South Carolina Electric & Gas Co.; South Carolina Public Service Authority; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-395]

South Carolina Electric & Gas Co.; South Carolina Public Service

Authority; 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.

50-395 issued to South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (the licensee)

for operation of the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1,

located in Fairfield County, South Carolina.

The proposed amendment would relocate the Seismic Monitoring

Instrumentation (SMI) Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO),

Surveillance Requirements (SRs), and associated tables and bases

contained in Technical Specifications (TS) section 3/4.3.3.3 to the

Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) or an equivalent controlled

document. The change would also delete the requirement for a special

report when a seismic instrument is inoperable for more than 30 days.

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 10 CFR 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. The proposed Technical Specification (TS) change does not

involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an

accident previously evaluated.

The function of the SMI system is to record the motion and effect

of a seismic event. SMI can not initiate or mitigate a previously

evaluated accident. Furthermore, the proposed TS change to relocate the

SMI requirements from TS to the FSAR or equivalent controlled document

is in accordance with the criteria (specifically Criterion 1) for

determining those requirements that may be relocated from TS as defined

by the NRC in its policy statement, ``Final Policy Statement on

Technical Specification Improvements for Nuclear Power Reactors,''

dated July 22, 1993. The SMI LCO, SRs, and associated tables and bases

proposed for relocation from TS will continue to be implemented by

administrative controls that will satisfy the requirements of TS

section 6 ``Administrative Controls.'' These requirements include a

review of changes to plant systems and equipment and to the applicable

administrative controls in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59.

Criterion 2 of the July 22, 1993, NRC policy statement states, ``A

process variable, design feature, or operating restriction that is an

initial condition of a Design Basis Accident or Transient analysis that

either assumes the failure of or presents a challenge to the integrity

of a fission product barrier.'' The SMI system does not monitor a

process variable that is an initial condition for accident or transient

analysis. Also, the SMI is not a design feature or an operating

restriction that is an initial condition since it only provides

information regarding the motion of and the plant structure/equipment

response to an earthquake. Therefore, the current VCSNS SMI TS

requirements do not meet Criterion 2 of the July 22, 1993, NRC policy

statement.

Criterion 3 of the NRC policy statement states, ``A structure,

system, or component that is part of the primary success path and which

functions or actuates to mitigate a Design Basis Accident or Transient

that either assumes the failure of or presents a challenge to the

integrity of a fission product barrier.'' The VCSNS SMI system does not

function or actuate in order to mitigate the consequences of a Design

Basis Accident or Transient. Therefore, the current VCSNS SMI TS

requirements do not meet Criterion 3 of the July 22, 1993, NRC policy

statement.

Criterion 4 of the NRC policy statement states, ``A structure,

system, or component which operating experience or probabilistic safety

assessment has shown to be significant to public health and safety.''

Operating experience has shown that the VCSNS SMI system has no impact

on public health and safety as defined by the NRC policy statement.

Furthermore, VCSNS specific probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) does

not credit the SMI system as a part of the plant response to an

accident. Therefore, the current VCSNS SMI TS requirements do not meet

Criterion 4 of the July 22, 1993, NRC policy statement for determining

those requirements that should remain in TS.

The proposed TS change will maintain the current operation,

maintenance, testing, and system operability controls for the SMI

system. Furthermore, any future changes to the SMI system will be

evaluated for the effect of those changes on system reliability and

function as required by 10 CFR 50.59. The SMI system performance will

not decrease due to the proposed TS change and the system will continue

to be administratively controlled in accordance with TS section 6

(including the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59) thereby precluding a

future decrease in SMI system performance/requirements.

The current TS Section 3.3.3.3, does not require plant shutdown if

any SMI is inoperable and the provisions of TS Section 3.0.3 (i.e.

plant shutdown) are not applicable. Therefore, the inoperability of

this system and the consequences of an accident while this system is

inoperable, were previously considered as not significant enough to

require a change to the plant operating conditions.

Since the SMI system does not meet the criteria for instrumentation

required in TS and since it will continue to be administratively

controlled (including the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59), the proposed

TS change will not involve an increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

2. The proposed TS change does not create the possibility of a new

and different kind of accident previously evaluated.

The function of the SMI system is to record the motion and effect

of a seismic event. The proposed TS change to relocate the SMI

requirements from TS to the FSAR or equivalent controlled document is

in accordance with the criteria for determining TS candidates for

relocation as defined by the NRC in the policy statement, dated July

22, 1993. The SMI system does not monitor a process variable that is an

initial condition for an accident or transient analysis. The SMI is

also not a design feature or an operating restriction that is an

initial condition of a Design Basis Accident or Transient analysis

since it only provides information regarding the motion of and the

plant structure/equipment response to an earthquake.

The proposed TS change to relocate the TS requirements will not

alter the operation of the plant, or the manner in which the SMI system

will perform its function. Any future changes will continue to be

administratively controlled in accordance with TS section 6, including

the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59.

The proposed TS change will not impose new conditions or result in

new types of equipment malfunctions which have not been previously

evaluated. Therefore, the proposed TS change does not create the

possibility of a new or different type of accident from any accident

previously evaluated.

3. The proposed TS change does not involve a significant reduction

in a margin of safety.

The proposed TS change to relocate the SMI requirements from TS is

in accordance with the criteria for determining TS candidates for

relocation as defined by the NRC in its policy statement, dated July

22, 1993.

Criterion 1 of the NRC final policy statement states, ``Installed

instrumentation that is used to detect, and indicate in the control

room, a significant abnormal degradation of the reactor coolant

pressure boundary.'' The NRC policy statement explains that ``. . .

This criterion is intended to ensure that Technical Specifications

control those instruments specifically installed to detect excessive

reactor coolant leakage. This criterion should not, however, be

interpreted to include instrumentation to detect precursors to reactor

coolant pressure boundary leakage or instrumentation to identify the

source of actual leakage (e.g. loose parts monitor, seismic

instrumentation, valve position indicators).'' Based on this NRC

guidance, the VCSNS FSAR, and TS bases 3/4.3.3.3, the SMI does not

``detect and indicate in the control room, a significant abnormal

degradation of the reactor coolant pressure boundary.'' Therefore, the

current VCSNS SMI TS requirements do not meet Criterion 1. Operating

experience has shown that the VCSNS SMI system has no impact on public

health and safety as defined by the NRC policy statement. In addition,

the VCSNS PRA does not credit the SMI system as a part of the plant

response to accidents.

The SMI LCO, SRs, and associated tables and bases proposed for

relocation to the FSAR or equivalent controlled document will continue

to be covered by administrative controls that will satisfy the

requirements of TS section 6 ``Administrative Controls.'' Those

requirements include a review of future changes to the system and

applicable administrative controls in accordance with the provisions of

10 CFR 50.59.

Accordingly, based on NRC specific guidance, operating experience,

and continued imposition of administrative controls, the proposed TS

change does not involve a 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 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 amendment before the expiration of

the 30-day notice period, provided that its final determination is that

the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. The final

determination will consider all public and State comment 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, MD, 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 Gelman Building, 2120 L Street NW., Washington, DC 20555.

The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to

intervene is discussed below.

By December 8, 1994, 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 2.714 which is

available at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman

Building, 2120 L Street NW., Washington, DC 20555 and at the local

public document room located at Fairfield County Library, Garden and

Washington Streets, Winnsboro, South Carolina 29180. 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 expalin 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 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 who fails to file such a

supplement which satisfies these requirements with respect to 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 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.

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 20555, 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 William H. Bateman: 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 Randolph R. Mahan, attorney for the licensee, South Carolina

Electric & Gas Company, Post Office Box 764, Columbia, South Carolina

29218.

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)(l)(i)-(v) and 2.714(d).

For further details with respect to this action, see the

application for amendment dated October 17, 1994, which is available

for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the

Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20555 and at the

local public document room located at Fairfield County Library, Garden

and Washington Streets, Winnsboro, South Carolina 29180.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day of November, 1994.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

George F. Wunder,

Project Manager, Project Directorate II-I, Division of Reactor

Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 94-27610 Filed 11-7-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-M