[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 166 (Thursday, August 27, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45872-45874]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-22979]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-413 AND 50-414]
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.
NPF-35 and NPF-52, issued to Duke Energy Corporation (the licensee),
for operation of the Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, located in
York County, South Carolina.
The proposed amendments would revise Technical Specification (TS)
Section 4.6.5.1.b.2 regarding surveillance requirements for the ice
condenser ice bed. One requirement specifies that a visual inspection
of flow passages be performed once per 9 months to ensure that there is
no significant ice and frost accumulation (less than 0.38 inch). The
licensee proposed to relax the visual inspection frequency of the lower
plenum support structures and turning vanes to once per 18 months. The
remaining parts of the ice condenser will continue to be inspected at
9-month intervals.
The licensee requested approval on an exigent basis pursuant to its
request for enforcement discretion for Catawba Unit 2. The staff
verbally granted the enforcement discretion on August 13, 1998, and
affirmed it by a subsequent notice of enforcement discretion (NOED)
letter dated August 14, 1998. The NOED stated that the enforcement
discretion is in effect until the unit enters Mode 5 for the End-of-
Cycle 9 Refueling Outage, currently projected to be on September 5,
1998. Consistent with its procedure, the staff intends to issue
amendments to revise the problematic TS within 4 weeks of the NOED
letter. This issuance schedule would not be accommodated by the normal
30-day notice to the public.
Before issuance of the proposed license amendments, the Commission
will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended
[[Page 45873]]
(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 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:
First Standard
Implementation of this amendment would not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated. Approval of this amendment will have no
significant effect on accident probabilities or consequences. The
ice condenser is not an accident initiating system; therefore, there
will be no impact on any accident probabilities by the approval of
this amendment. Each unit's ice condenser is currently fully capable
of meeting its design basis accident mitigating function. Therefore,
there will be no impact on any accident consequences.
Second Standard
Implementation of this amendment would not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated. No new accident causal mechanisms are created
as a result of NRC approval of this amendment request. No changes
are being made to the plant which will introduce any new accident
causal mechanisms. This amendment request does not impact any plant
systems that are accident initiators, since the ice condenser is an
accident mitigating system.
Third Standard
Implementation of this amendment would not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety. Margin of safety is related to the
confidence in the ability of the fission product barriers to perform
their design functions during and following an accident situation.
These barriers include the fuel cladding, the reactor coolant
system, and the containment system. The performance of these fission
product barriers will not be impacted by implementation of this
proposed amendment. The ice condenser for each unit is already
capable of performing as designed. Operating experience has shown
that the performance of the ice condenser would not be adversely
impacted by extending the frequency of these SRs [surveillance
requirements] to an 18-month interval. No safety margins will be
impacted.
Based upon the preceding analysis, Duke Energy [Corporation] has
concluded that the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
hazards consideration.
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 September 28, 1998, the licensee may file a request for a
hearing with respect to issuance of the amendments 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, and at the local public
document room located at the York County Library, 138 East Black
Street, Rock Hill, 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
[[Page 45874]]
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 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 20555-0001, 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 Mr. Paul R. Newton, Legal Department
(PB05E), Duke Energy Corporation, 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)(l)-(v) and 2.714(d).
For further details with respect to this action, see the
application for amendments dated August 14, 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 York County Library, 138 East Black
Street, Rock Hill, South Carolina.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day of August 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. 98-22979 Filed 8-26-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P