98-30254. 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  

  • [Federal Register Volume 63, Number 218 (Thursday, November 12, 1998)]
    [Notices]
    [Pages 63333-63335]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 98-30254]
    
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
    
    [Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, 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, DPR-47, and DPR-55 issued to Duke Energy Corporation (the 
    licensee) for operation of the Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 
    3, located in Oconee County, South Carolina.
    
    [[Page 63334]]
    
        The proposed amendments would add current Technical Specification 
    (TS) 3.7.1, Condition B, which applies to inoperable startup 
    transformers and would remove the allowance to shut down a unit under 
    Action B when a Required Action and associated Completion Time of 
    Condition A is not met. As adopted into the improved TS (ITS), the 
    proposed change would require initiation of a shutdown in 1 hour and an 
    intermediate step to Mode 4 in 18 hours. The second involves ITS 
    Limiting Condition for Operation 3.8.1.b and would add a specification 
    for minimum Keowee lake level.
        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 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 for each of the above 
    proposed changes. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis 
    against the standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c). The NRC staff's analysis is 
    presented below.
        1. Would the changes involve a significant increase in the 
    probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
        For all the changes the answer is ``no.'' The proposed changes 
    would not affect the safety function of the subject systems. There 
    would be no direct effect on the design or operation of any plant 
    structures, systems, or components. No previously analyzed accidents 
    were initiated by the functions of these systems, and the systems were 
    not factors in the consequences of previously analyzed accidents. 
    Therefore, the proposed changes would have no impact on the 
    consequences or probabilities of any previously evaluated accidents.
        2. Would the changes create the possibility of a new or different 
    kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
        For all the changes the answer is ``no.'' The proposed changes 
    would not lead to any hardware or operating procedure change. Hence, no 
    new equipment failure modes or accidents from those previously 
    evaluated would be created.
        3. Would the changes involve a significant reduction in a margin of 
    safety? For all the changes the answer is ``no.'' Margin of safety is 
    associated with confidence in the design and operation of the plant. 
    The proposed changes to the TS do not involve any change to plant 
    design, operation, or analysis. Thus, the margin of safety previously 
    analyzed and evaluated is maintained.
        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 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 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 December 14, 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 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 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
    
    [[Page 63335]]
    
    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 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 
    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, 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 J. Michael McGarry, III, Winston and 
    Strawn, 1200 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC, 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 October 28, 1997, as supplemented by 
    letters dated March 26, April 8, May 20, May 25, and October 28, 1998, 
    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 Oconee County 
    Library, 501 West South Broad Street, Walhalla, South Carolina.
    
        Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day of November 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. 98-30254 Filed 11-10-98; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    
    
    

Document Information

Published:
11/12/1998
Department:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Entry Type:
Notice
Document Number:
98-30254
Pages:
63333-63335 (3 pages)
Docket Numbers:
Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287
PDF File:
98-30254.pdf