[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 235 (Tuesday, December 8, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67717-67718]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-32502]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287]
Duke Energy Corporation; Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and
3; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact
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, respectively, located in Oconee County, South Carolina.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of Proposed Action
The proposed action would amend the Oconee Facility Operating
Licenses for Units 1, 2, and 3 to revise the Oconee Technical
Specifications (TS) to be consistent with the Improved Standard
Technical Specifications (ITS) conveyed by NUREG-1430, ``Standard
Technical Specifications Babcock and Wilcox Plants,'' Revision 1, dated
April 1995.
The proposed action is in response to the licensee's application
for amendments dated October 28, 1997, as supplemented by letters dated
March 26, May 20, July 29, August 13, October 1, October 21, October
28, and November 23, 1998.
The Need for the Proposed Action
It has been recognized that nuclear safety in all plants would
benefit from improvement and standardization of the TS. The
Commission's ``NRC Interim Policy Statement on Technical Specification
Improvements for Nuclear Power Reactors'' (52 FR 3788, February 6,
1987), and later the Commission's ``Final Policy Statement on Technical
Specification Improvements for Nuclear Power Reactors'' (Final Policy
Statement) (58 FR 39132, July 22, 1993), formalized this need. To
facilitate the development of individual improved TS, each reactor
vendor owners' group (OG) and the NRC staff developed standard TS
(STS). For Babcock and Wilcox plants, the STS are published as NUREG-
1430, and this document was the basis for the new Oconee Units 1, 2,
and 3, TS. The NRC Committee to Review Generic Requirements reviewed
the STS and made note of the safety merits of the STS and indicated its
support of conversion to the STS by operating plants.
Description of the Proposed Action
The proposed revision to the TS is based on NUREG-1430 and on
guidance provided in the Final Policy Statement. Its objective is to
completely rewrite, reformat, and streamline the existing TS. Emphasis
is placed on human factors principles to improve clarity and
understanding. The Bases section has been significantly expanded to
clarify and better explain the purpose and foundation of each
specification. In addition to NUREG-1430, portions of the existing TS
were also used as the basis for the ITS. Plant-specific issues (unique
design features, requirements, and operating practices) were discussed
at length with the licensee.
The proposed changes from the existing TS can be grouped into four
general categories, as follows:
1. Nontechnical (administrative) changes, which were intended to
make the ITS easier to use. They are purely editorial in nature or
involve the movement or reformatting of requirements without affecting
technical content. Every section of the Oconee TS has undergone these
types of changes. In order to ensure consistency, the NRC staff and the
licensee have used NUREG-1430 as guidance to reformat and make other
administrative changes.
2. Relocation of requirements, which includes items that were in
the existing Oconee TS. The TS that are being relocated to licensee-
controlled documents are not required to be in the TS under 10 CFR
50.36 requirements. They are not needed to obviate the possibility that
an abnormal situation or event will give rise to an immediate threat to
public health and safety. The NRC staff has concluded that appropriate
controls have been established for all of the current specifications,
information, and requirements that are being moved to licensee-
controlled documents. In general, the proposed relocation of items in
the Oconee TS to the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, appropriate
plant-specific programs, procedures, and ITS Bases follows the guidance
of NUREG-1430. Once these items have been relocated by removing them
from the TS to licensee-controlled documents, the licensee may revise
them under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59 or other NRC staff-approved
control mechanisms, which provide appropriate procedural means to
control changes.
3. More restrictive requirements, which consist of proposed Oconee
ITS items that are either more conservative than corresponding
requirements in the current Oconee TS, or are additional restrictions
that are not in the existing Oconee TS, but are contained in NUREG-
1430. Examples of more restrictive requirements include: placing a
limiting condition for operation on plant equipment that is not
required by the present TS to be operable; more restrictive
requirements to restore inoperable equipment; and more restrictive
surveillance requirements.
4. Less restrictive requirements, which are relaxations of
corresponding requirements in the existing Oconee TS that provide
little or no safety benefit and place unnecessary burdens on the
licensee. These relaxations were the result of generic NRC actions or
other analyses. They have been justified on a case-by-case basis for
Oconee and will be described in the staff's Safety Evaluation to be
issued in support of the license amendments.
In addition to the changes previously described, the licensee
proposed certain changes to the existing TS that deviated from the STS
in NUREG-1430. These additional proposed changes are described in the
licensee's application and in the staff's Notice of Consideration of
Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Opportunity
for a Hearing (62 FR 64405, dated December 5, 1997). Where these
changes represent a change to the current licensing basis for Oconee,
they have been justified on a case-by-case basis and will be described
in the staff's Safety Evaluation to be issued in support of the license
amendments.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action
and concludes that the proposed TS conversion would not increase the
probability or consequences of accidents previously analyzed and would
not affect facility radiation levels or facility radiological
effluents. Details of the staff's evaluation are provided in the safety
evaluation accompanying the license amendments for the conversion.
Changes that are administrative in nature have been found to have
no effect on the technical content of the TS, and are acceptable. The
increased clarity
[[Page 67718]]
and understanding these changes bring to the TS are expected to improve
the operator's control of the plant in normal and accident conditions.
Relocation of requirements to licensee-controlled documents does
not change the requirements themselves. Future changes to these
requirements may be made by the licensee under 10 CFR 50.59 or other
NRC-approved control mechanisms, which ensures continued maintenance of
adequate requirements. All such relocations have been found to be in
conformance with the guidelines of NUREG-1430 and the Final Policy
Statement, and, therefore, are acceptable.
Changes involving more restrictive requirements have been found to
be acceptable and are likely to enhance the safety of plant operations.
Changes involving less restrictive requirements have been reviewed
individually. When requirements have been shown to provide little or no
safety benefit or to place unnecessary burdens on the licensee, their
removal from the TS was justified. In most cases, relaxations
previously granted to individual plants on a plant-specific basis were
the result of a generic NRC action. Generic relaxations contained in
NUREG-1430, as well as proposed deviations from NUREG-1430, have also
been reviewed by the NRC staff and have been found to be acceptable.
In summary, the proposed revision to the TS was found to provide
control of plant operations such that reasonable assurance will be
provided so that the health and safety of the public will be adequately
protected.
The proposed revision to the TS will not increase the probability
or consequences of accidents, no changes are being made in the types of
any effluents that may be released offsite, and there is no significant
increase in the allowable occupational or public radiation exposure.
Therefore, there are no significant radiological environmental impacts
associated with the proposed action.
With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed
action involves does not affect nonradiological plant effluents and has
no other nonradiological environmental impact.
Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no significant
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Since the Commission has concluded there is no significant
environmental impact associated with the proposed action, any
alternatives with equal or greater environmental impact need not be
evaluated. The principal alternative to this action would be to deny
the application (i.e., the ``no-action'' alternative). Such action
would not reduce the environmental impacts of plant operations.
Alternative Use of Resources
This action did not involve the use of any resources not previously
considered in the Final Environmental Statement related to the
operation of the Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, dated March
1972.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on November 30, 1998, the
staff consulted with the South Carolina State official, Virgil R. Autry
of the Bureau of Land and Waste Management, Department of Health and
Environmental Control, regarding the environmental impact of the
proposed action. The State official had no comments.
Based upon the environmental assessment, the Commission concludes
that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the
quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the Commission has
determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the
proposed action.
For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the
licensee's letter dated October 28, 1997, as supplemented by letters
dated March 26, May 20, July 29, August 13, October 1, October 21,
October 28, and November 23, 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 2nd Day of December 1998.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Herbert N. Berkow,
Director, Project Directorate II-2, Division of Reactor Projects--I/II,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 98-32502 Filed 12-7-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
