[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 27 (Tuesday, February 10, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6784-6786]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-3270]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 the Duke Energy Corporation (the
licensee), for operation of the Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and
3, respectively, located in Seneca, South Carolina.
If approved, the proposed amendments would amend the Oconee Nuclear
Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 Technical Specifications (TS) to revise the
present wording used to specify refueling outage surveillances to
indicate that the surveillances are to be performed on an 18-month
frequency.
The original Oconee TS required that certain surveillances be
performed annually and, therefore, were not constrained to performance
with a unit in the refueling condition. As a result, the licensee has
not interpreted a surveillance that is specified to be performed at
refueling outage frequency as meaning that the unit must be in a
refueling outage to satisfy the requirement. Therefore, some
surveillances specified at a refueling outage frequency were performed
at times other than during a refueling outage. In discussions with the
NRC staff on January 29, 1998, the licensee was informed of the staff's
interpretation of Oconee's TS that concluded any surveillance that was
specified to be performed during refueling outages must be performed
with the unit in a refueling outage. Thus, any surveillances performed
at power, in past forced outages, or during planned shutdowns, would
not satisfy the TS requirements. The licensee then immediately began to
evaluate the impact of the staff's literal interpretation of the TS. On
January 30, 1998, the licensee confirmed that certain surveillances had
been performed at times other than during a refueling outage and that
implementation of the staff's interpretation of the surveillances
designated in the TS as ``refueling outage'' would result in exceeding
the time constraints allowed in the TS and, in accordance with TS 3.0,
would result in the forced shutdown of Units 2 and 3 and interfere with
the planned startup of Unit 1. However, the licensee
[[Page 6785]]
determined that all surveillances that are presently required to be
performed during refueling outages have been performed within the
required interval (22.5 months), even though some have been performed
with the unit in a condition other than a refueling outage. Thus, the
surveillance interval requirements have been satisfied.
When these findings were discussed with the staff on January 30,
1998, a Notice of Enforcement Discretion was issued verbally on January
30, 1998, to exercise discretion not to enforce compliance with TS 3.0
for these surveillances for the period from 3:30 p.m. on January 30,
1998, until issuance of the related amendments. The request for license
amendments was submitted by letter dated February 2, 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 a related TS amendment,
these circumstances require that the amendments be processed under
exigent circumstances.
Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, 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?
No. The proposed change will revise the surveillance
requirements for selected surveillances which have a refueling
outage surveillance frequency with a maximum interval of 22 months
and 15 days. The proposed change will replace the refueling outage
requirement with a comparable requirement to perform the
surveillance every 18 months which has a maximum interval of 22
months and 15 days. The proposed change does not increase the
maximum interval between surveillances and does not change any
surveillance acceptance criteria. Thus, the probability and
consequences of an accident previously evaluated will not be
significant[ly] increased.
2. Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident
from the accidents previously evaluated?
No. Since the proposed change does not increase the maximum
interval between surveillances and does not change any surveillance
acceptance criteria, a new or different kind of accident from the
accidents which were previously evaluated will not occur.
3. Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
No. The margin of safety will not be significantly reduced by
this amendment request because the maximum interval between the
surveillances and the surveillance acceptance criteria are not
changed. Thus, the operability of the plant equipment and systems
will be verified within the same surveillance interval and to the
same acceptance criteria.
Duke has concluded based on the above information that there are
no significant hazards 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 amendment 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 amendment before the expiration of
the 14-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. 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 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 March 12, 1998, 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 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
[[Page 6786]]
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 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 the amendment is 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
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 20555-0001, 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)(i)-(v) and 2.714(d).
For further details with respect to this action, see the
application for amendment dated February 2, 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 5th day of February 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. 98-3270 Filed 2-9-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
