[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 226 (Friday, November 24, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58109-58111]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-28605]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414]
Duke Power Company, et al.; 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 Power Company, et al. (the licensee)
for operation of the Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, located in
York County, South Carolina.
The proposed amendments would modify Section 6.0, ``Administrative
Controls,'' of the licensee's Catawba, McGuire, and Oconee nuclear
stations, which have been submitted as a joint application. A summary
description is provided as follows.
The requested amendments remove the specific assignment of
responsibilities for the review, distribution, and approval activities
contained in the Technical Review and Control Section of each station's
Technical Specifications. The proposed specifications state that these
activities will be performed by a knowledgeable individual/
organization. Approval of the affected documents is to be at the
appropriate manager/superintendent level as specified in Duke
administrative controls.
The requested amendments move the requirement for the review of
proposed changes in the stations' Technical Specifications and
Operating Licenses by the Duke Nuclear Safety Review Board (NSRB) to
Duke administrative procedures (Selected Licensee Commitments
documents) and change the wording of the requirements covering NSRB
meeting frequency.
The requested amendments add Technical Review and Control Program
implementation and Plant Operations Review Committee (PORC)
implementation to the list of required procedures and programs for each
nuclear station.
The requested amendments change or clarify certain Technical
Specification administrative requirements covering technical review and
control activities or records retention requirements.
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
amendments requested involve 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: (It should be noted that the
licensee submitted a combined
[[Page 58110]]
analysis that covers McGuire, Catawba, and Oconee nuclear stations.)
Standard #1. The proposed amendments will not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
The provisions of these proposed amendments concern
administrative changes in the stations' Technical Specifications
involving the Technical Review and Control, Procedures and Programs/
Station Operating Procedures, and Records Retention/Station
Operating Records portions of the Administrative Controls Section.
The requested changes primarily affect review and control
activities, but also include other administrative changes affecting
the approval of station procedures (Oconee only), records retention,
and definition of the term ODCM [offsite dose calculation manual]
(McGuire and [Catawba]). The provisions of the proposed amendment[s]
primarily involve the relocation of existing Technical
Specifications review, distribution, or approval requirements to
internal Duke administrative controls. However, implementation of
the proposed amendment[s] [do] involve changes to several review/
distribution activities. These review/distribution activities are
primarily for: 1) Proposed changes to the stations' Technical
Specifications, 2) Proposed tests and experiments which affect
nuclear safety and are not addressed in the stations' FSAR [Final
Safety Analysis Report] or Technical Specifications, 3)
Environmental radiological procedures, 4) Reportable events
documentation and reports of violations of Technical Specifications,
5) Reports of special reviews and investigations, and 6) Reports of
unplanned onsite releases of radiological material to the environs.
Planned implementation of the proposed Technical Specifications
amendments utilizing Selected Licensee Commitments will result in
the above items being reviewed/received by a different
organizational unit in the future. The organizational unit is to be
either the recently initiated Plant Operations Review Committee
(PORC) or the General Manager, Environmental Services. Personnel
serving on the PORC, and the General Manager, Environmental Services
will be qualified based upon education and experience to review the
operational and technical considerations involved with the
applicable items listed above. No required reviews are being
eliminated by the requested amendments, only the organizational
units responsible for performing the reviews will be changed. Future
reviews of these items under the auspices of the PORC or the General
Manager, Environmental Services will maintain a quality level
equivalent to that being currently achieved by Duke's Qualified
Reviewer Program, the Station Managers, or the Duke Nuclear Safety
Review Board as applicable. Consequently, merely changing the
organizational units performing future reviews, or making the
additional administrative changes described above, results in no
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated because the review function will continue to be
conducted in an equivalent manner.
The implementing SLC will also permit proposed amendments to the
stations' Technical Specifications and Operating Licenses to be
approved for the Station Manager by a designee. However, this
individual will occupy a position equivalent to, or higher, in the
Duke organization as the Station Manager.
Additionally, the proposed changes do not directly impact the
design or operation of any plant systems or components any more so
than the review and approval processes currently being conducted in
accordance with existing approved Technical Specifications.
Standard #2. The proposed amendments will not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any
previously evaluated.
The proposed changes are administrative in nature and primarily
cover the review, distribution, and/or approval function performed
for items identified in existing Technical Specifications. The
quality level of the future reviews will not decrease and the
ability of Duke to identify the possibility for the occurrence of
new or different kinds of accidents prior to implementation will be
maintained. Of specific interest in the consideration of Standard #2
is the review of proposed tests and experiments which affect station
nuclear safety and are not addressed in the FSAR or Technical
Specifications. The Technical Specifications required reviews of
these tests and experiments are not being proposed for removal by
these requested amendments. Only the organizational unit conducting
the review of proposed tests and experiments is being changed by the
requested amendments. The PORC, instead of the Station Manager, is
being assigned the responsibility for conducting the reviews of
proposed tests and experiments in the future. It is believed that
the combined expertise of the PORC membership will enhance Duke's
ability to identify potential situations which could possibly
involve a new, or different, kind of accident.
Standard #3. The proposed amendments will not involve a
significant reduction in any margin of safety.
The changes contained in the requested amendments are
administrative in nature and do not impact the design capabilities
or operation of any plant structures, systems, or components. There
will be no reduction in margin of safety as a result of implementing
these requested amendments. Impact upon margin of safety is a
consideration primarily included in the 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation
process conducted for station procedures, procedure changes, and
nuclear station modifications. The 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation process
is conducted under the auspices of the Duke Qualified Reviewer
Program and is not affected by these requested amendments. The
impact on margin of safety for future Technical Specifications and
Operating License changes will be reviewed by the PORC, but these
reviews will be equivalent in quality to the reviews presently
conducted by the Qualified Reviewers.
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
amendments requested involve 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 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 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 18, 1995, 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
[[Page 58111]]
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 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 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 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
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, 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 January 12, 1995, as supplemented by
letter dated June 29, 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 York County Library, 138 East Black Street, Rock Hill,
South Carolina.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day of November 1995.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Robert E. Martin,
Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate II-2, Division of Reactor
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 95-28605 Filed 11-22-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
