[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 24 (Monday, February 6, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7073-7075]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-2801]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-413]
Duke Power Company, et al.; Notice of Consideration of Issuance
of Amendment to Facility Operating License, Proposed No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is
considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No.
NPF-35 issued to Duke Power Company (the licensee) for operation of the
Catawba Nuclear Station, Unit 1, located in York County, South
Carolina.
The proposed amendment would change Technical Specification (TS)
3.6.1.2 to defer the next scheduled containment integrated leak rate
test (ILRT) at Catawba Unit 1 for one outage, from the end-of-cycle
(EOC) 8 refueling outage (scheduled for February 1995) to EOC 9
(scheduled for June 1996). Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations,
part 50, Appendix J, requires that three ILRTs be performed at
approximately equal intervals during each 10-year service period at a
nuclear station. ``Approximately equal intervals'' is defined in
Catawba's TS as 40 plus or minus 10 months. The proposed one-time
change would allow Catawba to extend that interval to 60 plus or minus
10 months.
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.
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 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:
The following analysis is presented, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91,
to demonstrate that the proposed change will not create a
Significant Hazard Consideration.
1. The proposed change will not involve a significant increase
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
Containment leak rate testing is not an initiator of any
accident; the proposed interval extension does not affect reactor
operations or accident analysis, and has no radiological
consequences. Therefore, this proposed change will not involve an
increase in the probability or consequences of any previously
evaluated accident.
2. The proposed change will not create the possibility of any
new accident not previously evaluated.
The proposed change does not affect normal plant operations or
configuration, nor does it affect leak rate test methods. The test
history at Catawba (no ILRT [integrated leak rate test] failures)
provides continued assurance of the leak tightness of the
containment structure.
3. There is no significant reduction in a margin of safety.
It has been documented in draft NUREG-1493 that an increase in
the ILRT interval from 1 test every 3 years to 1 test every 10 years
would result in a population exposure risk in the vicinity of 5
representative plants from .02% to .14%. The proposed change
included herein, an increase from 40 (plus or minus) 10 months to 60
(plus or minus) 10 months, represents a small fraction of that
already very small increase in risk. Therefore, it may be concluded
that no significant reduction in a margin of safety will occur.
Based on the above, no significant hazards consideration is
created by the proposed change.
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 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 [[Page 7074]] 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,
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 8, 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 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 particularly 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,
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 October 18, 1994, which is available
for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the
Gelman Buidling, 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 1st day of February 1995.
[[Page 7075]] For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Robert E. Martin,
Project Manager, Project Directorate II-3, Division of Reactor
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 95-2801 Filed 2-3-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
