[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 116 (Wednesday, June 17, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33097-33099]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16019]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-269 and 50-287]
Duke Energy Corporation; 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.
DPR-38 and DPR-55, issued to the Duke Energy Corporation (the
licensee), for operation of the Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 3,
respectively, located in Seneca, South Carolina.
If approved, the proposed amendments would amend the Oconee Nuclear
Station, Units 1 and 3 Technical Specifications (TS) to allow continued
operation with certain steam generator tubes that exceed their repair
limit as a result of tube end anomalies (TEAs). These tubes would be
temporarily exempt from the requirement for sleeving, rerolling, or
removal from service until repaired during the next scheduled refueling
outages for the respective unit or plant conditions that result in an
extended cold shutdown of greater than 7 days.
Oconee TS Section 4.17.2, Steam Generator Tubing Surveillance
Acceptance Criteria, requires that the steam generators be operable and
all tubes that are examined and found to exceed their repair criteria
be repaired by sleeving or rerolling, or removed from service. During
the recent Unit 2 refueling outage, several indications of TEAs were
found and repaired. As a result, a detailed reanalysis of the Unit 1
and 3 steam generator tube surveillance data that was obtained during
the previous refueling outages for each unit was conducted. This
reanalysis determined that 372
[[Page 33098]]
indications out of 2951 TEAs not previously repaired for Unit I and 61
out of 66 TEAs not previously repaired on Unit 3 extended beyond the
upper surface of the tubesheet clad. These indications, if they had
been found during the respective refueling outages, would have met the
criteria for repair during the outage.
When these findings were discussed with the staff on June 3, 1998,
a Notice of Enforcement Discretion was issued verbally on June 3, 1998,
to exercise discretion not to enforce compliance with TS 4.17.2 for the
Unit 1 and Unit 3 steam generator tubes that exceed the repair limit as
a result of TEAs for the period from 12:25 p.m. on June 3, 1998, until
issuance of the related amendments. The request for license amendments
was submitted by letter dated June 4, 1998. Since the proposed
amendments are designed to complete the review process and implement
the proposed TS changes, pursuant to the NRC's policy regarding
exercising discretion for an operating facility set out in Section
VII.c of the ``General Statement of Policy and Procedures for NRC
Enforcement Actions'' (Enforcement Policy), NUREG-1600, and be
effective for the period until the issuance of the related TS
amendments, these circumstances require that the amendments be
processed under exigent circumstances.
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.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6) for amendments to be granted under
exigent circumstances, the NRC staff must determine 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 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:
[This proposed change has been evaluated against the standards in 10
CFR 50.92 and has been determined to involve no significant hazards,
in 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:
This evaluation addresses the potential effects of a missed
surveillance and repair opportunity for steam generator tubes. As
described in the technical justification, operating with some steam
generator tubes with TEAs and repairable indications in Units 1 and
3 does not increase the probability of an accident evaluated in the
SAR [Safety Analysis Report] because this condition is not an
accident initiator. There is no physical change to the plant SSCs
[structures, systems, components] or operating procedures. Neither
electrical power systems, nor important to safety mechanical SSCs
will be adversely affected. The steam generators have been evaluated
as operable for normal and accident conditions. There are no
shutdown margin, reactivity management, or fuel integrity concerns.
This activity will not adversely affect the ability to mitigate
any SAR described accidents. The total evaluated main steam line
break leakage from the areas evaluated is 0.023 gpm [gallons per
minute] for Unit 1 which is the limiting unit. The resulting leakage
was considerably less than that assumed in the off site dose
analysis of 0.7 gpm for each unit. Therefore both Units 1 and 3 met
the MSLB [Main Steamline Break] leakage requirements for steam
generator integrity with no compensatory actions required. There is
no adverse impact on containment integrity, radiological release
pathways, fuel design, filtration systems, main steam relief valve
setpoints, or radwaste systems.
There is no increase in accident initiation likelihood or
consequences, therefore analyzed accident scenarios are not
impacted.
2. Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident
from any kind of accident previously evaluated:
There is no increased risk of unit trip, or challenge to the RPS
[Reactor Protection System] or other safety systems. There is no
physical effect on the plant, i.e., none on RCS [Reactor Coolant
System] temperature, boron concentration, control rod manipulations,
core configuration changes, and no impact on nuclear
instrumentation. There is no increased risk of a reactivity
excursion. No new failure modes or credible accident scenarios are
postulated from this activity. The MSLB scenario has been evaluated
and the potential for damage to the steam generator tubes is not
increased.
3. Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety[:]
No function of any important to safety SSC will be adversely
affected or degraded as a result of continued operation. No safety
parameters, setpoints, or design limits are changed. There is no
adverse impact to the nuclear fuel, cladding, RCS, or required
containment systems. Therefore, the margins of safety as defined in
the bases to any Technical Specifications are not reduced as a
result of this change.
Duke [Duke Energy Corporation] has concluded, based on the
above, that there are no significant hazards considerations involved
in this amendment request.
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 14 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 14-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 14-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. The Commission expects that
the need to take this action will occur very infrequently.
Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rules and
Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page number of
this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also be delivered to
Room 6D59, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. Copies of
written comments received may be examined at the NRC Public Document
Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC.
The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to
intervene is discussed below.
By July 16, 1998, 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
Practice for
[[Page 33099]]
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 Oconee County Library, 501 West South Broad Street, Walhalla, South
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 a 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 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 the amendments are issued before the expiration of the 30-day
hearing period, the Commission will make a final determination on the
issue of no significant hazards consideration. If a hearing is
requested, 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
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 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 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and
Adjudications Staff, 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 Mr. J. Michael McGarry, III, Winston
and Strawn, 1200 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036, 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)(l)-(v) and 2.714(d).
For further details with respect to this action, see the
application for amendments dated June 4, 1998, 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 Oconee County Library, 501 West South
Broad Street, Walhalla, South Carolina.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day of June 1998.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
David E. LaBarge,
Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate II-2, Division of Reactor
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 98-16019 Filed 6-16-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P