichment will allow for extended fuel

cycles, there will be a decrease in fuel

movement and the probability of an accident

may likewise be decreased.

2. The proposed changes do not create the

possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from any accident previously

evaluated.

The proposed changes do not create the

possibility of a new or different kind of

accident since fuel handling accidents (fuel

drop and misplacement) are not new or

different kinds of accidents. Fuel handling

accidents are already discussed in the FSAR

for fuel with enrichments up to 4.0 weight %.

* * * [A]dditional analyses have been

performed for fuel with enrichment up to

5.00 weight %. Worst case misloading

accidents associated with the new loading

patterns were evaluated. It was shown that

the negative reactivity provided by soluble

boron maintains keff [less than or equal to]

0.95 under all conditions.

3. The proposed changes do not involve a

significant reduction in the margin of safety.

The proposed [changes do] not involve a

significant reduction in the margin of safety

since, a keff [less than or equal to] 0.95 is

being maintained for fully flooded conditions

and keff [less than or equal to] 0.98 under

optimum moderation conditions. The

specification of keff [less than or equal to]

0.98, for optimum moderation conditions in

the new fuel vault, is an addition to the

existing specification requirements of keff

[less than or equal to] 0.95 for fully flooded

conditions. Although previous analyses have

been performed to demonstrate that this

requirement could be met, there was no

licensing requirement to do so. Addition of

this specification brings the specification

more in line with current STS [standard

technical specification] requirements and, in

fact, may increase the margin of safety since,

compliance with this requirement was not

previously required.

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 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 amendments until the

expiration of the 30-day notice period.

However, should circumstances change

during the notice period such that

failure to act in a timely way would

result, for example, in derating or

shutdown of the facility, the

Commission may issue the license

amendments before the expiration of the

30-day notice period, provided that its

final determination is that the

amendments involve no significant

hazards consideration. The final

determination will consider all public

and State comments received. Should

the Commission take this action, it will

publish in the Federal Register a notice

of issuance and provide for opportunity

for a hearing after issuance. The

Commission expects that the need to

take this action will occur very

infrequently.

Written comments may be submitted

by mail to the Rules Review and

Directives Branch, Division of Freedom

of Information and Publications

Services, Office of Administration, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555, and should cite

the publication date and page number of

this Federal Register notice. Written

comments may also be delivered to

Room 6D22, Two White Flint North,

11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville,

Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m.

Federal workdays. Copies of written

comments received may be examined at

the NRC Public Document Room, the
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Notices 22591

Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW.,

Washington, DC.

The filing of requests of hearing and

petitions for leave to intervene is

discussed below.

By June 7, 1995, the licensee may file

a request for a hearing with respect to

issuance of the amendments to the

subject facility operating licenses and

any person whose interest may be

affected by this proceeding and 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 Practices for

Domestic Licensing Proceedings’’ in 10

CFR part 2. Interested persons should

consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.714

which is available 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 Atkins

Library, University of North Carolina,

Charlotte (UNCC Station), North

Carolina. If a request for a hearing or

petition for leave to intervene is filed by

the above date, the Commission or an

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board,

designated by the Commission or by the

Chairman of the Atomic Safety and

Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the

request and/or petition; and the

Secretary or the designated Atomic

Safety and Licensing Board 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 specific

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

amendments 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 a party.

Those permitted to intervene become

parties to the proceeding, subject to any

limitations in the order granting leave to

intervene, and have the opportunity to

participate fully in the conduct of the

hearing, including the opportunity to

present evidence and cross-examine

witnesses.

If a hearing is requested, the

Commission will make a final

determination on the issue of no

significant hazards consideration. The

final determination will serve to decide

when the hearing is held.

If the final determination is that the

request involves no significant hazards

consideration, the Commission may

issue the amendments and make them

immediately effective, notwithstanding

the request for a hearing. Any hearing

held would take place after issuance of

the amendments.

If the final determination is that the

request involves a significant hazards

consideration, any hearing held would

take place before the issuance of any

amendments.

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, Attention:

Docketing and Services Branch, or may

be delivered to the Commission’s Public

Document Room, the Gelman Building,

2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, by

the above date. Where petitions are filed

during the last 10 days of the notice

period, it is requested that the petitioner

promptly so inform the Commission by

a toll-free telephone call to Western

Union at 1–(800) 248–5100 (in Missouri

1–(800) 342–6700). The Western Union

operator should be given Datagram

Identification Number N1023 and the

following message addressed to Herbert

N. Berkow: petitioner’s name and

telephone number, date petition was

mailed, plant name, and publication

date and page number of this Federal

Register notice. A copy of the petition

should also be sent to the Office of the

General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555, and to Mr. Albert Carr, Duke

Power Company, 422 South Church

Street, Charlotte, North Carolina 28242,

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 for

amendments dated June 13, 1994, as

supplemented by letters dated August

15, 1994, March 23 and April 18, 1995,

which are 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 Atkins Library, University

of North Carolina, Charlotte (UNCC

Station), North Carolina.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day

of May 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Victor Nerses,

Project Manager, Project Directorate II–2,

Division of Reactor Projects—I/II, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–11220 Filed 5–5–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M